I wrote a pretty scathing article about Sarah Palin a few days back, accusing her of trying to have books banned. According to this article on FactCheck.org, claims about "book banning" are exaggerated.
I don’t claim to know everything, and I did the best job I could checking the facts for myself before I posted. Still, the articles I sited, though factual, seem to have put a decidedly anti-Palin "spin" on the facts without actually lying.
This is important: Sarah Palin never banned any books, and it was inaccurate of me to suggest that she did. If I blame my sources, that only partially exonerates me on this. I can only point out that I did not say that she banned books, I said that she tried to ban books; but even this was in error. She merely asked about the possibility of banning books. (And that fact by itself is plenty chilling.)
What we call "news" is like that these days; on the one hand, you have Fox News, spinning everything to the right, and on the other you have MSNBC doing the same thing to the left. (I should say that I do not mean to imply that MSNBC is as bad about telling the truth as Fox; Fox is truly in a class by itself and when the truth won’t spin, they lie. I’ve never caught, or heard of, MSNBC doing that. But I digress.)
Another problem is when news magazines and papers, unable to contact any better source, simply quote other magazines or papers who may or may not have their facts straight, and then go on to be quoted in yet more magazines and papers. This appears to have happened with the Time article that I quoted in my article; it said that the librarian "...couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving ‘full support’ to the mayor." (Full article.)
Looking for the truth ain’t easy, what with most of the available sources spinning one way or the other and others unwittingly telling each other’s lies.
(The Palin article on FactCheck also debunks claims that Palin cut funds for "special needs" kids in Alaska [she didn't], that she was a member of the separatist Alaskan Independence Party (she wasn't), that she supported Pat Buchanan for President [nope], and that she tried to bring Creationism into the curriculum of Alaskan public schools [not this one either]. These claims are all false. Spreading lies serves no one, especially when there’s enough on Sarah Palin for liberals to feed upon for a lifetime.)
As for Sarah Palin, I sincerely apologize for saying that she tried to ban books; it appears that she didn’t. But she was certainly thinking about banning books; one wonders what would have happened if that librarian had answered "I’m fine with that." That question remains...and in my mind it’s still enough to preclude her from the office of Vice President.
I’m going to close this by quoting myself:
"As I said, I find banning books to be un-American. If Sarah Palin tried to have books banned, then she is un-American; too un-American for me to consider her for the job of Vice President. But notice I said "if.." Since I was unable to find a true list of the books involved, if indeed such a list exists, I can’t say whether or not there were any "extenuating circumstances" in this case.... But without such details I have to judge the story on what we actually know: that Sarah Palin wanted to ban books.
"Bad, bad Sarah."
The Blues Viking
Links from the original post:
The original article in Time
Confirmation from the Anchorage Daily News
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Please don't comment on this...
...because replying to comments is taking up all of my time. I can only justify taking a couple of hours to respond to a comment under "Faith of the Faithless" by rationalizing that the reply produced was a plea for people to do their own damn research. (Read what I'm talking about.)
I originally intended to avoid responding to comments, not wanting this to turn into "that" board. But some comments are hard to ignore. At least hard for me to ignore. At least they have been so far.
So I'm not going to ignore them; not exactly, anyway.
I'm going to try to keep replys brief, unless the comment calls for more, in which case I'll be writing longer responses over the week-end. If I don't feel that a comment merits/requires a response, I won't be giving one. I may, however, post a very brief note saying why I'm not responding.
If you've commented, and I haven't responded, please don't get upset. And please try not to post any comments that ask me directly to respond, because I may not. Anything you have to say to me that asks me questions directly will get answered only as and if I have the time. And I can't promise I'll answer in a timely fashion.
And this is optional: if you give me an email address, and if you ask, I'll respond to you privately, unless I fell said reply needs to be posted on the public board.
Oh and by the way, I reserve the right to edit, expand, or delete my own articles as I feel is required.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
I originally intended to avoid responding to comments, not wanting this to turn into "that" board. But some comments are hard to ignore. At least hard for me to ignore. At least they have been so far.
So I'm not going to ignore them; not exactly, anyway.
I'm going to try to keep replys brief, unless the comment calls for more, in which case I'll be writing longer responses over the week-end. If I don't feel that a comment merits/requires a response, I won't be giving one. I may, however, post a very brief note saying why I'm not responding.
If you've commented, and I haven't responded, please don't get upset. And please try not to post any comments that ask me directly to respond, because I may not. Anything you have to say to me that asks me questions directly will get answered only as and if I have the time. And I can't promise I'll answer in a timely fashion.
And this is optional: if you give me an email address, and if you ask, I'll respond to you privately, unless I fell said reply needs to be posted on the public board.
Oh and by the way, I reserve the right to edit, expand, or delete my own articles as I feel is required.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Easy Come, Easy Go
For years (since the fall of the Soviet Union, in fact) the U.S. has enjoyed its position as the superpower that won the Cold War; the one that survived; the only superpower left. We got complacent. We felt secure in the knowledge that we were the biggest kid left on the block and no one would dare challenge us.
Any time you feel that way, it might be a good idea to turn around and have a look at who might be gaining on you.
Georgia On My Mind
(I’m talking about the country that used to be in the Soviet Union, not the state that Ray Charles used to sing about.)
I’m sure that you all remember that last month Russia invaded Georgia, and despite promises of withdrawal and treaties that require withdrawal, they’re still there. I’m not going into the internal politics of Georgia or Russia (you can go here for background on the conflict), but I am going to talk about the U.S.
Did you notice what we did in reaction to Russia‘s aggression? You probably didn’t, because we didn’t do much. Couldn’t do much, in fact, what with so much of our military resources occupied with occupying Iraq. (For more information, try this article in the Washington Post.) So much of our military hardware, material and personnel are committed in Iraq that if Russia had invaded Atlanta we’d have had a hard time responding in a timely fashion. With so much of our resources tied up in the desert we can’t possibly respond to any military action by anyone else anywhere else in the world. And our foreign policy has been so dependent upon saber-rattling that we hardly know what to do when our sabers are stuck so deeply in the sand.
Russia was able to walk right in to Georgia without fear of what the U.S. might do, because the U.S. couldn’t do anything. If this remains the case (and if McCain has his way we’ll be hopelessly tied down in Iraq for years to come) then the U.S. could be exposed to the world as impotent, and we stand to lose every scrap of prestige and influence that George Bush has left us with. And that ain’t all that much.
