It's funny how the phrase "Happy Holidays" has caused such a stir this year. I even left reference to the topic in my last post. I'd have to say that I'm not nearly as enraged over the "War on Christmas", as many have referred to it as, as I once was; but I still have strong feelings on the subject.
I'd say that much of my frustrations come from our society's need to protect everyone's feelings...particularly in our school system. Perhaps I am holding onto the past too much, but I want my children to be able to go to a school that celebrates/recognizes "Thanksgiving Break" rather than "Fall Break"...or "Christmas Break" rather than "Winter Break"...and for the love of God, is it too much to allow kids to wear Halloween costumes to school and celebrate that holiday the way we did?
But let's just put that aside for a bit and discuss the insistence of omitting any reference to Christmas these days. Of course I am sensitive to people being offended, but in this case, I think that it is the intentions that should be considered rather than the instance itself. Is it really a stretch to think that when I wish some Merry Christmas, I have no ill wishes, desires, or intentions behind the greeting? It's not as if I am insisting that they be forced to believe in Christ, take Him as their savior, drop to their needs and say a prayer, and then have a great celebration honoring the day of his birth. And if for some reason you believe that is my intention when someone says "Merry Christmas", then you really need to consider a vocation as a hermit and make yourself void from all human contact, because you are assured to be miserable by any interaction with another person.
But Mad Hoosier, I am an American, and I have the right to live without being offended by the likes of bible thumpers like yourself.
Well hold on there slim, let's take the dial off, "The USA revolves around me" for a moment and consider the fact that I may be offended that my faith in Christ, ergo...my religion, offends you.
Mad Hoosier, now your just being petty. Well, to me, petty is the inability to take a simple phrase, such as "Merry Christmas", as a well-intentioned, warm-hearted greeting, and process that greeting internally in your own way and either respond in kind or with some other well-intentioned, warm-hearted greeting.
For those of you who don't agree with my points, just remember to give thanks to whatever higher power you adhere to, that you do live in the USA...because if you think for a second that you'd get such back-bending appeasement from the governments of other nations, you're sorely mistaken. Do you think that someone could rid Israel of references to Hanukah or convince Rome that they really don't need to talk about Lent much?
If you do agree with my perspective, all I can say is that we need to demand a change. The only way that our kids will feel the joy of dressing up for Halloween at school or having a Christmas party at school is if we demand it. That is the theme of my blog...getting people to understand that WE hold the power in this country, and WE need to take it back.
It won't create a perfect society for everyone, but it will be one that we dictate, not one that is dictated for us. We need to hold every public official accountable, right down to the local government. Every vote that they cast should be easily accessible for us to view, and if they value their position and want to keep it, they should feel compelled to explain the reasoning for each of their votes. If they decide to keep their votes hidden, or don't give reasons for their votes, we need to exercise our power and vote in someone that will.
And that's my "Holiday Wish" for everyone out there...that in the coming year and years, that you begin to reflect and realize your individual worth and power you have in this society. Hopefully, during your reflection, you'll realize that individual worth is different than self-centeredness. And perhaps, just perhaps, you'll understand the need some have for tradition and allow kids to enjoy a good Christmas break.
Happy Holidays! Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!
From,
The Mad Hoosier
Monday, December 19, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Confessions of a Night Auditor...
Here we are...nearly three months to the day since my last post...making a confession about my current profession. I'm not really proud of what I do, sad to say...it's not at all what I envisioned for my life. I pictured myself in some mid-level management position at a large company, with company golf outings and holiday vacations. I had no desire to climb the corporate ladder, as I have always had a strong sense of commitment towards personal life and wanting to be there with my family, but I knew that I had solid business/management skills, so something mid-level seemed natural.
But somewhere along the line, before I even really entered the workforce, the mid-level manager started to become obsolete and big companies, well, they aren't as big any more. Alas, the corporate world that I saw my father thrive in and enjoy became non-existant. I have recently became down-right disgusted with the corporate world, but I will save those reasons and insights for future posts, as I begin to exlore what happened to "my America"...the America that found it ok to call it "Christmas break" rather than "winter break".
So back to my current profession/place in life. As I sit here, waiting for guests to come down and start complaining about something, part of me wonders where I went wrong. Why did I borrow $20,000 from the government just to work as a Night Auditor? Why did I leave Charles Schwab to move closer to home? Often times, I just don't get it, do my mangers not have any business sense at all? Do they even give a shit about their employees? Why do I subject myself to this sometimes degrading job, dealing with drunks that want to know we don't have porn pay-per-views?
But just in time, my wife meets me as I am getting off work and gives me our daughters. You see, we moved closer to home recently...that means that my mother-in-law watches my daughters one day a week, and I get them the rest of the time. I know that nothing can replace the fun I have with them, the time we spend, and the peace of mind we have knowing that we don't have to wonder if some unsuspecting baby-sitter is near giving our infant shaken-baby syndrom. Nothing replaces that...NOTHING...but still...when I look at the bills as we are scraping by, or when someone asks what I do for a living, I still feel embarrased to be a night auditor.
Why has it been so long since I have posted you may ask? Well, we have been in the process of trying to find a new home...which we will move into over the weekend...what a fiasco that has been. I have also been trying to start a new company of late, but if I'm being honest, the main reason I have been severly slack on my blog is due to football.
You see, besides being a HUGE Bears fan, I am becoming somewhat of a fantasy football freak...I'm getting nuts...here's how nuts...I play the free version that Yahoo puts out...each Yahoo ID gets 4 teams...I have a good 15 Yahoo ID's, each with 4 teams. For those of you not good at math...and yes I lump me in there too because I used a calculator to make sure I was right...that's 60 teams that I play each week. That's just Nuts! If you or your loved ones are anything near that...STOP...just STOP...it's not healthy.
That said, I can't stop now...so you now see why I have been so slack on my blog...I will try to post more somewhat frequently throughout the rest of football season, then I will return to a more normal posting frequency.
I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving and has a happy holidays. And I say happy holidays to encompass several holidays that are celebrated over the next month or so, not out of fear of offending someone by saying Merry Christmas...but that's a whole other blood boiling post. :)
But somewhere along the line, before I even really entered the workforce, the mid-level manager started to become obsolete and big companies, well, they aren't as big any more. Alas, the corporate world that I saw my father thrive in and enjoy became non-existant. I have recently became down-right disgusted with the corporate world, but I will save those reasons and insights for future posts, as I begin to exlore what happened to "my America"...the America that found it ok to call it "Christmas break" rather than "winter break".
