Saturday Video

I Wish- Graham Coxon
___________

I wish the music would play by itself,
Shredded fingers
no ideas

I wish this rainy day could be the last,
Could the world end?
What a Godsend

I wish I could stop
wishing you were here,

But I don't want to
coz' I'd still want you

I wish I didn't
feel so flippin' mad,

Don't wanna scare you
just wanna love you

I wish my life could
last a thousand years,

Then I'd be clever
and build a heaven

I wish I could bring
Nick Drake back to life,

He'd understand
hold my hand

I wish a constant
stream of happy shit,

Live forever
in world of leather

I wish the rain would
just leave me alone,

I can't wear that
stupid rain hat

I wish I was in California
Pernod perfume
in the Danube

I wish the thing of love
meant just one thing

Cinderella
Salmonella

Why Real Reform Takes Forever

It's hardly surprising that health care reform has taken much longer than expected and has been a contentious process to enact. Our country comprises hundreds of millions of residents, takes up a massive land area, and is home to so many different shades of political point of view that it amazes me at times that we can even agree on anything. In particular, the always-thorny tightrope act between regional concerns and greater national interest that we call Federalism complicates and typifies the American experience. This, first and foremost, has created a delay in the process of securing true universal health care coverage. The larger issues embedded along with the facts and proposals speak to both how we view our immediate neighbors to how we view our fellow Americans, regardless of where they might choose to call home. The short answer can be summarized in only one word: fear.

Fear guides the reservations of many who distrust any government program and automatically assume it will waste money and give rise to massive corruption. Fear guides the decision of each individual Representative or Senator when he/she wishes to have the particular views of his/her constituents incorporated into the proposed legislation while using strong-arm tactics to ensure of this. Fear provides ammunition to the insurance agencies who have thrown their collective weight behind defeating any kind of health care reform and/or public option. Fear encourages unfair stereotyping and hasty generalizing of people other than us who are found in other states, other regions, other economic classes, other ethnic backgrounds, and otherwise live lives we foolishly believe to be nothing like our own. Cynicism runs hand in hand with fear, which, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt eloquently noted in his First Inaugural Address, "paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

I have always found it deeply unfortunate how negativity and the most distressing of human emotions provide for the pretense of unified sentiment in ways that positivity and altruistic efforts to improve conditions for every living being do not. Naturally, this is nothing new. Religion acknowledges this directly, pointing out that the basic nature and inclination of every human is disproportionately selfish, self-centered, and self-absorbed. Yet, it also states that this is the tragic flaw of all humanity and until we find a way to curtail our me-centered attitudes, we will never be free.

We can, however, be coerced to unify our voices, but this only works with any frequency when we are either attacked by another country/enemy group or about to declare war on a hostile party. Look throughout history and one can find numerous examples of disparate religious, ethnic, and ideological elements thrown together under a single banner who eagerly banded together under a common flag for defense and out of fear of defeat. Of course, when the battles subside and the militaristic rhetoric dies down, so too does that cause of unity. What we are struggling with then is an ancient matter no less known to our distant ancestors than to ourselves at present. And until we find a means to extend the big tent to each of us by means of cooperation and mutual purpose, governments will continue to resort to tactics that propagate discord and hatred to manipulate popular sentiment in their own favor. Change is possible, but it will require us to have an honest conversation about the big picture, rather than getting bogged down in the pointless bickering over policy and triviality. We do have a choice.

Film Review: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp

A Technicolor epic, 1943's The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp holds its own against any Hollywood offering from the same era. Though based on a popular comic strip, the filmmakers fleshed out the character and made a point to bring him to life in believable fashion. A well-intentioned, but slightly bumbling figure, Major General Wynne-Candy finds that his naive earnestness often comes at the expense of his pride or his ability to not have the wool pulled over his eyes by those far less motivated to strictly follow the rules. In its nearly three hour running time, the audience observes nearly a half century of his life, including military adventures, tragic romance, pervasive friendship, and shooting wars. Discerning a larger meaning beyond retelling the plot is no easy feat. Indeed, the film's meandering plot and lengthy running time makes reviewing rather difficult, but the film's back story is far more compelling.

Then Prime Minister Winston Churchill hated the film and tried desperately to stop the film from being screened. Though the Prime Minister could not prevent it from being shown to domestic audiences, he did manage to block its export to other countries, particularly the United States, whose movie theaters were not allowed to screen the film (albeit in a truncated fashion) before native audiences for two years, after which the War had ended. While Americans in particular have a tendency to deify Churchill as some sort of tour de force of noble purpose whose eloquent rhetoric and far-sighted foreign policy decisions saved the Free World from the demonic pestilence of Fascism, what they are less inclined to take into account is his unfortunate refusal to see the world in anything less than resolutely evil black or virtuously pure white. This regrettable tendency is in large part a reason why British voters threw Churchill and the Conservatives out mere months after the war had been won, substituting the old lion in favor of Clement Attlee and his Labour party.

From the distance of more than fifty years, one can hardly understand Sir Winston's extreme reservations. Though not specifically a propaganda film, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp takes several swipes at German brutality, German hypocrisy, as well as one large salvo against what it believes to be the folly of Pacifism and the futility of maintaining dignified rules of conduct in a world that no longer follows the honor code. Though staunchly Pro-British, the film is mildly critical of conventional military tactics, believing that only the adoption of Total War can produce victory for the Allied cause. Churchill's reservations, in particular, rested upon a German character whose virtuousness and spirited opposition drove him to reject Nazism and as a result, flee his native land. Apparently, the Prime Minister believed that informing audiences that not every German was an unquestioning disciple of Der Fuhrer was a dangerous assertion and that he much preferred every Hun be reduced to a one-dimensional caricature of robotic inhumanity instead. The Anti-Nazi German, Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff, is in many ways calmer, more collected, and more rational than Major-General Candy. Perhaps what got under Churchill's skin the most was that the main character seemed loosely based on him, particularly mirroring his start as a figure in the public eye by means of being a daring, headline grabbing fighter during the Boer War.

