People assured me that turning 30 would be one of the most traumatic days of my life. One of my cousins moped around for days when he left his 20s. I took no notice of it. It was just another day, as all birthdays seem to be.
Since 30 wasn't a problem, I figured I could get through all of my thirties without any worries until I reached 39, at which point I would borrow a page from Jack Benny and just remain at that age no matter what.
Today, 35 has officially thrown that theory out the window!
News and Announcements
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
What's for Lunch?
In the never-ending race to outdo each other, the fast food industry is reeling from the newest burger creation: Hardee's Monster Thick Burger.
The new sandwich boasts two-thirds of a pound of beef, four strips of bacon, three slices of cheese, and mayonnaise on a bun...a buttered bun. With 1400 calories and 107 grams of fat, one nutritionist calls it a "heart attack on a bun."
So who's ready for one? And who's daring to order it as a combo...supersized?
The new sandwich boasts two-thirds of a pound of beef, four strips of bacon, three slices of cheese, and mayonnaise on a bun...a buttered bun. With 1400 calories and 107 grams of fat, one nutritionist calls it a "heart attack on a bun."
So who's ready for one? And who's daring to order it as a combo...supersized?
Monday, November 15, 2004
CBS Producer Fired
Fans of the CBS hit CSI: New York were probably ready for blood when CBS interrupted the last four minutes of the program last week to announce the death of Yassir Arafat.
It didn't take long for fans to get their wish.
CBS News announced that the senior producer who made the call to interrupt the crime drama just moments before the mystery was solved did so as a result of poor judgement:
"An overly aggressive CBS News producer jumped the gun with a report that should have been offered to local stations for their late news. We sincerely regret the error," the Network said in a statement.
CBS immediately made plans to rebroadcast the interrupted episode on Friday of last week...then took one more step to deal with the error, according to Broadcating & Cable magazine: it axed the producer, who worked for their overnight news program, Up to the Minute.
As one writer put it, the network learned quickly that "hell hath no fury like CSI fans deprived of their whodunit moment."
It didn't take long for fans to get their wish.
CBS News announced that the senior producer who made the call to interrupt the crime drama just moments before the mystery was solved did so as a result of poor judgement:
"An overly aggressive CBS News producer jumped the gun with a report that should have been offered to local stations for their late news. We sincerely regret the error," the Network said in a statement.
CBS immediately made plans to rebroadcast the interrupted episode on Friday of last week...then took one more step to deal with the error, according to Broadcating & Cable magazine: it axed the producer, who worked for their overnight news program, Up to the Minute.
As one writer put it, the network learned quickly that "hell hath no fury like CSI fans deprived of their whodunit moment."
Three Days, Three Doctors
Last week, in addition to cleaning house in anticipation of my parents' visit this weekend, I was juggling my already-busy November sweeps schedule to arrange three separate visits to three different doctors. Talk about a hypochondriac's worst nightmare!!
My regular doctor scheduled a visit to a neurologist to determine the problem that was causing some tingling and a loss of strength in my left hand. Naturally, being the hypochondriac, not only did I think that this was the start of something much worse, but my mind began fabricating new symptoms to support my dark theory. So, on Wednesday, I lay on an exam table while the neurologist zapped my arm with bursts of electricity to determine exactly where the problem was. Just for good measure, he zapped my right arm a few times, too. Heaven forbid that my right arm should feel left out! (Please pardon the pun!)
It turns out, he says, that I am suffering from an Ulnar impingement and corresponding neuropathy. In other words, I have a pinched nerve. My regular doctor had already warned him about my chronic worrying, so he took great pains (I couldn't resist!) to explain that this was not part of something worse.
On Thursday, I was off to the second doctor: a hand surgeon who reviewed the findings from the neurologist's office and decided that surgery was the only way to correct the problem. His plan is to make an incision around the elbow (where the problem is) and move the nerve around a little to get it off of the funny bone. This, he says, should completely take care of the problem. I'm having the surgery in January. I'm not looking forward to it, naturally, but given the fact that I was contemplating much worse findings, I'm certainly not about to complain.