So back to my current profession/place in life. As I sit here, waiting for guests to come down and start complaining about something, part of me wonders where I went wrong. Why did I borrow $20,000 from the government just to work as a Night Auditor? Why did I leave Charles Schwab to move closer to home? Often times, I just don't get it, do my mangers not have any business sense at all? Do they even give a shit about their employees? Why do I subject myself to this sometimes degrading job, dealing with drunks that want to know we don't have porn pay-per-views?
But just in time, my wife meets me as I am getting off work and gives me our daughters. You see, we moved closer to home recently...that means that my mother-in-law watches my daughters one day a week, and I get them the rest of the time. I know that nothing can replace the fun I have with them, the time we spend, and the peace of mind we have knowing that we don't have to wonder if some unsuspecting baby-sitter is near giving our infant shaken-baby syndrom. Nothing replaces that...NOTHING...but still...when I look at the bills as we are scraping by, or when someone asks what I do for a living, I still feel embarrased to be a night auditor.
Why has it been so long since I have posted you may ask? Well, we have been in the process of trying to find a new home...which we will move into over the weekend...what a fiasco that has been. I have also been trying to start a new company of late, but if I'm being honest, the main reason I have been severly slack on my blog is due to football.
You see, besides being a HUGE Bears fan, I am becoming somewhat of a fantasy football freak...I'm getting nuts...here's how nuts...I play the free version that Yahoo puts out...each Yahoo ID gets 4 teams...I have a good 15 Yahoo ID's, each with 4 teams. For those of you not good at math...and yes I lump me in there too because I used a calculator to make sure I was right...that's 60 teams that I play each week. That's just Nuts! If you or your loved ones are anything near that...STOP...just STOP...it's not healthy.
That said, I can't stop now...so you now see why I have been so slack on my blog...I will try to post more somewhat frequently throughout the rest of football season, then I will return to a more normal posting frequency.
I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving and has a happy holidays. And I say happy holidays to encompass several holidays that are celebrated over the next month or so, not out of fear of offending someone by saying Merry Christmas...but that's a whole other blood boiling post. :)
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Never Done Before...
...at least not by me. I've never sent any kind of mushy mass email before, be it one that I started or one that I am forwarding on from others. We've all gotten those, "Forward this on if..." emails. Many I just don't even read...for no other reason than after a while they annoyed me. I never was the kind to just hit the forward button and click on my entire address book just because I liked the message within an email...it just didn't seem genuine to me for me to send it, nor did it seem genuine to me if I received a mass email that was forwarded. Plus...who wants to scroll down an email for 20 minutes before you reach the actual message...all the wile running across bulks of writing that you think is the message that only turned out to be a list of emails from previous forwards.
I am sure that many people that forwarded messages to me thought that I would sincerely like the message within the email, so I am sorry that I may not have taken the time to read the email.
Well...I almost broke my string today...I nearly created a mass email today. I have created them before, but only to announce my website to family and friends so that they could see pictures of my daughter. But I had never before even begun an email that was meant to be mushy or sentimental. Tonight, I started to though, but as I perused my address book, I saw many people that I didn't know or that barely knew me...let's face it, my wife has many more friends than I do, so many of them were on the address book from the website announcement emails.
So I decided that rather than send out a mass email to people that barely know me, I'd post it here instead...at least those that read this blog have a better feeling for me than many of those in my own address book. Sad, but true. So here it is, as I envisioned that I would write it in the email....
This is my first mass email like this. It doesn't require that you forward it on, and I'm not trying to send anyone any messages with this. I'm just reading more, it's shocking I know, and in this book I am reading, I came across this poem that I have shed tears over every time I have read it.
It is a poem by Russell Kelfer...I am unsure of the title, but I think it is something along the effects of "You Are Who You Are For A Reason".
You are who you are for a reason.
You are part of an intricate plan.
You're a precious and perfect unique design,
Called God's special woman or man.
You look like you look for a reason.
Our God made no mistake.
He knit you together within the womb,
You're just what he wanted to make.
The parents you had were the ones he chose,
And no matter how you may feel,
They were custom-designed with God's plan in mind,
And they bear the Master's seal.
No, that trauma you faced was not easy,
And God wept that it hurt you so;
But it was allowed to shape your heart
So that into His likeness you'd grow.
You are who you are for a reason,
You've been formed by the Master's rod.
You are who you are, beloved,
Because there is a God!
I can't really explain why I am so touched by that poem, I just am. As I researched the poem a little more to make sure it wasn't altered or changed in the book, I found another poem by Russell Kelfer that's great as well. It's called "Wait" if you care to look it up.
Thank you for letting me share this poem with you. It was a good break that I needed from Supreme Court nominees, social security issues, tort reform, species banning, and all the other things that gets my blood boiling.
I am sure that many people that forwarded messages to me thought that I would sincerely like the message within the email, so I am sorry that I may not have taken the time to read the email.
Well...I almost broke my string today...I nearly created a mass email today. I have created them before, but only to announce my website to family and friends so that they could see pictures of my daughter. But I had never before even begun an email that was meant to be mushy or sentimental. Tonight, I started to though, but as I perused my address book, I saw many people that I didn't know or that barely knew me...let's face it, my wife has many more friends than I do, so many of them were on the address book from the website announcement emails.
So I decided that rather than send out a mass email to people that barely know me, I'd post it here instead...at least those that read this blog have a better feeling for me than many of those in my own address book. Sad, but true. So here it is, as I envisioned that I would write it in the email....
This is my first mass email like this. It doesn't require that you forward it on, and I'm not trying to send anyone any messages with this. I'm just reading more, it's shocking I know, and in this book I am reading, I came across this poem that I have shed tears over every time I have read it.
It is a poem by Russell Kelfer...I am unsure of the title, but I think it is something along the effects of "You Are Who You Are For A Reason".
You are who you are for a reason.
You are part of an intricate plan.
You're a precious and perfect unique design,
Called God's special woman or man.
You look like you look for a reason.
Our God made no mistake.
He knit you together within the womb,
You're just what he wanted to make.
The parents you had were the ones he chose,
And no matter how you may feel,
They were custom-designed with God's plan in mind,
And they bear the Master's seal.
No, that trauma you faced was not easy,
And God wept that it hurt you so;
But it was allowed to shape your heart
So that into His likeness you'd grow.
You are who you are for a reason,
You've been formed by the Master's rod.
You are who you are, beloved,
Because there is a God!
I can't really explain why I am so touched by that poem, I just am. As I researched the poem a little more to make sure it wasn't altered or changed in the book, I found another poem by Russell Kelfer that's great as well. It's called "Wait" if you care to look it up.
Thank you for letting me share this poem with you. It was a good break that I needed from Supreme Court nominees, social security issues, tort reform, species banning, and all the other things that gets my blood boiling.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Not Your Grandma's Post Office Anymore...
"Neither snow - nor rain - nor heat - nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds." "But cars that are parked five feet from the mail box will forge a new standard of delivery...none."
