There ain't no reasons things are this way
It's how they've always been and they intend to stay
I can't explain why we live this way
We do it everyday
Preachers on the podiums speaking to saints
Prophets on the sidewalks begging for change
Old ladies laughing from the fire escape, cursing my name
I got a basket full of lemons and they all taste the same
A window and a pigeon with a broken wing
You can spend your whole life working for something
Just to have it taken away
People walk around pushing back their desks
Wearing pay checks like necklaces and bracelets
Talking 'bout nothing, not thinking about death
Every little heart beat, every little breath
People walk a tight rope on a razor's edge
Carrying their hurt and hatred and weapons
It could be a bomb or a bullet or a pin
Or a thought or a word or a sentence
There ain't no reasons things are this way
It's how they've always been and they intend to stay
I don't know why I say the things I say,
But I say them anyway
But love will come set me free
Love will come set me free
I do believe
Love will come set me free
I know it will
Love will come set me free
Yes
Prison walls still standing tall
Some things never change at all
Keep on building prisons,
Gonna fill them all
Keep on building bombs
Gonna drop them all
Working your fingers bare to the bone
Breaking your back, make you sell your soul
Like a lung is filled with coal,
Suffocating slow
The wind blows wild and I may move
But politicians lie and I am not fooled
You don't need no reason or a 3 piece suit
To argue the truth
The air on my skin and the world under my toes
Labor is stitched into the fabric of my clothes
Chaos and commotion wherever I go
Love, I try to follow
But love will come set me free
Love will come set me free
I do believe
Love will come set me free
I know it will
Love will come set me free
Yes
There ain't no reasons things are this way
It's how they've always been and they intend to stay
I can't explain why we live this way
We do it everyday
Brett Dennen- Ain't No Reason
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
I Used To Be Conservative...
I know, the title will probably shock you. Though I was quite young to have a political opinion in 2000, I would probably have been as conservative if not more so than my parents. Bush v. Gore wasn't really a question to me. Here's why.
In 2000, even in my adolescent mind, the GOP and particularly George Bush stood as a party that was willing to stake its political agenda along the lines of morality. This stood in stark contrast to the circus of scandals that paraded through the Clinton administration. In addition, George Bush advocated tax cuts louder than Gore did. Therefore, in my head, Bush was better than Gore because he was farther from Clinton than Gore was.
By 2004 my political mind was developing a little more. Bush wasn't my sure fire choice even though I still would have called myself a Republican at this point. I, like many in the country, had rallied passionately behind the flag in the aftermath of 9/11 and the outset of the War in Afghanistan. However, I was skeptical of our involvement in Iraq, and I was disgusted by the way the issue of gay marriage had been used to agitate the evangelical base and scatter the Democratic coalition. However, Kerry had always seemed like he was taking potshots at the incumbent Bush, which left him seeming whiny. In addition, Bush's tactics against terrorism seemed to be working at this point, and I figured that if we were in Iraq it must be because the government knew things that they would share as soon as the threat had been removed. By the slimmest of margins in my own head, I was slightly relieved when Bush was re-elected.
However, by late 2005, I had all but had it with the Republicans. It seemed to me that something must have been amiss for Bush to fire such an American hero like Colin Powell when things still seemed to be going well. Soon, scandals involving Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Mark Foley eroded my faith in the "moral" nature of the Republican Party. In addition, the Iraq War started to plunge downhill and the War and Afghanistan was all but abandoned. We couldn't find Osama, we couldn't bring the troops home, and the budget deficit was ballooning out of control. In addition, our president who once just seemed like a poor speaker took it to the next level with verbal gaffes and minor international incidents (PASS on the shoulder rubs W!). When I turned 18, I went and joined the Libertarian Party instead
Needless to say, I was delighted to see the Democrats surge through the House and split the Senate in 2006. I clapped when Nancy Pelosi was named Speaker. I cheered when the Democratic Party started to gain footing for the 2008 presidential election. I grudgingly began to like Howard Dean. I mean, can't a guy get away with a good-natured BYAHHH every once in a while?
Now that it seems like Obama could very well move into the West Wing on January 20, 2009, I am tentatively excited to see what the Democrats will be able to do with a majority of government like the Republicans did from 2000-2006. I hope they don't make as big a mess at least.
However, I have mixed feelings. I hope that Obama can institute a health insurance program that can find a way to provide quality coverage to all Americans. However, if the budget deficit doesn't start to shrink soon, I'm going to throw a temper tantrum somewhere public. I hope Obama can pull our troops out of Iraq. But if doing so endangers Israel and gives Iran a shot at improving its stature in the Middle East, I'm going to be peeved. I hope that we start to find a way to work undocumented workers into the American system and provide gay and lesbian couples an opportunity to marriage or civil partnership. However, if we don't pack away the intrusive portions of the Patriot Act in a hurry... well... I won't be able to do anything because my phone is already tapped and my e-mail is already being read. Oh well... no more threats from me!
Great... thanks a lot Patriot Act! Now I'm scared into censorship...
Respectfully,
The Conscientious Observer
In 2000, even in my adolescent mind, the GOP and particularly George Bush stood as a party that was willing to stake its political agenda along the lines of morality. This stood in stark contrast to the circus of scandals that paraded through the Clinton administration. In addition, George Bush advocated tax cuts louder than Gore did. Therefore, in my head, Bush was better than Gore because he was farther from Clinton than Gore was.
By 2004 my political mind was developing a little more. Bush wasn't my sure fire choice even though I still would have called myself a Republican at this point. I, like many in the country, had rallied passionately behind the flag in the aftermath of 9/11 and the outset of the War in Afghanistan. However, I was skeptical of our involvement in Iraq, and I was disgusted by the way the issue of gay marriage had been used to agitate the evangelical base and scatter the Democratic coalition. However, Kerry had always seemed like he was taking potshots at the incumbent Bush, which left him seeming whiny. In addition, Bush's tactics against terrorism seemed to be working at this point, and I figured that if we were in Iraq it must be because the government knew things that they would share as soon as the threat had been removed. By the slimmest of margins in my own head, I was slightly relieved when Bush was re-elected.
