On The Media: Cavewoman Style

Personally Responsible

2009-08-27T19:14:00.003-04:00

Providing America with equal coverage in health care was the topic of the editorial in the Rutland Herald on Aug. 8, 2009 titled "All together now." One question the editorial presented is how President Obama is to persuade the majority of Americans who are not facing a health care crisis to support reform of the system for those who are in "dire straits." President Obama's answer is to show the majority of people that they too are in "dire straits" in numerous ways.

This approach attempts to appeal to citizens' self-interest and bring them into such a low mental state of thought to blur the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is better off than many imagine, those whose visions have been potentially corrupted by President Obama's previous reform tactics. These tactics are part of the problem. Lowering America's mentality to bring America into this state of mind of helplessness has reflected in our stock markets and only foresees other future effects.

President Obama wants to create this unrealistic health reform in which all the people are covered all the time. Unfortunately, this is not the case, nor will it ever be. Close to 47 million people in the United States are uncovered by health insurance. However, about 250 million people do have coverage and they have worked hard for it. Why should the majority of the people care about the 47 million who are not? What is in it for them? This is the same question that President Obama is trying to answer. Although his intentions are credible, the approach has many challenges that require careful thought.

As a president, President Obama needs to look out for our nation on a whole and accept the fact that not all the people can be equally covered all the time. Yes, the health care reform is in the interest of each individual, but if people do not comply within the circumstances of reform, a reform cannot exist. This situation needs to be looked upon as an issue of balance and how to balance the needs of 250 million people to those of 47 million. The desirable balance is a point that provides the 47 million people with some form of health care while not sacrificing the quality of care of those currently covered or raising unacceptable cost to implement these laudable goals.

Although the editorial attempts to frame the issue to look after individuals who are vulnerable to disaster, it fails to touch upon the dimension of personal responsibility, a core component of our system. Personal responsibility has created a huge value by harnessing the individual drives of individual spirits. But in an effort to create broad-band coverage, President Obama is removing trust in America's system, making it only possible with more government aid. With that removal, also removed is the individual accountability factor needed to drive our future society.

Surely, this requires robust debate and deserves thoughtful discussions. Just because the Democrats have near absolute control until the next election is not a legitimate reason to rush into this. It is possible to reform our health care system, but we need to do it with the right intentions.

The intentions should include providing America with better quality and pleasure of life, not only for sheer change sake. President Obama's campaign platform included change from Republican and President Bush's policies and is almost cliché now; it is not a race to win any longer. Successful change may not be possible. However, if it is, we need carefully managed plans for success. But then again, change for change's sake has never been proven to be sustainable or always led to good outcomes.

BLAKE BOHLIG

Rutland

There are many letters to the editor that get me all fired up. They inflame my liberal sensitivities, they inflame my inner grammar nazi, or they inflame that small part of me that optimistically hopes most people are rational by proving once more that most people are actually quite ignorant and in their ignorance just plain stupid. This letter didn’t do any of those things. It did touch upon a topic for which I have very mixed feelings: personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility is supposedly one of those American Ideals that makes America America. I can’t find any fault with being personally responsible for yourself and your well being, to the best of your abilities. However, I dislike how so many people fall back on this idea of personal responsibility to suggest that a person deserves any misfortune she suffers. The author of today’s letter uses personal responsibility to make it acceptable that 47 million people don’t have health care. He does so with a sentence that often inflames me: “However, 250 million people do have coverage and they have worked hard for it.” (emphasis mine). That seems to be the sentence of choice among those who argue against anything that would provide a boost for those who are less fortunate. They have worked hard for it. The underlying statement being, those who are less fortunate haven’t worked hard. In this case, the author is clearly saying the 47 million people without health insurance haven’t worked hard.

Surely that can be the only reason a person doesn’t have health care, because she hasn’t worked hard. While I understand this is obviously true, I’m going to ask you to indulge in a short foray into reality. I’m willing to bet one of the largest reasons a person doesn’t have health care is because her employer doesn’t provide it. I’d like to give you two specific examples.

Person M works full time for a small business in the agriculture field. The business doesn’t actually do anything traditionally considered agriculture, but because of some special rules is allowed to declare itself an agriculture business. M has worked full time at this business for at least 10 years. Previously, she worked at several other businesses in the same field. She has a college degree, albeit in an unrelated field. Person M’s employer only employs 20-25 people, most of them part time or seasonal, and cannot afford to provide health coverage to any employees. So, Person M doesn’t have health care.

Person L works full time for a very large corporation. She has worked full time for this corporation for one year. She had to wait six months to gain eligibility for health care coverage, and then accepted it. Six months later, for reasons completely unrelated to L’s ability to fulfill her responsibilities, her employer decided to change her position to part-time and hire more part time employees. As a part time employee, L is no longer eligible for health care.

So, here we have two instances of a full time (which is usually accepted as within the definition of hard working) employee who, through no fault of her own, is without health care. What are we to take from this information? Should M, in order to be personally responsible, have chosen to work at a larger company that could afford to offer health care? Even though L’s example shows that large companies are just as likely to avoid offering health care if possible? Should L have worked harder? Even though the company openly admitted the change in L’s position had nothing to do with her ability to fulfill the responsibilities of the position? In what way would this ideal of working harder have helped either M or L? In what way would this ideal of personal responsibility have helped either M or L? I guess all they can do is be personally responsible for not getting sick.

The author suggests that the problem with Mr. Obama’s proposed health care plan is that it undermines personal responsibility. But, I fail to see how that is true, or, more importantly, how being personally responsible helps maintain health care. I think the problem with Mr. Obama’s proposed health care plan is much less vague and immeasurable than the possibility of undermining personal responsibility. I think the problem is that Mr. Obama would let health care remain an employer responsibility. The above examples are clear proof that leaving health care in the hands of employers is a recipe for lack of health care. Employers will, again and again, find ways to avoid paying the high and growing higher cost of health care. Employers will refuse to offer health care, cut full time positions to lessen the number of employees who are eligible for health care, or pass along enough of the costs to make it unaffordable for employees. The way health care is handled now has nothing to do with personal responsibility, and everything to do with profitability.

Iron Pouring

2009-06-13T21:29:00.003-04:00

Take notice Rutland. I attended an event in Rutland this evening that was one of the best events I've attended in Rutland in a long time. The Iron Guild hosted a public Iron Pour at the Mac Steel scrap yard on North Main Street. I happened to see it mentioned in the Rutland Herald today, and it sounded so interesting that I made it a point to go over this evening. Overall, I think the evening was a success although there could have been slightly better planning for a few aspects.

I have to say, the event did not start well. We approached the Mac Steel yard from the south, which put the scrap yard on our right. As we approached the entrance, we could see people standing and vaguely directing traffic on both sides of the 4 lane road. It was not until we were upon the entrance that we noticed the large barrels blocking the driveway into yard. As we slowed, obviously confused, one of the men standing near the barrels pointed directly across the street into a large parking lot. We assumed he intended to communicate to us to park in that lot. We drove up the street, turned around and came back, only to discover a sign specifically saying no parking in that lot. This left us even further confused and now annoyed. We tried the next parking lot, but it was full. Again, we turned around, drove back to the driveway in which we had initially turned around, and hunted out a parking space. A much better plan would involved more clearly marked parking.

Once on foot and headed for the yard, we noticed a small sign attached to the large sign calling out the Iron Pour. The small sign noted that a $5 donation was suggested. There had been no mention of a fee in the notice in the newspaper, which left us feeling bad because none of us had brought any cash. Whether this was a failing by the folks organizing the event, or the Rutland Herald reporting on it, I can't say. But, I do wish I'd known about the donation request.

Further adding to the annoying aspect of the event was the weather: it was drizzling. Now, it wasn't particularly cold and it wasn't raining very hard, so we simply wore raincoats and hats. A good 50% of the other attendees brought umbrellas. Very large umbrellas. Umbrellas that blocked the view for many of us, and nearly injured not a small number of us. I, personally, was almosted poked in the face by two umbrellas.

As for the Iron Pour itself, it was amazing. The structure was reminiscent of a cathedral or castle. The molten melted sparking and splashing was amazing. Watching the guild members work in the middle of the sparks and pouring iron was both horrifying and intriguing. The piece they cast during the pour was their own guild mark, which you see on their website. They raised it above the whole structure part way through the pour and we were able to watch it cool. The only unfortunate part of the pour was that the two towers, which were stacked full of pallets, were obviously supposed to ignite and they didn't. Despite help from a blow torch, the pallets were too wet and poorly stacked to catch fire.

Now, the pour itself was great, but it is the crowd of people I would more like to comment upon. There was a very large crowd, especially considering the weather. And it was probably the most diverse crowd of people I've ever seen in Rutland except maybe for during the fair. There were people of all ages, from toddlers to folks in the 60's and 70's. There were people from all walks of life, from those obviously very well off, to those obviously not so well off. There were people I can only describe as from an "underground" type aspect of society. It was amazing to see this diversity present and awed by an event in Rutland. So, pay attention Rutland. Notice what just brought out all these people, not few of which I overheard mentioning that they came tonite specifically because they'd seen, and been impressed by, previous events. This could be something for Rutland. This sort of event is obviously a draw for people, and for people of all ages and walks of life. This could point to something that would bring life back to Rutland. Not to mention, that there is already the Carving Studio in West Rutland which seems to grow more and more each year. The Iron Guild specifically mentioned the Carving Studio as an ally in their venture. I would certainly turn out for another such event. And I'd be more than willing to contribute the $5 donation. Come on Rutland and let's do something good for the city.

Oh, yeah, and as a note to myself: next time bring the camera, stupid! The rain wasn't enough to be a problem, and the cell phone simply couldn't do this justice.

yes, Yes, YES!

2009-01-06T21:57:00.003-05:00

'Tis a new year. I was, this very evening, idly perusing my reading journal from last year. I was trying to find a way to summarize last year's literary selections to create an interesting entry for this very blog. What should fall out from the very first page of the journal, but a page of notes I'd written about one of the first books I read last year. You should know, I make it a habit to take notes whenever a book leaves me with a really important thought. In this case, the book was When Nietzsche Wept by Irvin Yalom. This particular book really stimulated my brain, and produced a hastily scribbled list of page numbers each followed by a partial quote and indication of where on the page it was. Some of them are still interesting, but perhaps I'll delve into them in a later entry.

This entry will be devoted to what I found on the back of that page: a couple paragraphs of random musings regarding how sex and sports are similar. I could not, at first, remember why I'd explored this particular line of thinking. Fortunately, at the end of my musings, I'd made a note about the catalyst for the thought. It turns out my mother had been downstairs watching a football game, and I overheard some very strange noises from where I was installed in my cave upstairs. The noises went something like this: Oh! Oh! Yes. Yes Yes Yes Yes! Go for it! You've almost got it! Keep going keep going! YES!!!

I trust you can see how I might have made the connection. I will mention, whether it is relevant or not, that my mother is not a sports fan. She rarely watches any sports at all, and has almost no working knowledge of the rules of most sports. And yet she can become passionately involved in any given game. I am also not a huge sports fan. If I get truly excited about any sport, it's soccer. But, honestly, I don't really follow soccer, and who can blame me. The US isn't exactly a powerhouse in soccer, nor are Americans particularly vehement fans demanding television coverage. Anywho, I have trouble understanding how people can become so worked up about a bunch of grown men running around chasing each other, clapping each other on the back, and slapping each other's butts. Aside from the all but required attendance at high school athletic games involving our Arch Rival, I've rarely felt moved to participate in the shouting that goes on at sporting events. You are not encouraged to infer from this anything regarding my sex life. So, here are my thoughts regarding the connection between sex and organized sports.

Perhaps the reason some people like sports so much is how similar the reactions are to a sexual encounter. We can get excited, passionately excited. We can scream, yell obscenities, or wave our arms about. We can hug people around us, give high fives, and do chest bumps. And while these are remarkably similar to behaviors exhibited in the throes of passion, no one finds any of this behavior strange, not even when exhibited in crowded, public spaces. We can also be totally disgusted with a favorite team or individual player. We can give corrections, point out flaws, and generally show our disfavor without causing hurt feelings. These are certainly things we can't do with sex. Just try giving a gentle correction and you'll spend the next week trying to gain forgiveness. How much more fabulous can you get. A venue that allows you to display the passions of the bedroom in open public, while also allowing you to give voice to frustrations without worry of a (long lasting) negative response.

That is as far as my contemplation went last year, but I think I'd like to add to it. I was going to say something about the length of a normal game in either of the favorite American Sports: baseball and football. I was going to joke about dispelling the myth of men not providing enough foreplay by pointing out that men allow themselves to get all worked up for hours watching a single game. I was going to try to offer advice to women based upon these observations. Then I remembered just why it is that I hate baseball and football: a short (seriously, in football we can be talking mere seconds) burst of amazing action, followed by a much longer stretch of nothing, and then another short burst of amazing action, before lapsing into another long stretch of nothing. If we want to discuss just football, I can even go so far as to point out that those long stretches of nothing involve lots of hugging and fondling and butt cheek grabbing that finally leads to a short burst of amazing action. Please tell me I don't have to be any more obvious. So, I guess I'm not going to dispel the foreplay myth. Sorry boys, you'll have to come up with your own argument for that one.

2009-01-01T14:31:00.002-05:00

As I promised myself I would do when the new year began, I have started research for my new Big Idea. This time, I might just be able to stick to it. What's different this time, you may ask. And I would answer you: the subject matter. My latest Big Idea will allow me to happily wallow in my favorite obsession: Vermont. What it means to be a Vermonter, what characteristics one acquires to survive in Vermont, why Vermont is the best place on earth. And, as if the cosmos are giving me an encouraging thumbs up, this morning Willem Lange had a wonderful little commentary on VPR. I highly recommend listening to it, if only for that little bit of Northeast Kingdom accent at the end.