The portion Highlighted in italics have been added by The Mad Hoosier. The new quote, along with the original, shall be copyrighted by The Mad Hoosier and used for the sole purpose of ridicule of the United States Post Office, or at least the division that is represented in Indiana.
Supposedly, there is no actual, official motto of the USPS...and I can see why. It's because they no longer live up to their billing. Back in the day, there were tales of men and women that braved the elements, hauling massive bags upon their shoulders, trudging through mud or muck, unwavering in their task to deliver messages to the masses. It is told that these heros were friendly, caring, even someone that one would bake cookies for on a rigid winter day.
Today, the USPS employees jaunt around playfully in vehicles that look like piles of clowns are going to jump out of at any moment. Delusions of grandeur fill many of their minds as they hold mail hostage, deciding on whims if it shall reach it's destination or not. They pay no mind to family concerns such as paying bills on time to meet their budget, whether a friend they miss has remembered their birthday, or whether legal circumstances can be made nightmarish by missing a summons. No, today's USPS employee would just as soon drive over a cliff as they would take two steps outside of their buggie. They may very well be vampires, doomed to burn alive should their skin touch the sunlight if one step is taken outside their "precious".
Heck with 'em, I say. I am almost certain that the post master, at least in my town, has attended the John Gotti School of Business. But that's ok...withhold my mail...see how much support you get from me in the future. From now on, all payments shall be made online or via the telephone. UPS or FedEx will get my business should birthday cards of packages need to be mailed. I don't need the rest of your junk mail anyway. Good Luck USPS...you can rot for all I care.
To explain what has my dander up against the blue bandits, I received a post card in our mail a while back expaining that too many cars on our street are blocking the mail boxes, and soon postal employees shall refrain from delivering to homes that would cause them to leave their vehicle to deliver mail. It wasn't addressed to me specifically, and I am sure that everyone on our street got the same post card. As I looked up and down the street, I saw many examples of cars parked directly in front of mail boxes. Our second car was parked at least several feet away from the mail box, so I thought we were ok.
I should explain that our street is filled with duplexes, scrunched together. Being duplexes, the mail boxes are side by side for any given two-unit building. The length of space from the edge of my driveway to the end of our property is 25 feet. Our cars are about 15 feet long, and we try to prevent kissing the neighbor's bumper with our car. The neighbor is typically on the edge of their property, so that typically leaves a good 8 feet of space for a mail truck to deliver mail.
Recently, there have been several incidents where we have been parked at least five feet from our set of mail boxes, and mail has been withheld. This is flat out unacceptable to me. Nevermind the days when their predecessors didn't have the luxury of sitting on their ass while working, how ridiculous is it to not be able to pull up to mailbox, and if there isn't enough room to pull directly out, to slip the transmission into Reverse, and then go about your way?
Some may argue, why are you parking one of your cars on the street anyway? That's a good point, but when there is only a one car driveway, and you have opposite schedules as your spouse, it is a great convienence to have one of us park out front rather than have to move each other's car every time we need to leave. I'm not asking them to hop out of their truck, hike three miles, dodge numerous obstacles to deliver the mail. I'm simply asking them to try the reverse in their car every now and again.
So that's my delimma today. If you are a USPS employee and any of this rings true for you, for shame. If you work for the post office and still hike your route, my hat's off to you! And if you are a post master, I'm sure you know where I think you can put my mail.
The portion Highlighted in italics have been added by The Mad Hoosier. The new quote, along with the original, shall be copyrighted by The Mad Hoosier and used for the sole purpose of ridicule of the United States Post Office, or at least the division that is represented in Indiana.
Supposedly, there is no actual, official motto of the USPS...and I can see why. It's because they no longer live up to their billing. Back in the day, there were tales of men and women that braved the elements, hauling massive bags upon their shoulders, trudging through mud or muck, unwavering in their task to deliver messages to the masses. It is told that these heros were friendly, caring, even someone that one would bake cookies for on a rigid winter day.
Today, the USPS employees jaunt around playfully in vehicles that look like piles of clowns are going to jump out of at any moment. Delusions of grandeur fill many of their minds as they hold mail hostage, deciding on whims if it shall reach it's destination or not. They pay no mind to family concerns such as paying bills on time to meet their budget, whether a friend they miss has remembered their birthday, or whether legal circumstances can be made nightmarish by missing a summons. No, today's USPS employee would just as soon drive over a cliff as they would take two steps outside of their buggie. They may very well be vampires, doomed to burn alive should their skin touch the sunlight if one step is taken outside their "precious".
Heck with 'em, I say. I am almost certain that the post master, at least in my town, has attended the John Gotti School of Business. But that's ok...withhold my mail...see how much support you get from me in the future. From now on, all payments shall be made online or via the telephone. UPS or FedEx will get my business should birthday cards of packages need to be mailed. I don't need the rest of your junk mail anyway. Good Luck USPS...you can rot for all I care.
To explain what has my dander up against the blue bandits, I received a post card in our mail a while back expaining that too many cars on our street are blocking the mail boxes, and soon postal employees shall refrain from delivering to homes that would cause them to leave their vehicle to deliver mail. It wasn't addressed to me specifically, and I am sure that everyone on our street got the same post card. As I looked up and down the street, I saw many examples of cars parked directly in front of mail boxes. Our second car was parked at least several feet away from the mail box, so I thought we were ok.
I should explain that our street is filled with duplexes, scrunched together. Being duplexes, the mail boxes are side by side for any given two-unit building. The length of space from the edge of my driveway to the end of our property is 25 feet. Our cars are about 15 feet long, and we try to prevent kissing the neighbor's bumper with our car. The neighbor is typically on the edge of their property, so that typically leaves a good 8 feet of space for a mail truck to deliver mail.
Recently, there have been several incidents where we have been parked at least five feet from our set of mail boxes, and mail has been withheld. This is flat out unacceptable to me. Nevermind the days when their predecessors didn't have the luxury of sitting on their ass while working, how ridiculous is it to not be able to pull up to mailbox, and if there isn't enough room to pull directly out, to slip the transmission into Reverse, and then go about your way?
Some may argue, why are you parking one of your cars on the street anyway? That's a good point, but when there is only a one car driveway, and you have opposite schedules as your spouse, it is a great convienence to have one of us park out front rather than have to move each other's car every time we need to leave. I'm not asking them to hop out of their truck, hike three miles, dodge numerous obstacles to deliver the mail. I'm simply asking them to try the reverse in their car every now and again.
So that's my delimma today. If you are a USPS employee and any of this rings true for you, for shame. If you work for the post office and still hike your route, my hat's off to you! And if you are a post master, I'm sure you know where I think you can put my mail.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Getting A Little Worried...