Friday, it was back to my regular doctor. Last month, he prescribed a mild medication to assist me in getting my anxiety under control. It turns out that Generalized Anxiety Disorder, the delightful condition that I've had for at least twenty years, is quite common, and results from a combination of genetics and learned behavior. Since my doctor gave me that "official" diagnosis, I have learned that at different points, both my mother and father have had bouts of anxiety and periods during which they went through anxiety attacks. Both of them experienced this in their mid thirties. I mentioned this to my doctor, who wasn't particularly surprised, but did say that most people who have GAD only get it from one side of the family. Leave it to me to have a double dose!! (On the other hand, that explains a lot to me!)
I'm slowly beginning to feel better...but then again, the problem with anxiety attacks are that they tend to come on when one isn't necessarily worried about anything in particular. They seem to appear out of the blue, and can occasionally be so intense that they convince the unfortunate victim that they're about to meet their maker within a couple of minutes. They're not exactly something I'd recommend if you've never had one. A root canal might be more enjoyable.
My regular doctor scheduled a visit to a neurologist to determine the problem that was causing some tingling and a loss of strength in my left hand. Naturally, being the hypochondriac, not only did I think that this was the start of something much worse, but my mind began fabricating new symptoms to support my dark theory. So, on Wednesday, I lay on an exam table while the neurologist zapped my arm with bursts of electricity to determine exactly where the problem was. Just for good measure, he zapped my right arm a few times, too. Heaven forbid that my right arm should feel left out! (Please pardon the pun!)
It turns out, he says, that I am suffering from an Ulnar impingement and corresponding neuropathy. In other words, I have a pinched nerve. My regular doctor had already warned him about my chronic worrying, so he took great pains (I couldn't resist!) to explain that this was not part of something worse.
On Thursday, I was off to the second doctor: a hand surgeon who reviewed the findings from the neurologist's office and decided that surgery was the only way to correct the problem. His plan is to make an incision around the elbow (where the problem is) and move the nerve around a little to get it off of the funny bone. This, he says, should completely take care of the problem. I'm having the surgery in January. I'm not looking forward to it, naturally, but given the fact that I was contemplating much worse findings, I'm certainly not about to complain.
Friday, it was back to my regular doctor. Last month, he prescribed a mild medication to assist me in getting my anxiety under control. It turns out that Generalized Anxiety Disorder, the delightful condition that I've had for at least twenty years, is quite common, and results from a combination of genetics and learned behavior. Since my doctor gave me that "official" diagnosis, I have learned that at different points, both my mother and father have had bouts of anxiety and periods during which they went through anxiety attacks. Both of them experienced this in their mid thirties. I mentioned this to my doctor, who wasn't particularly surprised, but did say that most people who have GAD only get it from one side of the family. Leave it to me to have a double dose!! (On the other hand, that explains a lot to me!)
I'm slowly beginning to feel better...but then again, the problem with anxiety attacks are that they tend to come on when one isn't necessarily worried about anything in particular. They seem to appear out of the blue, and can occasionally be so intense that they convince the unfortunate victim that they're about to meet their maker within a couple of minutes. They're not exactly something I'd recommend if you've never had one. A root canal might be more enjoyable.
Party Lines
I understand that there are those who think that George W. Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to this country. I understand that there are those who feel that John Kerry should have won the election because, if for no other, better reason, he simply wasn't Bush. I am aware of the fact that there are those who feel that this country is going in the wrong direction, and that they will likely continue to feel this way until that magical day that a Democrat is elected to the presidency again. Presumably, on that candidate's inauguration day, all of the country's problems will vanish as if cast off by magic spell.
But I'm just curious: is there a point at which those who constantly complain about every conceivable thing that's happening in the country begin to lose their credibility?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't question what our leaders say; I'm not saying that we shouldn't be willing to speak out.
I'm just wondering when it becomes apparent to the casual observer that certain people aren't going to have anything positive to say no matter what happens...and whether those observers will stop observing.
But I'm just curious: is there a point at which those who constantly complain about every conceivable thing that's happening in the country begin to lose their credibility?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't question what our leaders say; I'm not saying that we shouldn't be willing to speak out.
I'm just wondering when it becomes apparent to the casual observer that certain people aren't going to have anything positive to say no matter what happens...and whether those observers will stop observing.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Battling Over Private Ryan
Did the 30+ ABC affiliates overreact when they elected to pre-empt the movie "Saving Private Ryan" last night? Was it unreasonable to believe that they might be targeted by viewers who would complain?
It depends on who you ask.
