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

The Privatization of Marriage

This New York Times article said pretty much all the things I have been saying since I first became aware of the gay marriage "issue" (whenever it was Hawaii sparked it those many years ago). In case however you haven't read the article, let me summarize:

* Way back when (1215 and before) Christianity defined the validity of marriage as NOT ONLY those people who had married in the church, but also those who said they had exchanged vows (even if it had been on a hay stack). Those marriages not performed in a church (aka illicit marriages) were still accepted and those people were granted THE SAME rights, privileges, and responsibilities as those who married in the church.

* "Not until the [16TH CENTURY] did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match (NY Times)." Poor Romeo and Juliet...

* "The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was [SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE] of a valid marriage (NY Times)." Back then, living together before marriage didn't have the same (possible) negative repercussions as they do now.

* "In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners (NY Times)."

The question then becomes, what was the purpose of having one's marriage validated by the STATE?

* Distribution of survivor benefits
* Provision of health insurance and pension benefits
* Inheritance and medical information sharing

The article goes more into how these (and other) reasons for validating ones marriage with the state was reasonable in say the 1950s (when divorce, single mothers, and teen parents were rare), but what I want to focus on is the three "rights" I listed above. Rights granted only to those whose marriage is recognized by the state. I know this is probably a topic beaten to death. The arguments are probably used to death. And you are probably sick to death of hearing and reading about the Gay Marriage "Issue." If you are, tough. It's my blog. If you don't want to read it, don't. No skin off my nose.

But for those of you who continue...yay :-).

I was listening to NPR a few months ago (when it was still warm), and they did a segment on this woman (a mechanic) who had been involved with another woman (police officer for over 20 years) for over 15 years. NOTE: Because I don't recall their names, I shall have to refer to them by their professions. The unfortunate thing about their marriage (if they, if anyone, can stand someone else that long, their relationship deserves to be called a marriage) is that it was cut short. The police woman died of throat cancer. Her partner stayed with her, cared for her, worked all day, stayed up all night, fed her, bathed her, took her to hospital appointments, and when it was time, was with her when she died. They had built a house together, but it was the officers money that really made that home, and all creature comforts possible. I'm not saying she was a "sugar-momma," hell no. But her job paid better than her partners. What was so upsetting about this was that, because their relationship was not VALIDATED or RECOGNIZED by the state, her pension could not be passed on to her partner. Up to her dying day she fought the state where they lived, participated in county meetings, petitioned her elected officials, and even allowed a documentary to be made of their trials - both legal and medical.

Honestly, I don't recall the outcome. I think it was positive. But what of those who situations don't turn out as well or remotely close? The mechanic wouldn't have been able to keep the house she and her partner built on her income. Mortgages, loans, bills, etc. are things couples take care of AS A COUPLE. To suddenly find yourself saddled with creditors alone and strapped for cash... "A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments (NY Times)."

I'm sure those of you who have taken a detailed look at my profile maybe wondering, what is a self-professed devout Orthodox Christian who calls herself a LUPO doing supporting gay marriage? My answer is this: although I do not want this for myself (okay, I'm lying, I do. But I also have this unholy fear of damnation. That kind of out weights my fear of dying alone and lonely), that doesn't mean I can't look beyond myself and my faith to see what is fair and just for others. And just to be clear on something: no, my faith does not sanction non-heterosexual marriages. They do not persecute the individual (I should know), but instead take a very compassionate view/stance/and action. I know, only my word on this matter. What I am getting at is basic fairness. If one group is allowed a privilege and must take the responsibilities for that privilege, all should be able to have that privilege and take on the responsibilities that comes with it. When group A is granted things group B isn't, it isn't only group B that suffers, but those attached to group B - the children, families, friends, etc.

Okay. Enough ranting for now. It's taken most of my time at work to write this. I should do something for work now... :-)

The Pervasiveness of Portable Music Players

The other day I was walking to work from the bus station where I get off. It's about a ten minute walk. Along the way, I pass several hotels, eateries, shops, the Trax line stations (what the rest of the world calls metro or subway stations), etc. City stuff. Before it got cold, you would see business types, college students, the homeless (you always see them), mom's, dad's, kids, and teens skipping class. It was nice to walk along, seeing the sights, smiling at strangers and gazing in windows. Smelling fresh pizza or steaming curry or a multitude of other hot dishes as you strolled in front of shops was always a treat o the nose.