I'll admit, I'm a staunch supporter of President Bush. Sure, the War in Iraq is unsettling to say the least, and I certainly don't fully support every single thing that President Bush does, but by large, I believe that he is the right man for the job...if by nothing else in comparison to his counterparts.
I also believe that Bush has the potential to do many necessary things to help make the United States stronger in the future. Social Security and tort reform are just a couple of things that come to mind that I will undoubtedly discuss in the future.
But the thing that has me worried is the action taken while Congress was on recess. President Bush pushed his nomination for U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton, through while congress was in recess, thus side-stepping their comfirmation of the U.N. Ambassador nominee. The Senate voted twice on John Bolton's nomination, and both times there were not enough votes to have him confirmed as U.N. Ambassador. To be clear, this was not due solely because of party politics, though no Democrats approved of Bolton's nomination. A few Republicans were against Bolton's confirmation as well.
If you are not familiar with John Bolton, it has been noted that he is a "serial abuser" of subordinates and has been quoted in the past as saying, "There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." It is also said that John Bolton tried to fire two intelligence agents simply because they had a different opinion than he did.
I don't know about you, but none of that stuff sounds great to me. The Senate wasn't too fond of it either. They failed confirmating votes twice, and called for some documents to be disclosed because they felt it would be relavent to the nomination. Those documents were never produced, and despite all the hesitation, Bush forced the nomination while Congress was out on recess.
To me, doing what's right is more important that sticking by your friend...especially when the stakes are high. There was clear evidence that John Bolton's nomination needed further investigation, but that was ignored, and Bolton was hurried into the position anyway.
What's worse, is Indiana's very own Senator, Rich Lugar, said he would have preferred a final confirmation vote for Bolton, but called the recess appointment "necessary to ensure our representation at the United Nations."
My first instinct was to call this party politics and say that Senator Lugar was kowtowing to President Bush. But rather than that, I decided to do a little research to see what Senator Lugar was thinking. I found his website and a copy of his speech just before the last senate vote. He stated in part, "The President has stated repeatedly that this is not a casual appointment. He and Secretary Rice want a specific person to do a specific job. They have said that they want John Bolton, an avowed and knowledgeable reformer, to carry out their reform agenda at the United Nations. "
Senator Lugar went on to voice his opinion on how the documents that were requested by the senate should not be given. Ultimately I am still left with the feeling that Senator Lugar is aligning himself within party politics rather than voting with an open mind.
Senators talked about needing intelligence information surrounding September 11th and demanded further intelligence information surrounding reasons for invading Iraq...so why shouldn't they demand information when they are voting for someone that will need to foster relations with the rest of the world leaders?
I also believe that Bush has the potential to do many necessary things to help make the United States stronger in the future. Social Security and tort reform are just a couple of things that come to mind that I will undoubtedly discuss in the future.
But the thing that has me worried is the action taken while Congress was on recess. President Bush pushed his nomination for U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton, through while congress was in recess, thus side-stepping their comfirmation of the U.N. Ambassador nominee. The Senate voted twice on John Bolton's nomination, and both times there were not enough votes to have him confirmed as U.N. Ambassador. To be clear, this was not due solely because of party politics, though no Democrats approved of Bolton's nomination. A few Republicans were against Bolton's confirmation as well.
If you are not familiar with John Bolton, it has been noted that he is a "serial abuser" of subordinates and has been quoted in the past as saying, "There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." It is also said that John Bolton tried to fire two intelligence agents simply because they had a different opinion than he did.
I don't know about you, but none of that stuff sounds great to me. The Senate wasn't too fond of it either. They failed confirmating votes twice, and called for some documents to be disclosed because they felt it would be relavent to the nomination. Those documents were never produced, and despite all the hesitation, Bush forced the nomination while Congress was out on recess.
To me, doing what's right is more important that sticking by your friend...especially when the stakes are high. There was clear evidence that John Bolton's nomination needed further investigation, but that was ignored, and Bolton was hurried into the position anyway.
What's worse, is Indiana's very own Senator, Rich Lugar, said he would have preferred a final confirmation vote for Bolton, but called the recess appointment "necessary to ensure our representation at the United Nations."
My first instinct was to call this party politics and say that Senator Lugar was kowtowing to President Bush. But rather than that, I decided to do a little research to see what Senator Lugar was thinking. I found his website and a copy of his speech just before the last senate vote. He stated in part, "The President has stated repeatedly that this is not a casual appointment. He and Secretary Rice want a specific person to do a specific job. They have said that they want John Bolton, an avowed and knowledgeable reformer, to carry out their reform agenda at the United Nations. "
Senator Lugar went on to voice his opinion on how the documents that were requested by the senate should not be given. Ultimately I am still left with the feeling that Senator Lugar is aligning himself within party politics rather than voting with an open mind.
Senators talked about needing intelligence information surrounding September 11th and demanded further intelligence information surrounding reasons for invading Iraq...so why shouldn't they demand information when they are voting for someone that will need to foster relations with the rest of the world leaders?
Time Honored Tradition?
I was milling around on blogs today, since I've not been on in a few days, and came across one that was talking about getting married. More specifically, the topic discussed the author's feelings toward the sister's fiancée and his lack of speaking to the father before proposing to the sister. The topic hit close to home for me, and I felt compelled to comment.
Well, my comment turned into a dissertation, so I decided create my own post on it. Like the post about banning pit bull's, I wanted to keep the author's identity a secret. I respect other blogger's posts and understand a desire not to have their feelings critiqued on their own blog. This post may come off a little harsher than some of my previous posts, but my perspective is looking at the feelings of the most important people surrounding the topic of engagement...namely the groom-to-be and the wife-to-be.
At it's core, this moment is their moment, and my belief is that EVERYONE should respect that in the immediate moment...comments of concern should have either been aired out prior to this moment, or should absolutely wait until an appropriate amount of time has passed after the announcement of engagement.
Anyway, the sister called and told the author her news of being engaged. The author was not pleased and took the opportunity to voice their opinions to their sister during that very phone call. Among the concerns was that the engagement has caused angst among the family, and that love should cause heartache for the family...or something to that effect. To be honest, I began to tune out that part of the post the moment it became more about the family than the sister.
But I digress...another concern was that the lucky fellow didn't go to the sister's father and ask for permission before asking the sister. The author did say that after the feelings were made known, congratulations were given so that the sister didn't feel so alienated. Now I'm sure that it can't be easy to be in a close knit family and have your sister get married if you aren't a fan of the fiancée, but you'd think that someone would put the sister's feelings first and merely congratulate her first and then put the fiancée down in a subsequent phone call.