It turns out that The Parents Television Council, a watchdog group that monitors content of television programming for concerned families, gave its stamp of approval for last night's airing of the movie, despite the graphic violence and phrases that included the f-word, according to a report on Lost Remote.
But this same group filed a complaint with the FCC just a few months ago, after NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt, Jr. said the s-word in a post-race interview.
Meanwhile, the Hollywood Reporter reports that OneMillionMoms.com and OneMillionDads.com, a pair of groups affiliated with the Tupelo, Mississippi-based American Family Association, plans to file thousands of indecency complaints against local ABC stations that did air the movie. You read that right: thousands.
When even the watchdog groups have double standards and can't come to common ground when it comes to what is and isn't appropriate, you can't completely blame local stations for being a little nervous about being reported.
It depends on who you ask.
It turns out that The Parents Television Council, a watchdog group that monitors content of television programming for concerned families, gave its stamp of approval for last night's airing of the movie, despite the graphic violence and phrases that included the f-word, according to a report on Lost Remote.
But this same group filed a complaint with the FCC just a few months ago, after NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt, Jr. said the s-word in a post-race interview.
Meanwhile, the Hollywood Reporter reports that OneMillionMoms.com and OneMillionDads.com, a pair of groups affiliated with the Tupelo, Mississippi-based American Family Association, plans to file thousands of indecency complaints against local ABC stations that did air the movie. You read that right: thousands.
When even the watchdog groups have double standards and can't come to common ground when it comes to what is and isn't appropriate, you can't completely blame local stations for being a little nervous about being reported.
Suspended for Cartwheels
An eleven-year-old California girl has been suspended from school for doing cartwheels on school property.
It sounds like a ridiculous story, but it's true.
The child, who has practiced gymnastics for five years, likes to perform cartwheels on the school playground. School officials apparently asked her not to do so on repeated occasions, citing concerns that she could injure herself or a classmate.
The child proceeded to continue doing the cartwheels, claiming that she always made sure no one was in her path. So, the school disciplined her. The child's father told NBC News that the suspension is absurd when other students are allowed to play basketball and other contact sports.
"That is about citizenship, and that's how things get changed: by confronting, politely, issues and rules that are unreasonable," he says.
That's funny...when I was in school, I learned that the first responsibility of being a citizen is to obey the rules. If she felt the rule was unreasonable, the responsible thing for her to do was to go to her parents and ask that they contact administrators. The responsible thing for her parents to do, then, would have been to contact the principal and explain the situation from their point of view, hoping that the policy might be adjusted.
Intentionally breaking rules and being punished for it doesn't change anything: it merely teaches the simple truth that there are consequences for our actions. That her parents would support her in her blatant disregard for those rules would seem to me to indicate that the child is learning that it's okay to do whatever you want, no matter what anyone says. Is this the kind of lesson our kids need to hear?
It sounds like a ridiculous story, but it's true.
The child, who has practiced gymnastics for five years, likes to perform cartwheels on the school playground. School officials apparently asked her not to do so on repeated occasions, citing concerns that she could injure herself or a classmate.
The child proceeded to continue doing the cartwheels, claiming that she always made sure no one was in her path. So, the school disciplined her. The child's father told NBC News that the suspension is absurd when other students are allowed to play basketball and other contact sports.
"That is about citizenship, and that's how things get changed: by confronting, politely, issues and rules that are unreasonable," he says.
That's funny...when I was in school, I learned that the first responsibility of being a citizen is to obey the rules. If she felt the rule was unreasonable, the responsible thing for her to do was to go to her parents and ask that they contact administrators. The responsible thing for her parents to do, then, would have been to contact the principal and explain the situation from their point of view, hoping that the policy might be adjusted.
Intentionally breaking rules and being punished for it doesn't change anything: it merely teaches the simple truth that there are consequences for our actions. That her parents would support her in her blatant disregard for those rules would seem to me to indicate that the child is learning that it's okay to do whatever you want, no matter what anyone says. Is this the kind of lesson our kids need to hear?
Blame the Christians!
Well, they're still at it. Supporters of John Kerry are still complaining about the results of the election, and some of them are now attacking Christians for causing Bush's victory, citing the sudden desire for a more "moral" country as the reason Kerry lost.
I guess that makes them feel better.
They overlook the fact that there are plenty of Christians who voted for Kerry. There are plenty of Christians who aren't entirely happy with the Republican party or President Bush.
