One ending is just another beginning

Greetings readers.

I apologize for the extended absence. I'm not going to go into a lot of details, but suffice it to say, my mother passed away on the 21st of December.

On top of two jobs and duties at home, she became more ill, to the point I had to take her to the ER. Updating my blogs took a back seat as you understand.

However, I am mostly back.

Thank you for your patience.

:-)

Kids these days

Seriously, what is up with kids these days?

I look at people in my own generation and those coming after, and all I see are a bunch of privileged, egotistical, self-righteous, elitist, demanding, lazy (need I continue?)...babies!

According to this New York Times article, kids are "panicked, uncertain, and grossed out that their parents can no longer afford to buy them everything their little hearts desire."

Seriously, I think I'm going to be sick.

I grew up on the phrase, "you want to eat don't you? You want to keep a roof over your head don't you?" I grew up with the knowledge that sacrifices must be made for survival and future prosperity.

And no, not having iPods, new phones, designer clothes, the latest and greatest gaming systems, personal accessories, cars, and $100 allowances to just get good grades and not bug mommy and daddy aren't sacrifices.

These are what (White) upper middle class America calls a sacrifice.

No wonder the USA is falling behind the rest of the developed world in every measurable sense— technology, education, innovation, sciences, etc.

If we can't understand that there are more important things than these stale and worthless materialistic items, perhaps we deserve our fate.

I'm going to go practice my Chinese now. At this rate, "made in China" will mean "made in Chinese territory, formerly, the USA."

New York Times....Typo!

Yes. I just wanted to point out that I, a 1.5 year graduate of McDaniel College, 1 year 3 month writing coach, BA English major who is a product of the Spell Checker Generation found a typo on page 4 of this article.

Oh, and if you read the whole thing (highly suggested), I just want to mention: Queen Latifah is an amazing artist and even more amazing role model for everyone, especially young women of color.

The world is a better place for her presence.

Black Republicans are real?

I thought people like Richard Ivory and Tiffany Shorter were a myth. But, according the New York Times article, Young, Black and Republican in New York, there really are people like them are real.

Maybe I should rethink my position on Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, and the Loc ness Monster.

Seriously though. I'm all for the separation of race and party affiliation. I've only been bitching about my struggles this presidential season. If I didn't believe in the freedom of choice, I'd be one of "those" voters. The ones who never look beyond party labels to the substance (or lack there of) beneath.

But being Black and labeling yourself a Republican? That's hard to swallow, even for me.

The GOP has never supported minorities they way Democrats have. They have been more homogeneous and self-serving than Democrats or any other "party" in our system. Who jumped aboard the civil rights movement? Who has tried to provide equality and opportunity to the underprivileged?

Minimum wage increases, paid maternal leave for parents, affordable health care, worker rights/protections, etc., etc. etc.

Democrats.

Still, I'm not one of those ignorant friends they talked about having. If I were friends with them, I'd continue being friends with them.

We just wouldn't talk politics. Ever.

Conversations with the elderly

Nurse walks in to check on the patient sitting by the window. "Hi there sweetie, how are you feeling today? Do you want me to move you away from the window? You must be getting hot!" Without waiting for a response, the nurse unlocks the wheelchair and moves it in front of the TV.

"There you go dear, you'll be more comfortable here." Leaning forward, the nurse smiles and runs her hands over the soft hair pulled back in a simple pony-tail. "I'll be back to check on you later, okay?"
***
What kind of relationship do you see going on here? Who is this mysterious patient?

You probably are thinking it's a young child in the hospital, or possibly a mentally handicap individual in some care facility.

Unfortunately, this fictional conversation is taking place between a 20-30 female nurse and an elderly woman. This conversation is all too often a reality.

I have known people who think it is okay to speak to elderly people with that same high-pitched, sing-song tone we use with children. They think it is okay to give them pet-names like dear, sweetie, and honey.

And it pisses me off every damn time.

I look at it this way: I'm X age (24). They are Y age. Out of sheer respect for their age, their life experience, etc. I address the elderly as they tell me to ("you can just call me MaryJane"), by their last name (Mr./Mrs. so-and-so), or simply sir or ma'am.

Guess you could say, my momma raised me right.

Did yours?

Death, Doctors, and Organ Transplants

What would you consider death?

Would it be after your heart has stopped? If so, for how long?
Would it be if you were unequivocally brain dead? But whose to say what that is?
Would it be if you were certain to remain a vegetable?

Interesting questions. Interesting debate remarked upon by the Washington Post.

I had never really thought about it. Like many, I assumed death was after the heart stopped or the brain was permanently kaput.