However, by late 2005, I had all but had it with the Republicans. It seemed to me that something must have been amiss for Bush to fire such an American hero like Colin Powell when things still seemed to be going well. Soon, scandals involving Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Mark Foley eroded my faith in the "moral" nature of the Republican Party. In addition, the Iraq War started to plunge downhill and the War and Afghanistan was all but abandoned. We couldn't find Osama, we couldn't bring the troops home, and the budget deficit was ballooning out of control. In addition, our president who once just seemed like a poor speaker took it to the next level with verbal gaffes and minor international incidents (PASS on the shoulder rubs W!). When I turned 18, I went and joined the Libertarian Party instead
Needless to say, I was delighted to see the Democrats surge through the House and split the Senate in 2006. I clapped when Nancy Pelosi was named Speaker. I cheered when the Democratic Party started to gain footing for the 2008 presidential election. I grudgingly began to like Howard Dean. I mean, can't a guy get away with a good-natured BYAHHH every once in a while?
Now that it seems like Obama could very well move into the West Wing on January 20, 2009, I am tentatively excited to see what the Democrats will be able to do with a majority of government like the Republicans did from 2000-2006. I hope they don't make as big a mess at least.
However, I have mixed feelings. I hope that Obama can institute a health insurance program that can find a way to provide quality coverage to all Americans. However, if the budget deficit doesn't start to shrink soon, I'm going to throw a temper tantrum somewhere public. I hope Obama can pull our troops out of Iraq. But if doing so endangers Israel and gives Iran a shot at improving its stature in the Middle East, I'm going to be peeved. I hope that we start to find a way to work undocumented workers into the American system and provide gay and lesbian couples an opportunity to marriage or civil partnership. However, if we don't pack away the intrusive portions of the Patriot Act in a hurry... well... I won't be able to do anything because my phone is already tapped and my e-mail is already being read. Oh well... no more threats from me!
Great... thanks a lot Patriot Act! Now I'm scared into censorship...
Respectfully,
The Conscientious Observer
Thursday, June 12, 2008
What is Middle Class?
I was perusing a blog called "Shenanigans" by Anne Schroeder Mullins on the Politico website today and watched a video she had posted that displayed Rep. Allyson Schwartz as including individuals and families earning $250,000 a year and up in the middle class. When the commentator threw out the number $400,000 a year, looking for a cap to what Rep. Schwartz was going to agree to, her Republican colleague, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, interjected, pointing out that $400,000 a year and up was getting into the top 1% of Americans, folks who are obviously not middle class anymore.
But what exactly defines the middle class? And who can claim to be a part of the middle class?
The greatest problem with defining a middle class is that yearly household income, which is almost always used, is a pretty poor way to differentiate standard of living. What is middle class in Upper Manhattan will dwarf the middle class in rural Nebraska. In addition, a family of ten with the same income as a family of two will have considerably less economic security and influence.
There are some consistent characteristics of the middle class. They are generally college educated. They usually hold some sort of professional or managerial positions. They generally have some level of economic security and most don't live paycheck to paycheck. Most are homeowners, and a good number live outside of major cities. In general, they make enough money to be comfortable, but not enough to be overly influential. Members of the middle-class also experience a greater deal of economic mobility than those in the lower classes.
However, there is some definition that should place the middle class somewhere... say... in the middle. I think we can agree that Rep. Schwartz is a little beyond the scope of reality including such wealthy individuals and families into the middle class.
Not all of America is average America...
But what exactly defines the middle class? And who can claim to be a part of the middle class?
The greatest problem with defining a middle class is that yearly household income, which is almost always used, is a pretty poor way to differentiate standard of living. What is middle class in Upper Manhattan will dwarf the middle class in rural Nebraska. In addition, a family of ten with the same income as a family of two will have considerably less economic security and influence.
There are some consistent characteristics of the middle class. They are generally college educated. They usually hold some sort of professional or managerial positions. They generally have some level of economic security and most don't live paycheck to paycheck. Most are homeowners, and a good number live outside of major cities. In general, they make enough money to be comfortable, but not enough to be overly influential. Members of the middle-class also experience a greater deal of economic mobility than those in the lower classes.
However, there is some definition that should place the middle class somewhere... say... in the middle. I think we can agree that Rep. Schwartz is a little beyond the scope of reality including such wealthy individuals and families into the middle class.
Not all of America is average America...
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Libertarian Effect
In America, no one recognizes third parties has having a legitimate chance to catapult their candidates into the White House. However, it is impossible to forget the effect that the third parties in America can have on the electorate.
For example, many credit Ralph Nader with defeating Al Gore in 2000. There is certainly merit to the argument that Ross Perot gave Clinton the office in 1992. Theodore Roosevelt wrecked the Republican Party in 1912, giving Woodrow Wilson a spin at the helm.
This year should be another year of third-party fun.
The Libertarian party, once a backwards-looking group of New England and Western conservatives, has got some serious momentum this year. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas gave the movement a jolt with his surprisingly successful campaign that garnered national attention for Libertarian issues.
The Libertarians have the right position on several issues right now. Firstly, they are anti-war. Many Americans are tired of the war in Iraq, and the Libertarian belief that we should stop meddling in foreign affairs is soothing, if unrealistic.
Secondly, the Libertarians are firm believers in a smaller, more accountable government. Americans are aware of the huge pile of debt that has accumulated on the head of the American government. Roosevelt, Johnson, Reagan, and Bush all have distorted Keynesian economics to justify consistent deficit spending. However, Americans are aware of the dangers of borrowing against our country, especially to the tune of $31,100 per capita (as of April 2008). Fiscal responsibility has traditionally been the hallmark of Republican and Democratic campaigns; unfortunately, it has not been so for their governments.
In addition, Libertarians are firmly opposed to the snooping allowed by the Patriot Act. Our society is growing increasingly concerned about the intrusions by the federal government into our personal lives that have been justified by the need to secure our defenses against terror. Our present situation draws to mind a quote from Benjamin Franklin, "He who sacrifices liberty to gain security will lose both and deserves neither."
However, we will have to see how effective former Rep. Bob Barr is in conveying that message. He would do well to piggyback on Ron Paul's libertarian campaign machinery which combines the powers of a motivated pool of young voters with older, experienced activists of principle.