You Must Be Joking

While perusing jobs again, I was struck by one particular qualification. Pardon me if it seems a bit, well, unnecessarily exclusive in scope.

__________________

Qualifications:

Minimum of two years of college coursework or equivalent experience required

One to three years of research experience required

Exceptional written and verbal communication skills

Ability to work independently and in a team environment

Efficient with regard to using computer programs such as Word, Excel, etc.

Ability to work well under pressure and meet deadlines

Ability to interact and communicate with a variety of people in a a professional manner

Ability to represent the organization in a professional manner

Thorough knowledge of animal rights issues

Adherence to a vegetarian lifestyle

Commitment to the objectives of the organization

____________________

So, let me get this straight. You can be a well-qualified candidate, but if you aren't a vegetarian, then you don't quite fit the profile? Does this sound a bit unfair to you? Is this even legal?

*The job in question is with PETA. I will say no more.

The GOP Response

I Lost My Health Insurance, and What You Need to Do to Keep from Losing Yours

In an irony that could not be more timely, I've now lost my Medicaid coverage. Due to a variety of circumstances too complex to repeat here, my coverage terminates at the end of the month. I am now in a rush to find a way to reinstate it, while knowing that even if I am put back on the program rolls it will be 90 to 120 days before my coverage resumes. Even if I file a request, there is absolutely no guarantee that I can even get it back. Even if I didn't have one of those dreaded pre-existing conditions/chronic illnesses requiring lifelong treatment, I would still be absolutely furious at what has transpired. My situation is neither unique, nor more timely, but it does illustrate how desperately we need real Health Care Reform and how dire is the need for millions of Americans. The reforms needed go beyond wonkery and require us to change our pre-set mentality regarding the nature of government-assistance and the too-often ephemeral reality of tax revenue.

In formulating a new system, we must use caution not to perpetuate the flaws and inequalities of the current system. What might be the most infuriating reality of many is that Medicaid, the only option now available for poor and/or low income residents adopts a sternly suspicious attitude that automatically treats everyone who uses its coverage as though they seek to cheat or otherwise misuse the system for their own selfish ends and, in doing so, waste taxpayer funds in the process. In many states, particularly red states, taxpayer dollars are allocated grudgingly at best so the system must be constantly careful not to run out of money. This creates ridiculous cost-cutting measures like eliminating basic dental care and only allowing visits to a psychologist for those under the age of twenty-one. The message, whether directly stated or implicit, is that children and teens can have good teeth and good emotional health, but adults cannot. When a particular state or district's Medicaid program advertises up front with a great degree of pride that it actually covers dentistry, one cannot be struck with how completely unfair and nonsensical are the rules and regulations that govern the system in every part of this country.

No military contractor, major banking conglomerate, large corporation, government agency, or recent receiver of bailout funds is, or has ever been monitored so closely or forced until quite recently to resort to draconian tactics in a desperate effort to keep from depleting its budget. We sit idly by while all of these dubiously necessary entities waste money by swelling to ridiculous, ungainly sizes, adding department upon department as well as important-sounding but ultimately meaningless management positions that cost thousands upon thousands of dollars each to maintain. They perpetuate their own existence by formulating field-specific jargon and loudly proclaim their supposedly essential role in the grand scheme of things but once bad decisions are made and enacted that threaten to topple not merely themselves, but every American, they are pronounced too big to fail and swiftly bailed out. I suppose I just don't understand.

At the other extreme is the manner by which we raise and allocate health care funds for those not nearly fortunate enough as ourselves. As the line of logic goes, if poor, underprivileged people need health insurance, we have no other choice but to use Gestapo style, Machiavellian tactics to make sure they're using the system the way it was intended. Medicaid and Social Security, two federal/state based agencies linked together in a spirit of common purpose, are actively encouraged to find every way they can to turn off Medicaid coverage and in doing so free up available resources. Since the focus is on acute care, not on maintaining long-term health, nor even on proactive measures which seek to prevent severe illnesses that often result in hospitalization, those who clearly have achieved some modicum of basic health are closely scrutinized. If, for any reason coverage can be terminated, it is swiftly done with a surgeon's precision. Applicants, not wishing to lose their coverage, are often forced to lie about the severity of their illness in order to maintain Medicaid.

The immediate assumption that lies underneath our current, highly inadequate government-run health care system is something to which I take most offense. The idea that those most needy and least blessed by the advantages we routinely take for granted need to be governed harshly by some kind of cruel overseer lest they take a mile when granted, at best, a half-inch raises my ire to unprecedented heights. I'd use a charge of racism or classism here if I wasn't aware that the real problem includes these societal ills but goes well beyond them. Implicit in the formulation of any kind of government assistance is as a mean-spirited attitude on our part and of those who drew up the legislation which callously asserts that fellow citizens must all, collectively, be in search of a free lunch and in so doing will use every means they can to manipulate the system to their own ends. One can never fairly paint a complex situation with such a cavalierly nonchalant brushstroke. Offenders can be found in every system, in every class, and in every race.