But lately I've noticed a change. I walk down those same streets, and no one smiles at one another. People at the Trax stations are quiet, except for the person with a cell phone glued to their ear (I admit, sometimes that person is me). People in check out stands are distant and unresponsive to the checkout clerks. Children follow their parents listlessly, college students clutch their backpacks and stare blankly ahead, the business types are no longer glancing up from a hand-full of papers to smile. Instead they stride through the streets oblivious to every one around them.

People these days are perpetually preoccupied, caught up in their own little world. But it's not stress, it's not overwhelming work loads, bills, family, or even a really bad case of the blues. It's portable music devices. (Note: Because I'm pretty much only familiar with i-pods, they are going to be the only brand named. They are by far not the only ones.)

They are every where, pervading every aspect of our lives. Driving to the store? Listen to your i-pod. Paying the clerk for your groceries or gas? Listen to your i-pod. Sitting at your desk, in the office, surrounded by your coworkers? Listen to your i-pod! What ever you do, where ever you go, plug-in, tune-out, listen to your i-pod. Really, that should be the slogan for these things.

My problem isn't with the devices themselves. When I was in college I loved having mine. I could go to the library and read, using mine to tune out the distracting background noise while at the same time, keeping me awake. It was nice to tune out my various room mates (and their God-forsaken TVs). Now that I am home, I find the place I wish to use my i-pod the most is on the bus commute to and from work (while I enjoy being around people, that doesn't mean I want to listen to conversations in Spanish, one-sided arguments with boyfriends, or the bus-driver making inconsequential conversation with whomever happens to sit near them).

What my problem is, is how these devices are used. I have seem people use them as they drive, which I find this very disturbing. Yes, turning up the car stereo can drown out the sounds around you, but not nearly as much (or effectively) as head-phones plugged directly into your ears. Those head-phones drown out the guy yelling at you as you drive into the cross walk in front of him, the fire or ambulance sirens coming from a block away, the beeping as you switch lanes, and more. The pedestrian whose attention is focused on the music pouring into his head isn't paying attention to the driver who is speeding up to the crosswalk the woman trying to make the turn in front of you. And I can't begin to explain how rude I find it when someone comes up to you to pay for something and refuses to unplug for that brief moment. I have seen librarians, checkout clerks, and restaurant servers ignored, their friends (though sometimes required) greeting - "Hi, how are you today" - or offer of assistance gone unanswered. All because that someone is plugged in, oblivious to the world around them.

And I say all this from experience. I have been that person in the car, trying to get over, signaling for what seems like ages, only to have the car right on my back bumper ignore me. And when they pass me, and I look over to glare, they are plugged in, oblivious. I have been at the street corner, seeing by the timer that I don't have time to cross, only to watch the business person stride into the street, belatedly realizing they shouldn't cross (I've also been the driver freaked out because I think they are going to cross in front of my oncoming car). I've been the desk jockey, trying to ask the person in front of me if they need any help, only to be ignored because they can't hear me. I've been the person sitting with a client trying to explain something to someone with head-phones securely in place, wondering if they could really hear me, or if they were even listening to me.


I find it rude. I find it obtrusive. I find it annoying. But most of all, I find it disheartening. What happened to simple human interaction? When did our music become more important than smiling at the door man guarding the hotel, or the woman in the seat next to us on the train, or the bus driver who says hello? When did our music become more important than saying thank you and have a nice day to the clerk or server who took care of us? When did our music become more important than being aware of the world around us and those sharing our moment of existence?

When did our music become more important than other people?

First Blog

Well, I suppose that technically this isn't my first blog. When I had a MySpace account I practically lived there, blogging about my life, friends, and crazy fucked up romantic run-ins as if people really cared. But then I realized that all I was doing was substituting my real, leather bound, red, engraved journal that I paid good money for...for some online forum in which only my friends could comment on my life. As if their comments gave me some vindication for the actions I made (or didn't). So I moved on to bigger and better things. Like Warbook on Facebook. And now, this blog. A real blog. Guess we'll see how it goes. :-)