I didn't know that death was open to interpretation. I thought it just...was. I know that my "interpretation" of death deals with the soul departing, but the soul does not depart without the body's passing.

Or is it the body does not pass without the soul's passing?

Either way, death is no longer simple.

What do you consider "irrevocably dead" and "open for business" for organs harvesting?

Atlantic.com: Empathy for Sarah Palin?

This article on the Atlantic.com by Ta-Nehisi Coates is something that I have been thinking and feeling for some time now (hat-tip J'myle!).

The comments below come from many camps—some who found themselves identifying and feeling sorry for Sarah Palin and others who said she brought it on herself and deserved no pity.

There is one comment I find myself struggling with, and that is, that since she [Sarah Palin] knows she is so far out of her league, she should tell McCain that she can not run as his VP. Easy as that.

Except not. Should she have said no from the get go? Hell yes. But how many times have we not said no to something, the found ourselves in some nearly impossible situation from which we saw no out?

If she says "No more VP" to McCain now, that will bring all sorts of trouble for her and for him. He will have to find another running mate (not an easy search), the GOP party will seem to be in disarray and uncoordinated, and mismanaged (not saying they aren't but they are trying to put on a good face) and that could be enough to cost them the election.

If that we to happen, guess who all of GOP America would blame? None other than Governor Sarah Palin. She could never run for public office again, and her "betrayal" of the party would be (likely) unforgivable.

She's stuck, as so many of us find ourselves to be in situations that are out of our control: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So yeah, I feel bad for her. Not as a politician, but as a suffering human being.

Russian Roulette with the future

I had plans for this blog. It was supposed to be my corner for conversation on random world events and things I see in the news that interest me for good or for ill.

But, since the debacle that is our presidential election, it has turned into my corner to develop as a conscious voter.

Recently, my mother and I were talking about the candidates, foreign policy, terrorism, and Islam. My mother is two things: 1. The most knowledgeable about Islam as a religion, culture, and way of life than anyone who hasn't earned their degree in such studies, and 2. very opinionated.

She is, I think, going to vote for Senator McCain in November. Her reasoning for this comes down to security:
1. Nothing else matters if America is, as she will likely be, attacked again.
2. This future attack will come from the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who want to watch the West burn.
3. This attack will be better orchestrated and more powerful and more lethal than those of 9/11.

She believes that Senator Obama is naive and does not fully appreciate the threat posed by Islamic followers and states. She believes that Senator McCain has a better understanding, and will take those threats more seriously, and will be more likely to do whatever it takes to ensure America's safety.

I am torn. I want to elect a president who will take care of Americans first by improving health care, by improving chances for education, by reducing our foreign debt, by promoting green initiatives, etc.

But what good is all this if there are forces out there hell bent on destroying or subverting our way of life and very existence?

Threat to behead Canadian Prime Minister
60 Hindu's Killed in train fire
Homeless man beaten for eating during Ramadan
Father stabs daughter and crushes her head with a rock for seeing her husband

What do I do?

Barak Obama vs. Sarah Palin

Some of you may be appalled to know this.

I was actually considering crossing party lines this election.

Oh, did you already get that indication from the mass of blog posts regaling you with my distaste, distrust, and discomfort for Barak Obama? Then I guess the above statement isn't much a surprise.

Try this one on for size:

I'm voting for Barak Obama.

It's true. I was either going to cross party lines or write in Hillary Clinton. Now, before you try and label me some ultra-left wing, man hating, rabid Clintonite nationalist, remember this: I believe the duty of every American is to vote their conscience. My conscience said to vote Mrs. Clinton because she was (is) the most qualified and ready.

But now, in light of Mrs. Sarah Palin being nominated as John McCain's VP running mate (mistress), I feel it is my duty to make sure (s)he doesn't win.

Mr. McCain is old. He could keel over November 5th if his wife said, "honey, lets have sex to celebrate your win!" Suddenly Maverick McCain is stone cold dead, and "lifetime member of the NRA, anti-right to choose, abstinence education is all children need to know about sex, we're fighting God's war in Iraq, crazy right wing religious zealot" Sarah Palin is President of the USA.

Dear God no.

I do my part in the name of lesser evil: I vote for Barak Obama.

Watershed moment for African Americans in the USA

"You really have to give credit to the American people for being able to look past Obama's skin color to see the Harvard educated smart-ass underneath."

Historian Dr. Woodson.




Amen Dr. Woodson, amen.