Now, if you can't tell, I've walked in the boyfriend, now fiancée’s, shoes. I come from a divorced family that wasn't very close and married into a very close knit family. So let me speak on behalf of the sister's fiancée for a moment, since I can feel his pain.
There were a few replies to the author, supporting their feelings, berating the fiancée who didn't ask the father's permission in advance. All I can say is that it's quite easy to play arm-chair quarterback and say that he should have done this or he should have done that.
First, it's not easy to ask someone you love to marry you. Any guy worth having goes through a variety of emotions when deciding to propose anyway...he will likely be excited, scared, hopeful, reserved, just to name a few...even if he's certain of a positive reply.
Secondly, to take it to the next level and ask for permission from the father is intimidating at best and down-right mortifying if the father already doesn't like you.
Thirdly, multiply that by ten fold if it's a woman that's very close to her family...especially if said man does not come from a close family.
It's scary as hell, and brave if you ask me, to dive head-first into a tightly knit family. Particularly if you feel that some of the rest of the family doesn't like you. I've been there too.
So let's discuss the antiquated notion of getting a father's permission before asking the daughter to marry him. The reasons for this custom range anywhere from Roman custom of a symbolic purchase of the daughter to the notion of women being recognized as property, first of the father, then of the husband. Most of these customs are ancient and borderline offensive to modern day women in their first origins. But many people these days, who have not considered the custom's origins, would call it a sign of respect.
I'll certainly fess up right here and admit that I did not ask my wife's father for his permission until after I asked my wife. Call it what you want, but I knew his feelings on the topic already, being six years my wife's senior, and whether he gave permission or not, I was going to ask my wife anyway. She thought it would be important to him, so I did it for her, but as to the notion of it being a sign of respect...bah. If he didn't respect me before then, then one gesture won't change that feeling....and if he did respect me, then his mind should not be changed with the absence of one gesture.
If respect was earned with one gesture...then why not a gesture such as...the fiancée is working three jobs so that his bride-to-be doesn't have to work and can finish school? Or how about inspiring a daughter to "clean up her act" and begin living a healthy life rather than with reckless abandon. Or if respect was lost with one gesture...certainly a gesture such as physical abuse or criminal activity is much more dire than merely asking for permission to marry his daughter! Ah what a world we would live in if respect was won with one gesture.
Would I have liked to be traditional and ask him first? Sure...I'm basically a traditional guy...heck I even refused to buy my wife an engagement ring that was anything other than the traditional round-cut diamond. Would she have liked me to ask her father before I asked her? Probably, for tradition's sake. But by not asking him first, she didn't respect me less or love me less...so I know I found the right woman.
Let's move on to the topic of professing one's feelings about the other's fiancée immediately upon hearing the news of the engagement. As I've stated earlier, I think that the moment of announcing an engagement is meant to be a special moment between the two fiancées. Any qualms, issues, or feelings from others should be kept to themselves until the two fiancées have had their moment. Besides, if the family has raised the daughter or son the way they should have raised them, then this moment will only happen once in their lifetime...and anyone "raining on the parade" is just being selfish.
Of course everyone has a right, to look out for their family. One person even stated that the author has the responsibility to let the sister know how they feel. I don't argue that everyone should look out for their family and that family members should know how their loved ones feel about the person they are dating/marrying. However, even family concern has its time and its place. And unless they are calling from a chapel in Vegas to announce their engagement and wedding, then there is plenty of time to voice concern. Show some respect, get over yourself, and let them relish their special moment.
And finally, the author understandably didn't explain all the feelings that the family had about the sister’s fiancée, but I can only assume from the picture that was painted that, this guy is good to the sister, he has no intentions of pulling her away from her family, and he loves her.
Short of being a Kennedy, I am not sure what else someone would want from a brother-in-law.
Well, my comment turned into a dissertation, so I decided create my own post on it. Like the post about banning pit bull's, I wanted to keep the author's identity a secret. I respect other blogger's posts and understand a desire not to have their feelings critiqued on their own blog. This post may come off a little harsher than some of my previous posts, but my perspective is looking at the feelings of the most important people surrounding the topic of engagement...namely the groom-to-be and the wife-to-be.
At it's core, this moment is their moment, and my belief is that EVERYONE should respect that in the immediate moment...comments of concern should have either been aired out prior to this moment, or should absolutely wait until an appropriate amount of time has passed after the announcement of engagement.
Anyway, the sister called and told the author her news of being engaged. The author was not pleased and took the opportunity to voice their opinions to their sister during that very phone call. Among the concerns was that the engagement has caused angst among the family, and that love should cause heartache for the family...or something to that effect. To be honest, I began to tune out that part of the post the moment it became more about the family than the sister.
But I digress...another concern was that the lucky fellow didn't go to the sister's father and ask for permission before asking the sister. The author did say that after the feelings were made known, congratulations were given so that the sister didn't feel so alienated. Now I'm sure that it can't be easy to be in a close knit family and have your sister get married if you aren't a fan of the fiancée, but you'd think that someone would put the sister's feelings first and merely congratulate her first and then put the fiancée down in a subsequent phone call.
Now, if you can't tell, I've walked in the boyfriend, now fiancée’s, shoes. I come from a divorced family that wasn't very close and married into a very close knit family. So let me speak on behalf of the sister's fiancée for a moment, since I can feel his pain.
There were a few replies to the author, supporting their feelings, berating the fiancée who didn't ask the father's permission in advance. All I can say is that it's quite easy to play arm-chair quarterback and say that he should have done this or he should have done that.
First, it's not easy to ask someone you love to marry you. Any guy worth having goes through a variety of emotions when deciding to propose anyway...he will likely be excited, scared, hopeful, reserved, just to name a few...even if he's certain of a positive reply.
Secondly, to take it to the next level and ask for permission from the father is intimidating at best and down-right mortifying if the father already doesn't like you.
Thirdly, multiply that by ten fold if it's a woman that's very close to her family...especially if said man does not come from a close family.
It's scary as hell, and brave if you ask me, to dive head-first into a tightly knit family. Particularly if you feel that some of the rest of the family doesn't like you. I've been there too.
So let's discuss the antiquated notion of getting a father's permission before asking the daughter to marry him. The reasons for this custom range anywhere from Roman custom of a symbolic purchase of the daughter to the notion of women being recognized as property, first of the father, then of the husband. Most of these customs are ancient and borderline offensive to modern day women in their first origins. But many people these days, who have not considered the custom's origins, would call it a sign of respect.
I'll certainly fess up right here and admit that I did not ask my wife's father for his permission until after I asked my wife. Call it what you want, but I knew his feelings on the topic already, being six years my wife's senior, and whether he gave permission or not, I was going to ask my wife anyway. She thought it would be important to him, so I did it for her, but as to the notion of it being a sign of respect...bah. If he didn't respect me before then, then one gesture won't change that feeling....and if he did respect me, then his mind should not be changed with the absence of one gesture.