They overlook the fact that there are plenty of heterosexual voters who really couldn't care less whether gays have the right to get married or not; they have nothing against gay people and don't mind if they have the same rights...it's just that this one issue isn't important enough to them to get them to the polls.
They overlook the fact that there are plenty of Christians who don't believe it's right to use abortion as the sole method of birth control, but who, at the same time, feel that they shouldn't have the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.
They overlook the fact that there are plenty of Christians who aren't entirely happy with the way that the country has gone in the last four years, and who aren't entirely convinced that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, whether they genuinely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the time.
And they overlook the fact that this was John Kerry's election to win and George W. Bush's election to lose. I know of virtually no one who was entirely happy with George W. Bush's administration: even those I know who supported him had things to complain about.
Why overlook all of these points? Why throw blame at the "evil" Christians? Because they don't want to admit the fact that despite all of the country's problems and all of the reasons to be unhappy with Bush, just over 50% of the country didn't trust John Kerry enough -- or feel that they understood his position well enough -- to believe that he would make things better.
Whose fault is that?
I guess that makes them feel better.
They overlook the fact that there are plenty of Christians who voted for Kerry. There are plenty of Christians who aren't entirely happy with the Republican party or President Bush.
They overlook the fact that there are plenty of heterosexual voters who really couldn't care less whether gays have the right to get married or not; they have nothing against gay people and don't mind if they have the same rights...it's just that this one issue isn't important enough to them to get them to the polls.
They overlook the fact that there are plenty of Christians who don't believe it's right to use abortion as the sole method of birth control, but who, at the same time, feel that they shouldn't have the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.
They overlook the fact that there are plenty of Christians who aren't entirely happy with the way that the country has gone in the last four years, and who aren't entirely convinced that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, whether they genuinely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the time.
And they overlook the fact that this was John Kerry's election to win and George W. Bush's election to lose. I know of virtually no one who was entirely happy with George W. Bush's administration: even those I know who supported him had things to complain about.
Why overlook all of these points? Why throw blame at the "evil" Christians? Because they don't want to admit the fact that despite all of the country's problems and all of the reasons to be unhappy with Bush, just over 50% of the country didn't trust John Kerry enough -- or feel that they understood his position well enough -- to believe that he would make things better.
Whose fault is that?
Cancelling Private Ryan
Did you watch the movie "Saving Private Ryan" on television last night? Did you even have the chance to see the World War II drama?
About a third of ABC affiliates decided to pre-empt the movie out of fears that they would be fined by the FCC because of the film's graphic violence and language. Though ABC aired the movie at least two times before, recent concerns about decency over the airwaves since the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" prompted the local stations to bow out.
ABC, according to some sources, had already notified its affiliates that it would cover the cost of any fines an affiliate was charged, but the affiliate owners were more concerned about challenges to their broadcast licenses when it comes time to renew.
Should ABC have run the movie? Certainly. Did the affiliates that didn't run the picture do the right thing? Probably. Yes, it's a war movie. To portray a war as anything other than violent, and to suggest that soldiers never use colorful language on the battlefield is ludicrous.
But the biggest problem I see is ABC's contract with the movie's director, Stephen Spielberg, which prohibits the network from editing the film in any way. This means that even the "f"-word, which is sprinkled throughout the film, would have to air. That kind of language is inappropriate for broadcast television. Some of the graphic scenes in the first few minutes of the picture probably cross the line as well. If ABC hadn't agreed to such a restrictive contract, the problem would have never happened, and the entire nation would have had this great film to watch as a tribute to soldiers on Veterans Day.
Viewers who want unedited versions of theatrical films are used to having two options: buying the movie on home video or watching it on one of the cable movie channels. Broadcast channels, like it or not, do have a responsibility for decency; their network should have never put them in this position to begin with by agreeing to air the movie "as is."
About a third of ABC affiliates decided to pre-empt the movie out of fears that they would be fined by the FCC because of the film's graphic violence and language. Though ABC aired the movie at least two times before, recent concerns about decency over the airwaves since the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" prompted the local stations to bow out.
ABC, according to some sources, had already notified its affiliates that it would cover the cost of any fines an affiliate was charged, but the affiliate owners were more concerned about challenges to their broadcast licenses when it comes time to renew.