Saber-rattling doesn’t work so well if all you can do is shake an empty scabbard.
Made in China
These days, damn near everything is made in China. This should come as no surprise; the Communist nation is now the strongest economy, the largest manufacturer, and the largest market in the region, and one of the largest of each of these in the world. If this sounds like the U.S. of a couple of decades ago, it should; that’s the position that we enjoyed for so long.
China defies all the old rules that said what Communism was and wasn’t. They have successfully combined a rigid, inflexible political system with a free market industrial economy, something that pundits of thirty years ago would have said could never happen. Couple this with China’s vast pool of labor (which grows every day as their diminishing agrarian economy forces more of China’s poor to join the workforce) and you see China emerging as an economic power to be reckoned with.
(China’s economy is a complex and difficult thing; here is an overview of the subject.)
I don’t have to tell anyone that our economy is anything but strong; at least, it’s not nearly as strong as it once was. While we’re still the biggest consumer nation in the world, we hardly make a thing here. Most of our consumer goods are made in China or other places in the Pacific Rim where labor and materials are much cheaper.
But China's influence over us goes beyond that, into the world of internatiional money markets, currency trading, and high finance in general. With our economy so bad and theirs so good, is it any wonder that China is buying up a lot of America? It shouldn't be; after all, the same thing happened when Japan became, for a few years, the world's major economic powerhouse (a role they couldn't sustain). One of the things they're buying is our debt. (Did you know that we live in a world where debt can be traded as an asset?) How are we supposed to excercise any influence over China when we owe them so much money? What can we do, threaten not to pay? We're not strong enough, economically, to stand on our own; where do we turn the next time we need a hand-out if we destroy our credit by defaulting on our massive debt to China?
In Conclusion
The world is changing. We are neither the economic nor the military powerhouse we once were. Other nations have stepped in to fill those roles. Perhaps they can’t do so in the long term; perhaps they can. How China and Russia react to their changing roles is a matter that, ultimately, we can only observe. Our presence on the world stage is diminishing, and as long as we hold to the old "toughest kid on the block" paradigm then it will continue to diminish, and our ability to influence world events can only diminish with it.
Maybe it’s time (well past time, perhaps) we found some other way to relate to the rest of the world. I realize that it’s somewhat natural for the biggest kid on the block to become the neighborhood bully, but we’ve all gotten older now and some of the other kids have gotten a lot bigger. Maybe we should try to be something besides the neighborhood bully before the choice is taken away from us.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Any time you feel that way, it might be a good idea to turn around and have a look at who might be gaining on you.
Georgia On My Mind
(I’m talking about the country that used to be in the Soviet Union, not the state that Ray Charles used to sing about.)
I’m sure that you all remember that last month Russia invaded Georgia, and despite promises of withdrawal and treaties that require withdrawal, they’re still there. I’m not going into the internal politics of Georgia or Russia (you can go here for background on the conflict), but I am going to talk about the U.S.
Did you notice what we did in reaction to Russia‘s aggression? You probably didn’t, because we didn’t do much. Couldn’t do much, in fact, what with so much of our military resources occupied with occupying Iraq. (For more information, try this article in the Washington Post.) So much of our military hardware, material and personnel are committed in Iraq that if Russia had invaded Atlanta we’d have had a hard time responding in a timely fashion. With so much of our resources tied up in the desert we can’t possibly respond to any military action by anyone else anywhere else in the world. And our foreign policy has been so dependent upon saber-rattling that we hardly know what to do when our sabers are stuck so deeply in the sand.
Russia was able to walk right in to Georgia without fear of what the U.S. might do, because the U.S. couldn’t do anything. If this remains the case (and if McCain has his way we’ll be hopelessly tied down in Iraq for years to come) then the U.S. could be exposed to the world as impotent, and we stand to lose every scrap of prestige and influence that George Bush has left us with. And that ain’t all that much.
Saber-rattling doesn’t work so well if all you can do is shake an empty scabbard.
Made in China
These days, damn near everything is made in China. This should come as no surprise; the Communist nation is now the strongest economy, the largest manufacturer, and the largest market in the region, and one of the largest of each of these in the world. If this sounds like the U.S. of a couple of decades ago, it should; that’s the position that we enjoyed for so long.
China defies all the old rules that said what Communism was and wasn’t. They have successfully combined a rigid, inflexible political system with a free market industrial economy, something that pundits of thirty years ago would have said could never happen. Couple this with China’s vast pool of labor (which grows every day as their diminishing agrarian economy forces more of China’s poor to join the workforce) and you see China emerging as an economic power to be reckoned with.
(China’s economy is a complex and difficult thing; here is an overview of the subject.)
I don’t have to tell anyone that our economy is anything but strong; at least, it’s not nearly as strong as it once was. While we’re still the biggest consumer nation in the world, we hardly make a thing here. Most of our consumer goods are made in China or other places in the Pacific Rim where labor and materials are much cheaper.
But China's influence over us goes beyond that, into the world of internatiional money markets, currency trading, and high finance in general. With our economy so bad and theirs so good, is it any wonder that China is buying up a lot of America? It shouldn't be; after all, the same thing happened when Japan became, for a few years, the world's major economic powerhouse (a role they couldn't sustain). One of the things they're buying is our debt. (Did you know that we live in a world where debt can be traded as an asset?) How are we supposed to excercise any influence over China when we owe them so much money? What can we do, threaten not to pay? We're not strong enough, economically, to stand on our own; where do we turn the next time we need a hand-out if we destroy our credit by defaulting on our massive debt to China?
In Conclusion
The world is changing. We are neither the economic nor the military powerhouse we once were. Other nations have stepped in to fill those roles. Perhaps they can’t do so in the long term; perhaps they can. How China and Russia react to their changing roles is a matter that, ultimately, we can only observe. Our presence on the world stage is diminishing, and as long as we hold to the old "toughest kid on the block" paradigm then it will continue to diminish, and our ability to influence world events can only diminish with it.
Maybe it’s time (well past time, perhaps) we found some other way to relate to the rest of the world. I realize that it’s somewhat natural for the biggest kid on the block to become the neighborhood bully, but we’ve all gotten older now and some of the other kids have gotten a lot bigger. Maybe we should try to be something besides the neighborhood bully before the choice is taken away from us.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Faith of the Faithless
Years ago I was in a discussion with a person of strong religious beliefs, and mentioned that I was an Atheist. She looked at me with an expression of disbelief and disgust, and said (nearly shouted) "You say that as if you were proud of it!"