If respect was earned with one gesture...then why not a gesture such as...the fiancée is working three jobs so that his bride-to-be doesn't have to work and can finish school? Or how about inspiring a daughter to "clean up her act" and begin living a healthy life rather than with reckless abandon. Or if respect was lost with one gesture...certainly a gesture such as physical abuse or criminal activity is much more dire than merely asking for permission to marry his daughter! Ah what a world we would live in if respect was won with one gesture.
Would I have liked to be traditional and ask him first? Sure...I'm basically a traditional guy...heck I even refused to buy my wife an engagement ring that was anything other than the traditional round-cut diamond. Would she have liked me to ask her father before I asked her? Probably, for tradition's sake. But by not asking him first, she didn't respect me less or love me less...so I know I found the right woman.
Let's move on to the topic of professing one's feelings about the other's fiancée immediately upon hearing the news of the engagement. As I've stated earlier, I think that the moment of announcing an engagement is meant to be a special moment between the two fiancées. Any qualms, issues, or feelings from others should be kept to themselves until the two fiancées have had their moment. Besides, if the family has raised the daughter or son the way they should have raised them, then this moment will only happen once in their lifetime...and anyone "raining on the parade" is just being selfish.
Of course everyone has a right, to look out for their family. One person even stated that the author has the responsibility to let the sister know how they feel. I don't argue that everyone should look out for their family and that family members should know how their loved ones feel about the person they are dating/marrying. However, even family concern has its time and its place. And unless they are calling from a chapel in Vegas to announce their engagement and wedding, then there is plenty of time to voice concern. Show some respect, get over yourself, and let them relish their special moment.
And finally, the author understandably didn't explain all the feelings that the family had about the sister’s fiancée, but I can only assume from the picture that was painted that, this guy is good to the sister, he has no intentions of pulling her away from her family, and he loves her.
Short of being a Kennedy, I am not sure what else someone would want from a brother-in-law.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Well, I've offended my first blogger...
I just wanted to apologize to Rumpleteazer of Brainiax Blog for my comments that offended her. My comments weren't made with the intention of offending her. We were having a discussion about politics, and more specificly voting. It is a topic that I am passionate about and one that she was beginning to get excited about. I hope my comments did not do anything to extinguish that excitement...that's exactly what we don't need...fewer voters. Again, I am sorry RT.
When I started this blog, I assumed that I would be and even intended to be offensive. There are a great many topics out there that frustrate me, and I initially thought I would just let it all hang out and to heck with everyone else. Then I realized that by being offensive, it does little to really get people to start thinking about a topic. Being offensive evokes emotions and heated exchanges, which can be good, but it is most often irrationally driven because of the emotions running so high.
I still want to have my say about all the topics that frustrate me, but I am trying hard to be as logical and straight forward as possible. I will never intentionally offend a specific person, though I can not help if my views, in general, are offensive to some people. I must be true to myself, yet at the same time, I want to always be open to changing my mind and reshaping my views on something.
I don't make the assumption that I have all the answers or that my view is the best view. I welcome many different perspectives on any topic...I can't promise that it will change my mind, but I will always listen to other's point of view. So while RT won't be the last person I offend, I can say that, just like in her situation, it won't be intentional.
When I started this blog, I assumed that I would be and even intended to be offensive. There are a great many topics out there that frustrate me, and I initially thought I would just let it all hang out and to heck with everyone else. Then I realized that by being offensive, it does little to really get people to start thinking about a topic. Being offensive evokes emotions and heated exchanges, which can be good, but it is most often irrationally driven because of the emotions running so high.
I still want to have my say about all the topics that frustrate me, but I am trying hard to be as logical and straight forward as possible. I will never intentionally offend a specific person, though I can not help if my views, in general, are offensive to some people. I must be true to myself, yet at the same time, I want to always be open to changing my mind and reshaping my views on something.
I don't make the assumption that I have all the answers or that my view is the best view. I welcome many different perspectives on any topic...I can't promise that it will change my mind, but I will always listen to other's point of view. So while RT won't be the last person I offend, I can say that, just like in her situation, it won't be intentional.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Oh Hillary, what a futile attempt at family values...
Hillary Clinton recently led the charge to remove a video game with racy content from store shelves. I am not suggesting that the video game, Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas, shouldn't be removed, or at least have its rating changed, but seriously, the game is centered around gang violence and even romantacizes cars ramming into police cars. Is there any way that the game should have been put on the shelves without an Adult Only rating anyway?
Anyone buying this game knew the history of Grand Theft Auto and knew it was only a matter of time before sexual explicit scenes were in the game, whether they were part of the game in general or hidden within the game to be "unlocked". What's sad is that the ESRB, the party responsible for rating video games, should have known it too.
But I digress. Mrs. Clinton is quoted in the USA Today as saying, "So many parents already feel like they are fighting a battle against violence and sexually explicit material with their hands tied behind their backs."
Is that really true? Does Mrs. Clinton really speak for "many parents"? If that is true, then "many parents" must have let their kids take over their household. Do parents not have the ability to refuse to buy violent and sexually explicit material? Or is the more appropriate question, do parents lack the desire to be responsible for shaping the identity of their children?
Let's just get to the meat of the problem. The fact is that parents aren't monitoring their children's activities enough. I can guarantee that when I was in my youth, which wasn't too long ago, there is no way that I would have been allowed to play a game such as Grand Theft Auto. Are we really that much busier than our parents were? My parents certainly worked their fingers to the bone, yet still had time for ball games, school activities, monitoring extra curricular activities, and still had time to discuss their concerns that involved sex, drugs, or alcohol.
But I recognize society is changing. We likely aren't busier than our parents; it's just a different kind of busy. We are too busy filtering scads of spam email, figuring out what different codes mean that our kids are using in chat rooms, and worrying about layoffs that have run rampant in America today.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to impress me, try taking on spam email to free up hours wasted per week. That way parents can free up time to spend with their families and monitor what video games their kids are playing. It's ridiculous how much irrelavent emails we get. If they can come up with a federal no-call registry, how about simply creating a federal no-email registry. Ok, Ok, so many spam emails originate from outside the United States, but isn't that something that a Senator should be figuring out how to fix, rather than being involved in Party Politics?
Of course, again, the issue always comes down to...a Senator, or any public official, will only accomplish what we demand that they accomplish. It's time that we recognize that we have the power. We need to take the time to let our elected officals know what we expect of them. Many have emails to contact them. If that's the case, perhaps we should all just forward our spam to them. Eventually them will have to take action when they are innundated with spam.