Bob Barr could be a force that the GOP needs to reckon with. Many conservatives are either upset with Bush's economics or suspicious of John McCain's maverick reputation. This could be a Barr's gain and McCain's boon, especially in the big western square states and Barr's home state of Georgia, a state that is crucial to McCain's re-election. In addition, if Barr's campaign gains any real momentum, a state like New Hampshire, which would probably favor McCain, would be harder for to GOP to win.
The Libertarian platform is right to twist the playing field for the 2008 election. If Bob Barr is the right candidate, and he runs the right campaign, it could spell real trouble for the GOP and make some predictable and some not so predictable changes to the 2008 election scene.
For example, many credit Ralph Nader with defeating Al Gore in 2000. There is certainly merit to the argument that Ross Perot gave Clinton the office in 1992. Theodore Roosevelt wrecked the Republican Party in 1912, giving Woodrow Wilson a spin at the helm.
This year should be another year of third-party fun.
The Libertarian party, once a backwards-looking group of New England and Western conservatives, has got some serious momentum this year. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas gave the movement a jolt with his surprisingly successful campaign that garnered national attention for Libertarian issues.
The Libertarians have the right position on several issues right now. Firstly, they are anti-war. Many Americans are tired of the war in Iraq, and the Libertarian belief that we should stop meddling in foreign affairs is soothing, if unrealistic.
Secondly, the Libertarians are firm believers in a smaller, more accountable government. Americans are aware of the huge pile of debt that has accumulated on the head of the American government. Roosevelt, Johnson, Reagan, and Bush all have distorted Keynesian economics to justify consistent deficit spending. However, Americans are aware of the dangers of borrowing against our country, especially to the tune of $31,100 per capita (as of April 2008). Fiscal responsibility has traditionally been the hallmark of Republican and Democratic campaigns; unfortunately, it has not been so for their governments.
In addition, Libertarians are firmly opposed to the snooping allowed by the Patriot Act. Our society is growing increasingly concerned about the intrusions by the federal government into our personal lives that have been justified by the need to secure our defenses against terror. Our present situation draws to mind a quote from Benjamin Franklin, "He who sacrifices liberty to gain security will lose both and deserves neither."
However, we will have to see how effective former Rep. Bob Barr is in conveying that message. He would do well to piggyback on Ron Paul's libertarian campaign machinery which combines the powers of a motivated pool of young voters with older, experienced activists of principle.
Bob Barr could be a force that the GOP needs to reckon with. Many conservatives are either upset with Bush's economics or suspicious of John McCain's maverick reputation. This could be a Barr's gain and McCain's boon, especially in the big western square states and Barr's home state of Georgia, a state that is crucial to McCain's re-election. In addition, if Barr's campaign gains any real momentum, a state like New Hampshire, which would probably favor McCain, would be harder for to GOP to win.
The Libertarian platform is right to twist the playing field for the 2008 election. If Bob Barr is the right candidate, and he runs the right campaign, it could spell real trouble for the GOP and make some predictable and some not so predictable changes to the 2008 election scene.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
A Whole New Dynamic
Whew... aren't you glad it's over?
In an election year, that's normally our nation's sigh of relief right around the second week of November. After the long haul of the presidential race, most Americans return their attention to issues that deserve it more, like football, celebrity news, and American Idol.
This time around, we're saying it in June. This time around is a lot different.
On June 3rd, Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination by securing enough delegates in the Montana and South Dakota primaries to score a clear majority, ending Hillary Clinton's equally historic bid for the White House in the process. In addition, John McCain, who has been the presumptive GOP nominee for months, released figures for May indicating he had $31.5 million on hand to battle Barack Obama through the summer and into the fall.
Finally, the process of picking our candidates has come to a conclusion. Now it's time to pick between them! Once America recovers its collective breath, that is. This year has tested the average American stomach for politics, and I would have to say that we have responded admirably.
Already the political analysts and pundits have begun hedging bets on who will win what state, and plugging those estimates into a national view. Who will win the magical 270? Most of the analysts agree that the election maps of 2000 and 2004 will repeat themselves again, though there are a fresh crop of swing states.
I don't agree.
This year's election season provides two candidates that pack so much more punch than Bush, Gore, or Kerry combined. Obama's rock start speeches and McCain's one-liners and feisty temper have excited the nation far and away more than Kerry's stuffy New England aura, Gore's awkward speech attempts, and Bush's folksy Texan manner.
In addition, each candidate has the ability to draw different constituencies. Obama can draw blacks, intellectuals, and liberals in record numbers without eroding the Democratic base. McCain can whittle away at the middle of the American political spectrum and entice older voters and blue-collar workers, albeit at the expense of some of the evangelical and socially conservative right.
These major differences have set the stage for some dramatic shifts in the way the electoral map has looked so far in the 21st century.
Who's Blue?: New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont.
Who's Red?: Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, New Hampshire.
Here's where the map shouldn't change much. New York and California are Democratic strongholds, as is New England. Look for the West Coast to develop into stronger Democratic areas as each state becomes more affluent and educated. In addition, Obama is from Illinois and should win there convincingly. McCain will draw from traditional Republican strongholds in the West and the South, and will pick up a large part of Appalachia without having to campaign there too much.
Who's Probably Blue?: Iowa, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey.
Who's Probably Red?: Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Idaho, Montana.
A lot of states are leaning red at this point, but it will take a lot of work to lock them up. Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are the big ones on here, and all are battlegrounds that are leaning right because of McCain's ability to draw older voters and blue-collar workers. However, most of these states are still battlegrounds for McCain, even if the fight isn't uphill. Expect Obama to proclaim his campaign's birthright in Iowa, and draw the large intellectual and black populations of Virginia.
Tipping Point: Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Maine.
Most of these states have traditionally voted Republican, but I think most of them will tilt towards the Democrats. Alaska, Maine, and Colorado will experience a great deal of Obama's grassroots campaigning. New Mexico is a battleground, but popular governor Bill Richardson could bring things blue, just like Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius could for Kansas (especially if one of them gets the VP nod). Arkansas could go blue if the Clinton's decide they want it to, and North Carolina has such a large black population that it's hard to tell where it will land.