"I am."
And just what, you might well ask, is my point? Well, I’m getting to that.
Today something was posted to a mailing list I’m on, something that I found offensive. Now, if you’ve been reading this list you’ll know that I have wrestled with this particular demon in the past (read this if you don’t remember) and I am genuinely trying not to be so thin skinned. This guy, however, just happened to push the button connected to the raw nerve in my pet peeve. (Shall I throw another metaphor into the mix? No? Ok, then...)
Here’s what happened.
A person of strong conservative feelings posted a long quote from pundit Dr. Jack Wheeler, posted on many web sites (here’s the original article on Wheeler’s own site) and to blogs and mailing lists everywhere (just do a Google search on "Jack Wheeler" and see for yourself). Now, I don’t think much of Jack Wheeler or anything he says; according to him, not only should Obama be drug tested (see for yourself) but McCain is "clinically nuts" (yes, he said that too) and cooperated with the Viet Cong in exchange for a Hanoi apartment and a couple of hookers. If anyone is "clinically nuts" it seems to me that it’s Wheeler. But this particular quote from Wheeler contained the following:
"Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior."
My response: "As an atheist I find this statement extremely offensive. Religiously offensive. Shame on Jack Wheeler...and shame on you for quoting him."
I later expanded on this:
"Why did this bother me? Well, suppose that this wasn’t a question of religion but one of race; suppose that he had made the same statement but with equally offensive terms, and the quote had read:
"’Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain white and are in no desperate need of a phony Martin Luther King.’
"Do you get it now?"
I honestly don’t think he did get it, but I’ll never really know, since this showed every sign if degenerating into yet another pointless political/religious argument through email that no one really wanted clogging up their mailbox, so I just blocked his mail and went away to stew for a while. And write this article.
It got me thinking about Atheism. It got me asking myself why I was so offended. Here’s the answer I came up with: I got offended because no one seems to think I should be.
We live in a very sensitive (some would say over sensitive) society. If someone makes anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-Methodist comments they are ostracized, and rightly so. And while anti-Moslem comments are somewhat tolerated, they shouldn’t be, and there are plenty of people who will stand up for Moslem religious rights as well. In fact, for nearly all religious groups of any size there are also networks of support organizations, youth groups, clubs and teams and meetings and prayer groups by the score.
But Atheists have no advocates; no support network, no churches, no community centers. It is in our nature to be decentralized and disorganized. We’re fair game. You can safely make anti-Atheist comments with no fear from anybody (well, there is Madalyn Murray O’Hare’s organization but even Atheists seldom listen to them).
This isn’t a call for Atheists United; such an organization would be against our natures, as I said. This is a plea for America’s famous religious tolerance (which ain’t been all that tolerant lately) to be extended to those of us who profess no religion; who have no faith in supreme beings or Holy Ghosts or Great Spirits or whatever.
And a plea for you to recognize this: That we are not people who do not believe, not people who have no faith.
It always seemed to me that the appeal of divine beings is that they can never really let you down; if they seem not to come through, you can always say it’s your fault and still believe in their perfect love. There are things that I believe in; people, institutions, the laws of physics, and the U.S. Constitution among them.
(The Constitution is particularly important to me; I hold it in the same regard as many hold the Bible, as a document penned by fallible and imperfect men that somehow manages to transcend its framers, that I can look to often and find new truths in it each time. If I could hold any book holy, it would be the U.S. Constitution. And like the Bible, no two interpretations of the Constitution exactly agree, and some are wildly divergent. But I digress.)
The problem with these "non-divine" objects of faith is that they can let you down; often do, in fact; institutions can fail you, the laws of physics are imperfectly understood, the Constitution gets used as toilet paper by the very people sworn to defend it, and people in general are no damn good. And in spite of all of this, my faith remains unshaken; does that sound much like religious devotion to you?
Anyway, that’s what I believe, and what I believe in. I need to get a bumper sticker that says "Atheist - and proud of it."
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
"I am."
And just what, you might well ask, is my point? Well, I’m getting to that.
Today something was posted to a mailing list I’m on, something that I found offensive. Now, if you’ve been reading this list you’ll know that I have wrestled with this particular demon in the past (read this if you don’t remember) and I am genuinely trying not to be so thin skinned. This guy, however, just happened to push the button connected to the raw nerve in my pet peeve. (Shall I throw another metaphor into the mix? No? Ok, then...)
Here’s what happened.
A person of strong conservative feelings posted a long quote from pundit Dr. Jack Wheeler, posted on many web sites (here’s the original article on Wheeler’s own site) and to blogs and mailing lists everywhere (just do a Google search on "Jack Wheeler" and see for yourself). Now, I don’t think much of Jack Wheeler or anything he says; according to him, not only should Obama be drug tested (see for yourself) but McCain is "clinically nuts" (yes, he said that too) and cooperated with the Viet Cong in exchange for a Hanoi apartment and a couple of hookers. If anyone is "clinically nuts" it seems to me that it’s Wheeler. But this particular quote from Wheeler contained the following:
"Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior."
My response: "As an atheist I find this statement extremely offensive. Religiously offensive. Shame on Jack Wheeler...and shame on you for quoting him."
I later expanded on this:
"Why did this bother me? Well, suppose that this wasn’t a question of religion but one of race; suppose that he had made the same statement but with equally offensive terms, and the quote had read:
"’Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain white and are in no desperate need of a phony Martin Luther King.’
"Do you get it now?"
I honestly don’t think he did get it, but I’ll never really know, since this showed every sign if degenerating into yet another pointless political/religious argument through email that no one really wanted clogging up their mailbox, so I just blocked his mail and went away to stew for a while. And write this article.
It got me thinking about Atheism. It got me asking myself why I was so offended. Here’s the answer I came up with: I got offended because no one seems to think I should be.
We live in a very sensitive (some would say over sensitive) society. If someone makes anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-Methodist comments they are ostracized, and rightly so. And while anti-Moslem comments are somewhat tolerated, they shouldn’t be, and there are plenty of people who will stand up for Moslem religious rights as well. In fact, for nearly all religious groups of any size there are also networks of support organizations, youth groups, clubs and teams and meetings and prayer groups by the score.