Should ABC have run the movie? Certainly. Did the affiliates that didn't run the picture do the right thing? Probably. Yes, it's a war movie. To portray a war as anything other than violent, and to suggest that soldiers never use colorful language on the battlefield is ludicrous.
But the biggest problem I see is ABC's contract with the movie's director, Stephen Spielberg, which prohibits the network from editing the film in any way. This means that even the "f"-word, which is sprinkled throughout the film, would have to air. That kind of language is inappropriate for broadcast television. Some of the graphic scenes in the first few minutes of the picture probably cross the line as well. If ABC hadn't agreed to such a restrictive contract, the problem would have never happened, and the entire nation would have had this great film to watch as a tribute to soldiers on Veterans Day.
Viewers who want unedited versions of theatrical films are used to having two options: buying the movie on home video or watching it on one of the cable movie channels. Broadcast channels, like it or not, do have a responsibility for decency; their network should have never put them in this position to begin with by agreeing to air the movie "as is."
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Veterans Day
"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy, forget in time that men have died to win them."Veterans Day salutes those who have died in the service of their country. Originally called "Armistice Day," intended to mark the anniversary of the truce that brought World War I to an end in 1918, the day was renamed in 1954 to honor the servicemen of all of America's wars.
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt
I hope we never take the sacrifices of the soldiers for granted as easily as we do the liberties they won for us.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
How to Make Johnny Read
A series of ads designed to promote reading was pulled from New York City buses when it was discovered that the ad campaign contained a double-entendre reference to oral sex, according to a story by Reuters.
The ads were from hip-hop clothing maker Akedemiks, which apparently intended the double-entendre, and had appeared on 200 buses across the city. The ads featured a woman dressed in hot pants and kneeling in front of a pile of books, and the slogan "Read Books, Get Brain."
"Get brain," for those who didn't know, is street slang for oral sex. The Metropolitan Transit Authority, which approved the ads, wasn't aware of the lingo. I'm sure that's a great consolation to parents.
The ads were from hip-hop clothing maker Akedemiks, which apparently intended the double-entendre, and had appeared on 200 buses across the city. The ads featured a woman dressed in hot pants and kneeling in front of a pile of books, and the slogan "Read Books, Get Brain."
"Get brain," for those who didn't know, is street slang for oral sex. The Metropolitan Transit Authority, which approved the ads, wasn't aware of the lingo. I'm sure that's a great consolation to parents.
The "Yes" Men
I received a comment from a reader who wanted to disagree with a position I had taken on the issue of "ClearPlay," a DVD system skips over potentially-offensive material contained in motion pictures.
I don't mind it when people disagree with me. This is America, last time I checked, and people often find themselves on different sides of different issues. What I do mind, however, is the snide way with which this person decided to announce that he was disagreeing with me:
We're all free to agree or disagree. As I said, if you find yourself in disagreement with me, I won't think less of you for saying so, as long as you are polite in your counter-argument. I will think far less of you if you cast dispersions on my readers.
Respect my opinions and I'll respect yours. Isn't that simple?
I don't mind it when people disagree with me. This is America, last time I checked, and people often find themselves on different sides of different issues. What I do mind, however, is the snide way with which this person decided to announce that he was disagreeing with me:
"Unlike the others that have made comments, I will not be your "yes man" and agree with your views about ClearPlay. In fact, I disagree with almost everything you said. The only thing I agree with you about is that we live in a country where we can exercise certain freedoms..."I don't believe I ever asked for "yes men," and I don't believe that those who left comments stating that they agreed with my position on the matter were doing so simply because it was me who said what I said. I am quite confident that if they had felt the way you did, they would have said so. Apparently, the idea that others might join me in a position that differs with the comment writer's is a problem. But there is little I can do about that. We do live in a country in which we can exercise certain freedoms; those who agreed with me exercised their right to say that they did. He exercised his right to say that he didn't...although he could have done it in a nicer way.
We're all free to agree or disagree. As I said, if you find yourself in disagreement with me, I won't think less of you for saying so, as long as you are polite in your counter-argument. I will think far less of you if you cast dispersions on my readers.
Respect my opinions and I'll respect yours. Isn't that simple?
Friday, November 05, 2004
The Election's Aftermath
Not that it's a surprise by any means, but I'm finding a lot of negativity among some bloggers who supported John Kerry. They are angry about Bush's belief that his re-election was a mandate. I'm not sure that his success this Tuesday was because those who voted for him want things to continue exactly the way they have during his first term. I think it's safe to say that there are plenty of people who voted for Bush who aren't at all thrilled with the state of things, but who also genuinely believe that Bush is the better one to fix the problems that exist.