In my summation, this is currently John McCain's election to win, about 276-262. However, that is a really close pick, and I think Obama has a better chance at winning as the underdog. Essentially, I think it's McCain's election to lose, and I think he will.
In an election year, that's normally our nation's sigh of relief right around the second week of November. After the long haul of the presidential race, most Americans return their attention to issues that deserve it more, like football, celebrity news, and American Idol.
This time around, we're saying it in June. This time around is a lot different.
On June 3rd, Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination by securing enough delegates in the Montana and South Dakota primaries to score a clear majority, ending Hillary Clinton's equally historic bid for the White House in the process. In addition, John McCain, who has been the presumptive GOP nominee for months, released figures for May indicating he had $31.5 million on hand to battle Barack Obama through the summer and into the fall.
Finally, the process of picking our candidates has come to a conclusion. Now it's time to pick between them! Once America recovers its collective breath, that is. This year has tested the average American stomach for politics, and I would have to say that we have responded admirably.
Already the political analysts and pundits have begun hedging bets on who will win what state, and plugging those estimates into a national view. Who will win the magical 270? Most of the analysts agree that the election maps of 2000 and 2004 will repeat themselves again, though there are a fresh crop of swing states.
I don't agree.
This year's election season provides two candidates that pack so much more punch than Bush, Gore, or Kerry combined. Obama's rock start speeches and McCain's one-liners and feisty temper have excited the nation far and away more than Kerry's stuffy New England aura, Gore's awkward speech attempts, and Bush's folksy Texan manner.
In addition, each candidate has the ability to draw different constituencies. Obama can draw blacks, intellectuals, and liberals in record numbers without eroding the Democratic base. McCain can whittle away at the middle of the American political spectrum and entice older voters and blue-collar workers, albeit at the expense of some of the evangelical and socially conservative right.
These major differences have set the stage for some dramatic shifts in the way the electoral map has looked so far in the 21st century.
Who's Blue?: New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont.
Who's Red?: Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, New Hampshire.
Here's where the map shouldn't change much. New York and California are Democratic strongholds, as is New England. Look for the West Coast to develop into stronger Democratic areas as each state becomes more affluent and educated. In addition, Obama is from Illinois and should win there convincingly. McCain will draw from traditional Republican strongholds in the West and the South, and will pick up a large part of Appalachia without having to campaign there too much.
Who's Probably Blue?: Iowa, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey.
Who's Probably Red?: Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Idaho, Montana.
A lot of states are leaning red at this point, but it will take a lot of work to lock them up. Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are the big ones on here, and all are battlegrounds that are leaning right because of McCain's ability to draw older voters and blue-collar workers. However, most of these states are still battlegrounds for McCain, even if the fight isn't uphill. Expect Obama to proclaim his campaign's birthright in Iowa, and draw the large intellectual and black populations of Virginia.
Tipping Point: Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Maine.
Most of these states have traditionally voted Republican, but I think most of them will tilt towards the Democrats. Alaska, Maine, and Colorado will experience a great deal of Obama's grassroots campaigning. New Mexico is a battleground, but popular governor Bill Richardson could bring things blue, just like Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius could for Kansas (especially if one of them gets the VP nod). Arkansas could go blue if the Clinton's decide they want it to, and North Carolina has such a large black population that it's hard to tell where it will land.
In my summation, this is currently John McCain's election to win, about 276-262. However, that is a really close pick, and I think Obama has a better chance at winning as the underdog. Essentially, I think it's McCain's election to lose, and I think he will.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Haircuts
Haircuts are over-rated...
Today I got a set of hair clippers. Sweet, simple, four different size guards. I buzzed my head, and I think it looks just fine. How much did it cost me? Well, technically it was free since it was a gift. But aside from a small investment cost at the beginning that someone else paid, I no longer have to pay for haircuts. Pretty much ever. I figure that may save me close to $100 a year. Which I will promptly blow on gas.
Gas is currently at about $4.09 a gallon near my hometown, but I probably didn't have to type that. You knew that already, and if you live near a major city, you're probably paying even more. Sucker!
I guess I plugged that in there because someday I'll be old (I think) and I'll be able to look back and laugh heartily at that splendid time when gasoline was only four dollars a gallon. I don't expect it to go down substantially at any time in the near future.
Next time I will try to come up with something that's actually worth reading, cause I don't feel that this entry was even worth writing. I'm only going to publish it because I figure I'm already done with it.
Night,
The Conscientious Observer
"Resolve to be thyself: and know, that he who finds himself, loses his misery." - Matthew Arnold
Today I got a set of hair clippers. Sweet, simple, four different size guards. I buzzed my head, and I think it looks just fine. How much did it cost me? Well, technically it was free since it was a gift. But aside from a small investment cost at the beginning that someone else paid, I no longer have to pay for haircuts. Pretty much ever. I figure that may save me close to $100 a year. Which I will promptly blow on gas.
Gas is currently at about $4.09 a gallon near my hometown, but I probably didn't have to type that. You knew that already, and if you live near a major city, you're probably paying even more. Sucker!
I guess I plugged that in there because someday I'll be old (I think) and I'll be able to look back and laugh heartily at that splendid time when gasoline was only four dollars a gallon. I don't expect it to go down substantially at any time in the near future.
Next time I will try to come up with something that's actually worth reading, cause I don't feel that this entry was even worth writing. I'm only going to publish it because I figure I'm already done with it.
Night,
The Conscientious Observer
"Resolve to be thyself: and know, that he who finds himself, loses his misery." - Matthew Arnold
Monday, May 19, 2008
A Mirror of Sorts
I would like to start this article off by saying I am not anti-Israel. It seems that whenever an American is critical of Israeli policies, that person is branded disloyal, an anti-Semite, ignorant, and helping fan the flames of the various conflicts in the Middle East. I think that Israel is a bright and vibrant country that has a lot to offer the world culturally, economically, and intellectually. But lets be real, people.
Senator McCain is highly critical of Iran, and rightfully so. He is particularly critical of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom he has decried as "a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust." Let's see how Israel has lined up up against these criticisms over the past few years.