But Atheists have no advocates; no support network, no churches, no community centers. It is in our nature to be decentralized and disorganized. We’re fair game. You can safely make anti-Atheist comments with no fear from anybody (well, there is Madalyn Murray O’Hare’s organization but even Atheists seldom listen to them).
This isn’t a call for Atheists United; such an organization would be against our natures, as I said. This is a plea for America’s famous religious tolerance (which ain’t been all that tolerant lately) to be extended to those of us who profess no religion; who have no faith in supreme beings or Holy Ghosts or Great Spirits or whatever.
And a plea for you to recognize this: That we are not people who do not believe, not people who have no faith.
It always seemed to me that the appeal of divine beings is that they can never really let you down; if they seem not to come through, you can always say it’s your fault and still believe in their perfect love. There are things that I believe in; people, institutions, the laws of physics, and the U.S. Constitution among them.
(The Constitution is particularly important to me; I hold it in the same regard as many hold the Bible, as a document penned by fallible and imperfect men that somehow manages to transcend its framers, that I can look to often and find new truths in it each time. If I could hold any book holy, it would be the U.S. Constitution. And like the Bible, no two interpretations of the Constitution exactly agree, and some are wildly divergent. But I digress.)
The problem with these "non-divine" objects of faith is that they can let you down; often do, in fact; institutions can fail you, the laws of physics are imperfectly understood, the Constitution gets used as toilet paper by the very people sworn to defend it, and people in general are no damn good. And in spite of all of this, my faith remains unshaken; does that sound much like religious devotion to you?
Anyway, that’s what I believe, and what I believe in. I need to get a bumper sticker that says "Atheist - and proud of it."
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Sarah Palin vs. the Librarian
Thanks to auntiezel fior putting me onto this.
In any modern political campaign, candidates have to expect that every single skeleton in their closets is going to be taken out and given a good shake. This is especially true of the vice presidency; anyone who aspires that high should be prepared to have all their secrets revealed.
Thus do we come to something from Sarah Palin’s past, something that I’m sure she’s not ashamed of and that wouldn’t hurt her with Republican voters, but at which I for one am appalled.
Sarah Palin tried to ban books from the public library.
This may not seem like much to you, but it’s a big deal to me. Banning books is downright un-American and this small part of her past is enough to disqualify her from high office. In my book, anyway.
In an article in Time magazine, the previous mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, John Stein, is quoted thus:
"Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. ‘She asked the library how she could go about banning books,’ he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. ‘The librarian was aghast.’ That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving ‘full support’ to the mayor." (Read the full article here.)
I’d love to provide a list of the books she allegedly wanted banned, but there doesn’t seem to be one. At least, not a real one; a list was published on librarian.net, but it appears to be bogus; not only does it include books that hadn’t even been published at the time, but as one commentator on another site pointed out "...that's a list of every book ever banned in the U.S" (his italics)
I was, however, able to find some confirmation of the Time story in an article in the Anchorage Daily News. (Read the whole article.) In it, it says: "Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so." The article goes on to document Sarah Palin’s attempt (and failure, due to the public response) to have the librarian fired.
As I said, I find banning books to be un-American. If Sarah Palin tried to have books banned, then she is un-American; too un-American for me to consider her for the job of Vice President. But notice I said "if." Since I was unable to find a true list of the books involved, if indeed such a list exists, I can’t say whether or not there were any "extenuating circumstances" in this case; certainly, there would be a vast difference between banning, say, The Anarchist’s Cookbook and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. But without such details I have to judge the story on what we actually know: that Sarah Palin wanted to ban books.
Bad, bad Sarah.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
In any modern political campaign, candidates have to expect that every single skeleton in their closets is going to be taken out and given a good shake. This is especially true of the vice presidency; anyone who aspires that high should be prepared to have all their secrets revealed.
Thus do we come to something from Sarah Palin’s past, something that I’m sure she’s not ashamed of and that wouldn’t hurt her with Republican voters, but at which I for one am appalled.
Sarah Palin tried to ban books from the public library.
This may not seem like much to you, but it’s a big deal to me. Banning books is downright un-American and this small part of her past is enough to disqualify her from high office. In my book, anyway.
In an article in Time magazine, the previous mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, John Stein, is quoted thus:
"Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. ‘She asked the library how she could go about banning books,’ he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. ‘The librarian was aghast.’ That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving ‘full support’ to the mayor." (Read the full article here.)
I’d love to provide a list of the books she allegedly wanted banned, but there doesn’t seem to be one. At least, not a real one; a list was published on librarian.net, but it appears to be bogus; not only does it include books that hadn’t even been published at the time, but as one commentator on another site pointed out "...that's a list of every book ever banned in the U.S" (his italics)
I was, however, able to find some confirmation of the Time story in an article in the Anchorage Daily News. (Read the whole article.) In it, it says: "Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so." The article goes on to document Sarah Palin’s attempt (and failure, due to the public response) to have the librarian fired.
As I said, I find banning books to be un-American. If Sarah Palin tried to have books banned, then she is un-American; too un-American for me to consider her for the job of Vice President. But notice I said "if." Since I was unable to find a true list of the books involved, if indeed such a list exists, I can’t say whether or not there were any "extenuating circumstances" in this case; certainly, there would be a vast difference between banning, say, The Anarchist’s Cookbook and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. But without such details I have to judge the story on what we actually know: that Sarah Palin wanted to ban books.
Bad, bad Sarah.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Browser Wars, part II?
Google has released the Beta version of its new web browser, calling to mind a time from years ago when Netscape battled Microsoft to see who would rule the Internet. The Browser Wars that then ensued pitted Netscape’s browser against Microsoft Internet Explorer in what promised to be a fight to the finish. It ended, as T. S. Elliot wrote, "not with a bang but a whimper."
I remember when America Online, then the giant among on-line services (and still pretty damn big) and a minor power in the Browser Wars, purchased Netscape. The whole damn company. With Netscape and AOL together, we all thought that the war was all but over and that the new powerhouse of AOL/Netscape had won. I remember telling a friend of mine, "The Browser Wars are over!"
Well, it certainly looked that way. What actually happened was something of a "negotiated settlement" between AOL and Microsoft, with AOL gaining access to MSIE in ways only Microsoft developers had been able to previously, and the fine Netscape browser being given "second string" status. (Yes, I know that I’m mixing my metaphors; I like mine shaken not stirred.)