I'm amazed at the number of people who think that everyone who voted for Bush must believe that gays should have no rights and that abortion should be outlawed. It's not true.
Some people think that anyone who voted for the president must be against the medical advancements that stem cell research might deliver. That's false logic.
Many of them believe that everyone who voted for Bush enjoys living in a world in which fear is the order of the day. I don't know anyone who wants to live in such a world.
It's quite ironic that those who resent being labeled as "liberal" are so quick to categorize Bush supporters with similar sweeping generalizations. If labels are wrong, then don't label others. Most people, I suspect, fall mostly in the middle on most issues.
I said a long time ago that this election was Kerry's to win. Bush's approval rating certainly made it clear that he had a major challenge ahead. The fact that Kerry couldn't win despite the deep dissatisfaction in this country doesn't mean that American voters want to be dissatisfied for another four years: it simply means that more of them failed to be convinced that Kerry could satisfy them faster or more effectively than Bush.
Am I happy that Bush won? Not really. I honestly expected Kerry to win this election. I was shocked that Bush prevailed. But just as I didn't feel a particularly high level of excitement with the prospect of Kerry winning, I don't feel a particularly high level of excitement with the prospect of Bush winning, either.
Am I better off now than I was four years ago? Most definitely...and I can't believe that I'm the only one who is. Will I be better off four years from now? I hope so. But I think that has to do more with me than with whoever is in the White House. Quite frankly, I've been better off -- albeit only slightly at some points -- at the end of each president's term since I've been of voting age.
We will go on. You don't have to like Bush. You don't have to set aside your own political beliefs in some kind of dreamy-eyed support of the administration. On the other hand, if you're only looking for things to complain about, I respectfully suggest that you'll find plenty of them. And while you're complaining about every little thing you find without coming up with any real solutions or alternatives, you're likely causing more of the very division that made this year's campaign so bitter, unfair and inappropriate.
I'd like to see people be able to discuss the issues without attacking each other. I'd like to think it's possible.
I'm amazed at the number of people who think that everyone who voted for Bush must believe that gays should have no rights and that abortion should be outlawed. It's not true.
Some people think that anyone who voted for the president must be against the medical advancements that stem cell research might deliver. That's false logic.
Many of them believe that everyone who voted for Bush enjoys living in a world in which fear is the order of the day. I don't know anyone who wants to live in such a world.
It's quite ironic that those who resent being labeled as "liberal" are so quick to categorize Bush supporters with similar sweeping generalizations. If labels are wrong, then don't label others. Most people, I suspect, fall mostly in the middle on most issues.
I said a long time ago that this election was Kerry's to win. Bush's approval rating certainly made it clear that he had a major challenge ahead. The fact that Kerry couldn't win despite the deep dissatisfaction in this country doesn't mean that American voters want to be dissatisfied for another four years: it simply means that more of them failed to be convinced that Kerry could satisfy them faster or more effectively than Bush.
Am I happy that Bush won? Not really. I honestly expected Kerry to win this election. I was shocked that Bush prevailed. But just as I didn't feel a particularly high level of excitement with the prospect of Kerry winning, I don't feel a particularly high level of excitement with the prospect of Bush winning, either.
Am I better off now than I was four years ago? Most definitely...and I can't believe that I'm the only one who is. Will I be better off four years from now? I hope so. But I think that has to do more with me than with whoever is in the White House. Quite frankly, I've been better off -- albeit only slightly at some points -- at the end of each president's term since I've been of voting age.
We will go on. You don't have to like Bush. You don't have to set aside your own political beliefs in some kind of dreamy-eyed support of the administration. On the other hand, if you're only looking for things to complain about, I respectfully suggest that you'll find plenty of them. And while you're complaining about every little thing you find without coming up with any real solutions or alternatives, you're likely causing more of the very division that made this year's campaign so bitter, unfair and inappropriate.
I'd like to see people be able to discuss the issues without attacking each other. I'd like to think it's possible.
The Red and the Blue
While most of the country was getting ready to paint the nation red and blue, the Washington Post's Paul Farhi was wondering why those two colors were chosen as the official ones to represent voter choices.