I think perhaps we might think that we ourselves are not big enough, nor powerfully enough to make an impact upon the massive corporation or the military-industrial complex but that we can somehow exert some degree of influence upon a few thousand ordinary human lives. And I suppose some ought to be satisfied that such a thing can be done, though I'd scarcely feel any reason to rejoice at the way it turns out in the end. As for right now with our current health care debate, whatever system we adopt must avoid this immediate, prejudicial attitude of suspicion and condescension. If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that we all are guilty of it in some way, shape, or fashion. Instead of expecting the worst, for once, I think it might not hurt us nearly as much as we might think to us to instead expect the best. The people now who desperately cry out for medical insurance and the ability to heal themselves have a genuine need and currently have few, if any substantive means to achieve it. If we do not act decisively now to assist those less fortunate than us, you might be the next to be told, by way of an maddeningly impersonal form letter, that it is your coverage that will be the next to go. We are the ones impeding change and we will be the ones that ensure its defeat unless we are honest with ourselves.

Warning: Personal Stuff Ahead

Pardon me for breaking my own rule, but I need to write a bit about personal matters right now. I suppose I'm mostly writing to process out some heaviness that's been weighing on my heart over the past several hours since I stepped off the plane. To put it plainly, I have to say I hate this recession for many reasons, but seeing my girlfriend bawl her eyes out at the airport when it comes time for goodbyes is probably number one. It never gets any easier. I feel just as helpless now as I felt the last two times we were forced to part ways---both instances identical to now where unfortunate circumstances required yet again we resume a long distance relationship. I feel as though I ought to know precisely what to do, but I don't. I just don't.

Men are biologically programmed to be fixers. Men like to find solutions for problems and then bask in the satisfaction of a job well done. In situations like these I recognize again, with no small frustration that I can't fix a thing. I can't fix a bad job market. I can't fix a rotten economy. I can't use my magical powers of charisma, earnestness, and articulacy to snake charm an employer into offering me a job. I can't flawlessly navigate a system that I barely understand myself. I can't fix the anguish she feels when we have to say goodbye for a little while longer. In time, of course, she calms down and I calm down, but I have come to dread goodbyes because I can clearly see the approach of the emotional roller coaster they produce headed directly towards me and I brace for impact, knowing a certain amount of pain is unavoidable.

If my story were unusual, that would be one thing, but I spoke with a friend of hers last week about this very thing. The friend is in the same situation I am. She majored in Anthropology and pursued a specialized track within that field, only to find that the jobs she was counting on after graduation had completely disappeared. Now she's left just as rudderless as I am, running into much the same existential confusion and angst. Nothing feels worse than a problem with no solution. Nothing produces more unfocused rage than knowing one's fate depends on forces beyond one's control and beyond one's comprehension, really. If there are rules to this world of not enough jobs and too many applicants, no one seems to know them. Instead we formulate our own personal philosophies to explain a poorly demarcated and incomprehensible system built on shadowy concepts and unknown variables which we are never privy to knowing.

To some extent, I understand why Obama's poll numbers have been slipping recently. It's hard to be patient when one is suffering. Still, a part of me knows that a financial crisis this dire cannot be solved overnight, either. But in between a selfish, me-centered, instant gratification mentality that grows dangerously closer to the status quo with every passing second is the equally real fact that times are tough all over for almost everyone. Sometimes we have to reconcile what our head says with what our heart says. In this situation, both make valid points and it is nothing short of foolish to try to forsake one without taking into account the other, and vice versa.

I often like to remind myself in times like these of the struggles of my dirt-poor Grandparents who grew up in the rural South during The Depression. My Grandfather Camp received two and only two presents for Christmas in those days: an apple and an orange. That was it. He was glad to have them, of course, because fresh fruit was quite expensive, but it underscores how good we have it. It underlines how much we take for granted, even when we have to tighten our belts a little bit. I suppose if you put it in those terms, I really don't have all that much to complain about, and yet part of me clings fast to my sense of righteous indignation.

Quote of the Week

Though this passage is phrased in Christocentric terms, I encourage even non-theists to contemplate the central message, which directly addresses the overall impact of the activism we espouse and the roots of the change we seek. This is not a means to admit defeat, but rather it is a way to acknowledge a realistic perspective and challenge our assumptions in the process.
_____________

It helps, now and then, to step back and take a long view.

The kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
it is even beyond our vision.

We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction
of the magnificent enterprise that is God's work.

Nothing we do is complete, which is a way of saying
that the kingdom always lies beyond us.

No statement says all that could be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith.
No confession brings perfection.
No pastoral visit brings wholeness.
No program accomplishes the church's mission.
No set of goals and objectives includes everything.

This is what we are about.
We plant the seeds that one day will grow.
We water seeds already planted,
knowing that they hold future promise.

We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces far beyond our capabilities.

We cannot do everything, and there is a sense of liberation
in realizing that. This enables us to do something,
and to do it very well. It may be incomplete,
but it is a beginning, a step along the way,
an opportunity for the Lord's grace to enter and do the rest.

We may never see the end results, but that is the difference
between the master builder and the worker.

We are workers, not master builders; ministers, not messiahs.
We are prophets of a future not our own.

Amen.

---Attributed to Archbishop Oscar Romero, but written by Bishop Ken Untener

Saturday Video

La la la la
so nice to be in Magic America.

If at First You Don't Succeed....