Pee break during Song get NY man tossed on the street

"During the patriotic 7th inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, nature called on Bradford Campeau-Laurion. When he tried to leave his seat during the traditional singing of God Bless America, however, he says he was stopped by a NYPD officer who said he'd have to wait until the song was done."

Seriously? I'm hoping the man was just piss-ass drunk and that's why they threw him out. As much as I love the song"God Bless America" and sing along to it every time I hear it, when nature calls, nature calls. I'd rather go during the quick break when no one else is going so I don't miss any of the game.

And just what if it had been a parent with a little kid? Kids really don't hold it well and sure don't give a damn about a song.

"You either let my kid go to the bathroom, or I let him pee all over your seats. You're choice officer, your choice."

Finally, it's over

It's official. We either get a toothless pup or toothless old dog.

But: "below the belt" insults aside, I'm glad this insanity is finally over. Obama picked Biden and McCain picked Palin. It is over. The divide is conquered.

All that remains is to vote in November.

2008 Beijing Olympics revisited

My views on China hosting the 2008 Olympics are pretty clear: I don't think they should have gotten them. However this article in the NY Times gave me some perspective.

I knew that the Chines suffered from some kind of complex when it came to the rest of the world: after all, we (and by "we" I mean the international community) use China as our poster child for "Everything Gone Wrong" in a nation.

My blog post listing just a few of the technical difficulties facing the Olympics this year highlights some of criticism being leveled at China. And in reading todays article, I'll admit, I was knocked a few pegs off my superior ladder.

That being said, I have to answer the authors rhetorical question:

"Before we put China on trial, though, we should ask a question about the other part of the argument: how good are the Olympics, again, exactly?"

Yes, the Olympics has a history of cheating, doping, lies, etc., and the nations hosting them have had all kinds of skeletons in their closets. But, as with all things, should we not aim to live and be the ideal of the Olympics? Yes, we will fail, but the goal is how close can we come.

Although this article provided me some needed insight, I still think, that given the unspoken goal(s) of the Olympics, China was not the best location for the 2008 Olympics.

PA teen murdered by those meant to protect

"The Department of Human Services (DHS) strives to protect children from abuse, neglect, and delinquency. We also work to strengthen and preserve families by enhancing community-based prevention services. Our ultimate goal is to ensure the safety and permanency of DHS youth in nurturing home environments."

"Unable to help herself because of her cerebral palsy, she wasted away from malnutrition and maggot-infested bedsores that ate her flesh. She died alone on a putrid mattress in her mother's home, the floor covered in feces. She was 14 but weighed just 42 pounds."

I will say nothing about her parents, there is no combination of words that can appropriately address or explain my rage.

But the Department of Human Services (DHS) is another matter. They knew what was going on in that home, and they lied, falsified documents, and left that child there to die. After she was dead, they attempted to cover their tracks.

Perhaps the system is over burdened, perhaps the caseworker(s) were under trained and overwhelmed, and perhaps a million other excuses. Because in the end, that's what they are: excuses.

God grant her the rest and comfort she did not get in this life.

UPDATE: If you wish to contact the PA DHS and tell them your thoughts on the matter, their commissioner, Anne Marie Ambrose, can be at:

AnneMarie.Ambrose@phila.gov
215-683-6000

All hail our shadowy overlords!

I always knew my vote counted for zilch...



...but I liked the illusion of democracy.

Don't misunderstand, I know this is satire (I hope...), but after 8 years of King George Bush, and looking down the loaded 4 year barrel of Crown Prince Barack Obama, you kinda start to wonder.

No End In Sight

I want to see this movie. It will only reiterate the things we know, but what's better than being told "you're right?"

2008 Beijing Olympics

I am an Olympic Junkie.

When they came to Utah, I became the poster child for couch potatoes everywhere. I was up by 7 to watch morning highlights, sat there all afternoon, and only shut the TV off when coverage was over. Winter Olympics in Italy I was no different. I pulled 8am-8pm shifts on the couch, ogling Olympians everywhere and wishing I could be like them.

This year I'll be watching for a different reason. In the past I watched to see the best compete. In a few short days, I'll watch to see how big a disaster it will be. I'd like to be an optimist, but deep down (ok, not all that deep) I'm a pessimist.

Who thought following Utah, Greece, Italy...with Beijing...was somehow a good idea?

For example...

Internet Censorship
Environmental Disasters
Allegations of Cheating
PR Control (what protesters, where?)
Attempts to control foreign media

...are just a few things challenging the Chinese and my hopes for a successful Olympics.

What do you think?

Canadians Apologize to Americans for...everything

Have I ever mentioned that I'd like to run away to Canada?

Heir Apparent to the USA

I'm going to move the general focus of this blog from political bitching, I swear. Just not yet.