I Knew I Was Smarter Than The Average Person

2008-12-16T15:52:00.003-05:00

Do you think you're smarter than the average US citizen? Have you had too many mind numbingly stupid conversations with idiots on message boards? Have you read too many unintelligible comments at other blogs? Would you like proof that you are, indeed, better informed about US government and history than most other people? Would you like to be decidedly disappointed by intelligence level of your elected officials? Well, then just visit this fun quiz when I stumbled across this nifty blog.

According to the results of this quiz, I am smarter than you. I scored 29 correct out of 33, giving me 87.88%. I don't think that's too bad at all. Especially considering I was fine with all the historical questions, but was very unsure of all the economic policy questions.

Did You Really Think This Through?

2008-12-10T22:53:00.003-05:00

So, back to the subject of Christmas, and the celebratory symbols surrounding it. Don't worry, I'm not ranting today. When I left work tonite, I decided to drive home through the city rather than take the highway, because it rained all day and then the temps dropped below freezing and I was worried I would slide off the highway. Driving the route through the city takes a little bit longer, but it meant I got to pass the Rutland Town Town Hall, on the front lawn of which is displayed a giant Christmas tree brightly lit with coloured lights. It was very pretty. I always have enjoyed Christmas trees and simple outdoor lighted displays. Net lights look particularly gorgeous draped over full hedges and then lightly dusted with snow.

Seeing the Rutland Town tree got me to thinking, though. Tonite I was driving home after 10pm and there was that tree fully lit. Obviously, it would be lit all night. I couldn't help but think of all the electricity being wasted to light a tree that probably won't even be seen by very many people. I found myself wondering if it was really necessary. Sure, the tree is pretty, and yes it lifted my mood when I saw it, but is that worth wasting limited resources? Especially in a time when towns (and the state) are having to re-evaluate their tax bases, cut their budgets, and find any way possible to save money. And at a time when Efficiency Vermont is constantly reminding people to find ways to conserve energy. Is lighting a superfluous symbol all night really the thing to do? Maybe we should find a different way to decorate it.

I got to thinking about how I decorated the first tree I had in my own apartment. I couldn't have it inside, because the apartment was too small, and I was very worried how Colyn would react to it. Instead, I put it outside on the tiny porch, and then I begged my mother to make me a ton of little, red, velvet bows. I wired those onto the tree as the only decorations. It promptly snowed, giving my tree a nice coating of white to mix with the green and red. It was the prettiest tree. If I ever manage to move into my own apartment again, that's probably what I'll do for a tree.

It occurred to me that maybe we could do that for a town tree, instead of using lights. Then again, making all those bows would be pretty expensive. Besides, a bow covered tree is only pretty in the daylight, and this time of year there isn't much daylight. So, my mind got to working, and spinning, and even smoking a little, trying to come up with a cheaper way to have a pretty night time Christmas Tree. And I lit upon the idea of reflectors. What if someone could design a kind of reflector that could be put on a tree, maybe like the traditional ornaments, or like the old fashioned tinsel. Then, as a car passed, the headlights would light up the Christmas tree and the driver would get to enjoy the tree without costing the town money. I imagine it glittering and glowing and looking wonderful. I also imagine myself becoming fabulously rich as the inventor of the Christmas Tree Reflector Lights. Too bad I don't know anything about inventing. I should probably just stick to my book idea and hope I get rich that way.

When History Becomes History

2008-12-04T18:14:00.004-05:00

Rude Cavewoman managed to find some chocolate and is now feeling much more Peaceful. Thus, today's post will be calmer and friendlier, albeit much sadder.

Yesterday, on my way home from RCHS, I heard a distressing bit of news on NPR. The Vermont Historical Society has announced that it has cancelled, suspended, put on hold, or however you want to say it, the Annual History Expo. Nine years ago The Vermont Historical Society sponsored the first History Expo. Since then the Expo has occurred each year in mid to late June and it has become hugely popular and informative. The Expo is as it sounds: a exposition featuring any and all local historical societies throughout Vermont, and any other historically related groups. It is held at the Tunbridge World's Fair Grounds, a site rich with it's own history. There is usually a turn out of half or more of all the local Historical Societies in the state, as well numerous museums and related non-profit organizations.

Aside from the booths for all these organizations, often each having it's own mini-presentation, there are author presentations, military presentations, an auction, old-time children's games, skilled workmanship presentations, an archealogical dig and lots of other fun stuff. Last year the History Expo was the kick off for the first ever Vermont Barn Census, the goal of which is to document all the barns throughout the state. This event has been embraced by Vermonters and out of staters alike greatly beyond anyone's original expectations. School children attend with their families for a fun and educational event. History buffs volunteer with their local historical societies to share a new story each year. Re-enactors arrive in period dress

I have attended all but one Expo. The last three years I have volunteered at the Expo, helping out in whatever capacity they need. I revel in this event. It is the highlight of my summer. Last year I went so far as to use paid vacation time so I could attend the event. The stories are wonderful, the presentations are wonderful, the people are wonderful, the entire event is just plain wonderful. I am devastated that there will be no History Expo in 2009. I think it is extremely sad that after all the work done year after year to draw people to this event that we won't be able to have it next year.

Yes, I hate Santa Claus, too.

2008-12-03T09:30:00.000-05:00

It's Christmastime in the U.S., which means that all the wingnuts are out in force. Oops. I'm sorry, wingnuts is not PC. I'm going to be open and honest right from the beginning of this post, so that you don't think I have some ulterior motive or hidden agenda or anything. I hate Christmas. And when I use the word hate, I really, truly mean hate. This is, by far, my least favorite time of year. I hate the stress, the commercialism, the materialism, and, yes, the blatant, in your face religiousity that I am forced to live with for 6-8 weeks. All the same, I still find myself celebrating it, if only for one more year.

My family, just about as unreligious as they come, has always celebrated a traditional, secular Christmas holiday, complete with tree, lights, garland, and presents. The extended family joins us and we give each other meaningless gifts that we all pretend to like and then immediately discard or hide in the back of the closet. We all rush around in a grumpy haze trying to bake and shop and decorate and remain cheerful all the time. And when it's all over, we breathe a huge sigh of relief and remind ourselves to start sooner and be more organized next year so that it isn't as stressful and we can actually enjoy the season. So, there you have it, that's the reason this particular atheist celebrates Christmas.

And every year some where in this grand U.S. of A. there is a heated debate between the Christians and the atheists about the Christmas parapharnalia. Should there be a Christmas Tree at school? A nativity scene at the town hall? The singing of Christmas Carols at the Selectboard Meeting? Ok, so I've never heard of any controversy surrounding that last one, but I'm sure it has happened somewhere. If not, someone write it down and use it next year. Considering how much I love the holiday, I'm sure you're not surprised to read that I would just as soon have all these decorations disappear from all the public spaces. Similarly, I'd love to have all the retail stores stop playing those disgusting, sappy, overly reworked Christmas songs. I don't care if you're Elvis or The Chipmunks, I don't want to hear one more word about what Santa and Mommy were getting up to under the mistletoe last night.

Except, as an atheist, I'm in the minority in this country (as I'm constantly reminded) and I don't get to have an opinion about the matter. I'm not allowed to be bothered by the fact that my local, state, or federal government is celebrating one religious holiday, complete with all the corresponding religious whatnot, to the near exclusion of all other religions. I'm simply not allowed to think that, or believe that, or say that. Because if I do, then I'm just being petty and I'm shoving my beliefs in your face. Which makes me a hypocrite, because that's the very thing about which I'm complaining (having your beliefs shoved in my face.)

Truly, I think there are a lot of arguments that can be made. Many, if not most, aspects of Christmas have become completely secular. The tree, the songs, Santa Claus; all those things are basically without religious meaning. So, it's difficult to argue for their removal from public space based on the whole separation of church and state bit. And, I can admit that the forced inclusion of atheist beliefs in the Christmas holiday celebrations is a bit of an....oddity. Really, atheists are marked by their non-belief in all the hoo-ha. The (forced) inclusion of a negative belief is something of an insult to those who believe.

But, here's my question to those who celebrate Christmas for it's religious meaning and think that it is imperative that religious symbols be present in all public spaces, including government space, during this holiday season: what are you celebrating, and why does that celebration require the display of your religious symbols in my public space? Please, with honesty and sincerity, explain what it is you are celebrating during this Christmas season. Is it the birth of Christ, whom you consider your savior? Is it goodwill toward man(kind)? Is it just a warm and fuzzy feeling? Or are you just following along with tradition and reveling in the rampant materialism that happens?

Now that you know what you're celebrating, please explain to me why it is necessary to have the trappings of your celebration displayed in my public space? If you're truly celebrating the religious aspect of Christmas, then I think I can safely assume you have all the religious symbols displayed in your home, where you can see them daily. I would imagine all those same religious symbols are displayed at your chosen house of worship, where you can see them weekly, daily, or as often as you like. If this is all true, why then is it necessary to have all these same symbols displayed in my public space? Is it detrimental to your celebration to be out of sight of these symbols for even a few moments? If it is not, then what is the purpose of demanding they be displayed on public property? Would it not be kinder, more tolerant, more understanding, more accepting and non-judgemental to simply leave the public space as it is for the rest of the year? We certainly have enough government supported nods to religion throughout the rest of the year, do we really need the added religiousity during Christmas? I'd like to think no.

And, yes, I hate Santa Claus, too. I hope the dog bites that sneaky little, chimney sliding, animal enslaving, height discriminating bastard this year.

I Prefer Whole Wheat

2008-11-25T20:10:00.004-05:00

Recently, while I was supporting my Dancing With The Stars habit, I endured a particularly obnoxious television commercial. I'd never seen it before then, and I haven't seen it since. I can't find a video link to show you, which is probably better for you. I can't even provide very good details about it. What I can tell you is that it was for some religious insert more polite word than "nonsense" here from Our Daily Bread. Which is some sort of daily dose of bible quotes and religious analysis to help those who have lost their rose coloured glasses to find them again.

The commercial involved a woman, who identified herself as the wife of some famous Nascar driver, explaining why the Our Daily Bread publication was so meaningful and important to her. As it turns out, Nascar drivers daily risk their lives driving very fast cars in circles with packs of other very fast cars all in the effort of going around faster than everybody else. The wives, and I would assume fathers, mothers, and children, must deal with the fact that any day her beloved Nascar driver goes to work, to put food on the table, he could be gravely injured or even killed. And, while it is difficult to face that knowledge on a daily basis, this woman has come to terms with it. Because she is so at peace with her husbands choice to put himself in danger for no better reason than fulfill his testoterone driven need to drive faster and be more macho than the other boys, she would like to share with all of us, the viewing audience, what tool helped her reach this peace.

And this is where we discover that Our Daily Bread is an indispensible part of her life. And we should all consider subscribing to this wonderful publication so that we, too, may be at peace with the dangers and difficulties in our lives. Blah blah blah.

Now, aside from the general annoyance generated by all things religious, I am down right offended by the idea that a woman who chose to marry a man who chooses to perform a dangerous but wholly frivolous job, deserves my sympathy for her troubles or my awe because she has overcome those troubles. Our Daily Bread could easily have chosen someone who truly does have difficulties in her life. Our Daily Bread could have shown a woman dealing with the loss of a child or a spouse, or a woman watching her child die, or a mother of 3 evicted from her home and forced to live at the homeless shelter, or the single father working 2 jobs and stopping at the food shelf on the way home so that his children can eat, or, even, the relative of a military person currently serving overseas. Any one of those people have real, and true troubles and need real and true help getting through the day in a positive, hopeful, and forward looking manner. But, the wife of a man who willingly chooses to put his life in danger for a testosterone game, is not someone who has real and true troubles or who needs real and true help getting through those troubles. She's a woman who needs either a psychiatrist or a divorce lawyer.

If that commercial was aimed at making your religion look even more foolish, unnecessary, or focused on the wrong things, then you've succeeded.

Talk About A Sore Loser

2008-11-14T22:59:00.003-05:00

This is the headline buried in the local section of my local newspaper today: "Defeated County Treasurer Blames College Students." I expected to read a story about a group of college students who actively canvassed for the winner. I did not expect to read about a 66-year-old dis-elected county treasurer referring to the supporters of her opponent as brainwashed. Even worse, this loser thinks that her supporters were the only "real" people. So you lost your re-election bid, Ms. Carol Elliott. That's sad. So you lost to a college student. That's slightly embarrassing. So you completely lost your cool and insulted not only your opponent, but also another elected official, who you referred to as a buffoon. That's just unacceptable. Please, Ms. Elliott, instead of throwing a temper tantrum and screaming that the other girl didn't play fair, maybe you should analyze what she did and what you did and figure out why you lost.

Furthermore, this idea that college students can be brainwashed is foolish. And especially those students at such a well-regarded institution as Dartmouth. You're seriously suggesting that a group of people who spend most of their time thinking, analyzing information, forming conclusions, supporting arguments, and communicating with each other are easily brainwashed? Which is to suggest that the rest of the voters were not easily brainwashed? This whole idea is as absurd as the idea that a 20 year old is not capable of fulfilling the duties of the office. Or is it that she'll be too busy going to Britney Spears concerts with her teeny-bopper friends to bother fulfilling the duties of the office to which she was just elected?