Stephen Hess, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University offers two logical explanations: first, the obvious connection to the American flag; and second, the fact that those two colors look good on television.
Farhi points out that other combinations wouldn't work as well:
Given the choices we had this year, depression seems to sum up the feelings of many voters, no matter which party they voted for.
Stephen Hess, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University offers two logical explanations: first, the obvious connection to the American flag; and second, the fact that those two colors look good on television.
Farhi points out that other combinations wouldn't work as well:
"We've already tried blue and gray, and we know how that ended up. It would be wrong, for obvious reasons, to divide the country into 'black' states and 'white' states. And it just wouldn't look right to pick a more out-there palette, such as taupe-teal or puce-mauve."But he adds that both sides might find reason to complain about the color they've been assigned. Some Republicans might resent being red because that color is associated with negative traits (fiery, bloody, hot, red-in-the-face). Some Democrats might not be happy about being blue because it's the color of cold and depression.
Given the choices we had this year, depression seems to sum up the feelings of many voters, no matter which party they voted for.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
The Red and the Blue
While most of the country was getting ready to paint the nation red and blue, the Washington Post's Paul Farhi was wondering why those two colors were chosen as the official ones to represent voter choices.
Stephen Hess, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University offers two logical explanations: first, the obvious connection to the American flag; and second, the fact that those two colors look good on television.
Farhi points out that other combinations wouldn't work as well:
Given the choices we had this year, depression seems to sum up the feelings of many voters, no matter which party they voted for.
Stephen Hess, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University offers two logical explanations: first, the obvious connection to the American flag; and second, the fact that those two colors look good on television.
Farhi points out that other combinations wouldn't work as well:
"We've already tried blue and gray, and we know how that ended up. It would be wrong, for obvious reasons, to divide the country into 'black' states and 'white' states. And it just wouldn't look right to pick a more out-there palette, such as taupe-teal or puce-mauve."But he adds that both sides might find reason to complain about the color they've been assigned. Some Republicans might resent being red because that color is associated with negative traits (fiery, bloody, hot, red-in-the-face). Some Democrats might not be happy about being blue because it's the color of cold and depression.
Given the choices we had this year, depression seems to sum up the feelings of many voters, no matter which party they voted for.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Profound Words
"We worked hard, and we fought hard, and I wish that things had turned out a little differently."But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans. And that -- that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on earth.
"With that gift also comes obligation. We are required now to work together for the good of our country. In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion."
-- John Kerry
After a year of the most bitter campaigning in memory, do you think that degree of unity is possible? I hope so, but I have my doubts. I hope both parties were listening to that message today.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Democracy In Action
The line for voting at my precinct wasn't that bad. I got there around 11:00am, and the wait was only about twenty minutes or so. The poll workers told me that it had been an extremely busy morning, which is a good thing.
What struck me most about today's vote was the voting machine I had to use. This is my first election as a resident of Virginia; in South Carolina, all I had ever used was that infamous punch card system. (Contrary to popular belief of those who have never seen it in person, it's not a difficult system...and as for "hanging chads," you pull that punch card out of the slot and carry it to the ballot box yourself: you have every opportunity to notice any pieces of paper that haven't properly separated from the card.)
I got a call from my mother this morning. It turns out that this is the first year that those punch card machines back home have been replaced with touch screen voting! Who knew!
Anyway, at my precinct, I had the old-fashioned voting booth with the giant lever that pulls the curtain closed behind you. I faced four columns of miniature levers that caused rotary indicators to spin from a blank slide to an "x" when depressed. It wasn't intimidating at all...it was fairly straightforward. But I couldn't help being a little amused by the primitive look of the machine: it reminded me of those old-timey gas pumps that existed before LED and LCD digits replaced rotating digits.
Am I worried that some mechanical failure will keep my vote from being counted? No. If I was genuinely worried, I wouldn't have bothered showing up. There comes a point at which we must have faith in something. Primitive voting machine or not, I will assume that my vote will count. Likewise, I will assume that the best man -- whoever he is -- will win.
What struck me most about today's vote was the voting machine I had to use. This is my first election as a resident of Virginia; in South Carolina, all I had ever used was that infamous punch card system. (Contrary to popular belief of those who have never seen it in person, it's not a difficult system...and as for "hanging chads," you pull that punch card out of the slot and carry it to the ballot box yourself: you have every opportunity to notice any pieces of paper that haven't properly separated from the card.)