I'm afraid I have some frustrating news to share. As you know, I interviewed for two jobs this week and regret to say that both positions were offered to other people. In situations like these, one often wishes to know what decision process that went into the matter, why one was deemed insufficient for the job, and what the hired candidate possessed that I did not. Naturally, I'll never have the benefit of a behind-the-scenes understanding, even though possessing it would put my mind at ease more than this nebulous resolution which is, of course, all that I was provided. "Highly qualified but not what we were looking for" has become one of the most maddening motifs I've ever encountered, and I get it so frequently these days that it creeps into my dreams.

The way that the economy is these days, one should scarcely be surprised. With a tremendous pool of potential applicants vying for almost every decent job, employers are overwhelmed with the sheer numbers and have the luxury of selecting their dream candidate. In the past, when jobs were more plentiful, employers had no choice but to hire those whose credentials weren't a perfect fit. What upsets me is how employers have modified the job description of many jobs, increasing the minimum number of years of related work and expanding the skill sets one must have to even be considered. Many of these positions pay about as much as the average entry-level position, but companies seek a candidate who should, in all fairness, command a much greater salary. Not only that, nonprofits in particular require work experience that could only have been attained by those who had the luxury of working unpaid internship jobs. Unpaid internship jobs are only a feasible option for those who come from affluent backgrounds where Mom and Dad covered their expenses. Most people who had to work for a living during college and graduate school to be able to stay afloat did not have this option available to them.

Employers continue to silently trim benefits. Some offer only health insurance these days, having eliminated 401K options, life insurance, and other perks previously offered in good times. One employer with whom I interview saved money by offering only the cheapest group plan for health insurance, which provided only baseline coverage and capped any service at a certain dollar amount per fiscal year. In other words, if one got critically sick, one could easily expect to exceed the minimum coverage amount and be expected to pay the rest out of pocket. Even with the threat of a public option for health care, private companies offer individual plans at a tremendous expense that only those with substantial means could afford, and none of these covers pre-existing conditions. Since I have a pre-existing condition, purchasing an individual plan, which was an expense I could barely afford as is, makes absolutely no sense.

Most of the problem is due to an over-saturated job market. In the worst job climate since the Great Depression, the odds are astronomical that one even gets an interview. 17 out of 20 applicants for any posting should expect nothing further. 3 out of 20 should expect an interview at all and, of course, only one of those will get the job. I have probably put out somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,100 to 1,200 job applications since the end of March and have gotten a grand total of 4 interviews. Frequently I receive e-mails from employers who praise my credentials in some detail, but quickly add that I was one of 800 other applicants for the position. The only thing one can do in this situation is just apply, apply, apply. I took two days to do my interviewing here and then began yesterday methodically sending out applications yet again. I don't really have much other choice, nor does anyone, really.

Goodbye, Crocs

After a glut of hard news, one occasionally needs a break from the heaviness of it all. Do forgive me for steering deliberately towards popular culture this morning, though my intent might be to mock it severely. For those of you who know me well, this is hardly unusual behavior on my part. Today I'd like to vamp a bit on the topic of the shoes pictured at the top of this entry.

Let the record show that I have never owned even a single pair of the monstrosities known as Crocs. To me, they've always looked for all the world like something nurses and dental hygienists should wear on the job, but certainly never when out in public. The now-likely demise of the company that makes them would be celebrated by me in the identical way as I applauded the death of lots of bad ideas that should have never seen the light of day, like say, slap bracelets and chia pets. No one ever went broke by refusing to taking taste into account or with a burning desire to eliminate eyesores from the face of the earth. And, for a while, the pestilence of plug-ugly footwear graced the feet of what seemed like every other person I passed by while out in public. As I mentioned, since the company is now broke and likely headed for bankruptcy, I report with much satisfaction that I might be spared forever or at least for the most part.

In the beginning, Crocs were designed purely for boating and sports-wear purposes. They had been created and marketed by a small, tight-knit group of enterpreneurs who started a company based on a simple premise, hawking a product designed for a very specific purpose. For reasons unknown, however, their product struck a chord with the buying public, quickly swelling to epic proportions as a cheap, comfortable shoe for every occasion. No one ever knows when the Zeitgeist will arrive and in what form it will take and apparently Crocs were the living personification of the time of their creation. Of course, it should also be noted that they had their fair share of detractors and supporters all along, with those in favor often taking the role of apologist and those against it passionately contemptous of the damned things. By the end, Crocs were undone by a combination of over-expanding, a souring economy, and a product that, due to its disgustingly heavy-duty construction rarely wore out and as a result, seldomly needed to be replaced.

I do grant the makers of Crocs some degree of grudging respect for making a product that holds up well, but in that respect they seem to have bucked the unwritten rule of the system. Many companies would have designed a model that wore out within a year or so, forcing those who wished to seem fashionably trendy to purchase a new pair every so often in order to be up to par with the latest fad. That would have been the quickest way to cash in and make the largest profit margin possible. Ironically, had they done so, they might conceivably been able to weather the latest economic storm that will likely prove to be their undoing. Where business ethics is more and more an oxymoron, I do appreciate anyone who takes into account the customer base first, rather than the bottom line.

Yet, as the old saying goes, Crocs got too big for their britches. An unfortunate tendency in the Wild West World of American capitalism is to expand too quickly due to simple greed and to swell massively in size beyond the point of all reason. Borrowing money while aiming to significantly yield increased market share is a calculated risk that is tantamount to throwing caution and the odds to the wind while seated at the gambling table. The best, and longest lasting companies take modest risks, knowing full well that all fads and fashions are ephemeral and thus prone to a kind of fickle fate that always arrives without providing fair warning beforehand. The potential monetary gain is always substantial, but so is the possibility of failure. Yet, when times are good and the coffers are overflowing, the temptation for more, more, more often supersedes restraint or rational thought. It has been said that the best gamblers know when to quit and collect their winnings from the table, and this applies to every company in the private sector.