And all your local Republican County Chairman has to say about the situation is that he's concerned about the effect college students are having on local politics, because college students are only in the area for a short length of time. Does that short length of time not have any effect on their lives? Does what happens in the community, which effects Dartmouth College, not have any effect on the students at the college? Does what those students do for the community have no effect on the community? Perhaps they should stop volunteering in the community, considering how detrimental their effect on the community is. Obviously, some one who is only going to be living in the community for the better part of four years shouldn't have any interaction with the community. That person shouldn't have any voice in local politics. Only those who can be proven to have a stake in the community should be able to effect the community.

Now, how to prove a person has a stake in the community? Well, obviously, s/he needs to have lived in the community for more than 4 years. S/he probably needs to own land as well, considering that somebody who doesn't own land doesn't really have a stake in issues like property tax rates and budgets and what not. S/he also needs to have a child in the school system, otherwise s/he doesn't really have a stake in the educational system. Yes, in order to have a voice in local politics you need to own land in the community, have a child in the local school system, and have lived in the community for more than 4 years. Even then, if Ms. Carol Elliott or her chairman, Mr. Ludlow Flower, think you do not have enough of a stake in the local community, then you don't get a voice in the local community.

Ms. Elliott, your behavior has made it very clear which candidate was the more mature choice. Fortunately, the voters were able to see, and choose, the mature candidate.

Like A Death

2008-10-28T11:23:00.000-04:00

“I would equate it (McCain losing the presidential election) with a death.” That’s how Victoria S. Gelais feels according to an AP story in today’s Rutland Herald. Rationally, it is difficult to believe that someone would be so devastated as to equate the loss of her favored presidential candidate to the death of a loved one. Are we really so split as a country that we truly believe the other presidential candidate is that dangerous? I’ll be honest, when I hear people say they are afraid of Obama as president, when I hear people say they think he is dangerous, I cannot rationally understand it.

Dangerous is the drunk driver flying down the highway in his Suburban. Dangerous is the slightly unhinged individual walking around carrying a loaded weapon. Dangerous is the loose dog running free in the neighborhood terrorizing young children. Dangerous is not the other presidential candidate.

I have to be honest again, though, and admit that I’ve said about myself, “I’ll be devastated if Obama loses.” And I will. It’s not because I’m afraid of a McCain presidency, nor because I think McCain is dangerous. It is more that I am worried about a continued reliance on bully tactics and military force to solve problems around the world.I’m worried about the rhetoric making this an us vs them society. I’m extremely worried about McCain’s pandering to right wing evangelicals. If we were just talking about differences in tax policy and the role of the federal government, I don’t think I would be as worried.

But, my devastation would be about more than my personal dislike of the other presidential candidate. It would also stem from the sad realization that a majority of the citizens in this country truly do believe that the other candidate, with his stated policies and senate record, is the better choice. It would mean that people who support the anger, hate, and bully tactics that have been and currently are part of the process, are the majority. That scenario deeply saddens me and, yes, it is devastating.

A political race doesn’t have to be this potentially devastating, though. Here in Vermont we have a very similar race for governor. We have an incumbent republican governor, who is running for reelection, up against two strong candidates, one democrat and the other independent. I plan to vote for the independent. But, if the republican incumbent wins again, which is likely to happen, I won’t be devastated. I’ll be unhappy, but not devastated. Is this because I expect the incumbent to win and I’m not as invested in the thought of my candidate winning? Is this because I am not as invested in my gubernatorial (pronounced goober-natorial) candidate as I am in my presidential candidate? Or is it simply because my gubernatorial candidates differ mostly on tax policy and the role of the government?

Keeping Things Local

2008-10-26T00:46:00.006-04:00

Because I sometimes think I actually deserve some time off work to relax, and because I very much enjoy the creativity fostered by craft shows, I requested the past Friday off from work and headed up the Burlington with my mother for the Essex Craft Show. We go almost every year and it is always a wonderful experience.

I always come home from craft shows with so many new ideas. This visit was no different. There are hundreds of crafters at this show, but I want to share a few highlights. First, there are these super nifty art glass plates and lamps. There were two vendors with this sort of thing, but I was only able to get a business card with website from one. They were from New Jersey. Dinstinguished Art Glass

In a similar vein, these melted glass bottles were amazing. At first I couldn’t figure out what they were, but then I realized they are cheeseboards. They seem like such a perfect gift for the winelover who also entertains. Again, there were two vendors with this sort of thing, but I only noted the website for the first vendor I found. Treasures of the Vine

I have to admit, my title this time is somewhat misleading. The size of this particular craft show is such that vendors travel quite a distance to participate. Which means that many of them aren’t truly local. This is true of the first two vendors I listed, but now I’ll move closer to home.

Petra’s Creations traveled from Connecticutt. When my mother and I saw this booth, we knew it was something unique. Sadly, the website doesn’t do it justice. These are trivets, or hotplates. What you can’t see from the picture is that each trivet is made by sandwiching dried flowers, seeds, or fruit between two pieces of glass. They are visually pleasing, and hold up to use with dishes straight out of the oven. The colors and textures were amazing. Petra’s Creations

At any craft show the only group of vendors that can possibly equal the jewelers in sheer numbers are the photographers. The work is almost universally wonderful. One particular photographer caught our eye in Essex. Maine Focus Photography You’ll particularly want to peruse the Outhouse Humor gallery. The hubcaps on the side of the outhouse are a nice accessory. Mom enjoyed these so much, that we came home with a small print she is going to frame and hang in the bathroom.

Of course, two of my favorite vendors, two who also happen to be local to Vermont, don’t seem to have websites. One of them was Vermont Birch Bark Arts. The vendor painted on birch bark, with a very nice effect. The second was Sandy’s Sanity. The wonderful name notwithstanding, Sandy is the vendor who truly set off my creativity. She had painted snowmen on these glass blocks and then put white christmas lights inside the block. She used a gorgeous wide ribbon to make a bow on top. The entire affect was perfect. Even more perfect, I know exactly where to buy the glass blocks and the ribbon so that I can try my hand at making my own. Sorry, Sandy, but I can’t justify spending the money when I can get the supplies for half the price. I’m confident I can manage to paint a snowman.

Finally, I will direct you to my absolute favorite vendor. I’m thrilled to be able to say she’s local. Wonderfully local, right up in Montpelier. I can’t say that she had the most items for sale, because she really only had a few. Maybe 50 pieces. Nor did she have the most creative or unique display. On the contrary, the display was very basic. That was good, though, because it left all the glory to her product. And glorious it was. I’ve never seen anything quite like the marbles she has. The one she has listed on her website is nice, but the pictures fail to do it justice. The 3rd picture gives the best idea. I was able to take a few pictures of the prettiest marble. I think my pictures give a better idea of the marble. Somehow she has managed to create swirls of color inside this marble with such a perspective that you truly feel as though you are falling into the marble. To stand and stare at it for more than a couple minutes will leave you feeling calm and peaceful. I would love to be able to afford one to put on my desk. It would be the perfect way to clear my head while writing.

So, I leave you with the crowning glory of the entire show.

That Pit Bull With Lipstick

2008-09-10T11:45:00.003-04:00

When I heard Sarah Palin describe herself as a pit bull with lipstick, I cringed a little. I’m sensitive to the untrue stereotypes lodged against pit bulls. I’m also sensitive when such stereotypes are used in national media. Pit Bull owners and supporters are fighting long and hard against stereotypes and unfounded fears that lead to BSL. At the same time, I try to be reasonable about my response. Palin’s quote did not seem, to me, to be a blatant stereotyping of these dogs. I also don’t think it was a purposefully anti-pit bull statement. Of course, with that in mind, I was left to digest exactly what she meant by her statement. Was she tapping into stereotypes of Pit Bulls, or does she understand the real qualities of these dogs and she was invoking that image, or did she simply not know what she was saying?

First, lets take a look at the stereotypes of Pit Bulls. They’re vicious; it doesn’t matter their breeding or training they’re simply vicious. They have locking jaws; once they bite onto something they physically cannot let go. They turn on you; though they might have been a perfect family pet for years someday they will suddenly, without warning or provocation attack you or a family member. They’re just plain bad dogs and are not to be trusted.

Sarah Palin as a Pit Bull. She’s vicious, and it doesn’t matter how we treat her, she’s simply going to be vicious. It’s not a very good thing to say about yourself, but she might consider it an important quality in a vice president. She has “locking jaws.” Which might lead me to believe that once she makes a decision, or chooses a side in a debate, she will not be convinced to change her mind no matter what. It might also cause me to believe of her that she will not be good at, or even willing to, compromise. That doesn’t sound particularly bi-partisan to me. It doesn’t sound intelligent. It certainly isn’t a quality I would want in any of my representatives. She will turn on us. I wonder how well her handlers will be able to control her. Can I assume that at first she will seem well-behaved, a compliant party member, a vice president more than happy to take her lead from her president. Can I also assume that at some point, without warning or provocation she will turn on them all in a vicious attack. More importantly, if she does turn, will she turn in such a way that she suddenly supports my ideas, or will it simply be an inexplicable attack. Are these the ideas Sarah Palin really meant to suggest with her comment?

Now, lets look at the truths about Pit Bulls. They’re very loyal to their owners and families. They’re persistent and do not give up easily. They’re loving and affectionate and perfectly happy to be lap dogs. They’re also goofy and playful. As far as viciousness goes, they’re no better or worse than any other dog.

Sarah Palin as a Pit Bull. She’s very loyal. This is a good quality, definitely. My only question is to whom will she be loyal? To her state (as she seemed to suggest at one point) to her party, to her president, to her country? In a campaign running with a slogan of Country First, I’d like to think her highest loyalty would be to her country. She’s persistent. Again, this isn’t necessarily a bad quality. However, it requires tempering because at some point it is necessary to compromise or back off. She’s loving and affectionate. I certainly hope she shows these qualities to her family and friends, I don’t however need a hug from her. I’d be happy to settle with genuine concern, sympathy, and caring. She’s goofy and playful. While I don’t think goofy and playful is what we need in a vice president, as a mother I hope she knows how to be both. She’s no better or worse than any other vice presidential candidate. I can’t say as I believe that. If I disagree with her policy choices, then she’s worse than other candidates and vice versa. But, that’s not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It we were all the same, politics would be boring. Are these the ideas Sarah Palin intended to suggest by her comment?

Or, did she simply not know what she was saying? Is she unfamiliar with the stereotypes of Pit Bulls in today’s world? If so, then I am very worried about how well informed she is. Was she not thinking about what such a simile means? If so, then I wonder how strong her thinking skills are.

All in all, Sarah Palin’s reference to herself as a Pit Bull did nothing to endear her to me. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is one more thing that causes me to question her ability to be the vice president.

And just to put to bed one more myth about Pit Bulls. They don’t like lipstick, they prefer chapstick.

Lipstick is preferred

check out the 2nd picture

Just One Question

2008-09-03T23:00:00.001-04:00

Since the story came out that Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s 17-year old daughter is pregnant, I’ve been wondering how the girl ended up pregnant. Did her birth control method fail? Or did she fail to use birth control? To me, that is the important question. I’m not entirely sure what Palin’s views on birth control are. Supposedly, as a member of Feminists for Life she supports birth control while being anti-abortion.

There are lots of blogs being written stating that Palin is actually against birth control, that she only supports use of birth control by adults, that she only supports birth control for married adults, that she only supports abstinence-only education, that she doesn’t support sex ed in schools, that she doesn’t support the distribution of condoms to teens and etc. Many of these blogs refer to comments Palin made during her run for Governor of Alaska, most of the blogs don’t refer to any supporting information. Unfortunately, I can’t find first hand evidence of any of those comments. Palin’s website for her Governor race now directs me to McCain’s website.

I’m worried that these are Palin’s beliefs. I’m worried about what it means to have a VP candidate who is so much against education that can protect teens. I’m worried about what policies will receive her support.

Ironically, though, I found some valuable quotes regarding some of Palin’s other views of important educational topics. Supposedly originally quoted by the Anchorage Daily News, Palin had the following to say:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said.

"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion."

Were these quotes regarding the teaching of abstinence and birth control use in sex ed classes, I would be perfectly happy with her ideas. Unfortunately, these quotes aren’t regarding sex ed; they’re regarding the teaching of Creationism alongside evolution in science classes. *sigh*

Apparently, Palin’s views on education include teaching information that is incorrect and unsupported, failing to teach information that could generate important debates and help students make important life decisions, and pretty much basing a child’s education on the tenets of a faith that not everyone shares. I’m worried if this woman becomes the VP.

Are You Jealous Yet?

2008-08-26T23:38:00.006-04:00

After this weekend's crab apple jelly success, I decided to take advantage of a surplus of blackberries and make blackberry jelly. I've never made blackberry jelly before. Nor has my mother. Nor even the folks from whom I got the berries. Still, I like blackberries and this year's crop is particularly good (all the rain, I'm sure) so it seemed like a good idea. My sister and I went up to our cousin's farm and she borrowed one of their four wheelers to get to the berry patch. Which is less of a patch and more of everywhere along the four wheeler trails. We set to work picking berries and came out with 3 quarts, which is about what I figured we needed. Of course, our cousin gave us another bucketful because she'd been picking mostly for the sake of picking and had way more berries than she needed. It was difficult to walk away from all the berries. Everywhere I looked were big, fat, juicy, ripe blackberries.

I brought the berries home and washed them. Then I tossed them in a pot with some water and simmered them to mush. Despite how they look in the pot, they were BLACKberries when I started.

I mashed the mush, and strained it through a wire mesh sieve. It worked better than expected, and much easier than cheesecloth.

Look at all those seeds. Why on earth would anybody make jam out of these things? It wouldn't be a peanut butter and jam sandwich, it would be peanut butter and seeds. Jelly is a much better idea.

I added sugar. Lots of sugar. It's scary how much sugar is put into jams and jellies.