Now we’re presented with an all new browser and, perhaps, a return to the trenches. Microsoft isn’t in as strong a position, what with the current strength of Apple, and there’s still a Netscape browser (it’s called Mozilla Firefox now; even the Netscape name was allowed to die). And along comes this new "open source" (another thorn in Microsoft’s side) browser threatening to start it all over again.
Google’s new browser is called "Chrome." Early reviews are generally positive. It’s still in beta, which means that there are still features to come and the odd problem to be overcome. Will this be the browser to topple Microsoft’s domination of the field? Hard to say; Microsoft’s new version of IE is in beta now as well, but the computer world is changing fast, what with new ways to use the web cropping up every day, and which browser will ultimately be the better platform is hard to say. I’m afraid that we’re all going to have to play a "wait and see" game for the time being.
Duck and cover.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
I remember when America Online, then the giant among on-line services (and still pretty damn big) and a minor power in the Browser Wars, purchased Netscape. The whole damn company. With Netscape and AOL together, we all thought that the war was all but over and that the new powerhouse of AOL/Netscape had won. I remember telling a friend of mine, "The Browser Wars are over!"
Well, it certainly looked that way. What actually happened was something of a "negotiated settlement" between AOL and Microsoft, with AOL gaining access to MSIE in ways only Microsoft developers had been able to previously, and the fine Netscape browser being given "second string" status. (Yes, I know that I’m mixing my metaphors; I like mine shaken not stirred.)
Now we’re presented with an all new browser and, perhaps, a return to the trenches. Microsoft isn’t in as strong a position, what with the current strength of Apple, and there’s still a Netscape browser (it’s called Mozilla Firefox now; even the Netscape name was allowed to die). And along comes this new "open source" (another thorn in Microsoft’s side) browser threatening to start it all over again.
Google’s new browser is called "Chrome." Early reviews are generally positive. It’s still in beta, which means that there are still features to come and the odd problem to be overcome. Will this be the browser to topple Microsoft’s domination of the field? Hard to say; Microsoft’s new version of IE is in beta now as well, but the computer world is changing fast, what with new ways to use the web cropping up every day, and which browser will ultimately be the better platform is hard to say. I’m afraid that we’re all going to have to play a "wait and see" game for the time being.
Duck and cover.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Just to let you know...
I don't want this blog to get clogged with articles, links, and other items from all parts of the Internet that don't belong to me or that I didn't write, but that I find interesting enough to forward. So I went and made a whole new blog for that stuff. Some of this is too good not to pass along, some of it is too important not to pass along, and some of it is just too damn funny. If you want to check it out:
Blues' Blog o' Links http://www.blueblogslinks.blogspot.com/
Enjoy. Or don't. Whatever.
The Blues Viking
Blues' Blog o' Links http://www.blueblogslinks.blogspot.com/
Enjoy. Or don't. Whatever.
The Blues Viking
Thursday, September 4, 2008
"Signs, signs, everywhere a sign..."
Something I meant to mention in Tuesday's post, but neglected to include: signs.
It seems that the sign of the night at the RNC was "Country First." I imagine that this didn't bother many people, particularly at the Republican convention, but it bothered me. This is why I tend to vote Democrat; putting the USA before the rest of the world strikes me as dumb. Extremely dumb. I'm not saying that there's anything all that wrong with seeing yourself as an American first; I'm just saying that that's short sighted.
I'm a human being, with responsibilities toward humanity, first, and an American after that. I am an inhabitant of the planet Earth first, and an inhabitant of the United States after that. (I'm trying not to use phrases like, "Citizen of the World.") You probably don't agree with me; most people don't. And that's the problem.
Let's face it; the world is in a mess. Do I really need to go into all that now? Haven't you heard it enough? Well, you probably haven't heard it enough (go rent a copy of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth if you feel like getting educated). And it seems to me that one of the ways we got this way was by putting country first, by making decisions based on what's best for us rather than what's best for us all.
I think differently. Or at least I try to.
Now I'm not going to go all green on everybody; my concern for the Earth is based on self interest. If we don't start recognizing that we all live here, that we live on the whole planet and not in just one corner of it, then we're likely to find ourselves without a corner left to stand in.
People have been shouting about saving the world for years. I agree with George Carlin that the world doesn't need us to save it; that the world scarcely takes notice of our presence and that our entire time on Earth is just a tiny fraction of an insignificance compared to the life span of the Earth. That's not the point; if we really don't matter to the planet, if our presence here makes no difference to the Earth, then we can't expect the Earth to somehow save us from ourselves. The planet has superb defense systems and can easily rid itself of whatever threatens it or its systens; but unlike Carlin I think that we are well capable of making ourselves a threat to the planet's systems. It is in our own self interest to make ourselves as little of a threat as possible.
We need to end this attitude that what matters in the U.S., how the U.S. deals with its own resources, is all that really matters to us Americans and the rest of the world can go it's own way. As much as I hate to resort to a cliché here, it's true enough:
We're all in this boat together.
So I don't like "Country First" signs because it's that kind of thinking that got us into this mess, and that may keep us from crawling out of it. But, like I said, I don't expect you to agree with me.
That does not mean that I am going to be quiet.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
It seems that the sign of the night at the RNC was "Country First." I imagine that this didn't bother many people, particularly at the Republican convention, but it bothered me. This is why I tend to vote Democrat; putting the USA before the rest of the world strikes me as dumb. Extremely dumb. I'm not saying that there's anything all that wrong with seeing yourself as an American first; I'm just saying that that's short sighted.
I'm a human being, with responsibilities toward humanity, first, and an American after that. I am an inhabitant of the planet Earth first, and an inhabitant of the United States after that. (I'm trying not to use phrases like, "Citizen of the World.") You probably don't agree with me; most people don't. And that's the problem.
Let's face it; the world is in a mess. Do I really need to go into all that now? Haven't you heard it enough? Well, you probably haven't heard it enough (go rent a copy of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth if you feel like getting educated). And it seems to me that one of the ways we got this way was by putting country first, by making decisions based on what's best for us rather than what's best for us all.
I think differently. Or at least I try to.
Now I'm not going to go all green on everybody; my concern for the Earth is based on self interest. If we don't start recognizing that we all live here, that we live on the whole planet and not in just one corner of it, then we're likely to find ourselves without a corner left to stand in.