Dana Milbank (Washingtonpost) said it best in todays article when she said: "Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming it presumptuous nominee."

Barak seems to have forgotten that he hasn't won (yet). Polls show him leading McCain, but never by much. American voters chose him over Hilary, but now it seems there not sure they want him or McCain. Basically, he has a lot of winning over to do.

Strutting around the globe, playing King George's first born golden child is not the best way to win any love. At least in my book.

Caveats and fancy promise side stepping

I was afraid this is what would happen if he won the Democratic party nomination.

Throughout this campaign, Obama made tall order promises I was certain he wouldn't be able to fulfill or, in the case of article linked to this post (or this one), would seek to find ways out of ("what I meant when I said that was...").

I'm not telling those who voted for him I told you so, but I will remind you of what he said:

"[Obama] repeatedly said voters should demand a clear plan on how to end the war from all the Democratic candidates. On Sunday afternoon, he flew to his hometown of Chicago for a boisterous rally attended by more than 8,000 people at the University of Illinois-Chicago, where he once taught.

'The time has come for us to end this engagement in Iraq,' he said, saying he was proud he had been "consistent and constant" in his Iraq message" (Washington Post, Feb. 2007).

Now it's,

"[The] United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but [Obama] added he would be open to “refine [his] policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops" (New York Times, July 2008).

Oh I give up.

I told you so.

When too much of too little is a bad thing

The other day while at work, I had an interesting conversation with one of my coworkers.

She was writing a story about some LDS (Mormon for you non Utahans) characters. After reading her story and commenting on it, she asked me if I thought any of the terms she used were "Utah/LDS jargon" and wouldn't be understood by an outsider.

A short list of the words she was worried about were: bishop, ward, hymn, and sacrament.

What made this conversation so interesting me however, was that she said that in various creative writing classes throughout her college career, other LDS students wondered whether these words "belonged" if you will, to Utah and Mormons.

I was disturbed. I am by no means the most versed individual in religions and faiths outside of my own. I did attend Catholic grade school, and the majority of my friends growing up were LDS. I have known Buddhists, in college was friends with a Muslim, I took two semesters of world religions, and briefly considered dating a Wiccan. Some of my closest friends today are Jews, and of course, I know plenty of agnostics and atheists, and for a religion class credit, I attended a Jehovah's Witness' Kingdom Hall meeting.

All this experience aside, I have had very little contact with and have very little understanding of other faiths and religions, but I do know that many, many other religions incorporate these aspects into their religious practices.

But what experience I do have seems to, in light of this conversation, be light years more than your average LDS. Why is this I wonder?

I can understand a parent's desire to not introduce their child(ren) to faiths outside of the one practiced at home, because they do not want outside influences eroding the groundwork of belief they are trying to lay.

But this does not explain LDS college student's naiveté.

Extrapolating all this to a broader view:

How are we as a nation ever going to be able to reach out to nations whose ideals, morals, values, and world views may differ from our own, and work with them with honor, trust, and respect in the face of such blatant and willing ignorance?

This is one ship I'd rather not go down with

This will be my second presidential election, and may I just mention that I am a very unhappy voter. Not once has my vote nor my voice mattered.

I am now struggling with a choice: Do I hold my nose as they say, and vote for someone I truly believe with no reservations what-so-ever is a mistake for this country, do I cross party lines and vote for experience at the cost of social advancement, or do I sit this one out and pray like crazy for a better choice in 4 years?

Or do I start a donation fund to myself so I can move to Canada?

I really can't justify not voting - after all, I'm always the one to tell non-voters "when things don't go your way, you don't have the right to bitch about it cause you didn't vote." But if I do vote, I will be voting against what I know to be my self interests, my economic interests, and my county's interests.

How can I just "hold me nose" and vote in the face of all that?

I Have Returned

Last week I returned to the East Coast to visit my college and watch friends graduating this year. It was a wonderful trip! Things on the old campus have changed a little in the past year, but mostly they are exactly the same.

I took out friends and former professors, played D&D until 2AM, learned how to play Halo on the X-box, and learned that I like Malibu Rum.

But now I have returned to a steady internet connection:

Let the Blogging Commence!

Cyberbully Mom Gets Jail Time

Two teenage girls are best friends. Then, they are enemies. Mom creates a MySpace account and assumes a fake identity as Josh Evans. She flirts and sends sexually suggestive messages to daughter's former friend. Then "Josh" tells the girl "the world would be better off without you."

Girl commits suicide.

I am happy to see that at last, this woman is getting her just desserts.

