And Another One...

Dukwe.com and its CEO seeks a very deligent, material obsessed copy editor, researcher and speech writer to join its team immediately. This will suit someone with a good background/degree in world history/journalism, a unique command of writting and an impeccable commitment to english language edits. This invaluable member of our team must have experience in speech writting and content research, teleprompter arrangement and setting, public speaking assistance to the CEO and available for countless international and national travels. Position will also cover running the publishing unit of the corporation, cordinating a forum and blogg sections, marketing materials and advertising copy creation and any and everything to do with words. Company is positioned to operate in 192 countries hence interest in translation of all materials, customization of materials to suit various world languages and cultures etc will be highly beneficial. Company is extremely pro-Christianity and pro-poverty alleviation. This position is for an experienced, creative, smart and deligent person ready to be an integral part of making a difference.
Please send resume and a cover letter that is specific to this post! NO Amateurs!!!!!
_____________
NOTE TO COMPANY: If you don't want amateurs, please learn how to spell.

How's This For A Bizarre Job Posting

Writer Wanted For Ex North Idaho Drug Kingpin: Looking for someone to write life story, unique story, unique Individual. Story consists of dealings with Colombians,Cubans, Mexican Federallies, 16 years in prison hanging out with mafia members from the Phildelphia Scarfo gang, Charlie Iannache, Anthony Pungitore, Gene Gotti-brother of John Gotti of the New York Mafia, being successful jail house lawyer. Story begins with the consequences for a boy with a gifted IQ who deals with uniagnosed ADHD and the path he takes in life through taking over the underbelly of the drug world,prison,self inflicted extrodinary rehabilitation efforts to his succesfull entrance back into society. This isnt some run of the mill drug dealer story! I SHOULD BE DEAD A HUNDRED TIMES OVER. GOD HAD HIS HAND ON MY SHOULDER TO GET THROUGH IT. ps: All Statue of Limitations are finished and all prison time completed. The story just needs to be told by a gifted writer. TO SEE 6 PAGE SYNOPSIS GO TO: http://bobbyconvict.blogspot.com If interested, please submit writing proposal/compensation plans. I would prefer to give the writer a portion of proceeds, but would pay the right writer to do the story. Follow up to the book would be self help videos/books for children-parents-educators-inmates to not go down the path I took, or to change an inmates life through education. please email me at: write4me87@yahoo.com

Movie Review: Last Holiday

This, the original 1950 British version, features recently established star Alec Guinness in the role of a George Bird, a mild-mannered, kind farmer equipment salesman who cashes in his life savings, quits his monotonous job, and sets out to spend the last days of his life at a posh hotel in an exclusive resort town. After being informed by a doctor that he has a terminal illness and that his demise is only a few weeks away, Bird aims to live lavishly for the first time ever. However, upon arriving he finds that the particulars and ironies of wealth and privilege, especially evident in the form of his fellow hotel guests are far more complicated and thorny than he could have ever imagined. By the time the film concludes, Bird recognizes that the strict English class system still very much in force in those days hems everyone in, regardless of station, and is comprised of a variety of ridiculous unwritten rules that no one questions, though they frequently complain about its byproducts. As an unintended man of mystery, he quickly becomes gossip fodder among the guests who have nothing better than to idly speculate about his true identity. This is a wholly justified swipe at everyone, regardless of class, and is meant as much for we, the viewers, as they the players in the picture itself.

The film's screenwriter, J. B. Priestley, was an unapologetic Socialist who help found the Common Wealth Party, and once was considered so far left that even liberal author George Orwell believed he was a clandestine Communist. In Last Holiday, the emphasis on class conflict and an unwavering sympathy towards the working classes clearly shows Priestley's influence. Furthermore, in a particularly interesting scene towards the end of the film, the hotel staff goes on strike, forcing the upper crust guests to perform each of the menial chores that would have been otherwise performed by the workers. Based on prior conduct, the audience fully anticipates that many, if not all of these silver-spoon blue-bloods would balk at the task before them, and while some express indignation at first, once engaged in the matter, they find an unexpected common purpose and unifiying solidarity in the act itself. Bird, however, spearheads the effort, and with his new found acceptance among the guests acquires full participation in the act. This scene could scarcely be more idealistic and socialistic in nature.