It's kind of cool the way the sugar absorbs some of the juice and then sort of creates a protective barrier around the rest of the sugar. It takes a lot of stirring to make it all dissolve.

Then the boiling and adding of pectin, as you'll recall from the crab apple adventure. We also have the "scary boiling up and almost over the edge of the pot." You're forced to turn the heat down, but you can't turn it down so much that it stops boiling. Very touch and go.

You'll have to remember the jelly pouring and wax pouring from the crab apple adventure, as it is most difficult to pour the jelly and take pictures at the same time. You'll also have to cross your fingers that the jelly sets up over the next couple days. Because if it doesn't, nobody will be getting any blackberry jelly good friend or not. If it does set up, it's some good jelly, I can tell you that much. I tasted it and it's superb. Sweet, sweet, sweet. Almost too sweet, but not quite. I may be forced to try another batch and boil it longer in the hopes it will set up better.

By the by, does anybody have any recipes for making juice out of this jelly juice? The juice I get for making into jelly is really more of a syrup. I think it would make a great juice for drinking, though. Same with the crap apple. Might be fun to make and can or freeze juice.

Again, I have calculated my approximate cost of making this jelly. Drum roll please: $1.50. But, that's only because I had to go out and buy more jars. If not for that, it would have been $0.50 a jar. Even at $1.50, though, it beats the grocery store prices. Now, if I can just find somebody with free raspberries, I'll be all set.

Localvore

2008-08-26T21:59:00.007-04:00

You've heard of the Localvore movement, I'm sure. It's becoming all the rage around here. We've had several articles in the local newspaper this summer regarding different people attempting different variations of the Localvore idea. I'm neither the cook nor the grocery shopper for my household, so I don't really worry about it. But, I'm feeling very Localvore lately. This past weekend, I made crab apple jelly. I love crab apple jelly. I hadn't had any for years and then a couple years ago I found an orchard with one crab apple tree. So, I made jelly. This year, we ran out of jelly and decided we had to make more. Except, those crab apples are expensive. Then we realized that the tree we walk by several times a week is a crab apple tree. And it was loaded with crab apples. Big, beautiful, red, crab apples. Free crap apples as it turns out, because the folks who own the property gave us permission to pick as many apples as we wanted. And that's exactly what we did.

We picked apples. (No, that's not me in the picture.)

Then we brought the apples home and washed them.

We removed the stems and quartered them, but we did not core them. We added some water, put them in a big pot, and boiled them to mush.

We mashed up the mush, strained it through cheesecloth, and measured out the juice.

We added sugar to the juice, poured it into a different pot and boiled it again. Once it reached a rolling boil, we added the liquid pectin, and let it boil for a couple more minutes.

We removed it from the stove, and scooped off the foam.

I let my mother pour it into the jars, because she is an expert jelly pourer and I totally suck at it.

We scooped off some more foam from each jar. We may not be taking it to the fair, but we want pretty jelly.

Because not all our jars are honest to goodness jelly jars (we're cheap and like to reuse store bought jelly jars. and pickle jars. and olive jars. and just about any kind of glass jar with a screw top lid), we have to seal some of them with wax. I let mom pour the wax, too, because she's so good at pouring. (Don't you just love my homemade loop loom potholders?)

And we now have lots of jars of beautiful, yummy crap apple jelly. If you're a good friend of mine, you're likely to get a jar at some point in the near future. If you're not a good friend, it sucks to be you. Perhaps your local grocery store will sell you some crap apple jelly, unfortunately, it won't be as good as mine.

And it's a good thing we didn't plan to take any to the fair, because one of the lids fell on the floor and was used even though it wasn't sterile any more. There may also have been a dog hair in one jar, but I think I managed to scoop it out. Everything tastes better with dog hair, though, so no worries.

If you're not a good friend of mine, but you do receive a jar of crap apple jelly, you might want to inspect it carefully. We've gotta do something with those imperfect jars.

For those interested, we calculated the cost of our jelly to be about $0.66 per jar. That's sixty-six cents people. There's still a whole tree full of crab apples. I should be selling this stuff; I could make tons of money. Home made jelly always sells for a premium. I might be able to charge a little more, or at least get more traffic by pointing out the oh-so-local aspect of this jelly. Of course, my costs might go up if I was selling it. I'd have to buy all pretty jars that could be properly sealed instead of pickle jars with wax. Still, though, I could make a definite profit on this stuff.

Wasn't I Just Talking About This?

2008-08-24T17:48:00.001-04:00

I certainly was. Sort of. Mostly I was talking about the distraction aspect of cell phones in classrooms. Then this article appeared in today’s Rutland Herald. (I’m going to warn you ahead of time of dripping sarcasm. You might want to don a hat if you want to avoid getting splattered.) So, Mr. Dad here used to be all concerned about cell phones in the classroom. He doesn’t say why he was concerned, but we can probably assume it had to do with distractions and the child not paying attention to the teacher. And when children don’t pay attention to the teacher it can quickly have a negative effect on the child’s grades. However, Mr. Dad isn’t at all worried about cell phones in the classroom any more. Not since he saw what his genius child uses the cell phone for: to take a picture of the home work assignment because he ran out of time to copy it down.

I’ll admit, it’s been a little while since I was in high school, and perhaps my high school wasn’t the most average of them, but as I recall teachers were usually pretty good about making sure there was enough time to copy down homework assignments. One might speculate as to why this genius child didn’t have time to copy down the homework assignment. Was he goofing off? Chatting with friends? Passing notes? Perhaps even using that cell phone to send messages? Maybe he didn’t have time to copy down the homework because he was busy wasting time.

But, I’ll be nice and give this child the benefit of the doubt. I’ll assume the lesson simply took longer than expected and everyone was hurried to copy down the assignment. In an effort to be a good student and both accurately copy the homework assignment and not be late for his next class, this child snapped a photo with his cell phone. Pure genius, I’m sure. And I can’t deny that this was a good way to accomplish both goals, and both goals were worthy. However, as I recall, the primary purpose of a cell phone is to make a phone call, perhaps to a friend, maybe even a class mate. As I also recall, if one fails to get a homework assignment, there are several options for getting the assignment. The standard procedure is to call one’s classmate and ask for the details. But, perhaps this is a particularly large school, or the student is in a class where he simply doesn’t know any of his classmates very well. Maybe there isn’t a classmate he would feel comfortable calling to request the homework. I’m fairly confident if the student were to walk into the teacher’s classroom during a break or right after school and make the request, the teacher would be more than happy to give him the assignment. I fail to see why keeping a cell phone turned on in a classroom, for the remote chance that one might need to snap a photo of a homework assignment, is suddenly a good idea.

Because We Need One More Distraction In The Classroom

2008-08-23T22:30:00.003-04:00

Yesterday was a rare occasion indeed. I found myself sitting down in front of the television, while it was on. I rarely do that. Even more rare, I actually watched the television. I mean, the Olympics are a pretty big thing. I suppose I might as well watch at least some of the events. (Had I known how good looking those male divers are, and had I known what skimpy swimsuits they wear, I can assure you I would have tuned in much sooner.) In between the Olympic Event coverage, I was forced to endure that bane of television: commercials. One in particular caught my eye, and not in a good way. I tried to find a link to it online, but was unsuccessful, so I will have to simply describe it to you.

It was a Unicel (no, not Unicef, which YouTube seems to think are the same) commercial in the current "back to school" campaign. The ad is a cartoonish drawing of several students in a classroom, with the teacher at his desk in the front, and one of those little speakers in the upper corner of the room. From the speaker you hear the morning announcements, which include a personal message for one little boy that his mother has called because he seems to have forgotten his "ointment" and the little boy can pick it up at the office at any time. As soon as the announcements are over, all the other students point and laugh at the little boy, who is shown with his head buried in his arms. The message of the ad being that as a parent, and to avoid any embarrassing situations for your beloved child, you should get said beloved child a cell phone. That way said beloved child can have it turned on all day, through all his classes, receiving and sending countless disruptive messages.

Here's my beef: cell phones are distracting. The last thing kids in a classroom need is another distraction. And we all know that kids are not going to be good and leave the cell phones turned off during class time. My second beef: any parent that needs to drop off a forgotten item to a student at the school will still be required to check in to the office and the student will then be called out of class to meet the parent, creating one more disruption. Or, the office will hold the item and call the student when it is more convenient and does not create a disruption to the class. My third beef: anything of a medical nature must be dispensed by the school nurse. Mommy can't just show up and hand beloved child some forgotten medicine. Mommy would have to give the medicine, and dosing information, to the school nurse, who would then administer said medicine to said beloved child.

That Unicel commercial is stupid. Unicel is encouraging classroom disruptions. Is Unicel also encouraging parents and students to break school security rules (and in light of all these recent violent school related incidences?) by delivering forgotten items without notifying the office? Is Unicel also encouraging parents and students to break school rules regarding the dispensation of medicine by having parents provide directly to students (forgotten or otherwise) medicine that should be dispensed by the school nurse? Do parents already think these behaviors are acceptable (which is a problem in light of school violence and teen drug issues), and is that why Unicel is able to air this commercial? Or are parents, and the rest of the general viewing audience, too stupid to realize the problem(s) with Unicel's commercial? Now, if parents are following school rules, then there is simply no need to call the student to let them know about the impending visit. But, then there wouldn't be any need for Unicel's cell phones.

And while I'm airing complaints about commercials, I'd like to mention the carpet commercial I also saw last night. Unfortunately, I did not catch the name of the carpeting company responsible for this advertisement. Again, I will describe it for you. A woman is shown posing with an elderly (and rather fat) looking yellow lab (such a ubiquitous breed). She is talking about how poor Doggy used to have to live outside because he caused such a mess. Cue to scene of lab knocking over a live potted tree in the living room and spreading dirt all over a light coloured carpet. Now, though, because this woman discovered (insert carpet company name here), said company having such great carpeting and such a great warranty, Doggy is now able to reside indoors.

Now here's my beef (Doggy is thinking, Mmmmmm Beef). Most dogs, the vast majority of pet dogs, should not live outside. There are some working dogs that must live outside to perform their jobs, such as those guarding livestock. There are also some sporting dogs who do better living outside, such as sled dogs. There are even those rare dogs who simply prefer to be outside. But, I find it very safe to say pet dogs should not live outside. Especially not shorthaired breeds like Labrador Retrievers. To suggest that messes created by the dog are a good reason to force the animal to live outside is offensive. By airing such an idea in a commercial, the idea is further cemented in society that it is, in fact, perfectly acceptable to throw the messy dog outside and leave it there. Gah, this commercial is so obnoxious.

I'd also like to know just how many people have live potted plants indoors. Seems like a kind of stupid idea to me.

Dear Editor

2008-08-15T23:30:00.000-04:00

Dear Editor:

I attended Senator Sanders’ meeting Thursday evening in Rutland to address the Comcast situation. I learned a lot, mainly about just how unfair Comcast is treating Vermonters and just how poor their customer service is. I also learned a lot about how much Vermonters value their cable access. I learned that some communities in Vermont have several choices for cable providers, some communities only have a couple choices, and some communities have just the one choice. I would like to remind people, though, that cable television is not our only source of news and entertainment (which is what cable television provides.) We have quite a few other sources, and they are much more affordable than Comcast Cable.

First, we have radio. It may seem old fashioned, but we actually do have a really great radio station in Vermont that provides a wide variety of programming. That station is Vermont Public Radio (VPR). VPR has programming that covers state news (Vermont Edition), national news (Morning Edition and All Things Considered) and international news (BBC Newshour and BBC World Service). VPR also provides news coverage for some niche subjects such as Sports (Only a Game), the environment (Living on Earth), and the economy (Marketplace and Marketplace Money). But, VPR is not limited to news coverage; VPR programming is entertaining. Whether it be an old fashioned variety-type show (Prairie Home Companion) or a short story (Selected Shorts) or a live performance (the Capitol Steps). Let’s not forget the ever popular Car Talk or Wait, Wait...Don’t Tell Me! VPR even attempts a family game night style party game with Says You! VPR even addresses religious faith with the program Speaking of Faith. And this is only a smattering of VPR’s offerings. Really, VPR provides something for everyone.

Second, we have our local newspapers (yes, the very one you are reading right now). Here in Vermont we have several daily newspapers as well as countless weekly newspapers. And of course you can find national newspapers. Between all of them, you can easily keep yourself informed.

Third, we have our often overlooked local libraries. Practically every town has one, just look at the summer Things To Do section for all the library book sales if you need evidence of how many libraries we have. Libraries are about more than books these days. They keep copies of local and sometimes even the national newspapers. Many are starting to keep collections of videos and DVDs that patrons may borrow. You might even be able to get free internet access. Whether you want news or entertainment, you should be able to find it at the library.

You’ll recall that at the beginning of my letter I mentioned the affordability of these options. They’re all affordable. Probably more affordable than Comcast Cable. Radio is free, though VPR always graciously accepts donations of any amount. If you’ve ever listened during a pledge drive you’ve heard them say it: whatever donation amount is right for you, is right for them. Even if you only set aside half of what you currently pay for Comcast Cable and donated that amount once a year, VPR would be thrilled to receive your contribution. They might even send you a thank you gift, which is something I’ll bet Comcast hasn’t ever done.

Some of the newspapers, namely the weekly publications, are also free. And there are a couple that do a very nice job of covering the local political meetings and school board meetings. The daily newspapers, though not free, are affordable. And if the cost of a newspaper truly is a problem, you have the third option: your local library. If it is your local library, there is no cost for a library card. For the larger libraries, there is a yearly fee, but I’m sure the yearly fee is still less than the cost of Comcast Cable for a year.