2000 Chad's

I'm not typically one for TV dramas. There's something about being so hooked to a show that you tune in and tune out once a week for almost 2 hours.

(Just because I loved Hero's, Chuck, Life, and Bionic Woman does not make me a hypocrite. That was love, not addiction. See Grey's Anatomy viewers for description of TV Show Addict.)

But I'm so tempted to watch the new show "Recount," airing on HBO, based on the 2000 presidential "election."

What could be better than a fictionalized version of real events, real people, and real screw ups that led to an all to real disastrous 8 years?

Rare Acts of Unscripted Kindness

(Hat Tip) to my mom for e-mailing me this article.

I used to play softball, and have played several other sports. In my time playing and watching sports, I have never seen such genuine and compassionate displays of sportsmanship as these two girls show.

To me, "sportsmanship" has always been a vague term. Beyond playing fairly, treating each other and the other team with respect, and recognizing the other teams win or your loss with honesty (not, "they only won because our star player was injured"), sportsmanship has never really looked like anything to me. It's not like there are a lot of good examples out there.

Now it does. This is what sportsmanship looks like. It is too bad more of these unscripted acts aren't seen in all sports - from pewee football to professional arenas.

Reality Check

Look, I know she isn't going to win.

I knew it from day one. I am not saying this now hoping to "save face" for picking the looser. I held out hope that maybe, just maybe, the American psyche was up to the task. I was wrong.

I do not think it was a matter of gender or race that lost the campaign (although both played a part). I do not think that the media's choosing a favorite so early on lost the race (though it played a large part).

Hillary lost the race on her own. She could have taken the high road in arguments; she could have pointed out the clear favoritism of moderators and the media; and she could have done less reacting to comments and more constructive criticism of ALL candidates.

"But what can you expect from a women" some may say. "They're emotional, reactionary, and soft."

I ask, what else was she supposed to do? If she didn't argue back, she was uninformed and hesitant to show a backbone. If she did argue back (which she did), she was seen as "trying to have more balls than a man."

If she hadn't pointed out the unashamed favoritism of debate moderators and public media, the (less informed and aware) general public would have ignored it. But she did, and she was said to be whining and seeking sympathy "because she couldn't take the heat."

If she had spent more time doing what she does best, and putting her "best foot forward," instead of constantly reiterating the same arguments, and responding to the same attacks, and had leveled her attacks at both Democratic and Republican runners...

But what could she do? She's asked the same questions and every potential insult was relayed and a reaction asked for.

I'm not saying she's perfect - by no means. But she is better than this campaign has made her and has shown her to be.

I'll just try not to gloat too much when Obama makes Presidency and is miserable at it.

Really. I'll try.

Lies, Lies, and More Lies!

By now, you all know that I do not like Barak Obama. I think he is conceited, an elitist, a blind idealist, and thoroughly unfit to lead this country in her present state.

However, when this whole business concerning his relationship with his now former Pastor Jeremiah Wright started, I gave him free pass. After all, you can't control what one man says, nor should you be judged by what another man says - only by your deeds (or lack there of).

Yet, while reading the article Obama Says Hes Outraged by Ex-Pastors Comments written by Jeff Zelleny, I found myself asking some questions and flat out disbelieving some of his statements, made in response to Pastor Wright's recent commentary.

“I find these comments appalling. It contradicts everything that I’m about and who I am.”

Really? Yet prior to running for Presidency you sat front and center in this man's congregation, listened to his sermons, called him friend, was married by him in his church, and had your daughters baptized by him. Or do you mean to say Pastor Wright only just started being a raving anti-American, conspiracy-touting lunatic when you started running for office?

"...the comments by Mr. Obama were considerably stronger than any previous remarks he has made about Mr. Wright. Yesterday, he dismissed the remarks, but also criticized his opponents and the media for spending too much time dwelling on his former pastor."

Funny how you want to cover up and put behind you your nefarious connections in the past (think Tony Rezko and Weather Underground), but you are more than willing to talk about everyone else's (past votes, past comments, past connections, past, past past.). What's the matter? Afraid of a little perspective?

“Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I’m about knows that I’m about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people.”

But therein lies the problem Obama - we don't know you. We know the mask you show us, but no one really feels like they know you.

Oh, and Barak: check a mirror. You gotta a little brown spot on your nose...

Caught in the Middle: Tibet and China

“When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said it is human rights abuse,
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your debts.
When we build our industries, you called us polluters.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.”

I honestly don't know what to think about this situation (Chinese Students Fight View of Home).