I got a call from my mother this morning. It turns out that this is the first year that those punch card machines back home have been replaced with touch screen voting! Who knew!
Anyway, at my precinct, I had the old-fashioned voting booth with the giant lever that pulls the curtain closed behind you. I faced four columns of miniature levers that caused rotary indicators to spin from a blank slide to an "x" when depressed. It wasn't intimidating at all...it was fairly straightforward. But I couldn't help being a little amused by the primitive look of the machine: it reminded me of those old-timey gas pumps that existed before LED and LCD digits replaced rotating digits.
Am I worried that some mechanical failure will keep my vote from being counted? No. If I was genuinely worried, I wouldn't have bothered showing up. There comes a point at which we must have faith in something. Primitive voting machine or not, I will assume that my vote will count. Likewise, I will assume that the best man -- whoever he is -- will win.
Clinton Called Today
I came home from work to a call on my answering machine from Bill Clinton. I was touched that he would take time from his busy campaigning and recovery from heart surgery to call me just to remind me to vote. Of course, it was a recorded message from the former president; and the call was one placed by a computer, not by the man himself. He and I never met, after all.
One of the things that really caught my ear was his charge that the Republican party has "a long history of voter intimidation." Like most of the people I've heard make such sweeping generalizations, he offered no specific examples, hoping that the charge itself would be enough to leave an impression.
It did leave an impression on me. But not, I'm sure, the impression Clinton intended.
The impression it leaves on me is this: voting is one of the most important responsibilities that we as citizens have. If someone attempts to intimidate you from voting, and you let it happen, don't blame anyone else but yourself. I'm not sure what it would take to keep the average person from voting, but if you take your civic responsibility seriously, then you don't allow it to happen. It's as simple as that.
We all have the same right to vote, according to the law, and that right is ours to either use or ignore. If you allow someone else to "help" you ignore that right, you're part of the problem.
One of the things that really caught my ear was his charge that the Republican party has "a long history of voter intimidation." Like most of the people I've heard make such sweeping generalizations, he offered no specific examples, hoping that the charge itself would be enough to leave an impression.
It did leave an impression on me. But not, I'm sure, the impression Clinton intended.
The impression it leaves on me is this: voting is one of the most important responsibilities that we as citizens have. If someone attempts to intimidate you from voting, and you let it happen, don't blame anyone else but yourself. I'm not sure what it would take to keep the average person from voting, but if you take your civic responsibility seriously, then you don't allow it to happen. It's as simple as that.
We all have the same right to vote, according to the law, and that right is ours to either use or ignore. If you allow someone else to "help" you ignore that right, you're part of the problem.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Vote!
All of you of voting age have a homework assignment tonight: to make sure you are ready to vote tomorrow.
You should check your local voter registration office's website to make sure you know exactly where your local polling place is; the location could have changed since the last election. You also should find out what your local polling place requires you to bring with you in terms of identification to be able to vote, and you should then make sure you have that necessary documentation with you. Don't assume it's in your wallet or purse. Look and see!
You should check your local newspaper which has likely produced some kind of voters guide to show you which local and statewide candidates are also running. Voting is about much more than the single vote you'll cast for president, unless you're planning to make that single choice and leave the rest of the ballot blank.
You should do some soul searching about which candidate you want as your president. I'm not here to tell you which candidate to vote for; you need to decide that for yourself. Both candidates and both parties have distorted the facts. You must sort through the mess and figure out who you trust the most...if you haven't already done so.
The important thing is that you exercise your right to vote.
You should check your local voter registration office's website to make sure you know exactly where your local polling place is; the location could have changed since the last election. You also should find out what your local polling place requires you to bring with you in terms of identification to be able to vote, and you should then make sure you have that necessary documentation with you. Don't assume it's in your wallet or purse. Look and see!
You should check your local newspaper which has likely produced some kind of voters guide to show you which local and statewide candidates are also running. Voting is about much more than the single vote you'll cast for president, unless you're planning to make that single choice and leave the rest of the ballot blank.
You should do some soul searching about which candidate you want as your president. I'm not here to tell you which candidate to vote for; you need to decide that for yourself. Both candidates and both parties have distorted the facts. You must sort through the mess and figure out who you trust the most...if you haven't already done so.
The important thing is that you exercise your right to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