Israel:
Security checkpoints, barricades, walls, military patrols, near-daily civilian casualties. Palestinian populations are contained in areas that at times resemble the urban ghettos that the Nazis established in the 1930's. Of course that's not politically correct, but do a little research and empower yourself before you decide I'm a lunatic.
Killing brave young Americans? Look up Rachel Corrie.
Obviously Israel doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map, but insert "Palestine" and it essentially fits.
And let's not forget the United Nations passes more human rights resolutions against Israel than any other country in the world. Even President Bush admitted that last Thursday. He considered it a source of shame. I consider it a reflection of a country that has the greatest disregard for human rights in the world. And unfortunately, there are some pretty stiff competitors!
And the United States...
I'll save that for the liberals, leftists, and crazy people. Good God-fearing Americans know that the U.S. of A hasn't done anything wrong lately. Cough Cough... Gitmo!
My point is, we don't talk to Iran because they're ideological monsters, they sponsor organizations and governments that cause pain and loss to families across the Middle East and around the world, and they are directly responsible for the deaths of young Americans.
America could use a mirror.
Cordially,
The Conscientious Observer
"The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity." - Andre Gide
Senator McCain is highly critical of Iran, and rightfully so. He is particularly critical of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom he has decried as "a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust." Let's see how Israel has lined up up against these criticisms over the past few years.
Israel:
Security checkpoints, barricades, walls, military patrols, near-daily civilian casualties. Palestinian populations are contained in areas that at times resemble the urban ghettos that the Nazis established in the 1930's. Of course that's not politically correct, but do a little research and empower yourself before you decide I'm a lunatic.
Killing brave young Americans? Look up Rachel Corrie.
Obviously Israel doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map, but insert "Palestine" and it essentially fits.
And let's not forget the United Nations passes more human rights resolutions against Israel than any other country in the world. Even President Bush admitted that last Thursday. He considered it a source of shame. I consider it a reflection of a country that has the greatest disregard for human rights in the world. And unfortunately, there are some pretty stiff competitors!
And the United States...
I'll save that for the liberals, leftists, and crazy people. Good God-fearing Americans know that the U.S. of A hasn't done anything wrong lately. Cough Cough... Gitmo!
My point is, we don't talk to Iran because they're ideological monsters, they sponsor organizations and governments that cause pain and loss to families across the Middle East and around the world, and they are directly responsible for the deaths of young Americans.
America could use a mirror.
Cordially,
The Conscientious Observer
"The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity." - Andre Gide
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Perspective
Yesterday, I took a perspective day.
I didn't know that that was what I was doing at the outset, but it turns out I desperately needed it. I think we could all use one once in a while.
I packed up a bag with PB & J and a blanket and headed to a local park with my girlfriend. The park wasn't too far outside the city, so I was impressed by its size. It was a pretty big place.
We parked the car and started walking. It was while walking that I had my first mini-revelation. Why am I walking so fast? I realized that despite the fact that I had arranged the day in such a manner as to slow down and relax, I was tramping along the trail with a determined sense of going somewhere... but where. Slow down, you're missing it all!
So I did. And I started noticing things. I noticed that this part of the forest had experienced a blight of some sort, because most of the tallest trees were bare and crumbling. Several of them had already toppled, crisscrossing the forest floor like colossal matchsticks. I saw that the earth below me, aside from the trail, was very uneven and broken. In many places there were small openings, like weeping arteries in the Earth, from which groundhogs, skunks, rabbits, moles, snakes, and perhaps the occasional fox issued forth.
I stopped to examine some ferns later down the path. They were hanging out near a stubborn copse of evergreen trees. I fancied that the fern looked just like it would have about a hundred million years ago as all sorts of large reptilian beasts clamored over the taste of it. I wasn't brave enough to taste it myself though. Maybe next time.
Farther along I approached a gentle grade downhill in the trail. The effect of the slope was that I was able to see some of the trees in the park from a close vantage point that was mid-trunk. These were no redwoods, but some varied in height from 60-80 feet. While staring at these timeless oaks and maples and willows, I felt a good deal of tension unwinding inside me. I saw, with stark clarity, that my frustrations and worries were trivial when compared to this world, regardless of how serious they may have seemed to me.
The truth is, that towering tree was bearing the burden of storms and snow and rejoicing in the sunlight perhaps centuries before I was born. That same tree would likely be standing still after my time had passed, sustained by the light and the rain, and coaxed into perpetual motion by a gentle breeze.
It was a good day to remind me of the significant nature of my insignificance.
I recaptured a sense of what was really important yesterday. I rejoiced that I was agile and capable enough to explore off-trail and trudge down into the river gorge. I delighted in the process of teaching my companion how to skip rocks across the thin vein of shimmering water that had carved the high walls of the gorge. I remembered what it was like to walk quietly, breathe quietly, and talk quietly, so as not to impose upon the stillness around me. I remembered how to listen to the wisdom all around me.
I recommend you take a perspective day too. I promise you'll come back refreshed too.
Yours Truly,
The Conscientious Observer
Live each season as it passes; breathe the air, drink the drink, taste the fruit, and resign yourself to the influences of each.
- Henry David Thoreau
I didn't know that that was what I was doing at the outset, but it turns out I desperately needed it. I think we could all use one once in a while.
I packed up a bag with PB & J and a blanket and headed to a local park with my girlfriend. The park wasn't too far outside the city, so I was impressed by its size. It was a pretty big place.
We parked the car and started walking. It was while walking that I had my first mini-revelation. Why am I walking so fast? I realized that despite the fact that I had arranged the day in such a manner as to slow down and relax, I was tramping along the trail with a determined sense of going somewhere... but where. Slow down, you're missing it all!
So I did. And I started noticing things. I noticed that this part of the forest had experienced a blight of some sort, because most of the tallest trees were bare and crumbling. Several of them had already toppled, crisscrossing the forest floor like colossal matchsticks. I saw that the earth below me, aside from the trail, was very uneven and broken. In many places there were small openings, like weeping arteries in the Earth, from which groundhogs, skunks, rabbits, moles, snakes, and perhaps the occasional fox issued forth.
