Well, it was great to meet my team at breakfast this morning. They have a wonderful sense of humor about this but appear very professional. They all look just like an attendees and one middle aged woman even brought her kids and her sister. They all fit right in with their tan shorts or blue jeans, summer shirts, canvas bags and sunglasses.
I especially encourage you to say "hello" to them and to try to throw them off their game. I put a bonus on the table for the ones stay the steady course and don't reveal their hands.
So if any of you can get any one of them to admit who they are, just respond here with a description of the person, along with a description of what they are wearing, and, if you are right, I will give YOU a "bonus" too.
But, for now, I am off to get more pumpkin and squash for tomorrow's breakfast--squash pancakes were a big hit!
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Mark My Words: Obama's Mosque Statements
Ok, let's analyze the basics of this Obama Mosque comment:
1. Obama is a government representative. In fact, he is the "top" government executive in this country.
2. Obama's statement was simply to describe what powers or rights the government did NOT have. His words were not suggesting that there was any real right of the government to interfere with a religious institution's plan to build a facility.
3. As far as we the public know, this government executive was never formally asked to interfere with or to use government authority to influence a religious institution's plan to build a religious facility.
So why even make the statement? Why use government authority to say that you won't use government authority? On its face, it appears as an incredibly hollow and stupid thing to do, especially if you are the top executive government officer. He is saying "Look, I am interfering to say that I won't interfere." That act, in and of itself, disproves the statement. Doesn't anyone else see the irony here?
Let's not forget the possibility that the act itself is the message that he wants to give--suggesting in a passive-aggressive way that he indeed will use government authority to intervene if he feels it necessary. That explanation does not describe an incredibly stupid act. That would be a just stupid act. Why? Well, because its a manipulative and deceptive way for a public official to try to get want he wants.
And, even though the public may not be able to put words to that, they will certainly feel it and react accordingly. So, in either case, this is the kind of act that ends up producing an insidious erosion of relationships and authority for a politician. And, this will be interesting to watch over the next two years.
1. Obama is a government representative. In fact, he is the "top" government executive in this country.
2. Obama's statement was simply to describe what powers or rights the government did NOT have. His words were not suggesting that there was any real right of the government to interfere with a religious institution's plan to build a facility.
3. As far as we the public know, this government executive was never formally asked to interfere with or to use government authority to influence a religious institution's plan to build a religious facility.
So why even make the statement? Why use government authority to say that you won't use government authority? On its face, it appears as an incredibly hollow and stupid thing to do, especially if you are the top executive government officer. He is saying "Look, I am interfering to say that I won't interfere." That act, in and of itself, disproves the statement. Doesn't anyone else see the irony here?
Let's not forget the possibility that the act itself is the message that he wants to give--suggesting in a passive-aggressive way that he indeed will use government authority to intervene if he feels it necessary. That explanation does not describe an incredibly stupid act. That would be a just stupid act. Why? Well, because its a manipulative and deceptive way for a public official to try to get want he wants.
And, even though the public may not be able to put words to that, they will certainly feel it and react accordingly. So, in either case, this is the kind of act that ends up producing an insidious erosion of relationships and authority for a politician. And, this will be interesting to watch over the next two years.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Mark My Words: Bell's Rizzo a Follower, Not a Leader
You know Bell, California's corrupt city manager couldn't have come up with his scheme all on his own. He surely must have gotten some tips on how to bilk the taxpayers out of 1.5 million a year from someone else.
This is one of those things where the backstory will be just as interesting and compelling as the front page articles. Why? Because my experience suggests that there is currently much co-opting of the democratic and representational principals of our government system, and that Bell's leaders are not the outlier, but the norm.
This is one of those things where the backstory will be just as interesting and compelling as the front page articles. Why? Because my experience suggests that there is currently much co-opting of the democratic and representational principals of our government system, and that Bell's leaders are not the outlier, but the norm.
Gate Counters Ready to Go!
Aaaahhh, its amazing what things are available today for hire. Seems that you are only limited by your own mind. I found a temp agency out of Philly that is sending me a team of temps to discreetly count attendees at the upcoming Art Show! Admittedly, it isn't going to be cheap. But I am sure that it will be worth it.
Monday, August 9, 2010
India way ahead of US on plastic bag issue
But India has to be. Seems plastic's insidious nature has not been so "hidden" to those in India.
Seems like India already realizes what we ignore still. Read this recent report:
In Mumbai in 2005 India experienced massive monsoon flooding partially as a result of drains blocked by plastic bags, resulting in over 1000 deaths. Similar flooding happened in 1988 and 1998 in Bangladesh, which led to the banning of plastic bags in 2002.
Cows - sacred in India - frequently asphyxiate after trying to eat the bags."
Last year, in response to my recognition of the host of enduring problems caused by our conflagrate plastic use, I decided to consider the plastic content of every purchase that I make from now on. Try this. Start by remembering that, if you are around my parents age, plastics was a new material had a limited presence in our daily tools. Today, however, just try to buy something without plastic in it or around it. Makes you ask yourself what would chain discount stores be stocking were it not for plastic. Just try buying something in Walmart without plastic in the transaction.
Seems like India already realizes what we ignore still. Read this recent report:
Source: www.businessgreen.com
INDIA, July 28, 2010: India’s largest state has become the latest to announce a complete state-wide ban on the use of plastic bags this week. From the beginning of August the manufacture, storage, import, sale and transport of plastic carry-bags will be illegal in Rajasthan. No shopkeeper, retailer, trader, hawker or vendor will be allowed to supply goods to consumers in bags.In Mumbai in 2005 India experienced massive monsoon flooding partially as a result of drains blocked by plastic bags, resulting in over 1000 deaths. Similar flooding happened in 1988 and 1998 in Bangladesh, which led to the banning of plastic bags in 2002.