If none of this has convinced you that these are relevant options, let me just say this: these are all local options. You can talk to the people making the decisions and tell them if you don’t like something. They’ll probably listen to you. Plus, you don’t have to wait for Senator Sanders to get all fired up to be able to talk to these people face to face. You can do it when you run into them at the grocery store.

If Comcast insists on treating Vermonters with little respect or fairness, then we need to remember where we can get respect and fairness: with our local radio stations, newspapers, and libraries.

I'll Be Ready For You Next Time

2008-08-10T00:37:00.001-04:00

Some months ago a pair of young women accosted me twice in as many days to discuss my religious beliefs (or lack thereof). They identified themselves as members of the Mormon Church. I generally dislike being accosted by Mormons. I find it annoying that they show up uninvited and unannounced to attack my personal beliefs for no other reason than to make themselves feel better. They waste my time, annoy my dog, and show me a great deal of disrespect. I try to remain polite, or as polite as one can be while quickly walking away without a word or carefully shutting the door in their faces. One of my main problems is that I don’t have a script prepared, and without one I cannot make it clear to them that I am uninterested. I know that I am not clear with my feelings, because they never quietly shut up and leave; they always persist in re-explaining things for the gazillionth time and then leaving some nice literature for me to study. I guess I’m just too nice.

I dare them to show up on my doorstep now, though. Now that I have a script prepared. Now that I know what I want to say to them. I can only await with bated breath their next knock on my front door. I imagine the conversation going something like this:

“Hi, I’m so-and-so with the such-and-such blah blah blah Mormon Church. I’d just like to give you the August edition of our this-is-such-a-great-publication.”

“No thanks. I’m really not interested in your literature. Actually, I’m rather busy cleaning the toilet right now and I really must get back to it.”

“Oh. Well, how about if I just leave it for you to peruse at a more convenient time?”

“No, really, you can keep it. I don’t want to read it, and I won’t read it even if you do leave it here.”

“You’re not a Mormon?”

“No, I’m not.”

“And where do you attend church? To what denomination do you belong?”

“Well, actually, I don’t. Attend church or belong to a domination (oops, Freudian slip there, I meant denomination.)”

“You don’t? But, you do believe in God, and accept Jesus Christ as your savior, right?”

“Well, once again, no, I don’t.”

“You don’t? Haven’t you read the Bible and understood that God is your creator and Jesus Christ your savior?”

“I think, before we go too much further with this fruitless discussion, I should say this to you:

“Your religious beliefs are ignorant and dangerous. It is imperative that you let them go immediately, and in their place adopt my religious non-beliefs because they are so much better. Let me just go upstairs and grab some of my own literature, complete with links to informative (and interactive) websites that will help you understand the errors of your ways.”

stuttering, “Well, that is just more than a little rude. I think it quite unnecessary for you to attack my religious beliefs.”

“But, when you decided to show up, uninvited and unannounced, at my front door, professing your splendid beliefs and questioning my own non-beliefs, you were not in any way suggesting that my beliefs are ignorant or dangerous and you definitely were not trying to convince me to abandon my non-beliefs in lieu of your beliefs?”

stunned silence

“Yes, that’s what I thought. Please, go bother someone else now.” sound of slamming door.

Ok, ok, I know that is all pure fantasy. Any Mormon worth her/his salt wouldn’t go away so quickly or easily.

This is what happens when chance is forced upon innocent people

2008-07-31T22:37:00.002-04:00

We ask all Catholics of Minnesota and of the entire nation to join in a day of prayer and fasting that such offenses never happen again.

All Catholics are being asked to fast and pray as an act of reparation because of PZ’s threat/act of desecrating the Holy Eucharist. So, the catholic church is trying to guarantee this doesn’t happen again by requiring all Catholics to have to act in order to offset one non-Catholics actions? It sounds like the Catholic Church is just asking for it’s members to take more action than turning the other cheek should something similar happen in the future.

How about if police said that the next time there is a fatal car accident everyone in the nation will have to observe a day of mourning during which they will not be allowed to eat and they will be required to communicate with an imaginary being? Would anyone like to imagine what the response might be? I can imagine a lot of gung ho wannabe cops out there trying to make sure drivers use turn signals, maintain legal speeds, follow traffic signals, and generally obey all traffic laws. I can also imagine some of those gung ho wannabe cops using force or even violence to ensure drivers follow all the rules. I can even imagine a few gung ho wannabe cops causing problems while trying to prevent problems. In other words, requiring innocent people to pay the price for a strangers actions is like opening a door to violence.

Seriously, folks, if such a simple act is such a huge crime, perhaps the Catholic Church should be doing a better job of protecting the Holy Eucharist. And I don’t mean by attacking, physically or verbally, any person who dares to utter what might be considered as the slightest threat against the Holy Eucharist. I mean by taking care to ensure that those who receive the Holy Eucharist are in the proper frame of mind.

Has anybody else seen the new Batman movie and found Joker a most interesting character?

But, Isn't that Depressing?

2008-07-14T22:30:00.000-04:00

While I was trying to digest the Catholic outrage against Webster Cook, I asked a Catholic acquaintance and coworker her opinion on the matter. She was unaware of the Cook Controversy. Her initial response was that it was extremely rude of Cook to take the Eucharist from Mass. She also thought the death threats and such were unacceptable. I tried to press her on the “turning into the body of Christ” bit and she pressed me on the “don’t believe in anything” bit.

As many people do, she asked me if I really am an atheist. A whole-hearted atheist, not just an agnostic. Yup, I’m an atheist. Through and through. “You really don’t believe in some sort of ‘energy’ in the universe?” Nope, I don’t believe in some controlling, over arching, created everything energy. “Really? Nothing at all?” Nope. Nothing at all. “You don’t believe in some sort of soul? Or a place that the soul goes when you die?” Nope. No soul. We’re dust. We live. We’re dust again. We don’t have a soul that goes somewhere for eternity. We are and then we’re not. That’s all there is. “So, you truly believe that you don’t have any sort of soul, or energy or anything that survives into eternity?” Nope. No soul. Truly, that’s what I believe. “Then what do you think happens when you die?” I die. My physical body rots and disintegrates and that’s all there is. Memories of me are all that survive, and eventually even those will disappear. “But, isn’t that depressing?”

“Isn’t that depressing?” It is a question atheists often receive from non-atheists. For those who live their lives with the belief that their souls will go somewhere fabulous (or otherwise) for eternity, the idea of not going somewhere, not having a soul, is anathema. It’s depressing, and horrible, and enough to make you question your existence. But, really, it isn’t so depressing at all. In some ways it is extremely freeing. I am, in the end, judged only by myself. I don’t have to worry about meeting the standards of some being who supposedly already knows everything about me. I actually find my belief much less depressing. I only have myself to answer to, I don’t have to worry that all my thoughts and actions are recorded by posterity so that I may be finally judged by a supreme being who is all powerful. (It’s nice to know that no one will remember all those times when I embarrassed myself.) The idea that I might be damned to hell for the simplest infraction is hardly heartwarming.

“Then what meaning does your existence have?” is the question that usually follows the “isn’t it depressing?” discussion. Apparently, for those who believe in God, they exist because God created them. Everyone created by God has a reason to exist. They may not know what this reason is, they may not be fulfilling this reason. But, they may remain confident that everything that happens in their lives happens for a reason, probably tied to their reason for existing. For those such believers, the lack of a creator means your existence lacks a reason. There’s one answer to this question: my life has whatever meaning I give it. I exist simply to exist. If I like to eat chocolate and sit on the couch all day watching reruns of M*A*S*H then that is what I exist to do. If I want to spend my day off scooping poop and scrubbing kiddy pools at the humane society, then that is what I exist to do. The meaning of my existence changes daily. I exist simply to exist. There’s no big question, nor is there a big answer. There just is. I enjoy the freedom to form my life however I want. I may not succeed in meeting my goals, but I am free to reevaluate them whenever I want. I am dependent on myself alone to create meaning in my life.

Contrary to popular belief, I am not depressed nor unhappy nor stuck in a meaningless existence. I am, instead, free. And in my freedom, I am happy.

You're all going to Hell. Here, let me get the door for you

2008-07-12T18:28:00.004-04:00

As usual, I’m a day late and a dollar short. I’m sure everybody has heard about this by now, it’s all over the blogosphere. Just google Webster Cook. Then again, maybe you haven’t heard about it, considering I haven’t seen it in the newspaper yet and I didn’t see any major newspapers listed when I googled a couple minutes ago. Surely there is nothing new I can add to this, but I simply must try.

According to the only real article about it I could find, Link, and Cook’s responses, it seems that Cook did not initially intend to “kidnap” or “hold hostage” the Eucharist. He simply intended to delay ingestion long enough to show the Eucharist to his non-Catholic friend. His mission intensified when he was physically accosted by members of the church. When he continued to receive verbal attacks and even death threats, he finally relented and returned the Eucharist.

I find the whole thing sadly amusing. He just tried to show a cracker to his friend. He wasn’t even planning to take the cracker out of the church, he said his friend came to mass with him. As a non-Catholic, a non-Christian to be fully honest, I have only a theoretical understanding of the Eucharist. It’s a holy object to those who believe it is holy. To the rest of us, it’s a cracker. While I can sort of understand how Catholics might become enraged about Cook’s behavior, I fail to see why it is their right to pass anything other than church judgement against him. He “stole” the Eucharist. Or he “kidnapped” it. or whatever other term you want to use. So, he’s going to hell. So he’s excommunicated. So he’s wholely disrespected throughout the Catholic world. That is your prerogative as the leader of the church. It is not, however, your right to negatively impact his education or threaten his life. Asking Catholics worldwide to write letters to the University of Central Florida suggesting that he be brought up on disciplinary charges because of a “crime” he committed against God, is not your prerogative.

If you’re worried about a Catholic mistreating the Eucharist, perhaps the Catholic church should do a better job of vetting it’s members. Perhaps you should do a little more work to make sure those who receive the Eucharist have no criminal thoughts. Then again, if you did that you would surely discover that many (even most) Catholics don’t actually adhere to all the rules of the Catholic Church. I know at least one Catholic who engages in sex outside of marriage and I thought that was very much against Catholic church rules. Really, I’m not sure I understand why other Catholics have any say in the matter in the first place. If mistreating the Eucharist is a sin that will get you sent to hell, then let the guy go to hell. How is it any of your business?

On a tangent, there are so many responses to which I would like to respond, but I think a comment from here gives me my best option. “I think he has every 'right' to protest, but i (sic) think he crossed the line. It's one thing to protest in a peaceful manner and quite another to take an element of a large number of society's belief system and basically spit on it.” Funny thing about our right to Freedom of Speech in our democracy, we actually do get to do this. The same way Catholics and other Christians get to walk around touting their religious beliefs as The Truth, The One And Only Truth, even though that means taking the whole of a belief system and basically spitting on it.

What might be the most annoying part of this whole thing, is the fire PZ Myers has received for his comments essentially supporting Cook. In response to all this outrage against Cook’s actions, Myers promised to “show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare.” Yes, it was outside the bounds of politeness. Yes, it was inflammatory. Yes, it was probably down right rude. But, two wrongs don’t make a right. Calling for his employer to fire him and encouraging others who were offended to contact his employer calling for him to be fired, isn’t right either. That, too, is inflammatory and down right rude.

Lets just get to the heart of this matter, though. At the very center of this whole showdown is the Catholic belief that this little cracker actually becomes Jesus after it has been blessed versus the opposing belief that it is just a bit of flour and water and animal fat mixed together and baked. Catholics are offended by Myers’ comments because he is completely discounting their beliefs. He’s pretty much saying they’re wrong about the whole Eucharist thing. For this offense, he should lose his job. There isn’t, however, anything wrong with Catholics completely discounting his belief that it is nothing but a cracker, which translates to a lack of belief in Jesus, I think. In one case, Person X made a comment completely dismissing the religious beliefs of Person Y. In the other case, Person A made a comment completely dismissing the religious beliefs of Person B. In case one, Person X needs to be severely punished, so as to protect Person Y. In the second case, Person B needs to be severely punished so as to protect person A. *scratches head* Yeah, I’m having a little trouble with that one, too.

Democracy is Under Attack

2008-06-26T19:40:00.001-04:00

Capitalism is under attack

June 25, 2008

Rutland Herald

In response to Mr. Zivitz's letter about offshore oil belonging to us, yes, it is socialism, and last time I checked that is a failed system.

Our capitalist system has proved itself far superior. The thought of our government running an oil company — just imagine how screwed up that would be. I could see it now, higher prices at the pump and an unreliable supply.

This country's capitalist system is under attack everywhere you look. What's scary is the attack is from within. Every big company is demonized, and profit is looked at as taking advantage of the people. At this rate, we'll be the People's Republic of the U.S. soon.

DON JACKSON

Dear Mr. Jackson, you suggest that U.S. citizens are more and more often “attacking” capitalism, which you also suggest is the Great Building Block in the foundation of our country. You show proof of these attacks by pointing out how “big” companies are demonized and “profit is looked at as taking advantage of the people.” I believe your ideas stem from confusion regarding whether we are a democratic nation or a capitalist one. Let me help you. We are a democratic nation first and foremost. We have grown into a capitalist nation, but we remain a democracy. And that should always come first.

In a democracy we are encouraged to explore, investigate, question, judge, and voice our opinions about our leaders, representatives and legislatures. When our leaders take and spend our money in ways we consider foolish, we protest. We expect transparency from our democratically elected government. We also expect to be able to change what we perceive as problems.

Capitalism, however, works very differently. Most of these “big” companies work hard to be non-transparent, to hide their inner workings from us. It takes much research to find out what is done with our money, after we give it to a capitalist company. So, when we discover that the CEO of that company is receiving a phenomenally large salary and benefits package, of course we will be annoyed. And of course we will work to change it. That’s what we’re expected to do.