Part of me understands where the Chinese are coming from - this is a territory of their's (that they "rightfully" conquered) and they have no desire to give it up. Although I know there is more to it than this (far more!), what nation wants to make itself smaller by relinquishing land?

Only reason why America, Spain, France and other colonial powers gave back power to the nations they "rightfully" conquered was that it was taking more energy and manpower to subdue the masses who fought for freedom.

But I can also see it from the Tibetan perspective. As I am sure slave ancestors of mine said, "Damnit, we just want to be free. We want what is ours to be ours!"

Freedom is a powerful desire. Tibetans everywhere have been swallowing their anger and frustration, burying their resentment and forcing a smile while forced to live off the forcibly given or mindfully neglected goodwill of the Chinese government.

However, I find the Chinese student's perspectives of American media, well, hilarious.

“We thought Western media is very objective,” said Chou Wu, a 28-year-old working on his doctorate in material science, “and what it turned out is that Western media is even more biased than Chinese media. They’re no better, and even more, they’re against us.”

Why would you think that of American media, when Americans don't even believe that (objectivity) about their own media outlets?!

I am angered that "the more strident Chinese students seem to replicate the authoritarian framework of their homeland, photographing demonstration participants and sometimes drowning out dissent" and that Tibetan students fear for their lives and their families lives back home should they participate in, as is their right, a peaceful protest, or even wish to speak out in classes.

I still do not know where I fall on this issue. But the actions (coming to me from biased Western media outlets) of Chinese citizens in the US and of their government is fast pushing me to support Tibet in it's quest for freedom.

Rhetorical Stumbles

I think NY Times op-ed columnist William Kristol said it best when he wrote in his article The Mask Slips,

"And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?"

What has he done indeed.

Parental Brainwashing: Legal in America

The NY Times recently posted an article on delegates - and parents in general - being brainwashed by their children.

Ok, so maybe brainwashed is a little harsh. Everyone has the right to choose for himself what political candidate s/he wishes to support. If the reasons they support said candidate are because they vote the party line, or because they identify with one over another, or because their children and grandchildren have brow beat them (some with bribes, others with guilt, and more others with a persistence more determined than GW's belief that his War on Terror was/is a good thing) into giving up their right as Thinking Citizens, who are we to complain?

I just find it rather ironic that the one candidate with the least amount of experience and political "know how" has the majority of the support of America's youngest and least "life seasoned" voters.

Blog Reconstruction 2

For all 5 of you who read my stuff - Welcome again!

As you can tell, I've been doing some changes. On the left, there are now links to other blogs of mine. The goal in this was to separate my private blogging (my life and creative stuff) from the "important blogging" (politics, news articles, etc.).

In the blogging workshop that I mentioned before, the facilitator said that a blog should have a set and clear purpose. Readers want consistancy. Clearly, a mish-mash of personal and "important" is not set or clear.

I have also added a more indepth "about me" and a FAQ link.

I am still working on the color schemes for both, so these will often change. I'm sorry. I'm picky and not so much a fan of the limited choices I'm offered. I may have to learn HTML so I can make some changes (yikes!).

Anyway, for those 5 of you reading - any ideas, comments, or suggestions you have about my changes or changes you would like to see would be greatly appreciated!

Either way, I think I'm back. It's been killing me not to blog...

Blog Reconstruction

Greetings readers -

This blog of mine will be undergoing some reconstruction. I took a blogging workshop and learned a few things that I intent to apply to mine. I hope to make my purpose more refined and my subject matter more reader accessible/friendly.

If you have any suggestions or comments, please, let me know! I am still fairly new to this blogging thing and really hope to make mine work.

~DvntWriter

Why are People Taking Up the Gun?

This post asks readers a question:

With Columbine, the DC gas station/highway shooter, VA Tech and other college shootings, mall shootings, holiday shootings, and today's shooting (3.3.08 Wendy's Shooting), what do you see as the reason people - from teenage high schoolers to 50+ adults - are taking up the gun as their means of "getting even" and relieving their pain?

Please, I am really looking for reasons here - besides this being a sign the world is coming to an end...

Essay on the 2008 Presidential Candidates

A few weeks ago a friend of mine and I traded "my candidate won NH," "barely," "if you call winning by x amount barely," "yeah well my candidate won ID" jabs over IM. Our adult version of the children's "uh-huh, nuh-uh" argument ended when he asked me to explain my reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton over his choice, Barack Obama.

I told him I'd have to get back to him. It wasn't that I didn't know, wasn't sure, or was dodging the question, but rather because 1) It would have been too long and drawn out for a conversation over computer, and 2) Although I had my reasons and sort of knew what they were, I didn't feel they were very well grounded. I wanted a chance to sit and think about the question and to give it the proper thoughtful response it deserved, instead of jumping in whole-hog not having my reasons and convictions lined up and tethering me.