People have been shouting about saving the world for years. I agree with George Carlin that the world doesn't need us to save it; that the world scarcely takes notice of our presence and that our entire time on Earth is just a tiny fraction of an insignificance compared to the life span of the Earth. That's not the point; if we really don't matter to the planet, if our presence here makes no difference to the Earth, then we can't expect the Earth to somehow save us from ourselves. The planet has superb defense systems and can easily rid itself of whatever threatens it or its systens; but unlike Carlin I think that we are well capable of making ourselves a threat to the planet's systems. It is in our own self interest to make ourselves as little of a threat as possible.
We need to end this attitude that what matters in the U.S., how the U.S. deals with its own resources, is all that really matters to us Americans and the rest of the world can go it's own way. As much as I hate to resort to a cliché here, it's true enough:
We're all in this boat together.
So I don't like "Country First" signs because it's that kind of thinking that got us into this mess, and that may keep us from crawling out of it. But, like I said, I don't expect you to agree with me.
That does not mean that I am going to be quiet.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Monkey Wrench Central
Three things that might derail Barack Obama’s chances to become President:, presented with my tounge well in cheek.
1. A Democratic Congress
Americans seem to like it when the White House and Congress are controlled by different parties. Maybe it’s because we don’t entirely trust the people we elect; maybe this is our way of ensuring that the system of checks and balances stays in force. Whatever the reason, we (as a group) seem to like things that way. And with the Democrats set to ride a tide of Presidential dissatisfaction into a wider margin of congressional control (I love typing stuff like that) the future does not look entirely bright for Obama.
Mind, this isn’t a hard-and-fast rule, but it’s true more often than not. And when we do elect the same party to both the White House and Congress, we generally regret it by the next congressional election. Is that going to mean less-than-enthusiastic support for Obama as the election draws near? I doubt it; if we didn’t forget previous lessons we’d have nothing to re-learn.
2. We Don’t Believe in Change
As a rule, the American electorate fears change. However bad things may get, at least we know the faults and weaknesses of the current Republican administration. We’d have to learn all about Obama’s weaknesses as we go along. "Better the devil you know..." and all that (R. Taverner, 1539). Change threatens to take us out of our comfort zone, and if there’s one thing that Americans can’t stand it’s a threat to our comfort zone. Obama’s campaign as the Candidate of Change (that is, this year’s Candidate of Change) could take Americans uncomfortably close to somewhere they don’t want to go.
3. War Movies
Ronald Reagan showed us the value of a well-stocked library of film. John McCain has learned that lesson at the feet of the master. Just look at all the snapshots from the Viet Nam era that ran on the Really Big Screen last night. The images of McCain the War Hero were powerful; regrettably, they didn’t have footage of him actually in the Hanoi Hilton, but they had "homecoming" stuff to make up for it. These are powerful images; images that shots of Obama growing up, Obama going to school, Obama meeting with lawmakers and dignitaries and Important People in general, cannot compete against.
Conclusion
Do I actually believe any of this? Of course not. (Not much, anyway.) But since I’m not watching convention coverage tonight (the premere episode of Sons of Anarchy is on; a guy’s got to have priorities) and thus can't comment on it, I thought I’d post something pro-McCain...and I couldn’t post anything pro-McCain with a straight face.
What, me biased?
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
1. A Democratic Congress
Americans seem to like it when the White House and Congress are controlled by different parties. Maybe it’s because we don’t entirely trust the people we elect; maybe this is our way of ensuring that the system of checks and balances stays in force. Whatever the reason, we (as a group) seem to like things that way. And with the Democrats set to ride a tide of Presidential dissatisfaction into a wider margin of congressional control (I love typing stuff like that) the future does not look entirely bright for Obama.
Mind, this isn’t a hard-and-fast rule, but it’s true more often than not. And when we do elect the same party to both the White House and Congress, we generally regret it by the next congressional election. Is that going to mean less-than-enthusiastic support for Obama as the election draws near? I doubt it; if we didn’t forget previous lessons we’d have nothing to re-learn.
2. We Don’t Believe in Change
As a rule, the American electorate fears change. However bad things may get, at least we know the faults and weaknesses of the current Republican administration. We’d have to learn all about Obama’s weaknesses as we go along. "Better the devil you know..." and all that (R. Taverner, 1539). Change threatens to take us out of our comfort zone, and if there’s one thing that Americans can’t stand it’s a threat to our comfort zone. Obama’s campaign as the Candidate of Change (that is, this year’s Candidate of Change) could take Americans uncomfortably close to somewhere they don’t want to go.
3. War Movies
Ronald Reagan showed us the value of a well-stocked library of film. John McCain has learned that lesson at the feet of the master. Just look at all the snapshots from the Viet Nam era that ran on the Really Big Screen last night. The images of McCain the War Hero were powerful; regrettably, they didn’t have footage of him actually in the Hanoi Hilton, but they had "homecoming" stuff to make up for it. These are powerful images; images that shots of Obama growing up, Obama going to school, Obama meeting with lawmakers and dignitaries and Important People in general, cannot compete against.
Conclusion
Do I actually believe any of this? Of course not. (Not much, anyway.) But since I’m not watching convention coverage tonight (the premere episode of Sons of Anarchy is on; a guy’s got to have priorities) and thus can't comment on it, I thought I’d post something pro-McCain...and I couldn’t post anything pro-McCain with a straight face.
What, me biased?
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
"And to the Republicans for which they stand..."
A few remarks about the speeches at the Republican Nationan Convention on Tuesday, September 2nd
Over all, it wasn’t a bad night to be a Republican.
Laura bush spoke to introduce the President, making sure she praised the work of Republican women and expressing her delight at the choice of Governor Palin as Vice Presidential running-mate to John McCain. It turns out that she’s a much better speaker than her husband.
I didn’t make any notes during George W. Bush’s remarks for various reasons, but did watch. As to the President’s videotaped remarks, I am just going to make one quick comment: The truth is that Bush just isn’t the speaker that Barack Obama is. Or Al Gore. Or Joe Biden. Or anyone who spoke at the Democratic National Convention. In fact, none of the early speakers tonight really excelled. I have to admit, though, Fred Thompson wasn’t too bad. Neither was Joe Lieberman.
The video tribute to Ronald Reagan was noteworthy more for what it omitted than for what it contained. The video never mentioned the fact that Ronald Reagan was a prominent Democrat until he switched parties in 1962. And while praising the devotion of Nancy Reagan, it failed to mention Reagan’s first marriage to Jane Wyman from 1940 to 1948, nor did they mention any of Reagan’s four children (not just the two he had with Jane Wyman).