If we’re now realizing we aren’t quite as enamoured of strict capitalism as we thought, then perhaps capitalism needs to change. As I said before, Democracy comes before capitalism, which means capitalism will need to change to fit our Democracy because the Democracy is not going to change to serve capitalism.

A more rational rebuttal

2008-06-06T23:38:00.002-04:00

It is not a question of what that person's life is worth that I don't know, it is a question of whether their life is worth more than mine or my husband's to me? Because that is what it comes down to, do we have to work ourselves into an early death to fund every single need everyone in the country has?

The main problem with this belief is what happens when you extrapolate it out to every single person. What if every person believed this? What if only a simple majority of people believed this? Very simply, it means that you are worth less. As is your husband, and any children you may have. Your parents, your friends, your loved ones. You're all worth less. Worth less than who? Than me and my loved ones, of course. Because if I believed the same as you, the only ones worth my resources are those I love. And I can't possibly love everyone.

Furthermore, if you extrapolate this belief to the other "welfare" programs our taxes cover it means I'm not going to pay for the education of you or your children, nor can you drive on my roads, use my public library, or benefit from my personal police force, fire department or ambulance service. Because I'm working much too hard to have to share my earnings with anybody other than my loved ones. Damn the poor and their ignorant inability to pull themselves up by their boot straps. And I would just like to point out that there are those who "abuse" each of these systems. There are children who are truant more often than not, and yet draw tax payer dollars for that school. There are those who leave smoldering cigarrettes in a trash can or couch and end up burning down the house. Should we let that house burn down simply because the person made a bad decision? Should we ignore all the nearby houses that might also burn down? Do we just chalk it all up to bad decisions and walk away feeling snug in our belief that the same could never happen to us because we're smart enough to have made the good decision to not smoke?

Poor health care drags down more than just the person actually suffering from ill health. It drags down the spouse who shares fiscal responsibilities. It drags down the parents trying to help out. It drags down the children who are then without the many benefits money can bring. Really, it is not that unlike a burning building.

I think we are also failing to consider a "cost" in this whole analysis. What about the "cost" of losing an able bodied person from society? If he/she had been healthy, what contribution might he/she have made? Perhaps tutored a child? Been a big brother/big sister? Donated money to help fund the arts? Might that child whose parents were unable to afford the summer camps for science have found a break through in cancer research? What are we giving up when we give up on that person? There is no way to quantify it except to look around you at all those people who have contributed in meaningful ways to our society and just imagine if one of those people had been stuck with a major health problem and no insurance in our society. What might we have lost?

To me, your statement sort of sounds like these 3rd world countries we hear so much about. You know, those ones we lament about. The places we arrogantly believe would be saved by democracy and a free market. In those countries, the only kids who get an education are those with parents rich enough to afford the private schools. The only places with good infrastructure are where the rich want to be able to go, or need to be able to move their goods. The only folks immune from violence and thievery are those who can afford personal body guards or even a small army.

Let's be honest, it's not as if I'm (or we're) asking you to provide a Wii game for every household, or a new car for every 16 year old. I don't think anybody is begging the gov't for a big screen HD tv, or a brand new laptop. We just want to ensure that every citizen has access to and can afford treatment of health problems. And we'd like to prevent as many of these problems as possible. I truly believe we would have a healthier, more productive and happier society if each person was able to receive treatment for illness in an effective and timely manner.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face

2008-06-06T22:29:00.001-04:00

Because that is what it comes down to, do we have to work ourselves into an early death to fund every single need everyone in the country has? The answer to that is no, that person is not worth that much to me and no we will not continue to work at the pace we are to earn what we are in order to pay more taxes to support more welfare programs.

But, it’s ok for me to work myself into an early grave so that I can afford health care for myself? It’s ok for one of my friends to put herself tens of thousands of dollars in debt doing the drug research that is providing you with good health care? (Do you know how much work grad students do in the research field? Practically for free.) See, this is what bugs me about this discussion. The assumption that I’m not working hard and I’m just living off your taxes and your hardwork. Guess what, I work my ass off everyday. And I always have. I don’t want your hand outs. I don’t want your charity. I just want to be able to go to the Dr when I’m sick, and get regular health check ups to make sure I don’t end up with the diabetes that every single person on my father’s side of the family has. (I can promise you that letting me get preventative care now will be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for my care when I’m a diabetic and on a gov’t funded health care system because I’m so sick I can’t work.) I just want to be able to live healthy and happy. And that includes not having to work 10-12 hours a day 6-7 days a week. I have a full time job. I have a BA. I even have a fancy-schmancy title: department Manager. I make well below the living wage. The living wage around here (calculated by me before the hike in fuel prices) is about $12.50 per hour. And when I say living wage, that’s what I mean. That’s the average amount of money a single person needs to earn to be able to live. That’s rent (on an average 1 bedroom apt), heating fuel, electricity, phone, gas, food, car insurance, college loans. You’ll notice I didn’t figure in a car loan (because I’m smart enough to not get a car I can’t afford), nor internet access, nor cable tv, nor going out to eat once a month, or renting a movie, or buying a new pair of shoes, or any of the myriad of things that make a life. Oh, but I did include a pet because the stress relief is key. Guess what I make. $10.60 per hour. In order for me to afford to live, I would need to work my full time job (38 hours per week, with a set, but constantly changing schedule that already eats up 1 weeknight and every other weekend nights) plus another part time job. I’ve done this, and it is not a healthy way to live. I still barely made enough to pay my bills, I was constantly tired, over stressed and permanently sick. And I still couldn’t afford to go to the dr even though I had insurance. How can you possibly consider this a system that works? It doesn’t. It’s a simple fact. This system does not work.

The thing is, nobody has to stay at a low income job. You don't even have to go to school to move up from low income, you just have to keep a job for long enough to move up in your position there. Which brings up why I hate it that they keep raising the minimum wage. The only people this really benefits is the people who skip from menial job to menial job and have no desire to ever do anything better. It hurts small business. But that's another arguement (sic).

I’m sorry, but I find this deeply offensive. You think I’m choosing to stay at a low paying job? Do you think I really have that many other options? Seriously? And to suggest that education is not necessary is the most absurd thing I’ve heard. I guess I shouldn’t have wasted my time going to college. I could have started out as a school janitor and worked my way up to superintendent in no time, right? Because the higher paid positions rarely require further training, education, or skills. As a further example, I did exactly what you’re talking about. I started out as a part-time menial laborer. I helped put together the store I’m currently working in. I helped put in the shelving, set all the displays, put out product. I was lucky enough to be kept on as a peon cashier. Quickly moved up to a part time “titled” position. Then earned a full time “titled” position. Within 10 months of starting with this company I earned the position I currently have. Perhaps you’ll recall what my current wages are. And I’ve had my 1 year anniversary with raise. It was about 3%. That’s right, we’re talking a whopping 43 cents (give or take a penny). But, I’m sure if I just stay with this company long enough I’ll be just fine. Nevermind that they screwed me out of my health insurance.

Or, I could use the example of my previous job. Where I worked for 3 years, starting as a part time phone rep, and working my way up (rather quickly) to a full time full customer service rep. And even though I received glowing reviews, always learned all my tasks quickly and fully, worked hard, had near perfect attendance, and continually sought more responsibilities, management cut me off. Wouldn’t let me move up any further. Never saw my application for a higher position. When I quit that job I was earning a little less than what I’m currently earning. So, yes, the idea that you just have to stay with a company long enough and you’ll work your way up is perfectly valid.

Yes, I have qualms about putting the gov’t in charge of a health care system. Yes, I worry about those who will abuse the system. No, I don’t think we’re going to have a quick fix, or a miraculous cure. But, the status quo isn’t working. It hasn’t been working. It’s not going to start working. Staying with the current system just because you’re scared of the alternative doesn’t make sense.

The age old question: Who am I?

2008-06-03T14:10:00.002-04:00

I’ve been contemplating my online presence lately. The absolute first thing known about me online is my name. Before a reader can discover I’m a dog loving, people hating, sarcastic cynic, they see my name. Which gives them an immediate clue about me, might even cause them to greet me with some suspicion. That’s what it was intended to do. My online name has stood me well over the years. That’s who I’ve been online almost as long as I’ve been online. Lately, though, I’ve been embracing a new and different name. One with a completely different message. It’s a sad thing. I have a major attachment to my name, a sort of nostalgia about it. I’m not sure I’m ready to give it up.

Aside from my online name, who am I? What is my online presence, and how do people perceive me? More importantly, how easy or difficult is it for someone to put me together, despite my disparate presence. In some ways it is easy to track me down online. I just told you that I’ve used the same name for years. Practically everything I’ve posted online has been under this name. Go ahead, google me, see what comes up. Just by following my comments and postings you can get a pretty good idea of what my interests are. You can’t, however, find out many truly personal details about me. Which is as it should be, as far as I’m concerned. I work hard to keep it that way. As you can guess, I frequently contemplate all this. Because my online presence is so separate from my real life presence, those who know me online more than likely would never know how to find any information if I ever disappeared. I’ve seriously considered, and fully intend to, create a list of websites and appropriate posts for someone to take care of, should anything ever happen to me. By which I don’t mean I die in a car crash this afternoon; I simply mean if I ended up extremely sick, or injured, or yes, in the hospital, there are online communities who should be informed.

What I less often contemplate is what conclusions could be drawn about myself based solely on my online presence. This idea was brought to my attention by a blog I recently read that proposed a very interesting history writing assignment. http://beyond-school.org/2008/05/24/doing-history-with-web-legacies/ As someone who has studied history, and done research with primary documents, I have often lamented the fact that today we so rarely write letters or correspond in ways that can be easily saved for posterity. I have often thought that with our new online world, so much of who we are will be lost because it is ephemeral. I’ve never thought of it from the angle provided in that assignment. It’s quite fascinating.

So, now that you know my entire online history is available at the touch of a button (or click of a mouse), and I’ve gone ahead and told you to google me, perhaps you’d like to fulfill that assignment and help me figure out who I am.

The right candidate

2008-06-02T20:00:00.000-04:00

Can you imagine a candidate who was asked, “and Mr. X, what about Gay Marriage?” and responded, jokingly, “Well, I actually haven’t reached that chapter in my Democratic Party Candidate hand book, so I’ll have to get back to you. No, seriously, I personally support Gay Marriage. I see no logical reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. However, I’m struggling with this issue as a candidate. Is it right for me to enforce this belief upon the entire country? Is it wrong to with hold such a basic right from so many people. I understand that this is extremely personal for many people. I would remind you, though, that it is infinitely more personal for those homosexuals who are currently in a committed relationship that cannot be legally defined, than it is for those who are not in that position. I would ask everybody to keep that in mind as we discuss this issue. As I said, I am still formulating my thoughts on this subject.” Wouldn’t that be an amazing discussion. I’d like to think that conversation is possible.

Even better would be a candidate who was willing to candidly discuss the logic and arguments behind a contentious issue, such as flag burning. Perhaps such a candidate would actually explore the underlying assumptions behind the belief. Calmly, politely, open mindedly ask those who are against flag burning to explain why. Keep digging until you had a full, logical, thought out answer. Just stopping at the answer that it is anti-american to burn the flag, or unpatriotic, fails to explore the full belief. Once you have a fully thought out argument, apply the principals to other areas of life. Challenge the person to truly believe what they believe. This is something that we as a society consistently fail to do. We do not fully explore what we believe and we end up holding conflicting beliefs. If a person cannot fully explain why they think something, then perhaps that means they need to explore their belief more thoroughly to make sure that’s what they really believe. And if you don’t even know that you hold conflicting beliefs, you can never explore them.

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm

Deceive the people, manipulate the people, ignore the people

2008-06-02T19:59:00.002-04:00

Despite the “of the people, by the people, for the people” upon which our country is supposedly founded, we’ve given it up. We gave it up as soon as we started depending on political parties to make our decisions. Just look at the primary system. We get to go out and voice our opinion on who we want as the candidate. Then the “Father Figure” DNC takes our opinions under consideration, but makes sure there is wiggle room by granting these “super delegates” It is all based on the, unfortunately all too true, assumption that U.S. citizens aren’t smart enough to make the right choice. The accusations of elitism have been flung repeatedly at Obama, but nobody seems to mention the inherent elitism of a system that doesn’t even trust our ability as a society to make a decision. However, despite my agreement that the general populace of our country is uninformed and possibly unable to make an intelligent decision, I am very much against any system that over rides their opinions because of that. Instead of disenfranchising them, we should be actively working to inform the uninformed so that they can make an intelligent decision. And if that decision is different than mine, then so be it.

And what is the right decision? And for who? For the party? For the country? Which is more important? I’d like to think that we as a society could choose a candidate who is right for the country, even if that candidate isn’t right for one of the parties. When we look at the political process as strictly an Us vs Them competition, we do a great injustice to our country as a whole. I find it very likely that the best candidate for any given office is not the best candidate for the party. Not all Democrats are right and not all Republicans are wrong. But, until we admit that and work within a construct based upon that idea we’re never really going to be able to “reach across the aisle” and do what is best for the country. There will always be deep seated, strong, fundamental differences of opinion on what is the best path forward for our country and what is the best way to follow that path. We won’t all agree. We’re not supposed to. But, we can’t even begin to think about what is best for the country, when we are so busy worrying about what is best for a particular party. When you’re permanently focused on the party, and the power of the party, then you are, by definition, not focused on the country. They’re not the same thing. The US is not the Republican Party and it’s not the Democratic Party. It’s the US.