Even so, the working class doesn't come off looking flawless, either. Bird is frequently subject to a kind of sneering, condescending treatment at the hands of workers who assume automatically that since he has the money to stay at such a posh place that he must certainly share the snooty prejudices of wealthy people as well. Their loathing of all things bourgouise shows itself in caustic treatment and resentful conversation. For example, Bird borrows an expensive car from a rich guest and after cheerily proclaiming a hello to a lorry driver, he draws a particularly scathing reply dripping with sour grapes and envy. Earlier in the film, when making the most innocuous of comments, he receives the same kind of reply from workers who are designing a room to reflect the exacting specifications of a selfish, greedy doctor. Though the film's loyalties are clearly with the toilers, Last Holiday asserts firmly that unfounded and ill-placed anger, while understandable based on years of inequality, are often just as unfairly judgmental as the cultural elitism practiced by the upper class characters.

Even so, though the flaws of the so-called common people are at times unfair, they are nothing compared to those of their social superiors. Bird quickly finds he has more in common with the lower class hired help and with a new money East Ender than any of the upper class society members. Paradoxically, though, Bird also is entranced by the overtures of fortune and employment dangled in front of him by those highest up the food chain. Assuming he must be one of them, and they aim to drag him into their exclusive club devoid of societal inferiors. The old adage, "it takes money to make money" might, in this film, be written into stone as a law unto itself. Of all the stinging criticisms of the monied elite, this is the most damning of all. Bird recognizes with deep frustration that in order to be an influential force, even for good, one must be born into luxury. When assumed to be a member of the Old Boy Network, lucrative business deals fall into his lap, politicians take his views seriously, appointments to high ranking government positions are offered, and suggestions to modify labor-saving farm inventions are acknowledged and agreed to be incorporated into subsequent models.

Upward mobility alone is no solution, a concept which is illustrated by the presence of the cockney and his wife, who though they are very wealthy, they are still not considered worthy or fitting of a seat at the table. Much of this is because the man and his wife make no pretenses to disguise where they came from, and particularly because refuse to change their accents or their mannerisms to sound and seem more dignified. Bird does, however, make a strong impact on at least one woman of high society, who through his kindness and generosity is given reason to question her earlier baseless, cavalier characterization of the vile nature of her "inferiors". In this respect, his trip might be considered a roaring success, though it needs to be acknowledged too that he only manages, purely in leading by example, to win over two or three influential fellow guests to a new mindset. Most either refuse to contemplate their hand in the system or never contemplate it long enough to seriously commit to changing their long-established point of view on the matter.

As the film draws to its conclusion, it eventually becomes known to all of the gossipy guests, both rich and poor of Bird's true station and his real reason for taking a holiday. At first, the rich celebrate his talents and ingenuity with wild enthusiasm. The poorer individuals, particularly the staff, appreciate his sincerity and abject refusal to act as though he was better than they. Yet, by the end of the movie, when it appears that Bird has committed a social slight by not showing up at a dinner party thrown in his honor, the upper class guests are the first to turn against him and demean his character, while those with working class backgrounds or status still hold him in high esteem. This, the last of many scenes with an emphasis on class conflict and social commentary, might be the most important.

Quote of the Week

That is the truest sign of insanity - insane people are always sure that they are fine. It is only the sane people who are willing to admit that they are crazy."- Nora Ephron.

In Memory of Bonnie Tinker

Quakers are a relatively small faith group, so we frequently come in contact with the bigger names at conferences or events. Our modest numbers allow us the ability to often interact face to face with the most influential members. It is for this reason that so many Friends are saddened and shocked by the death of Bonnie Tinker. Her untimely demise was a gruesome end to the life of a woman who had been admired by many for her work on behalf of LGBT causes, anti-war demonstrations, and other activist causes for forty years or so. She had long lived openly as a lesbian with her long-time partner, and never felt any desire to hide the fact, which was much more of a liability thirty years ago than now. Her commitment to the Quaker Peace Testimony, which strongly emphasizes pacifism, led to her participation in Anti-War rallies, arrests, and even convictions in a court of law.

I met Bonnie for the first time (and regrettably, the last) back in January when I was still living in DC. She arrived with a bunch of out-of-town guests who were there to attend the forthcoming Obama Inauguration. The influx of a large number of visiting Friends made First Hour's worship much richer than usual. I will never forget the words of her vocal ministry during the service because they moved and inspired me to such a degree that I deliberately sought her out at the conclusion of the service to ask her a few questions.

She and I talked at some length, then she vowed to help me with my own concerns regarding encouraging and growing Young Friend attendance at meeting. She suggested several people I might contact and avenues I might consider. And right before we parted ways, she opened her arms to give me a hug and I shyly complied with the gesture, not expecting it and caught a bit off guard. Now she has passed on, but I feel fortunate that I at least had the opportunity to meet her, even once.