Enjoy the Music

Today is a busy day for me.

In a Spirit of Fairness

Today, GOP senators will grill Judge Sonia Sotomayor in an effort to derail her ascent to a position on the Supreme Court of the United State. One of the most fervent challengers will be junior Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, whose full name, it must be mentioned, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III-- sounds like a Confederate general. The comparison is apt, particularly when one takes into account past statements he has made and contemplates his hometown of Selma, which was home to Black Belt plantations and slave labor during the Antebellum period.

In a spirit of fairness, I wanted to include a few eyebrow-raising quotes that Senator Sessions has said in his long career of public service.

I've seen it time and time again, people do not testify against innocent people, they, reluctantly, only testify against guilty people.

We don't pay judges to think; we pay judges to rule on the law.

Here, a lengthy passage quoted directly from The New Republic. By way of another source, the article in full is posted here.

It got worse. Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.

_______________________

As a native Alabamian, I have watched Sessions' rise from self-aggrandizing and sanctimonious prosecuting attorney to the United States Senate with a great degree of horror. His appointment to a Federal judgeship in 1986 was shot down due to a history of racially insensitive statements and other offensive remarks attributed to him over the years. When the consummate Good Old Boy, Howell Heflin, retired as senator, Sessions narrowly rode the Republican Revolution wave to victory over another good old boy with a long history in Alabama politics. Yet, he is seen as overwhelmingly popular in Alabama, largely as a result of his reliance on working class whites who find something courageous about his grandstanding about the evils of liberal activism, illegal immigration, and anti-environmentalism.

Taking into account the fact that Sessions rose to a position of authority as a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee within the Senate's GOP caucus, one realizes that the Republican party has truly become a gathering that includes only the conservative right and is increasingly based in the southern states alone. The region's still-considerable poverty make it difficult for more than one party to make serious inroads and from the time of The New Deal to 1994, the region was solidly Democratic, though, it must be noted, it was largely full of conservative Democrats. Breaking the GOP stranglehold over the south would require something massive like wealth redistribution, an influx of residents from other parts of the country, or a phenomenally successful educational program that granted people the ability to easily attain some sense of social mobility otherwise denied to them. The region has never truly known democracy. Even back in the times before the Civil War, the classes were strictly stratified based on income. A small planter elite, which much of the country assumes was the norm based on romantic notions advanced in literature and movies, owned large parcels of land, kept slaves, and racked in money. They also, I might add, made money from northern industrial companies, making them very complicit in the peculiar institution of slavery, but that's another ball of wax for another time. Most whites were poor subsistence farmers (of which I am descended on both sides of my family) who had nothing in the way of means and could barely afford to feed themselves, much less make a profit. At the bottom, of course, were black slaves, who were seen as livestock.

I included this background information to try to explain Jeff Sessions and those who continue to vote for him, time after time. If it were a simple matter of ignorance, that would be one thing, but Sessions has learned that the way to stay in office is to play to the worst fears of his supporters and try to seem like some courageous crusader for a way of life presumed to be under attack from all sides. This motivates him from a political standpoint in his queries during deliberation today and in the days ahead. Though I can say I dislike Sessions strongly, I do at least understand where he is coming from, too.

A Sign You're in for a Long Flight

When you find yourself sitting next to a woman who is reading a book entitled




and you can't believe, based on the title, why anyone could associate homosexuality in all seriousness with some defect of character. In that manner of "thinking", being gay is like an addiction or a vice that one can easily overcome. The book might just as easily be titled, You Don't Have to Gamble or You Don't Have to Overeat. Or even, You Don't Have to Be Afraid. Her justification for being a paid counselor in an ex-gay group is to save teh gays from the feelings of self-loathing and shame they experience by not being heterosexual and living a heterosexual lifestyle. "Nobody feels good about it," she kept repeating.

It was a strange flight, made even stranger by the presence of a conservative Christian youth group headed to China for a mission trip. I arrived at the airport just in time to see them anointing every member of the pack in the red t-shirts specially made for the occasion-- by making the sign of the cross on their foreheads with oil. Not only that, the pilot of the flight was younger than me and making his first solo outing. Naturally, they didn't tell us that until we had landed safely.

Self-Starter

Today is going to be a lengthy travel day for me, so I figured I'd leave you all with a short story I've been working on. Unsurprisingly, it has been inspired by the exceptionally insipid job description cliches I've encountered during the job hunt.

Thanks,

Ed.
_________________

Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a self-starter and a straight shooter with upper level management potential written all over me. In my new job at The Society for the Preservation of Acronyms, or SPA, for short, I'm the Director of Earnest, but Ultimately Unqualified Entry-Level Workers. EUUELW is one of the company's less profitable departments and I was hired to clean house and purge the dead weight from payroll. I'm certainly glad to take the opportunity to undertake a new challenge and improve my skill set in the process. In today's challenging economy, I'm glad to be taking an active role in eliminating benefit packages and unnecessary perks like merit-based pay raises.

Periodically I make conversation with those a few rungs down the food chain. It's always interesting to see what they think and take some suggestions for improving the process. The workers who have excellent attention to detail and strong time management skills are my favorites. They truly have a can-do spirit and strong ability to develop lasting and appropriate relationships with co-workers. This quality above all else I prize in my employees.