Not surprisingly, the video tied John McCain to Ronald Reagan. Not that I ever saw that they had all that much in common, but some kind of attempt was to be expected.
Interestingly enough, each speaker seemed to make a point of John McCain’s steadfast resistance to torture by his captors; Fred Thompson in particular. Is this the best policy for the Republicans to take right now? I wouldn’t have thought so. And was it all that smart to dwell so hard on who McCain was as opposed to who he is? After all, it’s the man he is now that we have to elect. Or not.
There was a stage-wide screen behind the speakers that showed the Reagan tribute as well as the Bush address, and which showed scenes of McCain’s life and career during the other speakers’ words, but whenever the camera widened out to include this screen it often seemed to be in transition from one picture to another, showing a confused mess to the TV viewers.
I’ll try not to read anything into the fact that the "keynote" speaker tonight was a Democrat. Independent democrat Joe Lieberman was the only one to speak about unity that transcended either party, talking about Democrats and Republicans fighting each other rather than fighting the problems we face. What I didn’t expect to hear was Lieberman praising Bill Clinton. It was greeted with applause; not terribly enthusiastic applause, true, but applause none the less. He talked about the independence of John McCain and his calling for "national unity."
All in all, as far as the Republicans are concerned tonight’s speeches were (mostly) all they could have wished; lots of praise for McCain, lots of talk on Republican issues, lots of waiving the flag, and lots of John McCain the War Hero. I feel like I was being asked to vote for GI Joe. They were weak on the economy, weak on unemployment, weak on the environment, weak on almost everything except flag-waiving patriotism. It was a cheering crowd, a partisan crowd, but not all that enthusiastic a crowd. Perhaps they were all saving themselves for Sarah Palin.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Over all, it wasn’t a bad night to be a Republican.
Laura bush spoke to introduce the President, making sure she praised the work of Republican women and expressing her delight at the choice of Governor Palin as Vice Presidential running-mate to John McCain. It turns out that she’s a much better speaker than her husband.
I didn’t make any notes during George W. Bush’s remarks for various reasons, but did watch. As to the President’s videotaped remarks, I am just going to make one quick comment: The truth is that Bush just isn’t the speaker that Barack Obama is. Or Al Gore. Or Joe Biden. Or anyone who spoke at the Democratic National Convention. In fact, none of the early speakers tonight really excelled. I have to admit, though, Fred Thompson wasn’t too bad. Neither was Joe Lieberman.
The video tribute to Ronald Reagan was noteworthy more for what it omitted than for what it contained. The video never mentioned the fact that Ronald Reagan was a prominent Democrat until he switched parties in 1962. And while praising the devotion of Nancy Reagan, it failed to mention Reagan’s first marriage to Jane Wyman from 1940 to 1948, nor did they mention any of Reagan’s four children (not just the two he had with Jane Wyman).
Not surprisingly, the video tied John McCain to Ronald Reagan. Not that I ever saw that they had all that much in common, but some kind of attempt was to be expected.
Interestingly enough, each speaker seemed to make a point of John McCain’s steadfast resistance to torture by his captors; Fred Thompson in particular. Is this the best policy for the Republicans to take right now? I wouldn’t have thought so. And was it all that smart to dwell so hard on who McCain was as opposed to who he is? After all, it’s the man he is now that we have to elect. Or not.
There was a stage-wide screen behind the speakers that showed the Reagan tribute as well as the Bush address, and which showed scenes of McCain’s life and career during the other speakers’ words, but whenever the camera widened out to include this screen it often seemed to be in transition from one picture to another, showing a confused mess to the TV viewers.
I’ll try not to read anything into the fact that the "keynote" speaker tonight was a Democrat. Independent democrat Joe Lieberman was the only one to speak about unity that transcended either party, talking about Democrats and Republicans fighting each other rather than fighting the problems we face. What I didn’t expect to hear was Lieberman praising Bill Clinton. It was greeted with applause; not terribly enthusiastic applause, true, but applause none the less. He talked about the independence of John McCain and his calling for "national unity."
All in all, as far as the Republicans are concerned tonight’s speeches were (mostly) all they could have wished; lots of praise for McCain, lots of talk on Republican issues, lots of waiving the flag, and lots of John McCain the War Hero. I feel like I was being asked to vote for GI Joe. They were weak on the economy, weak on unemployment, weak on the environment, weak on almost everything except flag-waiving patriotism. It was a cheering crowd, a partisan crowd, but not all that enthusiastic a crowd. Perhaps they were all saving themselves for Sarah Palin.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Conventional Wisdom part III
Before the Republican National Convention gets under way (if you don’t count last night’s hurricane coverage, that is) there are a few things I wonder about.
I find myself wondering if either candidate can actually deliver on anything they’re promising right now. I’m old enough to have seen a few of these election things, and I we all know that the candidates seldom turn out to be the people they appear to be during the election. I know that campaign promises will be forgotten soon after the election, that a candidate who stands staunchly for or against an issue may stand somewhere else entirely when the confetti is all swept up, that the realities of doing the job may change a candidate’s mind in important, and often disappointing, ways. I’ve seen it happen often enough.
I remember that Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Viet Nam, then took two terms and the invasion of Cambodia to do it. I remember Bill Clinton promising health care reform, and we still don’t have it. I remember George Bush I promising "No New Taxes" then reneging in a big way. Now, granted, these weren’t necessarily lies; I remember Nixon trying to end the war in Viet Nam, I remember Clinton trying to reform health care, and I remember Bush I trying to keep that "No New Taxes" promise. But in each case, reality interfered. Either Congress or the economy or the Viet Cong or the NVA or whoever/whatever refused to cooperate, and promises were broken.
This happens with every new president. "The best laid schemes..." and all that (Robert Burns, 1785). The point is, no President will be able to keep all of their pre-election promises. The question is, which ones are they going to keep and which are just "campaign promises," and do they even know which ones they are going to eventually break?
And we, the poor voters, have to decide, based of poor information and gut instinct, which candidate we’re going to elect.
Bigger question: Does it matter? I remember the 2000 election, which was so close that we still can’t be certain who actually won (even though Gore clearly won the popular vote, the Electoral College is another kettle of fish) and the matter was decided by the Supreme Court (and whether of not the Supreme Court even had that authority is something constitutional scholars will be debating forever). That election was taken out of our hands, and a President was selected for us; what if (and I’ll admit this is very unlikely, but it did happen once) we had to go through the Supreme Court again? The conservative Supreme Court?