Anyone buying this game knew the history of Grand Theft Auto and knew it was only a matter of time before sexual explicit scenes were in the game, whether they were part of the game in general or hidden within the game to be "unlocked". What's sad is that the ESRB, the party responsible for rating video games, should have known it too.
But I digress. Mrs. Clinton is quoted in the USA Today as saying, "So many parents already feel like they are fighting a battle against violence and sexually explicit material with their hands tied behind their backs."
Is that really true? Does Mrs. Clinton really speak for "many parents"? If that is true, then "many parents" must have let their kids take over their household. Do parents not have the ability to refuse to buy violent and sexually explicit material? Or is the more appropriate question, do parents lack the desire to be responsible for shaping the identity of their children?
Let's just get to the meat of the problem. The fact is that parents aren't monitoring their children's activities enough. I can guarantee that when I was in my youth, which wasn't too long ago, there is no way that I would have been allowed to play a game such as Grand Theft Auto. Are we really that much busier than our parents were? My parents certainly worked their fingers to the bone, yet still had time for ball games, school activities, monitoring extra curricular activities, and still had time to discuss their concerns that involved sex, drugs, or alcohol.
But I recognize society is changing. We likely aren't busier than our parents; it's just a different kind of busy. We are too busy filtering scads of spam email, figuring out what different codes mean that our kids are using in chat rooms, and worrying about layoffs that have run rampant in America today.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to impress me, try taking on spam email to free up hours wasted per week. That way parents can free up time to spend with their families and monitor what video games their kids are playing. It's ridiculous how much irrelavent emails we get. If they can come up with a federal no-call registry, how about simply creating a federal no-email registry. Ok, Ok, so many spam emails originate from outside the United States, but isn't that something that a Senator should be figuring out how to fix, rather than being involved in Party Politics?
Of course, again, the issue always comes down to...a Senator, or any public official, will only accomplish what we demand that they accomplish. It's time that we recognize that we have the power. We need to take the time to let our elected officals know what we expect of them. Many have emails to contact them. If that's the case, perhaps we should all just forward our spam to them. Eventually them will have to take action when they are innundated with spam.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Banning an entire breed of dog?
I was surfing the web the other night, and came across a site where a suggestion is made to ban the breed of Pit Bulls. Needless to say, I have an opinion on the topic, and rather than take up LOTS of space replying to the comment that I saw, I figured that I would post my thoughts here and leave a link in the comment box for people to come here for my opinion if they so desired.
I'll do best to restrain myself here, but one person that commented on the suggestion, made a highly ridiculous suggestion that ONLY ONE KIND OF PERSON buys a pit bull. Such a notion is off the wall and extremist.
But I digress to my thoughts on banning pit bulls. I can say that it is understandable to be frightened of a pit bull. I'll also take extreme caution when around one and will certainly clear the area immediately if one is around when I have my children with me.
What I don't get is how someone can claim to be an animal advocate, admit that many IDIOTS mistreat pit bulls, and even described the breed caringly and lovingly, and then suggest that the BREED should be banned. And if one would argue that it should be banned in even one State, then they must believe that the breed should be banned in the entire United States...and throughout the world for that matter. After all, surely someone wouldn't believe that a pit bull was too violent to be allowed in one state, but it's ok to have the violent beast in other states or parts of the world. So to make an arguement to ban a breed in one state is to argue for it's extinction!
So it just isn't possible for someone to call themselves an animal advocate but call for a ban on an animal, which is logically congruent to extinction.
A great person has described children and pets as God's pure innocents. I have read no suggestions to the contrary. In fact, many say that the breed is not at fault...SO why eliminate the breed??!!
Is that logical? How's this for logic? Humans murder. Murder is horrific. Thus, all humans should be banned. It fits the exact same argument posed for the elimination of pit bulls.
My suggestion, since I know people that own pit bulls that don't fit into the category of ONE KIND OF PERSON, is that pet ownership should be regulated, if not in all breeds, certainly ones that are prone to miscreant owners.
One comment that I will absolutely agree with is that any breed that is half bred with a Wolf, should be banned. As anyone knows, Wolves are more wild than any pet on earth could imagine, even a pit bull. Wild animals have an entirely different set of engrained behavior and survival skills that have no business trying to be tamed. Oh sure, there are all kinds of wild animals in captivity used as pets, but as Roy Horn can attest to, at any second, any wild animal can be overcome with it's own engrained instincts and anything in it's way can be killed quickly.
So ban animals as pets that have wild instincts in them? Yes! But ban pets, such as pit bulls, who have been marred by huge amounts of bad publicity, largely due to owners with evil intentions? Absolutely NOT!
I'll do best to restrain myself here, but one person that commented on the suggestion, made a highly ridiculous suggestion that ONLY ONE KIND OF PERSON buys a pit bull. Such a notion is off the wall and extremist.
But I digress to my thoughts on banning pit bulls. I can say that it is understandable to be frightened of a pit bull. I'll also take extreme caution when around one and will certainly clear the area immediately if one is around when I have my children with me.
What I don't get is how someone can claim to be an animal advocate, admit that many IDIOTS mistreat pit bulls, and even described the breed caringly and lovingly, and then suggest that the BREED should be banned. And if one would argue that it should be banned in even one State, then they must believe that the breed should be banned in the entire United States...and throughout the world for that matter. After all, surely someone wouldn't believe that a pit bull was too violent to be allowed in one state, but it's ok to have the violent beast in other states or parts of the world. So to make an arguement to ban a breed in one state is to argue for it's extinction!
So it just isn't possible for someone to call themselves an animal advocate but call for a ban on an animal, which is logically congruent to extinction.
A great person has described children and pets as God's pure innocents. I have read no suggestions to the contrary. In fact, many say that the breed is not at fault...SO why eliminate the breed??!!
Is that logical? How's this for logic? Humans murder. Murder is horrific. Thus, all humans should be banned. It fits the exact same argument posed for the elimination of pit bulls.
My suggestion, since I know people that own pit bulls that don't fit into the category of ONE KIND OF PERSON, is that pet ownership should be regulated, if not in all breeds, certainly ones that are prone to miscreant owners.
One comment that I will absolutely agree with is that any breed that is half bred with a Wolf, should be banned. As anyone knows, Wolves are more wild than any pet on earth could imagine, even a pit bull. Wild animals have an entirely different set of engrained behavior and survival skills that have no business trying to be tamed. Oh sure, there are all kinds of wild animals in captivity used as pets, but as Roy Horn can attest to, at any second, any wild animal can be overcome with it's own engrained instincts and anything in it's way can be killed quickly.
So ban animals as pets that have wild instincts in them? Yes! But ban pets, such as pit bulls, who have been marred by huge amounts of bad publicity, largely due to owners with evil intentions? Absolutely NOT!
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Changes at the Daily Show?!