Furthermore, what kind of BS is this stupidity where you have to be a registered member of the party to vote. Is the Democratic Party that unwilling to accept support from anyone outside the party? Is my support of and belief in a Democratic candidate lessened simply because I’m not registered as a Democrat? Does the Democratic Party truly believe that they are better off without my vote? Or does the Democratic Party truly believe that it is essential that all Democratic voters willingly adhere to all tenets of the Democratic Party platform? Must I be so enamoured of the Democratic Party, and all it’s ideas and programs and efforts, that I be registered as a Democrat? And what if I’m not? What if I agree with some aspects of the Party but not others? What if I support candidate A in race X, but not candidate B in race Y? Am I thus unimportant and my vote not necessary? That’s what the Democratic Party is saying when it bans non registered Democrats from voting in the primary. There also seems to be an underlying assumption that you should vote a straight ticket, no? Otherwise why would I need to be a registered Democrat? Is it such a scary idea to think that I might vote for a Democrat in one race, a Progressive in the second, and *gasp* a Republican in the third? How else would my state end up with a solidly Democratic Legislature and a Republican Governor for a third time? I’m greatful that I live in a state where I do not have to register for a particular party to participate in that party’s presidential primary.

While we’re discussing this registered Democrat phenomenon, I find it extremely ironic that the Democratic party is touting the fact that so many Republicans are supposedly switching parties to vote for Obama. At the same time, in many states you must be a registered Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary. I guess that crossed party lines vote isn’t as important as they make it out to be, considering they are so insistent on getting registered Democrats. I just find it totally mind boggling that we are so caught up in this party nonsense. A candidate is a candidate is a candidate. Some are good, some are bad. Some are better and one is the best. Vote for the best one. Make a logical choice based on the things you hold to be most important and the candidate who will best address those issues. Don’t just depend on the party label the candidate happens to be wearing. I can tell you from experience, there are times when a flaming socialist is the best candidate and gets the most done. And there are times when the Democratic party needs to be smart enough to not run a candidate if they really want the best candidate to win.

And you wonder why I disbelieve in your God?

2008-06-01T17:05:00.003-04:00

http://goodpersontest.com/

So the first question is whether or not I’ve ever lied. Of course I have. I do not think there is a person on earth who has not lied. Even if you have never, ever lied since you were able to understand the concept of lying (yeah, right), you probably lied before you were old enough to understand. I don’t see this quiz quibbling over whether or not you understood the concept when you committed the crime, so you’re a liar. After you answer the 3rd question you can be fairly sure that the purpose of this quiz is to take the harshest position possible so you might as well accuse a 3 year old of being a liar. So, yes, I’ve lied. I will more than likely continue lying throughout my life because there are simply times when telling the truth is not a good idea.

According to the 2nd question, I’m a thief. Yes, I have taken things which were not mine. It’s pretty hard not to. Really, is there anything on this planet that can truly belong to me? Although, if I follow that logic, then nothing belongs to anybody else either, in which case I cannot take something from somebody else. Even though I can take something that doesn’t belong to me. Even if I use the more traditional logic, if I use a pen to sign a credit card slip and then accidentally forget to give it back, I have stolen. Hardly a hardened criminal, but I guess your God has high standards.

Question 3 deals with a basic aspect of being human: sexual interest. Of course, the test calls this lust. Because sexual interest is just human and lust is just evil. Have I ever, in my entire 26 years of existence, had sexual interest in another person. Any other person. The test doesn’t ask whether the person I’m lusting is my spouse. Heck, the test doesn’t even ask if I’m married. Simply have I ever lusted after another person. Does a bear shit in the woods? Of course I’ve lusted after another person. Are you seriously asking if I survived the hormones of maturing and didn’t experience them? Are you seriously asking if I ever actually was alive? Because you’d have to be dead to not experience lust for another person. And I can only imagine how the test would judge you if your only experience with lust was for yourself. I get the impression that wouldn’t help my image. Now according to the test, I’m an adulterer. Nevermind the fact that I’m not married. I’m an adulterer. Now, I hate to be blunt with you, but if this stupid test is going to accuse me of being an adulterer for simply having a sexual interest in a person you can bet I’m going to go right ahead and act on those thoughts. If I’m going to be slammed with the full judgement, then I’m going to deserve the full judgement.

Question 5 equates anger with murder. Oddly enough, the title of this question is hate. Not anger, hate. The biblical quote discusses anger, the question asks about anger, but it is titled hate. Is someone confused? Someone must be. To equate anger with an act of murder is absolutely absurd. Can you just see some perfectly calm mother telling her irate 4 year old, “sweety, you really shouldn’t get angry at me for asking you to pick up your toys. Don’t you know that if you get angry with me you’re murdering me? You don’t want to murder mommy, do you?” I can also just imagine the mental issues that kid would have as an adult. Can you see him on the shrink’s couch, “I killed my mother. Over and over and over again. I killed her. Why? Why did I do that? I was such a horrible child. I am such a horrible person. I don’t deserve to live; I killed my mother.” Even better, that grown up child walks into confession and says, “This weekend I killed my mother and younger brother. And then I went down to the gas station and ended up killing the cashier.” I wonder if they coach priests on what to say to that kind of confession.

According to Question 6 I’m a blasphemer. If you think this test is the first time I’ve ever been labeled a blasphemer then you’re clueless. That is a foregone conclusion. And it is hardly offensive, despite the cartoon picture of a royally pissed off dude. As if this question is the most offensive thing you’ve suggested so far.

Now the questions are just dumb. Number 7: have I taken God’s name in vain? Yup. But, I’ll be perfectly honest I’ve been trying much much harder not to do so. Frankly, it feels kind of stupid to use God’s name in vain when I don’t even believe in God. I’m trying to stop. I’m doing pretty well.

Now the little quiz is giving me a lesson in logic (really, who needs the lesson here?), trying to help me see that according to the quotes this test has used I am a lying, thieving, lusting, murdering, bad person. Not only that, but now the test wants me to admit my guilt. I have to actually click the little words that say, “I’m guilty.” If I try to get out of it by clicking on the “not guilty” link, I get a bunch of fun bible quotes telling me that everybody is guilty. That’s all, pure and simply everybody is guilty. Then why did you make me answer all these stupid questions if you already know I am?

Finally, I get to decide whether I’m going to heaven or hell. I get another fun bible quote to help me make that decision. This fun bible quote tells me all murderers, thieves, liars, and adulterers go to hell. So, do I think I’m going to hell or not? I seem to remember this nifty “out” for the whole hell thing if I confess my sins, or accept Jesus into my life, or some other stupidity. But, that’s not mentioned here, so I guess I can only conclude that I’m going to hell. If I think I’m going to heaven based on those other things I’ve been told about heaven and hell, then I get more bible quotes about how I can’t be exempt from judgement because God can’t allow such horrible people into heaven. When I still maintain I’m going to heaven, I get yet another fun bible quote (you know, these quotes really aren’t much fun anymore) equating me with a rapist. Awesome, now I’m a rapist. If this little test is supposed to be helping me think more of God, it’s not really helping.

Oh, here we go, if I just admit that I’m going to hell I get the fun hope message. God is hope, and even though I’m totally guilty and deserve to go to jail I don’t have to. So, after just telling me that any human judge who let a guilty rapist go free would be a corrupt judge, and that God cannot be a corrupt judge and thus can only let me go to hell, now I’m supposed to believe that God actually would let me “go free” to heaven? Seriously? What happened to little lesson in logic, because this does not follow any logic I know.

And, finally, a lesson in the gospels where Jesus is equated with a parachute. I’m supposed to trust Jesus the way I would trust a parachute. Except, I could inspect that parachute and make sure there aren’t any holes or tears or weak fibers. I could make sure it was packed in a way that allows it to properly expand as it is supposed to. I can’t inspect Jesus like that; kinda makes it hard for me to trust him. Besides, I don’t really feel comfortable forcing God to be that “corrupt judge allowing the guilty rapist to go free” just for little ol’ me. Especially considering how guilty I am. Furthermore, I’m more than a little offended myself that simply being human (lust and anger) are enough to sentence me to hell. Lying, stealing, and blaspheming I can understand. Ok, no I can’t fully understand, but at least they make more sense than the lust and anger.

Oh, and even if I admit right from the beginning that I know I’m not a good person, the test still insists that I continue so that I can find out why I’m not a good person. You know, I’m beginning to get the distinct impression that those who hold these beliefs are either sadists, masochists, or both. They obviously enjoy pain: giving it, causing it, receiving it. Pain, pain, pain. It’s all about pain.

...for Dummies

2008-06-01T12:30:00.002-04:00

Just because you read it in a book a hundred years ago does not mean it is true. Just because you read it in a dog training book does not mean you should apply it to every dog. Just because you think it is a method that is working well, does not mean you have the slightest clue about dog training.

My mother, the all-knowing dog trainer. Yeah, right. Countless years ago when we adopted a Golden Retriever puppy, my mother ended up with a couple of dog training books to aid our transition to a household with a well trained dog. It was hardly her first dog, or our first dog as a family. However, she'd never been quite satisfied with the training results of previous dogs. Hence, the training books. One of the books gave a suggestion that she has been using ever since. Fill a tin can with pennies or small rocks, tape the top shut, and then shake the can, or even throw it at the dog, whenever the dog is doing something you don't like. Is he sniffing along the edge of the counter? Shake the penny can. Is he inching his way into the forbidden dining room? Shake the penny can. As I recall, this seemed to work for the golden retriever we had for so many years. It bothered her enough to stop the behavior without traumatizing her. Of course, she was a very laid back dog. We don't have the golden anymore, instead I have a German Shepherd. A GSD who is in no way laid back. He is a moose. He makes up his own rules and then breaks them at will. He is more than handful. At the same time, he is a generally well behaved dog, with a few exceptions.

He has never understood the no dogs in the dining room rule. Then again, we have never truly enforced it. He thinks the rule is more along the lines of no dogs in the dining room while the humans are eating. It seems to work for us. What does not seem to work for us is the penny can. Now, he is not a dog normally traumatized, or even vaguely bothered, by loud noises. We had a short bout with Thunderstorm fears when he was a pup, but he seems to have outgrown it. As we all know, though, for every rule there is an exception. My GSD's exception is the penny can. It terrifies him. All one needs do is pick it up while he is watching and he'll tuck tail and slink away. Shake it and he'll avoid that room/object/person/behavior for at least a day. Actually throw it at him, and he mentally shuts down for a day. I can't explain the affect it has on him, I can only observe it. And I can't say as I particularly like what I observe. If it is scaring him that much, he's obviously not going to learn anything from it.

Case in point, in the past several months he has manifested a new behavior where he sneaks upstairs (another place he is not allowed) any time we sit down for supper. In the past, he was expected to stay out of the dining room and not beg or whine. He always did just fine with that. In the ever optimistic dog's mind that he has, he did sleep on the rug just outside the dining room in the hopes of catching a stray carrot, or something. In the past several months, though, as soon as we sit down for supper, off he sneaks up stairs. And not in the sort of "I know there's something upstairs I can get into while they're busy paying attention to their food." No, this is the sort of "I know it's not safe down here while they're doing the food ingestion thing, so I'll go where it is safe." Why does he suddenly think the downstairs is an unsafe place? I'm not entirely sure. See, I don't have the opportunity to eat supper with them every night, which is fine by me. However, it means I don't see their behavior every night, so I can't judge what it is they're doing that has changed my GSD's behavior. And I know it's something they've done. Considering that I have noticed the reappearance of the penny can, and I've heard my mother say that if my GSD doesn't learn to stay out of the dining room then she'll be using the penny can a lot more, I can only assume that she has been shaking the penny can at supper time for some reason. Perhaps he has been inching his way into the dining room as is his wont. And as far as she's concerned her tactic has worked. He's not in the dining room, or trying to sneak into the dining room. Instead, he's hiding upstairs (another place he's not allowed) in a very unhappy state.

I've explained to my mother that I don't like her using the penny can. It is not an appropriate training tool for him, and it only makes him tense and more apt to react with his teeth, which is already enough of a problem. She doesn't understand, though. All she knows is that when she uses the penny can, he stops whatever behavior offends her for a few days. She doesn't see the way it harms her relationship with him, or the fact that it simply makes him an unhappy dog. Every time she starts using the penny can more often, I am forced to increase my training to regain his confidence. It works amazingly well, but I shouldn't have to do it in the first place.

Why do I bring this up today? Because twice today my GSD has come slinking up stairs with tail tucked and ears flat to his head looking for safety. He's licking his lips, and yawning, and giving off every calming signal I'm aware of. And it's all I can do to convince him to come back downstairs. Why is he acting like this today? Because mom has not one, but two penny cans strategically located on the couch. He has a bad habit of sleeping on the couch at night. I used to let him, but mom doesn't like dogs on the couch so I've had to curb the habit. Except, it hasn't totally worked. I've tried a couple things, mostly involving making the couch an inaccessible or uncomfortable place for him. Mom says either that the method isn't working, or that it's too much work for her. Putting a baby gate in front of the couch: too much work for her. Putting two penny cans on the couch: no work at all.

Now my GSD is afraid of the living room. So, he can't go in the library because it is under construction. He can't go in the dining room. He can't go upstairs. He can't go in the kitchen whenever my mother (or father, or sister, or random stranger) is annoyed by his presence. That leaves him with the hall and the living room. And she just took away the living room.

Now I get to try one more time to explain to her that using penny cans is unacceptable. But it can't be wrong. She read about it in a book. A dog training book no less. How can anything written in a book be wrong?