With a relatively uncommon last name of Tinker and well aware of her activist roots, I remember wondering if perhaps she was related to the Tinkers whose decision to wear a black armband to school in protest of the Vietnam War resulted in suspension and a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969. As it turns out, she was the older sister of the four Iowa students involved in the case. She lived her life in much the same way as her younger siblings had back then: unapologetic, unashamed, and never afraid to push the envelope to advance a cause. This attitude won her both friends and enemies over the year, as well as tentative allies who sometimes felt like her tactics went too far. Even so, she was a tremendously influential person who believed that Civil Disobedience had a moral basis, one that need not be constrained by laws and restrictions.

Saturday Video

Wild man's world is cryin' in pain
What you going do when everybody's insane?
So afraid of one who's so afraid of you
What're you going to do?

And In The End...

It was all about Sarah.

My Final Thoughts on the Matter

An Open Letter to Meghan McCain

Dear Ms. McCain,

This is written in response to your latest post on The Daily Beast, entitled "Forgive Mark Sanford".

Allow me to speak frankly. Do understand that you are probably the only self-identified Republican I currently take seriously. In an era where your party is increasingly defined by the Evangelical Christian far-right, I find Progressive Republicans like you a refreshing alternative to the status quo. It is a comforting thought for unapologetic liberal Democrats like yours truly that the phrase "Progressive Republican" might not need be an oxymoron. Indeed, you make many interesting observations, some of which I even agree with, but at times you also come across like the slightly naive child of privilege that you are. In columns like the one posted above, one recognizes your ample potential while also noting your youth and inexperience.

If you wish to be taken seriously, (and I firmly believe that you do) then I recommend you take the time to make sure that the examples you cite in your column line up and directly reinforce your points.

For example, in the column referenced above you write,

France—home of my absolute favorite foreign first lady, Carla Bruni—perfected the laissez-faire attitude toward the sex lives of its public leaders. Not here. We hold our politicians to impossible standards. We elect them, put our hopes and dreams for a brighter future on that one person, and then expect sainthood. Republicans—and Democrats—should forgive these private sins and move on. Life happens. People—especially politicians—make mistakes.

Carla Bruni has been known to make some very controversial statements herself---statements that if they been uttered by the American First Lady would cause a scandal. In particular, Bruni has stated in times past that "I am monogamous from time to time, but I prefer polygamy and polyandry". Additionally, she has noted that she quickly grows "bored with monogamy" and that "love lasts a long time, but burning desire — two to three weeks". Not only that, naked pictures of Ms. Bruni, taken when she was a model, have surfaced and sold for high prices at auction. Any one of these things would likely be unforgivable matters in the eyes of the American public and in particular, the conservative press, who made an issue out of a relatively benign Michelle Obama comment made during her husband's Presidential campaign.

Furthermore, it is one thing to forgive politicians for their zipper problems but quite another thing to make reference to a woman whose on-the-record comments seem to speak against the existence of any and all marriage or, for that matter, sexual fidelity. In a day and age where same-sex marriage is a hotly debated matter, if one took Bruni's advice at face value, then there would be no need for the institution itself, regardless of whether it took place within a heterosexual or homosexual context. Thus, there would be no need for court fights, protests, and coordinated approaches to advance the cause of same-sex unions. At this point, I probably ought to mention that you yourself, breaking with many in your party, have spoken out in favor of same-sex marriage in the recent past.

The societal expectations between the United States and France are about as different as chalk and cheese. France is a country where the residence have long held a cynical view towards politicians. In their collective attitude, all elected officials are automatically chronic philanders and all of them are heavily corrupt. At times I think this sort of attitude might be liberating, but I'm not sure I want to assume that when I go into the voting booth that every vote I cast, regardless of office or position, is for someone who is a sleazeball by default. America, with its Puritan, WASP heritage, seems to take the opposite extreme. What you are right to point out, Ms. McCain, is that we do hold our leaders and public figures to impossible standards here, both in their personal lives and in their chosen occupation.

This is, however, not likely to change. Politicians take a dual role in American life. Those we respect we use to project our own best qualities, or the perceived qualities we would like to have ourselves. Those we dislike are our whipping boys, who serve as a way for us to vent our frustrations and hostilities in socially acceptable ways. This is the nature of being in the public eye as it exists. Everyone who chooses to run for high elected office knows both the risks and the great benefits that are the nature of the beast before going into it. I, for one, hope that we might find some middle ground between the American and French attitudes, but cultural mentalities are stubborn matters and do not evaporate overnight.

Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes

As longtime readers know, I deliberately try to keep my personal life off of here. I'm making an exception for right now because the matter at hand isn't simply an issue of interesting anecdotes, but instead is the springboard for a much broader issue I'd like to address. Or, in other words, what my family went through the past five months was a laborious, protracted nightmare that did not draw to a close until two days ago. I was advised not to write about anything about it or to mention it in any public forum until matters had been firmly settled once and for all. Thankfully, a emotionally taxing ordeal is over forever and I am thankful that I no longer need to worry about the outcome.

The issue in question is a fairly straightforward one. It is not only straightforward but it is agonizingly commonplace. In short, for several months my youngest sister was in a relationship with an abusive boyfriend. The last six months they were together, his drinking increased, his verbally abusive behavior towards her grew in frequency, and he began to border on threats of physical violence towards her. All of this came to a tipping point one evening, when, after having endured a particularly awful round of yelled threats and menacing violations of personal space, my sister became fearful enough for her physical safety that she hit him. It was a clear matter of simple self-defense. Yet, when the police arrived a few moment later and noticed that he had a black eye and chipped tooth while she herself had no visible marks, my sister was summarily arrested for Domestic Violence. She spent twelve lovely hours in a jail, the minimum amount of time one must spend according to the provisions of that flawed piece of legislation, and then was informed she'd be obligated to go through preliminary hearings and a trial before a judge.

The deepest irony among many in this situation was that the law under which she was charged had originally been designed to protect battered spouses/common-law-wives/girlfriends against abusive men. In this circumstance, the exceptionally strict parameters of the statute and the rigid way it was required to be enforced left the officer called to the scene no choice but to arrest her and charge her with a crime. So let me state this very firmly. I don't doubt the motives of those who pushed for this law. Neither do I doubt the sincerity and nobility of their intentions, but what was enacted into law was overkill. Who bears the blame in drafting the bill is not nearly as important to me as to the fact that no one bothered to take into account its potential drawbacks.

As for the resolution of the matter, after the family and my parents had expended much time, money, and energy into the matter, the charge was rightly thrown out of court by the judge. Yet again I saw how slowly the hands of justice work and how utterly flawed our court system can be. Had it not been for the skillful work of my sister's attorney, the District Attorney might have forced a jury trial. The plaintiff never showed up in court, at which point the pending charge or charges are supposed to be dismissed automatically. However, the D.A. made a motion to try to bring the arresting officer to the courtroom in place of the defendant, a maneuver technically against the rules, but thankfully the officer was unwilling to do so. After being informed of this, the judge summarily dismissed the case. I'm not sure how the arresting officer could have been of any help to the prosecution anyway, since he wasn't an eyewitness to what happened.

The details are important in that they underscore a real world example of how bad laws affect real people. The larger point I wish to make is that the times in which we live clamor for reform. Indeed, I and many of you have urged for significant change in every imaginable area. This is well and good. However, the lesson I have pulled from this circumstance is that we ought to make sure that the laws and statutes that are crafted and then get signed into law do not create new, unforeseen problems in spite of the best of intentions. Sometimes this is unavoidable due to changing circumstances and changing times, but sometimes sloppy logic and knee-jerk overcompensation is highly avoidable if the wording of the bill itself, well prior to being enacted, is sufficiently parsed and checked for both clarity and scope. In our desire to want a resolute fix for a larger societal ill, may we be cautious to not overplay our hand. If we do so, it does no one any good in the end.

Sonnet

My friend and me
Looking through her red box of memories

Faded I'm sure
But love seems to stick in the things you know

Yes, there's love if you want it
Don't sound like a sonnet, my lord

Yes, there's love if you want it
Don't sound like no sonnet, my lord

My lord

Why can't you see
That nature has its way of warning me?

Eyes open wide
Looking at the heavens with a tear in my eye

Yes, there's love if you want it
Don't sound like no sonnet, my lord

Yes, there's love if you want it
Don't sound like no sonnet, my lord
My lord

Sinking fast within a boat without a hull
My lord

Dreaming about the day
when I can see you there

My side
By my side

Here we go again and
my head is gone, my lord

I stop to say hello
'Cause I think you should know by now

By now
By now

By now
By now

By now
Oh, by now
Oh, by now

Oh, by now
Oh, by now