That being said, I'm going to talk about three reasons why -- at this point in time -- I support Hillary Clinton for Presidency. I will be honest with you -- I don't know much about the other runners. I have heard a lot of good things about Edwards and some of the other candidates, but since I get my information from past experiences and the news (New York Times mostly), and Obama and Clinton are all you ever hear about, they are the ones I'm most familiar with. Does this make me a bad voter? Probably. Am I an under-informed voter? No doubt. Knowing this will I shoulder my civic duty and research the other candidates? You find me the time and yes, I will.

Moving on. As you can't help but be aware, the slogan of this presidential campaign is "change." Change from old-style politics. Change from old-style thinking. Change from old-style policies, procedures, and practices. Change. As far as I'm concerned, if your name isn't Bush or Cheney, and you aren't in some way related to either one, that in and of itself is change.

But, and I think rightly so, people wonder if going from a Bush, Clinton, Bush and back to another Clinton would be a good thing for this country. After all, it begins to sound a little like a dynasty when you say it out loud. However, given the fact that I won't vote republican, and given the choices I am being offered (Clinton, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich , and Obama), I feel she is the best choice for the job -- despite her last name.

There is the 35 years experience she has under her belt. Yes, eight of those years were spent in the White House, but (quoting a friend of mine), "she was the most politically active First Lady besides perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt." While other First Ladies have spent their time picking out the china, hosting Easter egg hunts on the front lawn, and providing a lovely backdrop for their husbands during press conferences, she was out there fighting for women, and children -- no matter what country you lived in, no matter your economic status, etc. Poor, homeless, foster care kid, out of a job? She fought for you. For me, when people talk about change and Clinton being a part of the "politics as usual" crowd, I don't see that. Despite the fact we are all sick and damned tired of hearing about the precedent having a woman (or Black man) in office will set, the fact remains, her being a woman is what sets her apart -- it is what will provide the change from "business as usual."

Think about it. How often do we read magazine articles, scientific and social research that tells us men and women approach the same situations differently? Remember all the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" books and articles? Although I think that is played up, there is some factual basis. Given any situation, men and women will respond differently. To me, the greatest change Americans can give themselves is someone who doesn't have the Straight Protestant Well Educated Middle/Upper Class White Male Perspective. You want change? Put a woman in charge for once (or, a Black man).

Another reason I support her is that, yes, like half of all registered democrat women who aren't lesbians, I love Bill Clinton. Yes he cheated. Yes he lied. Then again, who wouldn't when charged with adultery? Any man, hell any woman -- and I don't care where you are from -- would lie about that if they thought they wouldn't be caught. After all, the fact that someone caught you and is tossing out this accusation means 1) You need to clean up your act and 2) You (hopefully) learned your lesson. Given that, and a desire to protect your family, their (and your own) reputation from over eager, vicious, sound-bite driven media outlets, I ask you again: Who wouldn't lie?

Why do I love Bill? He brought the United States out of a deficit (or more so than presidents before him). He made relations with African Americans one of his priorities. He did what he could, at the time, with the options available to him to improve military opportunities for gays and lesbians. He stood for the poor and under-privileged. Health care and education were important to him. In short, I trust him. And yes, by extension, I trust Hillary. Is that so wrong?

However, my trust for Hillary Clinton is not only derived from her husband. What I am about to say may sound strange and contrived to some, but to me, with my educational background, is as fundamental as steroids in baseball is American. Although I have only a BA in English under my belt, I consider myself a rhetorician. For those of you unfamiliar with the term rhetoric, rhetoric is - when broken down to it purest elements -- the study of persuasion. How does person X persuade person Y (or group Y) to think, feel, and act in a certain way. The cynics translation: Rhetoric = Manipulation. How does person X manipulate person Y (or group Y) to think, feel, and act in a certain way.

My study of the methods of persuasion has led me to become extremely wary of those who would use my emotions against me. Remember Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech? His speech wasn't as powerful and provoking as it was because he was logical and reasonable (although he was), but because he grabbed a hold of his audiences emotions, and through their emotions, led them to a new way of thinking, led them to want to share in his dream for the future, led them to follow him with more certainty and conviction than mere logic and reason could ever have done. Dr. King was the master of emotional appeals.