James is the shining star of the department. He's a hard worker who never complains about the people who work alongside him who put out little to no effort at all and make twice what he does.
I'm recommending him for a PINO (Promotion in Name Only) so that it'll be his responsibility, not mine to fire the people whose inaction sends us closer every quarter to bankruptcy. Here, we call that Redundancy Control Management or RCM. Though Pink Slip Dispersal Procol (PSDP) is a regrettable part of any modern workplace, it is a process that improves the strength of the entire company as a whole and allows us to be a greater player in Stock Option Risk Engagement (SORE).

"James," I say, with a wry smile in my voice, "You know what I like about you? I particularly like your ability to work independently, exercise high levels of judgment, initiative, and resourcefulness and multi-task to ensure high quality products."

He shyly replies, "Sir, I appreciate it. I have to say that my ability to communicate orally and in writing to department heads has improved my stature in the eyes of the corporate brass." James will go a long way. My only criticism of him is that it's difficult for him to provide advice and guidance on effective positioning of knowledge products, development of key messages, audience targeting, and dissemination strategies. But these are things he can easily improve upon with enough experience and visits to Motivation Conferences. In this respect, he is head and shoulders above most of my people, who have no clue what vital terms like synergy and positive accentuation mean. Not only that, they have no concept of problem solving skills or the ability to manage multiple responsibilities simultaneously.

Quote of the Week

"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to."- Dorothy Parker

Saturday Video

For all the wingnuts out there.

Business is Not a Solution to Our Problem, Business is the Problem

The billions of dollars allocated by the Federal Government in bailout funds has been a lightning rod for criticism on both sides. This morning's news that AIG seeks government approval to grant their CEOs and top executives another round of bonuses could easily inflame liberals, conservatives, and taxpayers all. The article takes care to set out the fact that AIG might never be able to produce any return for shareholders, even after paying back the billions of dollars it has received from the government, a reality in no small part due to its retention of the infamous credit-default swaps that undermined the solvency of the entire financial system and helped create the economic mess in which we are currently stuck. That the company would have willfully refused to learn its lesson ought to illustrate that the private sector should never be viewed or advertised as the noble, virtuous counter-weight to that metastasizing mass of collective "evil" found on Capitol Hill.

What I have often wondered is how Republicans can legitimately continue to criticize Washington, D.C., as some kind of evil morass of corruption and inefficiency when the private sector has arguably proven itself more corrupt and more than willing to resort to illegal (and certainly unethical) means to perpetuate itself. This is an ancient talking point that dates at least back to 1980. Starting with Reagan's first term, the continual GOP drumbeat has been to assert that government is the problem and that it ought to be as small as possible so as to reign in its excesses. This is well and good until one takes into account that the corresponding, singular focus on the free market adopted then meant that the private sector grew larger and larger, corporations swelled to unprecedented sizes, and without sufficient regulatory oversight, they took frequent greed-driven liberties which contributed greatly to the economic mess of today. And, using AIG as an example, they are still more than willing to take these liberties, despite the devastating impact that their foolish practices made upon the lives of people in this country and around the world. Sainted capitalism is hardly any solution.

Furthermore, as MSNBC's First Read this morning reported, 40% of the stimulus took the form of tax cuts. Yet, neither Republicans, nor Democrats seem to wish to incorporate this interesting fact into their arguments and counter-arguments. One can understand why Republicans would choose not to bring it up---it doesn't suit their agenda and makes the Obama Administration look bi-partisan and conciliatory rather than unilateral and radical, as they like to paint it. But I still wish some Democrat would throw this fact out in debate, preferably with the American peoples' full attention. What gives Republican arguments some degree of veracity and heft is that the United States is a nation with a strong libertarian streak. Tied to those libertarian leanings are a long tradition of being wary and suspicious of government. Criticizing those in high elective office might as well count as a national pastime. Corruption scandals only validate those cynical reactions and, indeed, often times these reactions are quite justified.

However, what makes less sense is that people seem less inclined to feel any compulsion to vent their anger and frustration upon corporations and businesses. Perhaps this is because the past provides constant, numerous reminders of Federal government stupidity and waste, but we are still grappling with the notion of the huge, faceless corporation and it's partner in crime the multinational conglomerate. In a land until very recently dotted almost exclusively by small businesses (with a few notable examples), we still have a tendency to think of the private sector as being comprised exclusively of people we know personally and interact with on a friendly basis. In this idyllic, Norman Rockwell world, the grocer, the milkman, the tailor, and barber form a community of toilers working together in close proximity to each other. Government, in contrast, is a distant enterprise whereby, as this notion goes, we send representatives to make sure our needs are met and quite often find that their number one allegiance quickly shifts to the longevity of their profession, not to our concerns. The exact number of miles away from our communities they work seems to directly correspond to our dislike of them. To wit, state representatives are barely tolerable and national ones are utter abominations. Bred into us is a fear of strong centralized government based in some nebulous far away city where we have never lived, do not understand, and may never even visit.

However, the times of a primary focus on regionalism are no longer our own. We have discovered that it's difficult to cast aspersions towards businesses and business practices that require a degree in Economics to understand. In a changing world, where we are growing more intertwined with the global economy and not the regional one we still fetishize, our understanding of the process needs to change. By contrast, the world of government seems to be simple enough though it is rarely as easily explained or defined as we would like it to be. Along these same lines, if I could, I'd like to ask a GOP senator or representative a question on one of those talking head cable shows without them having the benefit to prepare first--I would ask, Why do you act like the sainted private sector is some kind of bastion of purity? I know he or she wouldn't really answer it, of course. Instead he or she would just spin out my query or evade the question altogether by talking instead about incompetent bureaucrats and government's wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. So I suppose it's up to us, the ordinary citizens, to change the way we think and to adopt our attitudes to suit the present and the future, leaving the past behind.