I stopped to examine some ferns later down the path. They were hanging out near a stubborn copse of evergreen trees. I fancied that the fern looked just like it would have about a hundred million years ago as all sorts of large reptilian beasts clamored over the taste of it. I wasn't brave enough to taste it myself though. Maybe next time.
Farther along I approached a gentle grade downhill in the trail. The effect of the slope was that I was able to see some of the trees in the park from a close vantage point that was mid-trunk. These were no redwoods, but some varied in height from 60-80 feet. While staring at these timeless oaks and maples and willows, I felt a good deal of tension unwinding inside me. I saw, with stark clarity, that my frustrations and worries were trivial when compared to this world, regardless of how serious they may have seemed to me.
The truth is, that towering tree was bearing the burden of storms and snow and rejoicing in the sunlight perhaps centuries before I was born. That same tree would likely be standing still after my time had passed, sustained by the light and the rain, and coaxed into perpetual motion by a gentle breeze.
It was a good day to remind me of the significant nature of my insignificance.
I recaptured a sense of what was really important yesterday. I rejoiced that I was agile and capable enough to explore off-trail and trudge down into the river gorge. I delighted in the process of teaching my companion how to skip rocks across the thin vein of shimmering water that had carved the high walls of the gorge. I remembered what it was like to walk quietly, breathe quietly, and talk quietly, so as not to impose upon the stillness around me. I remembered how to listen to the wisdom all around me.
I recommend you take a perspective day too. I promise you'll come back refreshed too.
Yours Truly,
The Conscientious Observer
Live each season as it passes; breathe the air, drink the drink, taste the fruit, and resign yourself to the influences of each.
- Henry David Thoreau
Saturday, May 17, 2008
On Appeasement
We are all familiar with President Bush's uncanny ability to torment the English language one gaffe at a time. He rarely recognizes the differences between past, present and future tenses, and seems generally indifferent to proper use of plurals in a sentence. In addition, I don't believe I have ever heard him pronounce the word "nuclear" the same way twice. If you don't believe me, just Google "Bushisms," and enjoy the sad hilarity.
Bush has now found a new definition for the word "appeasement."
In a speech in front of the Israeli Knesset on May 15, President Bush derided those who urge negotiations with enemy countries.
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The White House denies that this comment directly targets Barack Obama or the Democrats, but it's hard to see who else he would be taking aim at. The reference to appeasement neatly ties today's terrorists with the Nazi's. In addition, it ties the solutions presented by today's critics of standoff diplomacy to the hand-wringing approach that Prime Minister Chamberlain and others engaged in that allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia during the pre-WWII Lebensraum campaign.
However, I didn't feel like appeasement was the right word to describe the nature of the arguments presented by liberals today. I checked up on some definitions...
Appease- 1. To bring peace, pacify, quiet, or settle. Oxford English Dictionary, 1989
Hmmm... sounds like a pretty damn good thing to me. I mean, wouldn't it be a good thing if we were able to pacify the world through negotiations? And call me naive (like most conservatives probably would) but I find it really hard to settle a dispute with the silent treatment. I think the only time its been successfully employed on me has been by my girlfriend, and I'd say the relationship between my girlfriend and I is significantly different than that between the United States and Iran. At least I hope so...
To be a responsible blogger, however, I found a second definition:
Appease- 1. To conciliate or buy off by political or economic concessions, usually at the sacrifice of principle Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1993
Here is where I feel Bush has got things the most wrong. Intellectually, he made the leap that people who are willing to talk to their enemies are willing to make sacrifices to them. I don't think that's a fair assertion. Neither Obama nor any of the other voices who favor negotiation and diplomacy over standoff have indicated that they are willing to grant concessions to enemy countries. They're just saying its unreasonable to expect the diplomatic climate to change if you're not willing to talk to your opponents.
Talking to your enemies is not appeasement. Bush is correct when he says that appeasement doesn't work, and that it is a strategy that has been discredited over time. But diplomatic tact and negotiations are far different than appeasement. And chances are they will probably work better than the failed cowboy tactics that America has used since 9/11.
Thanks for reading,
The Conscientious Observer
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent. -Mahatma Gandhi
Bush has now found a new definition for the word "appeasement."
In a speech in front of the Israeli Knesset on May 15, President Bush derided those who urge negotiations with enemy countries.
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The White House denies that this comment directly targets Barack Obama or the Democrats, but it's hard to see who else he would be taking aim at. The reference to appeasement neatly ties today's terrorists with the Nazi's. In addition, it ties the solutions presented by today's critics of standoff diplomacy to the hand-wringing approach that Prime Minister Chamberlain and others engaged in that allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia during the pre-WWII Lebensraum campaign.
However, I didn't feel like appeasement was the right word to describe the nature of the arguments presented by liberals today. I checked up on some definitions...
Appease- 1. To bring peace, pacify, quiet, or settle. Oxford English Dictionary, 1989
Hmmm... sounds like a pretty damn good thing to me. I mean, wouldn't it be a good thing if we were able to pacify the world through negotiations? And call me naive (like most conservatives probably would) but I find it really hard to settle a dispute with the silent treatment. I think the only time its been successfully employed on me has been by my girlfriend, and I'd say the relationship between my girlfriend and I is significantly different than that between the United States and Iran. At least I hope so...
To be a responsible blogger, however, I found a second definition:
Appease- 1. To conciliate or buy off by political or economic concessions, usually at the sacrifice of principle Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1993
Here is where I feel Bush has got things the most wrong. Intellectually, he made the leap that people who are willing to talk to their enemies are willing to make sacrifices to them. I don't think that's a fair assertion. Neither Obama nor any of the other voices who favor negotiation and diplomacy over standoff have indicated that they are willing to grant concessions to enemy countries. They're just saying its unreasonable to expect the diplomatic climate to change if you're not willing to talk to your opponents.
Talking to your enemies is not appeasement. Bush is correct when he says that appeasement doesn't work, and that it is a strategy that has been discredited over time. But diplomatic tact and negotiations are far different than appeasement. And chances are they will probably work better than the failed cowboy tactics that America has used since 9/11.