When I first heard of Obama, I heard of him in respect to his phenomenal speech giving abilities. One article I read quoted a woman as saying she cried when she heard him speak. As a rhetorician, I was interested. Although I am not a connoisseur of speeches, a generally known fact is that today’s political speeches (or any speech for that matter) do not rival those of previous generations. To hear of someone who was actually able to connect with his audience so fully as to engage not only their minds, but their emotions too? I had to know more.

And when I listened, I cringed. Yes, no doubt, Barack Obama is a wonderful speech giver. And that is what leads me to not trust him. Why trust King but not Barack? After all, Dr. King "manipulated" the emotions of his audience. However, when Dr. King spoke out for a greater good, he spoke of things he knew about, things he was directly involved in changing, things that, if the nation put its mind to, could be resolved. When I listen to Barack's talk of "change, dreams, unity" etc., I don't see a man who can follow through. I see a man who I have no doubt will try his damnedest, but I also see a man wrapped up in his dream; a man so wrapped up that he has lost sight of reality.

I agree. America needs change. But there needs to be responsible change. I agree. America needs to remember the dream she once had for the future and for her children. But that dream must be realized in the limits of reality. I agree. America needs greater unity among her people and political persuasions. But that unity must not be gained at the price of loosing our willingness to stand up and fight for our individual beliefs -- even if those beliefs result in partisan separation.

In comparison to Obama's smooth talking feel good speeches, Clinton is direct and factual. She doesn't try and finagle my emotions -- she tells me the facts, she tells me her plans, and leaves it to me to make the choice. Part of the problem with this approach is that it turns people off. They feel she isn't emotionally invested, that she is distant and cold. But to me, it is a breath of fresh air. Instead of trying to manipulate (persuade) me to side with her, she trusts that I will make an informed choice based on the information provided to me. I like that. I trust that. A candidate that trust me to make a choice.

Finally, my third reason for supporting Hillary Clinton is that she has plans. We here in America have had eight years to figure out new plans and new ways of doing the things this current administration has managed to muck up. When I watched the NH debate, I watched and listened closely -- I wanted to know where the candidates stood on issues and what their plans for the future were. When Barack was asked about his plans for foreign policy, the environment, health care, education, etc., for some he had a plan; for others he had an idea of a plan; and for others still, he had nothing but pretty speeches.

When Hillary was asked about all of those same issues, she responded with detailed plans. So detailed in fact, some wanted to tune her out because they weren't ready to handle it. As I see it, day one of the new presidency, I don't want someone who is still figuring things out, coming up with ideas, and designing new plans. I want someone who has a clue. I want someone who has more than an idea, but a ready plan of action. That plan of action my change, other ideas will be presented, discussed, and perhaps meshed with the original, but the fact is: we weren't starting from ground zero. Some serious thought had already gone into the future. Talk about change, dreams, and unity are all well and good, but in the end, I want someone who has already has a plan.

In conclusion, I want to state that, despite all the qualities I admire in Hillary Clinton, I do not by any means think she is perfect. She is, first and foremost, a politician. She has been investigated for wrong doing several times for different things. During debates she has and Obama have traded "political tidbit" jabs since the beginning. She's taken, as Edwards is so fond of pointing out, money from various groups who would like her to if not turn a blind eye to their practices, at least not set out to actively stop them. But a friend of mine said something I liked and think applies to all the candidates -- no matter how clean they try and come off. He said he knew "there was no way politicians like Obama, Hillary, Edwards, etc. get to where they are without having a few skeletons in their closets."

I also want to reiterate that I have not totally set my hat on Hillary Clinton (although the NY Times just endorsed her as their Democratic candidate -- McCain as the Republican). However, if given the choice between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Barack, I will with no hesitation vote for Hillary. She has the experience in foreign and domestic policy we need, she is a definite change from "politics as usual" by her difference in outlook, and I trust her because she trusts me to make a competent decision without involving my emotions. And yes, because I think Bill Clinton will make a wonderful First Husband.

Note: I have great respect for the First Ladies who came before Mrs. Clinton despite whatever tone my comments may have suggested. Many of the women who held that esteemed position used their position to help others and to shed light on matters dear to their and their husbands hearts.

Note 2: Someone asked me why I stated in the beginning why I won't vote Republican. I won't because I do not agree with their politics or policies. I'm a Democrat only because the Independents can't make a convincing push in our (flawed) two-party system.

***
Although this essay was my personal reflection on the two leading democratic candidates, some research into their political and speech history was involved. My information was gathered from the following sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/07/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_31.php

And if any mistake or incorrect information is detailed, please inform me via comments. Thank you.

* After posting this the NY Times Editorial Board decided to back Hillary Clinton. You can read their reasons here: NY Times Article