Extreme Amusement

Those of you who have been reading this for the past several months know that from time to time I've posted the often-bizarre job listings I've encountered during my lengthy search.

Today's laugh is a job for a receptionist. Naturally, it wasn't posted as such, instead it was listed as one of the most deviously clever euphemisms I have ever heard. The phrase used instead was "Director of First Impressions". I'm not sure who they were trying to impress--the potential applicant or the boss of the company.

The True Sound of Silence

A poster on a Quaker web board posited a question to readers. She had been driving home late one night where she encountered a rather pathetic looking homeless man begging for food on the side of the road. Out of fear for her safety, especially since it was dark and she was by herself, she kept driving and did not make any attempt to assist the man. Later, however, the thoughts which had at first been consumed and preoccupied with self-preservation turned to guilt. Perhaps she should have stopped to help. Perhaps her fears were utterly groundless. The incident made such an impression her that it caused her to question whether in future she ought to lend a hand to someone clearly in need, even if her first impulse was that of her own safety.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan is one of the most oft-cited examples of Jesus' teachings and has far superseded its original religious context by its frequent reference in secular society.

"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead with no clothes. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, and he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, he too passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and looked after him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.' "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

With this parable in mind, I formed my own response. I said,

Martin Luther had this same dilemma. He would pray for hours to be perfect, then moments upon leaving he would have a sinful thought. Upon having this sinful thought he would become so instantly frustrated it that he would return to the church to pray, in hopes that this time his prayers would take.

I'm not sure any of us can achieve spiritual perfection, any more than Luther himself could. But what you are doing here is punishing yourself for no good reason. I could provide you many times in my life instances where being overly cautious and overly guarded probably was not in my own best interest as well as very much in my own best interest. But I think the important thing to pull from this situation is being able to forgive yourself for being imperfect. We all sin. We all have sinful thoughts and at times these sinful thoughts manifest themselves in inaction where action might be better served.

I used to get frustrated at people who didn't do enough. If you swim in activist circles long enough, that's the premise at the core of activism---people aren't doing enough, they should be doing more, and it's my job to inform them of why. But as I've gotten older, I've realized that many people do what they can and that furthermore they do more than some are willing give them credit. Those are the two tensions upon which your post is balanced. I'm not going to propose for you which direction to head, but I will encourage you to find a happy medium in between. I think you'll be much happier with yourself that way.

The idea of the Quaker Testimony of Simplicity was predicated on the belief that if we quiet our minds and direct our energies away from selfish thoughts, then the Inward Light of God will remain alone and then the sought for path will open. Hence, the intent of Quaker unprogrammed worship, which while held in silence, is designed not to be full of empty, meaningless nothingness. It is not silence for silence's sake. What it is, however, is a chance to focus on what truly matters. If I had thought to mention this concept, I would have included it in my original reply to the posting.

As I conclude, my mind can't help but flash to that old Simon and Garfunkle song, itself predicated on the topic of silence.

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,

People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence.

Fools said I, you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you.
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed
In the wells of silence

Good News!

After nearly four months of job application, frustration, and toil I am pleased to announce that I will be returning to DC for a face to face interview to be held next Monday. Another interview with a separate organization was already scheduled for that same day over the phone and I am in the process of trying to modify it so that I can interview with both places in person during the time that I will be there. If it'd been up to me, I would already be settled in DC and working a new job, but the awful economy has complicated and delayed my plans considerably. As I reflect back on this process, it's absolutely ridiculous that I have submitted roughly 1,100 job applications, been scheduled for a paltry four interviews, and had to spend a minimum of four hours a day on the matter even to get where I am now. That's just a reflection of how absolutely insane the job market is these days.

My flight leaves Sunday morning, so what this means is that from that day, Sunday, 12 July until Monday, 20 July my posting here will be sporadic. I'll at least make an attempt to put something worth reading up here from time to time, but since I'll be away from my computer during that period, I can't promise I'll be able to write every day that I'm away. Expect more of these extended absences in the coming weeks and even months, particularly until I am actually hired. I've been saving money since March to go back and forth between here and DC, but I am frankly surprised it's taken four months before I've even had the ability to make my first trip. I do know an interview does not guarantee a job--only an opportunity to audition before an employer. Still, this is a goal that I have been working doggedly towards for a good long while and I celebrate any opportunity to see my wonderful girlfriend who has been missing me terribly.

As an aside, I was going to go up there soon anyway, because I made her a promise during her visit last month; I vowed to her that she wouldn't have to wait to see me in person nearly as long to she did (three months) for the first good long while we were apart, and that's a promise I fully intend to keep.

New Media Madness

I stopped taking the local newspaper a few weeks ago. After I recognized how much I was spending per month for the privilege of subscribing to something I read for perhaps five minutes a day, it didn't make much sense to keep it going. Like many Americans, I get most of my news over the internet these days. My reasons why are many. Over the past several years, my hometown paper, The Birmingham News, has been increasingly full of ad content in place of actual hard news. Not only that, the quality and scope of the veritable journalistic institution, which in its heyday was the gold standard of all Alabama newspapers, has begun to suffer mightily.