What I’m getting at is this: We have to make an extremely important decision soon, and not only do we not have enough information but the information we do have can change drastically and unpredictably after the decision is made. And besides, the decision could be taken away from us anyway. So what’s the point?
Perhaps the point is that it’s got to be done, or at least tried, if we want our political system to keep working. (Of course, you might not think that it is working; if not, then there's no way to get it working without participating.) Like it or not, an important part of that system is us. Me, I’m going to look at the best information I have and choose the candidate that most reflects my values, knowing full well that even if my man is elected I’m going to be disappointed with his performance at some point. I’m going to make the best decision I can with the information I have or can get between now and November.
Or maybe I’ll just have a few beers and sleep through the first week of November
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
I find myself wondering if either candidate can actually deliver on anything they’re promising right now. I’m old enough to have seen a few of these election things, and I we all know that the candidates seldom turn out to be the people they appear to be during the election. I know that campaign promises will be forgotten soon after the election, that a candidate who stands staunchly for or against an issue may stand somewhere else entirely when the confetti is all swept up, that the realities of doing the job may change a candidate’s mind in important, and often disappointing, ways. I’ve seen it happen often enough.
I remember that Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Viet Nam, then took two terms and the invasion of Cambodia to do it. I remember Bill Clinton promising health care reform, and we still don’t have it. I remember George Bush I promising "No New Taxes" then reneging in a big way. Now, granted, these weren’t necessarily lies; I remember Nixon trying to end the war in Viet Nam, I remember Clinton trying to reform health care, and I remember Bush I trying to keep that "No New Taxes" promise. But in each case, reality interfered. Either Congress or the economy or the Viet Cong or the NVA or whoever/whatever refused to cooperate, and promises were broken.
This happens with every new president. "The best laid schemes..." and all that (Robert Burns, 1785). The point is, no President will be able to keep all of their pre-election promises. The question is, which ones are they going to keep and which are just "campaign promises," and do they even know which ones they are going to eventually break?
And we, the poor voters, have to decide, based of poor information and gut instinct, which candidate we’re going to elect.
Bigger question: Does it matter? I remember the 2000 election, which was so close that we still can’t be certain who actually won (even though Gore clearly won the popular vote, the Electoral College is another kettle of fish) and the matter was decided by the Supreme Court (and whether of not the Supreme Court even had that authority is something constitutional scholars will be debating forever). That election was taken out of our hands, and a President was selected for us; what if (and I’ll admit this is very unlikely, but it did happen once) we had to go through the Supreme Court again? The conservative Supreme Court?
What I’m getting at is this: We have to make an extremely important decision soon, and not only do we not have enough information but the information we do have can change drastically and unpredictably after the decision is made. And besides, the decision could be taken away from us anyway. So what’s the point?
Perhaps the point is that it’s got to be done, or at least tried, if we want our political system to keep working. (Of course, you might not think that it is working; if not, then there's no way to get it working without participating.) Like it or not, an important part of that system is us. Me, I’m going to look at the best information I have and choose the candidate that most reflects my values, knowing full well that even if my man is elected I’m going to be disappointed with his performance at some point. I’m going to make the best decision I can with the information I have or can get between now and November.
Or maybe I’ll just have a few beers and sleep through the first week of November
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Mark should be here
Holidays depress the living hell out of me these days.
Take Labor Day, that is today, for example. Last year, and for years before, my immediate family hereabouts, myself my mother and my brother Mark, would all get together at Mark’s place. Mark would barbecue (Mark was a genius at the grill, and no slouch at the stove either) and we’d all have a damn good meal. And a damn good time together. Not much of a celebration I grant you, but it was always something I looked forward to. Memorial Day was the same; Christmas, New Year and Easter were much the same but without the outdoor cookery. Birthdays were something special as well.
My brother Mark died last January. His funeral was on the day before my birthday. I didn’t feel very much like celebrating.
Easter came and went with me having health issues again, and I wasn’t even sure I’d be out of the hospital for it, much less be able to make a proper holiday dinner, even if it would have been just for two of us. On Memorial Day I grilled some burgers, but I’m not the cook Mark was and I could never do a meal that would do his memory justice. Mark's birthday came and went, and the pain of not trying to afford a proper gift (I have always loved the gift-giving) was all I could manage.
Now it’s Labor Day; I’ve got a couple of steaks and some potatoes and I’m going to try to come up with a worth while dinner, but it won’t be the same. Holidays were always a time I spent with my brother, and I can’t shake the awful empty feeling I get when ever I think of him. And on a holiday, I can’t not think of him.
I know that this is a horribly self-indulgent piece of drivel, that no one besides me really cares about any of this. To hell with it. This is my blog and I’m feeling self-indulgent today.
Happy Labor Day, Bro. I love you and I miss you terribly.
The Blues Viking
Mark William Rosecrans 1960-2008
Take Labor Day, that is today, for example. Last year, and for years before, my immediate family hereabouts, myself my mother and my brother Mark, would all get together at Mark’s place. Mark would barbecue (Mark was a genius at the grill, and no slouch at the stove either) and we’d all have a damn good meal. And a damn good time together. Not much of a celebration I grant you, but it was always something I looked forward to. Memorial Day was the same; Christmas, New Year and Easter were much the same but without the outdoor cookery. Birthdays were something special as well.
My brother Mark died last January. His funeral was on the day before my birthday. I didn’t feel very much like celebrating.
Easter came and went with me having health issues again, and I wasn’t even sure I’d be out of the hospital for it, much less be able to make a proper holiday dinner, even if it would have been just for two of us. On Memorial Day I grilled some burgers, but I’m not the cook Mark was and I could never do a meal that would do his memory justice. Mark's birthday came and went, and the pain of not trying to afford a proper gift (I have always loved the gift-giving) was all I could manage.
Now it’s Labor Day; I’ve got a couple of steaks and some potatoes and I’m going to try to come up with a worth while dinner, but it won’t be the same. Holidays were always a time I spent with my brother, and I can’t shake the awful empty feeling I get when ever I think of him. And on a holiday, I can’t not think of him.
I know that this is a horribly self-indulgent piece of drivel, that no one besides me really cares about any of this. To hell with it. This is my blog and I’m feeling self-indulgent today.
Happy Labor Day, Bro. I love you and I miss you terribly.
The Blues Viking
Mark William Rosecrans 1960-2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