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a great show, which recently changed studios, and along with its studio change, may have made a format change. In the second show in the new studio, Jon Stewart, the show's host, had a rather uncharacteristic interview with Bernard Goldberg. Jon, rather than be his affable self that is normally seen during his interviews, changed his demeanor, at least for this interview with Mr. Goldberg.
Mr. Goldberg was on the show to promote his book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Frankton is #37), which may be the primary reason for Jon Stewart's interview style change. It remains to be seen if this was an isolated occurance by Jon Stewart, or if he will become more opinionated during more of his interviews. Nevertheless, Jon Stewart made several pointed comments that I must take issue with.
The interview started off as one would typically expect from Jon, but then as the discussion turned towards that of our culture becoming incressingly crass and vulgar. Jon's point was that we are a capitalistic society and that our culture is bound to continuly become more crass. It's at that point where Jon started to lose me. I don't see where being capitalists has anything to do with being crass or vulgar. That simply has to do with us being a free society...it has nothing to do with the fact that anyone can start a business and make a go of it with little government intervention.
Jon speaks about everyone in Mr. Goldberg's book as being powerless and that the people in power, referring to those in Washington DC, are creating the problems in American, as opposed to Barbara Streistand, who is ranked in Mr. Goldberg's book.
The issue that I have with that view, is that I think it's foolish to think that Al Frankton, for instance, is powerless. Sure, he can't go out and write a law, but a single Senator can't do that either. It takes a collective unit to influence power and culture, and Al Frankton, like it or not, has people that believe exactly as he does, and they make up a collective unit that has and creates power.
I think that Jon highly underestimates the power that culture has on society and Washington DC. There are countless laws passed because of cultural pressures. The ones with the real power are AMERICANS. Everyday folk, like you or I, are the ones that have the power to get rid of dirty or nonperforming politicians.
The real shame is that not all Americans realize the power they have...or they try to minimize it. They write it off, saying that they are only one vote, and one vote won't make a difference. The thing is...it only takes one time...one vote creates involvement...involvement begats further involvement. Involvement creates a need for information, information creates discussions and conversations with friends, families, and neighbors...and before you know it, you are changing the culture around you without even realizing it...and as culture changes, power changes.
So I hope that Jon takes a step back and rethings the power of culture...because whether he believes it or not...and whether he likes it or not...Jon Stewart has power...his show is watched by millions, and his show shapes people's opinions on subjects..which in and of itself, is power.
I love Jon to death...and I watch his show not to pick it apart as I have done above. But when there is something that merrits a conversation, I will chime in. Congratulations on all your success Jon! Keep up the great job!
Mr. Goldberg was on the show to promote his book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Frankton is #37), which may be the primary reason for Jon Stewart's interview style change. It remains to be seen if this was an isolated occurance by Jon Stewart, or if he will become more opinionated during more of his interviews. Nevertheless, Jon Stewart made several pointed comments that I must take issue with.
The interview started off as one would typically expect from Jon, but then as the discussion turned towards that of our culture becoming incressingly crass and vulgar. Jon's point was that we are a capitalistic society and that our culture is bound to continuly become more crass. It's at that point where Jon started to lose me. I don't see where being capitalists has anything to do with being crass or vulgar. That simply has to do with us being a free society...it has nothing to do with the fact that anyone can start a business and make a go of it with little government intervention.
Jon speaks about everyone in Mr. Goldberg's book as being powerless and that the people in power, referring to those in Washington DC, are creating the problems in American, as opposed to Barbara Streistand, who is ranked in Mr. Goldberg's book.
The issue that I have with that view, is that I think it's foolish to think that Al Frankton, for instance, is powerless. Sure, he can't go out and write a law, but a single Senator can't do that either. It takes a collective unit to influence power and culture, and Al Frankton, like it or not, has people that believe exactly as he does, and they make up a collective unit that has and creates power.
I think that Jon highly underestimates the power that culture has on society and Washington DC. There are countless laws passed because of cultural pressures. The ones with the real power are AMERICANS. Everyday folk, like you or I, are the ones that have the power to get rid of dirty or nonperforming politicians.
The real shame is that not all Americans realize the power they have...or they try to minimize it. They write it off, saying that they are only one vote, and one vote won't make a difference. The thing is...it only takes one time...one vote creates involvement...involvement begats further involvement. Involvement creates a need for information, information creates discussions and conversations with friends, families, and neighbors...and before you know it, you are changing the culture around you without even realizing it...and as culture changes, power changes.
So I hope that Jon takes a step back and rethings the power of culture...because whether he believes it or not...and whether he likes it or not...Jon Stewart has power...his show is watched by millions, and his show shapes people's opinions on subjects..which in and of itself, is power.
I love Jon to death...and I watch his show not to pick it apart as I have done above. But when there is something that merrits a conversation, I will chime in. Congratulations on all your success Jon! Keep up the great job!
Starting At Home
Well, I have to say that when I moved to Indiana, I was less than enthralled with the state. How can anyone be impressed with a state that refused to join most of the rest of the United States in Daylight Savings Time? It was ludicrous trying to figure out the time relation to the rest of your business associates throughout the world.
The number one argument to keep a standard time format? "It makes us unique". WHAT?! UNIQUE?!?! What kind of argument is that? But some how that argument stuck for the first 4 years that I lived in Indiana. Which is to say that past four years...who knows how long that argument held off progress in the past.
Every year, the topic of Daylight Savings would come up, and every year, no one could agree. My goodness people, if that's not a business repellent, I don't know what is. What business in their right mind would move to a state in which their business partners and customers would be utterly confused as to when was an appropriate time to do business?
I tell you what, Governor O'Bannon and Governor Kearnen never had my respect. Neither of them would make a statement about their beliefs on the topic, one way or the other. Probably because their best argument was, "It makes us Unique."
At least "My Man Mitch" Daniels got it done. He's has issues too, but at least the number one reason not to come to Indiana, is now history.
The number one argument to keep a standard time format? "It makes us unique". WHAT?! UNIQUE?!?! What kind of argument is that? But some how that argument stuck for the first 4 years that I lived in Indiana. Which is to say that past four years...who knows how long that argument held off progress in the past.
Every year, the topic of Daylight Savings would come up, and every year, no one could agree. My goodness people, if that's not a business repellent, I don't know what is. What business in their right mind would move to a state in which their business partners and customers would be utterly confused as to when was an appropriate time to do business?
I tell you what, Governor O'Bannon and Governor Kearnen never had my respect. Neither of them would make a statement about their beliefs on the topic, one way or the other. Probably because their best argument was, "It makes us Unique."
At least "My Man Mitch" Daniels got it done. He's has issues too, but at least the number one reason not to come to Indiana, is now history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