Give and Take

2008-05-25T09:58:00.001-04:00

Yesterday morning I was desperately reading every article in the paper in an attempt to find something to blog about from the media. Somehow, nothing in the media has managed to raise my hackles in the past few days. When I didn’t find anything in the newspaper, I decided to focus on an issue that has saturated the media for the past several years: conservation, going green and protecting the environment. I was planning to take a look at how large businesses waste huge amounts energy. Companies leave lights and computers on over night all the time. Grocery stores have countless displays of products that need refrigeration but are not enclosed. Before I could get that blog written, though, I heard NPR’s Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me. I should have known that show would provide me with plenty of fodder for today’s blog.

First of all, we must arm ourselves to protect those holiest of men: Ben and Jerry. GWB’s bioethics council recently gave him a report discussing man’s dignity. A Mr. Leon Kass suggested, no he outright stated, that eating an ice cream cone is undignified. Well, Mr. Kass, ice cream cones are one of my favorite indulgences, and I consider Ben and Jerry holy men for their creation of their phenomenally delicious ice cream. If you are suggesting that I cease and desist my enjoyment of ice cream cones, well then you’re just nuts. And if you for one moment think the world is going to support you in taking out Ben and Jerry then you’re beyond nuts. Say this to any woman who has spent many an enjoyable evening watching a favorite sappy movie with those never complaining men (who are so few and far between) Ben and Jerry and you’ll be lucky to walk away wholly intact. Say it to a woman in the act of enjoying a movie with Ben and Jerry and you can be sure to walk away less of a man.

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=d8731cf4-e87b-4d88-b7e7-f5059cd0bfbd

http://bioethics.gov/reports/human_dignity/chapter12.html

Secondly, sexism in video games is finally proven. A video game for use in the urinal where you can drive a car, blast aliens in outer space or guide a skiier down a slope by targeting sensors placed around the inside of the toilet bowl. If you ever thought that video games were designed for males, then this game will definitely prove your point. Though the designers claim women can participate using a special paper cone, it is beyond obvious that the game was designed for men. Men, who only need one more reason to waste countless hours in their two favorite hobbies: videogames and playing with themselves.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/05/20/new-urinal-video-games-launched-in-belgium-by-beer-fans

Just One

2008-05-20T16:28:00.002-04:00

I happened to catch the first part of this morning's On Point on VPR. Tom Ashbrook was hosting a discussion of the California Supreme Court's recent decision supporting Gay Marriage. One of the many guests this morning was Brian Brown. Mr. Brown is the executive director for the California chapter of the National Organization for Marriage. Mr. Brown is against Gay Marriage. Mr. Brown is a moron.

Mr. Brown was only on the show for a few minutes, but it was long enough to illustrate just how much of a moron he was. First of all, he started by ranting about how activist judges are a huge problem. Then he stated that the California Supreme Court decision was just another example of how an activist judge can have a huge effect. He said, and I quote, "One judge forced this decision on California. One Judge." One judge? Really? One person formed the majority decision in this case? Funny thing, I heard it was a 4-3 decision, which means there were 4 (four) judges in the majority opinion. I know it's been a long time since I was in a formal math class, but I'm pretty sure 1 and 4 are different. Quite a bit different.

Perhaps I'm just latching onto nothing here, but that statement, that one statement, really pissed me off. Granted, most of what he was saying pissed me off. But, that one, that's the one that set me off. I don't often talk to the radio, there really isn't much point. But after I heard Mr. Brown's One Judge statement, I sat there fuming. WTF?!? I yelled. W. T. F. Do you even know what you are talking about? There were 4 judges forming the majority opinion, please tell me exactly which one of them is the One Judge. I'd also like to know what he'd be saying if it had been a 4-3 decision against Gay Marriage. Would he be standing there claiming it was One Judge who made the decision. No, I'm pretty sure he'd be standing there saying these are 4 terrific judges who really know what they're talking about and he's really glad they made the right decision.

And that's the other thing. We're talking about the California Supreme Court. Did you miss those two little words? Supreme. Court. I think that kinda means it's an important court, and those are important people. They're also probably pretty smart. Somehow I don't think it quite appropriate for some moron who can't even count to go around telling these 4 Supreme Court Justices that they made the wrong decision. I know they're only human, but still. It's not for Joe Schmoe to be telling a Supreme Court Justice that he was wrong.

And You Thought The Bridge To Nowhere Was Bad

2008-05-20T16:24:00.002-04:00

originally blogged Tues. 13 May

An acquaintance recently commented that perhaps it was time for Hillary to bow out of the Democratic Primary race. This acquaintance saw her continued campaign as a great silliness marked by a tragic waste of resources. Why, she asked, should Hillary continue to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a campaign that is doomed to fail? Though I did not vote for Hillary, I do support her right to continue campaigning. I do, however, agree that the amount of money that has been spent, and will continue to be spent, on this political race, by both parties, is tragic. The good that could have been done, here in the US and around the world, with that same money is amazing. I recently finished a book, Pearls, Politics, and Power, in which the author posed the idea that much good can be done in politics by politicians, and that those who volunteer in their communities should not discount politics as an avenue of do-gooding. The points made by the author helped me see just how much good a politician can do, but I still can't help but feel that the good that could have been done with this political money far outways the good that any of the candidates might achieve in office.

After putting to rest my thoughts about the wasteful practices of the current political campaign, I found myself contemplating in what other ways large amounts of resources are wasted on efforts that are, in and of themselves, doing good. Which reminded me of what I recently saw on Animal Planet.

While puttering around the house, I happened to enter the living room just as a skin and bones dog was brought into a vet's office. I don't know what show I caught, but it doesn't much matter. The poor dog had been abandoned to starve in a backyard. The house was in a cold climate, during the winter. The dog was left with no food, no water, and no shelter. The dog was, quite literally, skin and bones. The vet examining the dog stated that it was dying. And yet, they immediately set about trying to save the dog. I realize that it is a heart breaking story, and there are many animal lovers in the world who think it would be just as cruel to kill the dog as it was to leave it without food, water, and shelter in the first place. Yet, I cannot help but think that perhaps saving that dog was a tragic waste of resources. I know, I know, I have just uttered fighting words. With that one thought I will probably have my "animal lover" card revoked and have my pet owners license revoked for eternity. But, let me at least defend myself.

First of all, let me remind you that I am speaking of a dog that a vet has already stated is dying. Not almost dying. Not would have died if it hadn't been found and brought to the vet. Dying. The dog is dying. It's body already in the process of shutting down. The poor animal had no chance to survive. Not to mention the fact that the dog doesn't even have a loving owner to help care for it as it recovers. Despite all this, the vet and her staff immediately began efforts to warm the dog, and provide IV medicine and liquids. Even if the dog survived the night and subsequent days, it will be a long uphill climb to full recovery. A climb that will most likely be blocked numerous times by a multitude of health issues brought on by near death. With absolutely no guarantee of a finally healthy, physically or mentally, dog. For all these kindhearted people know, this dog is extremely aggressive, or has cancer, or heartworms, or failing hips. They could very well be attempting to save a dog that will only continue to require the allocation of resources to maintain whatever semblance of health is finally achieved.

And that's what it comes down to, no? Resources. Who is paying for the care of this nearly dead dog? More than likely, as is often the case on Animal Planet, a rescue organization or humane society has come forward to pay for the care. Perhaps the vet has even offered to allay some of the costs. Either way, a great deal of money will be spent on an effort that has little chance to succeed. We must also consider the time and space given over to this dog. Surely many hours of the vet's time and of tech's and assistant's time were taken away from other needs and devoted to helping this dog. If the dog somehow survived, there is then the time spent by a foster care taker as it continues to regain health. Similarly, the dog takes up space. A kennel or more at the vets office, and then a kennel or even entire room at the foster home. In each case, this dying dog will consume an extreme amount of resources.

Thus I ask, is saving this dog a wasteful use of resources? Should the dog survive, then most people would probably say it was not a waste. How could it be a waste if the ultimate goal, of returning a dying dog to health, is achieved? I will ask the question that I'm sure most would not ask. Is this dog so important, so worthy, that it deserves to have so many resources? Are there not other dogs in the world that would just as easily please a family looking for a pet? If we know nothing else about the plight of dogs in our world, it is that there are always homeless dogs looking for a loving family. And I would offer the idea that there is no one perfect dog for any family.

Stuffing a Sock In It

2008-05-20T16:08:00.003-04:00

originally blogged Wed. 23 April

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/NEWS04/804220375/1004/NEWS03

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/OPINION/804230302/1038/OPINION01

Last summer the Vermont Legislature created the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection to explore the possibility of expanding Vermont's Civil Union law to grant gays full marriage rights. The commission held public meetings to ask Vermonters how they feel about Civil Unions and gay marriage. The commission just released it's report to the Legislature. The report strongly recommended that legislators seriously consider the differences between Civil Unions and gay marriage, but the report did not actually endorse or condone either.

The most interesting part of this commission and it's report is the opponents to gay marriage. There are several groups in Vermont working against gay marriage. Two of these groups actively boycotted the commission's hearings. When the report was issued, the president of one of the groups said, ""They can't really claim to have heard from all Vermonters." If he is suggesting that the commission's report is faulty because the commission did not receive information from the (supposedly) many Vermonters against gay marriage, then he has only himself to blame. When a series of public hearings are scheduled for the express purpose of gaining information about a subject and you have information you consider important to the topic, then you attend the meetings. You do not behave like a grade schooler and refuse to share your information because you assumed your voice would not be heard, or because you assumed the leaders of the hearings were already decided. If they were already decided, then they wouldn't be hosting public hearings. Nor do you go out and hold your own set of hearings in opposition to the commission, which is what this one anti- gay marriage group is planning to do. First of all, the commission has already issued it's report, your hearings are too late. Second, you should have attended the commission's hearings.

According to an editorial in today's Rutland Herald, the commission reported that there was very little opposition to gay marriage voiced in the hearings. The legislature is going to read this, and very likely conclude that there is only a minority opposition to gay marriage. The legislature is (I hope) going to act on this information and begin the process of allowing gays to marry. And then the opposition groups are going to come crawling out of the woodwork, complaining that their voices weren't heard at the commission's meetings and they have been disenfranchised from the process. The opposition groups are going to point to the commission's report and claim that it was biased in favor of gay marriage from the beginning. The opposition is going to be loud and spread misinformation and attempt to convince Vermonters that gay marriage is just another way that the legislature is forcing it's liberal, left wing agenda on Vermonters. And that's going to piss me off. Because the opportunity was given for everyone to voice their opinion, share their information, and provide facts to support their ideas. If you chose to stuff a sock in your mouth and not share important information, then that's your fault. Don't try to blame it on anybody else.

I sincerely hope that when the opposition groups begin their whining and complaining we all remember who it was who refused to participate in the discussion in the first place.

A Passion for the Status Quo

2008-05-20T15:32:00.001-04:00

originally blogged on Wed. 23 April.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/OPINION03/804230303/1039/OPINION03

In his editorial today, Poor Elijah quoted a colleague from Kentucky who recently published a piece in Education Week discussing the unfortunate fact that schools seem to be only focusing on testing and scores. Apparently the Kentuckian suggests that more focus should be given to inspiring students and creating a passion for learning. As I was reading, I failed to understand why Elijah was quoting the Kentuckian. Elijah's columns usually focus on something in the education system that Elijah thinks is absurd, not working, or just plain wrong. I failed to see the Kentuckian's assertions as any of those. Elijah, though, was seemingly deeply offended at the suggestion that schools and teachers should be instilling a passion for learning in students. Furthermore, he scoffed at the idea that schools should be producing students "who desire to become responsible citizens." Oh, yes, later in his article Elijah claims to be in favor of teaching responsible citizenship. But, his idea of teaching responsible citizenship is to repeatedly remind students that in only a few decades they will be in charge of the country and will be responsible for all the decision making, and won't have anybody to ask for help.

Perhaps it is teaching methods such as Elijah's that has left the United States with an uninformed populace. If you read the newspapers, or watch television news reports, it is obvious that people are not interested in making informed decisions. All they are interested in is what one important leader supposedly says about another important leader. They don't have a passion for researching the truth. They don't have a passion for analyzing and contemplating the information they have. They don't have a passion for making their own decisions. In other words, they don't have a passion for learning. But, obviously Elijah thinks this is just fine, because a passion for learning is unimportant fluff valued only by those who have a "persistent philosophical distaste for....the 'end product'." Elijah must think he is qualified to teach students every single fact, quote, and theory a student will need through the rest of his/her life. Otherwise, he would value the passion for learning that compels a person to continue learning and reading and researching and thinking throughout the rest of his/her life.

This is perhaps the saddest part of Elijah's article. Elijah seems to truly believe that a passion for learning is not a part of life. He suggests we "take a look up and down the supermarket aisle, and...realize that the thirst for knowledge doesn't rule most people's lives." He suggests that just because an English teacher won't fall in love with Trigonometry (and why not, I ask?), then people shouldn't bother learning anything about a subject about which they are not passionate. He follows up this statement by saying, "learning for most of us isn't a passion." Elijah, are you suggesting that just because the majority of people in the United States today aren't passionate about learning then we shouldn't try to foster that passion in the upcoming generations? Elijah, do you truly believe that the status quo is acceptable?

I disagree, Elijah. Not that learning is not a passion for most people. Sadly, I agree with that statement. Just spend a few moments listening to any average conversation in a grocery store, or in an online forum. It quickly becomes obvious that the average person is not passionate about continuing his/her education. What I disagree about is that this disinterest in learning and education is a good thing. It's not. It is a terribly horrifying thing. I consider it the biggest reason that the United States does not truly support our education system.

Fomenting in the current and upcoming generations the idea that learning is boring and unnecessary once you have finished your formal schooling is a dangerous thing. It certainly will not create a responsible citizenry. Oh, but that's right, Elijah scoffed at the idea of creating a responsible citizen through the teaching received in school. Sounds like Elijah has things all figured out for himself.