I noticed this disturbing lack of professionalism both in the writing and in the routine copy editing. Pictures were sometimes captioned incorrectly and the content of the paper increasingly took the form of short one-to-two paragraph blurbs when I was expecting in-depth analysis instead. If the intent was to emulate the country's worst (in my humble opinion) designed newspaper, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, they could not have done a better job of it. Additionally, I've already noticed how, while engaged in conversation with others, people I've talked to increasingly do not refer by name or subject to the op-ed columns written by the paper's stalwart voices, meaning either that they aren't reading them or find other voices much more compelling and informative. Before, people often based their own opinions on a controversial issue on the opinion of the local mouthpiece. I've noted such things in people of all ages, even those who likely keep their subscriptions current, as I did, for no other reason than force of habit.

Most newspapers have been suffering mightily to stay afloat over the years. Birmingham once had the ability to support two papers. I first began to notice the move towards downsizing when the evening Post Herald was dismantled some four years ago, very much following a trend of consolidation that has befallen most large American cities. I find it fascinating that at the turn of the Twentieth Century almost every major U.S. city had more than one paper, and sometimes three or four. Not anymore. Increasingly I also have been reflecting on how generational differences are partially to blame for this change. The younger-than-age thirty set never read the newspaper with the zealousness of generations before them or, for that matter, any regularity. For people my parents' generation and older, the morning newspaper ritual was enmeshed into the proverbial cultural fabric as the morning coffee. From the beginning, most people my age took their news from television, and then embraced the internet when it arrived. I was one of the few in my age group who waited eagerly for the latest print edition to land on the driveway following a busy news day or major sporting event.

Lest you think otherwise, this is not some ode to a Golden Age now growing extinct. Newspapers and the people who ran them had plenty of warning and plenty of time to prepare for the new wave of New Media in the form of electronic publication. Instead, they clung stubbornly to old ideas and resisted embracing internet-based journalism until it began to cut severely into their bottom lines. My local paper, for example, has made a tentative commitment to an electronic edition, but still refuses to make their entire daily edition available online. Part of their behavior is understandable. They built a brand new building at probably the worst economic time imaginable and now are in a panic to pay for it. Desperately clinging to an increasingly aging readership is what they and many papers are banking on for the future, even if they've had to make appalling cuts in wages, hours, and benefits to their workers to do so. The Birmingham News, for example, used to be well-known for being a great place to work. Now the sea change in the industry combined with the recession has gutted its resources to such an extent that it, like many of the dailies, is fighting to stay alive.

Those of us who are part of this New Media revolution have frequently been the target of established media outlets who decry us for our amateurism. And while it is true that some people use the internet to advance unfounded gossip, resort to hyperbole when restraint would be a much better strategy, let innuendo suffice for solid facts, and willfully violate all the time-honored truths of Journalism 101, the irony is that, due to budget deficits, the print media, among others, has been forced to resort to amateurish tactics themselves. It's not been just the gatekeepers themselves who have broken established codes of conduct. A new generation of politicians seems unwilling to work within established channels. The example that comes to mind is that of Sarah Palin's recent announcement that she was stepping down as Alaska's governor, which violated every rule in the book in its timing, delivery, message, and intent. I agree it was also a very bizarre event, but I believe it to be a harbinger of times to come. Depending on what you hold true, we are becoming an informal society to the point of madness, or we are challenging the constraints of rules, both written and unwritten. It's a Brave New World out there, and what cannot be refuted is that whatever comes next will be vastly different than what came before it.

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-hearted farm equipment salesman who cashes in his life savings, quits his monotonous job, and sets out on a trip with the intention of spending the last days of his life at a posh hotel in an exclusive resort town. Having been 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 in his life. 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 film's conclusion, 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 limitations. As an unintended man of mystery who reveals few details about himself up front, he quickly becomes gossip fodder among the guests who have nothing better to do than to idly speculate about his true identity. This fact is a wholly justified swipe at every person staying at the resort, regardless of class, and is meant as much for we, the viewers, as for they the players in the picture itself.

The film's screenwriter, J. B. Priestley, was an unapologetic Socialist who help found the progressive 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 hand. 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 and every one 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 stubbornly balk at the task before them, and while it is true that some express indignation at first, once engaged in the matter, they find an unexpected common purpose and unifying solidarity in the act itself. Bird spearheads the effort, and with his new found acceptance among the guests acquires full participation. This scene could scarcely be more idealistic and socialistic.

Even so, the sainted 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 bourgeois creates 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, 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 rather than the commanders, Last Holiday asserts firmly that unfounded and ill-placed anger, while perhaps understandable based on years of inequality, are often just as unfairly judgmental and unreasonable as the cultural elitism practiced by the upper class characters.

Yet, though the flaws of the so-called common people are at times unfair, they are nothing compared to the obnoxiously cold behavior 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 that he must certainly be one of them, they aim to drag him into their exclusive club which if fully devoid of social 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 moneyed 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 presumed 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 eagerly agreed to be incorporated into subsequent models.

Upward mobility alone is no solution, a concept which is illustrated by the presence of the wealthy cockney and his wife, who though they are very rich, are still considered neither worthy nor fitting of a seat at the table. Much of this treatment results from the fact that the man and his wife make no pretenses to disguise their lowly roots, and particularly so because both 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 common folk. In this respect, his trip might be considered a huge 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 of the smart set either refuse to contemplate their own complicit hand in the system or never really bother to contemplate the matter long enough to seriously want to change 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 as commoners still hold him firmly in high esteem. This, the last of many scenes of a movie with a deliberate emphasis on class conflict and unabashed social commentary, might be the most important to ponder.

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.