Thanks for reading,
The Conscientious Observer
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent. -Mahatma Gandhi
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Electoral Fun
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/
Such an interesting activity! Determine which states will be Obama's this year, which one's will be McCain's, and which ones will be swing states. I have spent some considerable time on this website, and I definitely think this election is going to be a close one. I know it's really far off, but I like to offer predictions so I can laugh at my foolish self months from now. Feel free to laugh along!
Alabama: Obama (+9)
Alaska: Obama (+3)
Arizona: McCain (+10)
Arkansas: Swing (+6)
California: Obama (+55)
Colorado: McCain (+9)
Connecticut: Obama (+7)
Delaware: Obama (+3)
Florida: McCain (+27)
Georgia: Obama (+15)
Hawaii: Obama (+4)
Idaho: McCain (+4)
Illinois: Obama (+21)
Indiana: McCain (+11)
Iowa: Obama (+7)
Kansas: Swing (+6)
Kentucky: McCain (+8)
Louisiana: Swing (+9)
Maine: Obama (+1) McCain (+1) Swing (+2)
Maryland: Obama (+10)
Massachusetts: Obama (+12)
Michigan: McCain (+17)
Minnesota: Obama (+10)
Missouri: McCain (+11)
Montana: McCain (+3)
Nebraska: Obama (+1) McCain (+3)
Nevada: McCain (+5)
New Hampshire: McCain (+4)
New Jersey: Swing (+15)
New Mexico: Swing (+5)
New York: Obama (+31)
North Carolina: Obama (+15)
North Dakota: McCain (+3)
Ohio: McCain (+20)
Oklahoma: McCain (+7)
Oregon: Obama (+7)
Pennsylvania: McCain (+21)
Rhode Island: Obama (+4)
South Carolina: Obama (+8)
South Dakota: McCain (+3)
Tennessee: McCain (+11)
Texas: McCain (+34)
Utah: McCain (+5)
Vermont: Obama (+3)
Virginia: Obama (+13)
Washington: Obama (+11)
Washington DC: Obama (+3)
West Virginia: McCain (+5)
Wisconsin: Swing (+10)
Wyoming: McCain (+3)
Obama: 253 McCain: 225 Swing: 60
(Need 270 to elect)
Whew, that was exhausting!
You see, I think that most political commentators have a huge problem with evaluating the prospects for this election based on past red/blue lines. In case you have noticed, Obama makes Kerry look like a stuffy, whiny, blue-blood and McCain makes Bush look like... look like... an idiot.
In addition, the Democrats have a more aggressive pick geographically. In 2004, the Democrats selected a weak candidate from a strong constituency for the weaker party while the Republicans selected a strong candidate from a strong constituency for the stronger party. At the end of the day, the red half of the pie was bigger than the blue half. Oops!
Obama is a strong candidate from a contentious area while McCain is a strong candidate from a Republican stronghold in the Sun Belt. The parties are too close when it comes to vying for attention. McCain may end up being the right candidate from the wrong state. Or the Democrats could overstep their gains from Bush's unpopularity by moving too far from the coasts. Food for thought.
Other thoughts... the "solid South" is now a myth. With Obama, the Democrats have a chance to secure ALL of the black vote in the states from Louisiana right on up through Maryland. That puts McCain way off balance in the "solid South," as he now has to win a huge majority of white voters who only account for 65%-80% of the populations in those states.
Expect Obama to seal up the coasts, particularly the West Coast. While McCain has an opening in California thanks to names like Reagan and Schwarzenegger, don't expect him to be able to follow up on it. And outside of New Hampshire (which loves him) and Maine (which follows New Hampshire), don't expect McCain to sweat it out for New England. The land of liberals will choose one of their own. Also, the libertarian element may work against McCain in New Hampshire if Rep. Bob Barr's candidacy can gain any third party momentum (watch out for this in the West too).
McCain is well-positioned politically to wrest the old swing states from contention. He'll have to fight, but he should win states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan because he's an effective communicator, will be able to position himself as a champion of rust belt cities, and he's white. Nowadays the North is more racist than the South. He should also reign in Appalachia, claiming West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In addition, McCain should also capture most of those big square states between the Mississippi and California. Except Iowa. Iowa doesn't really like McCain (3rd in the primary) while it was Iowa that essentially gave birth to the Obama-nomenon (there's a mouthful!).
Naturally, Obama can forget about Arizona, and McCain can forget about Illinois. However, Obama could definitely angle for New Mexico with Gov. Bill Richardson in his corner. In addition, Obama may have a chance at traditionally red Kansas with the strong support of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
Arkansas will be a question mark decided in the next few months. Will the Clinton's devote their energies to a Democratic victory after she concedes the nomination? Or will the Clinton's politely duck out without campaigning on behalf of Obama? Clinton support, if applied correctly, could swing Arkansas blue, as well as chip away at the popular vote in several other states. However, it could also screw Obama over. Also, I think it would be political suicide for Obama if he picked Clinton for his Vice President candidate. Don't do it B!
Obama will also set up powerful bases in the intellectual states. Brainy Virginia, Minnesota, and Oregon should be exuberantly blue this fall. Hawaii will chill on his side of the aisle too. Apologies for the bad pun.
I welcome comments, criticism, praise, and insults. Hope to hear from you soon!
Thanks,
The Conscientious Observer
"God looks at the clean hands, not the full ones." -- Publilius Syrus
Such an interesting activity! Determine which states will be Obama's this year, which one's will be McCain's, and which ones will be swing states. I have spent some considerable time on this website, and I definitely think this election is going to be a close one. I know it's really far off, but I like to offer predictions so I can laugh at my foolish self months from now. Feel free to laugh along!