Cows - sacred in India - frequently asphyxiate after trying to eat the bags."
Last year, in response to my recognition of the host of enduring problems caused by our conflagrate plastic use, I decided to consider the plastic content of every purchase that I make from now on. Try this. Start by remembering that, if you are around my parents age, plastics was a new material had a limited presence in our daily tools. Today, however, just try to buy something without plastic in it or around it. Makes you ask yourself what would chain discount stores be stocking were it not for plastic. Just try buying something in Walmart without plastic in the transaction.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Gay this, Gay that
I ask you, what is "gay marriage?"
This is a funny phrase that has been thrust about for the last decade or so. Funny because I have never heard anyone, not even the most vile and bigoted groups, call my federal tax payments "gay taxes." Or my eating out at local restaurants "gay dining." Or when I have my monthly you-know-what, I have never heard it called the "gay menstruation." Or how about when I got a graduate degree along with about 200 other people: is my degree supposed to be referred to as a "gay degree" or my education process as "gay learning?"
And how far back does that grammatical rule apply? Was my 9 month ride in my mothers womb a "gay gestation?" Or my birth a "gay delivery?" I suspect that my mother would have something to say about this, but it would probably be along the lines of "Shit my father says".
I mean, really, how stupid do journalists and reporters think we are? Do they think really think that we don't hear how they play to the bigots when they call "marriage" "gay marriage?" Enough is enough. Its simply "marriage" people, and the issue is that, for whatever reason, many of you want permission to think differently about a certain assumed class of people. Maybe you feel threatened by the success of the gay couple's relationship who live down the road from you, or by the financial success of your gay cousin, or by your own recurring cameos is what you think are "gay" dreams. Or maybe you just don't want someone who has no relation to you make decisions that you don't agree with. Whatever the reason, someone else getting married is, obviously, someone else's decision. Its not yours. You don't want me to fall under a "lesser" category when it comes to paying my taxes, or to send my mother to a different delivery ward when giving birth, do you? So, why do you insist on this "gay marriage" phrase? Its because the issue is really your own bigotry. Its not about the issue of marriage at all.
This is a funny phrase that has been thrust about for the last decade or so. Funny because I have never heard anyone, not even the most vile and bigoted groups, call my federal tax payments "gay taxes." Or my eating out at local restaurants "gay dining." Or when I have my monthly you-know-what, I have never heard it called the "gay menstruation." Or how about when I got a graduate degree along with about 200 other people: is my degree supposed to be referred to as a "gay degree" or my education process as "gay learning?"
And how far back does that grammatical rule apply? Was my 9 month ride in my mothers womb a "gay gestation?" Or my birth a "gay delivery?" I suspect that my mother would have something to say about this, but it would probably be along the lines of "Shit my father says".
I mean, really, how stupid do journalists and reporters think we are? Do they think really think that we don't hear how they play to the bigots when they call "marriage" "gay marriage?" Enough is enough. Its simply "marriage" people, and the issue is that, for whatever reason, many of you want permission to think differently about a certain assumed class of people. Maybe you feel threatened by the success of the gay couple's relationship who live down the road from you, or by the financial success of your gay cousin, or by your own recurring cameos is what you think are "gay" dreams. Or maybe you just don't want someone who has no relation to you make decisions that you don't agree with. Whatever the reason, someone else getting married is, obviously, someone else's decision. Its not yours. You don't want me to fall under a "lesser" category when it comes to paying my taxes, or to send my mother to a different delivery ward when giving birth, do you? So, why do you insist on this "gay marriage" phrase? Its because the issue is really your own bigotry. Its not about the issue of marriage at all.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
"Christianity-man's most destructive invention"
That's a bumper sticker I once saw. I am reminded of it now that Anne Rice has recently made public her disatisfaction with Christianity, but not with Christ. She deserves kudos for engaging the public in a conversation which is an unspoken "no-no". You know, that which "polite society" doesn't talk about, like political corruption, racial discrimination by blacks, and social bigotry. So Ms. Rice's public denouncement of this usurped moral construct is a brave opening for a much needed public discussion of the ways in which Christianity is used to hurt. See her dialogue at
History provides for us a rich and deep source of guidance on how to tend to your relationship with your creator--the formal organization known as the church is not a Necessary component for those who acknowledge an internal moral compass. This history includes Christianity in that even texts like the gnostic gospels show that Christ taught individuals how to recognize their inherent relationship with a higher power--and to recognize it without the church's intervention. So Kudo's to Rice for personalizing her relationship with her creator and rejecting the tainted "misguidance" of interveners known today as Christians. Seems as if Lebanon County can use a few more Anne Rice-type followers of Christ and a few less "Christians".
History provides for us a rich and deep source of guidance on how to tend to your relationship with your creator--the formal organization known as the church is not a Necessary component for those who acknowledge an internal moral compass. This history includes Christianity in that even texts like the gnostic gospels show that Christ taught individuals how to recognize their inherent relationship with a higher power--and to recognize it without the church's intervention. So Kudo's to Rice for personalizing her relationship with her creator and rejecting the tainted "misguidance" of interveners known today as Christians. Seems as if Lebanon County can use a few more Anne Rice-type followers of Christ and a few less "Christians".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