Alabama: Obama (+9)
Alaska: Obama (+3)
Arizona: McCain (+10)
Arkansas: Swing (+6)
California: Obama (+55)
Colorado: McCain (+9)
Connecticut: Obama (+7)
Delaware: Obama (+3)
Florida: McCain (+27)
Georgia: Obama (+15)
Hawaii: Obama (+4)
Idaho: McCain (+4)
Illinois: Obama (+21)
Indiana: McCain (+11)
Iowa: Obama (+7)
Kansas: Swing (+6)
Kentucky: McCain (+8)
Louisiana: Swing (+9)
Maine: Obama (+1) McCain (+1) Swing (+2)
Maryland: Obama (+10)
Massachusetts: Obama (+12)
Michigan: McCain (+17)
Minnesota: Obama (+10)
Missouri: McCain (+11)
Montana: McCain (+3)
Nebraska: Obama (+1) McCain (+3)
Nevada: McCain (+5)
New Hampshire: McCain (+4)
New Jersey: Swing (+15)
New Mexico: Swing (+5)
New York: Obama (+31)
North Carolina: Obama (+15)
North Dakota: McCain (+3)
Ohio: McCain (+20)
Oklahoma: McCain (+7)
Oregon: Obama (+7)
Pennsylvania: McCain (+21)
Rhode Island: Obama (+4)
South Carolina: Obama (+8)
South Dakota: McCain (+3)
Tennessee: McCain (+11)
Texas: McCain (+34)
Utah: McCain (+5)
Vermont: Obama (+3)
Virginia: Obama (+13)
Washington: Obama (+11)
Washington DC: Obama (+3)
West Virginia: McCain (+5)
Wisconsin: Swing (+10)
Wyoming: McCain (+3)
Obama: 253 McCain: 225 Swing: 60
(Need 270 to elect)
Whew, that was exhausting!
You see, I think that most political commentators have a huge problem with evaluating the prospects for this election based on past red/blue lines. In case you have noticed, Obama makes Kerry look like a stuffy, whiny, blue-blood and McCain makes Bush look like... look like... an idiot.
In addition, the Democrats have a more aggressive pick geographically. In 2004, the Democrats selected a weak candidate from a strong constituency for the weaker party while the Republicans selected a strong candidate from a strong constituency for the stronger party. At the end of the day, the red half of the pie was bigger than the blue half. Oops!
Obama is a strong candidate from a contentious area while McCain is a strong candidate from a Republican stronghold in the Sun Belt. The parties are too close when it comes to vying for attention. McCain may end up being the right candidate from the wrong state. Or the Democrats could overstep their gains from Bush's unpopularity by moving too far from the coasts. Food for thought.
Other thoughts... the "solid South" is now a myth. With Obama, the Democrats have a chance to secure ALL of the black vote in the states from Louisiana right on up through Maryland. That puts McCain way off balance in the "solid South," as he now has to win a huge majority of white voters who only account for 65%-80% of the populations in those states.
Expect Obama to seal up the coasts, particularly the West Coast. While McCain has an opening in California thanks to names like Reagan and Schwarzenegger, don't expect him to be able to follow up on it. And outside of New Hampshire (which loves him) and Maine (which follows New Hampshire), don't expect McCain to sweat it out for New England. The land of liberals will choose one of their own. Also, the libertarian element may work against McCain in New Hampshire if Rep. Bob Barr's candidacy can gain any third party momentum (watch out for this in the West too).
McCain is well-positioned politically to wrest the old swing states from contention. He'll have to fight, but he should win states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan because he's an effective communicator, will be able to position himself as a champion of rust belt cities, and he's white. Nowadays the North is more racist than the South. He should also reign in Appalachia, claiming West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In addition, McCain should also capture most of those big square states between the Mississippi and California. Except Iowa. Iowa doesn't really like McCain (3rd in the primary) while it was Iowa that essentially gave birth to the Obama-nomenon (there's a mouthful!).
Naturally, Obama can forget about Arizona, and McCain can forget about Illinois. However, Obama could definitely angle for New Mexico with Gov. Bill Richardson in his corner. In addition, Obama may have a chance at traditionally red Kansas with the strong support of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
Arkansas will be a question mark decided in the next few months. Will the Clinton's devote their energies to a Democratic victory after she concedes the nomination? Or will the Clinton's politely duck out without campaigning on behalf of Obama? Clinton support, if applied correctly, could swing Arkansas blue, as well as chip away at the popular vote in several other states. However, it could also screw Obama over. Also, I think it would be political suicide for Obama if he picked Clinton for his Vice President candidate. Don't do it B!
Obama will also set up powerful bases in the intellectual states. Brainy Virginia, Minnesota, and Oregon should be exuberantly blue this fall. Hawaii will chill on his side of the aisle too. Apologies for the bad pun.
I welcome comments, criticism, praise, and insults. Hope to hear from you soon!
Thanks,
The Conscientious Observer
"God looks at the clean hands, not the full ones." -- Publilius Syrus
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
An Epic Awakening
Hello!
...
(Echo)
Well, that's a start I guess! My first verbal broadside into the electronic universe. Eloquent, simple and sweet.
I am Conscientious Observer, and I am the blogger of this domain (I like how that sounded, even if not technically correct!). I hope you like what I write and find it thoughtful. I am completely unaware of how to write a good blog, so I would appreciate feedback.
I will try to write about current events, politics, odd news, or use this space as an avenue for personal expression. I will also try to end each entry with a thoughtful quote. That way, even if there if you determine that there no wisdom in what I write, I can still serve as the purveyor of other people's wisdom. Some of you may be tempted to read only the quotes. I wouldn't blame you.
In any event, that should serve as an acceptable introduction. Thank you for offering me your time. I promise not to waste it willingly.
Cheers!
The Conscientious Observer
Ralph Waldo Emerson (Adapted): "What you do shouts so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying."
...
(Echo)
Well, that's a start I guess! My first verbal broadside into the electronic universe. Eloquent, simple and sweet.
I am Conscientious Observer, and I am the blogger of this domain (I like how that sounded, even if not technically correct!). I hope you like what I write and find it thoughtful. I am completely unaware of how to write a good blog, so I would appreciate feedback.
I will try to write about current events, politics, odd news, or use this space as an avenue for personal expression. I will also try to end each entry with a thoughtful quote. That way, even if there if you determine that there no wisdom in what I write, I can still serve as the purveyor of other people's wisdom. Some of you may be tempted to read only the quotes. I wouldn't blame you.
In any event, that should serve as an acceptable introduction. Thank you for offering me your time. I promise not to waste it willingly.
Cheers!
The Conscientious Observer
Ralph Waldo Emerson (Adapted): "What you do shouts so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)