Incredibly haunting...

Just when I give the lefties and righties a hard time, I find a song that makes me want to take sides again.

If you've never listened to the song "The Island", written by Paul Brady, most recently performed by Celtic Thunder -- you owe yourself the listen. The lyrics are haunting and challenging -- and Keith's voice lamenting sorrowfully will pull at your heartstrings in ways that perhaps no other song ever has. Here's a YouTube link to it -- check out the other Celtic Thunder stuff whilst you're there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dr3ZmSZ8yOW8&sa=U&ei=nkjgS_CnMY_cNZqygL4H&oi=video_result&ct=res&cad=12643405470278760815&ved=0CCEQtwIwBA&cd=5&usg=AFQjCNEf9aT_msQNktwTVk9sDUJtzUB5hg

Excerpt of Lyrics:

Women and children dying in the street
And we're still at it in our own place
Still tryin’ to reach the future through the past
Still tryin’ to carve tomorrow from a tombstone...

Up here we sacrifice our children
To feed the worn-out dreams of yesterday
And teach them dying will lead us into glory...

Now I know us plain folks don't see all the story
And I know this peace and love's just copping out
And I guess these young boys dying in the ditches
Is just what being free is all about
And how this twisted wreckage down on main street
Will bring us all together in the end
And we'll go marching down the road to freedom... Freedom... Freedom.............

No, I can't get behind that...

I just received an e-mail from MoveOn. I subscribe to the list because I like to hear great ideas, regardless of the source. MoveOn is a very left-leaning, liberal group and so it comes as no surprise that I disagree with several of their ideals. For those who are unaware, I'm a moderate, and I find both polar regions to be far too chilly (left OR right).

But it's e-mails like these that make me wonder how we can ever get anything done. Here's a quote from the e-mail from Justin at MoveOn:

"Dreaming of a clean energy future? Dream on. Thanks to the energy companies, legislation being debated in the Senate right now would actually expand nukes, offshore drilling, and coal.

Want to make sure every job pays a living wage and that all workers can choose the protection of a union? Probably impossible, as long as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spends nearly $150 million per year on lobbying alone—not even counting campaign contributions.1

How 'bout closing the widening gap between the rich and the poor? How 'bout investing enough in education so every child gets a decent education and every family can afford college? How 'bout making workplaces really work for people with families, including paid sick leave and parental leave?

Right now these proposals would get you laughed out of the room in Washington. Because they all face overwhelming opposition from powerful, entrenched interests. "

What just kills me about this is the "My way or no-way" approach that both sides are shown to take. What's left out is the moderate voter -- me. And that chafes me a bit.

I dream of a clean energy future. Unfortunately, I also dream of space travel, being a rock star, and solving all world hunger. Like all of these dreams (with the exception of being a rock star), the best steps we take are the seemingly small ones. We can't eliminate oil and coal immediately. But we can implement a clean(er) and safe(r) nuclear program that allows us to generate electricity. It should be a short-term gap cover until we can find a better solution. We should be spending money on that medium and longer term solution now, but in the interim, we should be working toward a mutually agreeable middle ground -- nuclear seems to be the least of the possible evils at the moment -- but neither side is willing to get us there.

Do I want every job to pay a living wage? That's a tough question to answer. Should someone be able to make a living for flipping burgers? Should people be able to use unions to force a job to pay more than that job is worth (read: ALL jobs at the car companies, particularly on the production line)? Of course not! Unions have jacked the price of labor to the point where the work is being sent wherever they're not. Unions are self-fulfilling prophesies of doom and Seth Godin and numerous other brilliant people foretell an even more dire future for those who stake their livelihoods on these dying organizations. I won't get started on lobbying -- I think the entire practice should be banned, the offenders tried for treason, etc. I also think we should eliminate lawyers and journalists who are more interested in their ratings than the truth.

Do I want to close the widening gap between the rich and the poor? Again, tough question. I don't, if it means the rich just throwing money at the poor. This is not a good investment! If people don't earn their way, they won't appreciate it. The perfect example are rich kids -- they (for the most part) are smarmy, worthless little snots who take every bit of good fortune for granted -- and why shouldn't they? They don't know what it means to earn a living, and they can't appreciate what it means to do so. The same happens when you drop money on an unsuspecting poor person -- they don't know how to handle that situation. I can attest that as I've moved up the proverbial corporate and financial ladder, I've had my own foolishness exercised with newfound monies. I am still in more debt than I should be because of some of these decisions. I'm underwater on my house because of it. We would make the situation worse for many of these folks if we pulled this on them. Should we help them get better jobs? Sure! As long as they can provide value to those jobs and companies. Why wouldn't we give people a hand up? Again -- that's the middle ground: A hand up, not a hand out. Lefties want to give a hand out, righties want to keep it all for their greedy selves. I do totally agree with Justin on improving access to college -- but not on making it free for everyone. Who's going to foot the tab on that? Other nations have done it -- but they have way higher tax rates to make it happen (see: Norway). Is this a valid use of tax money? Sure! But what's going to make the education system as good as it is now? What kind of competition will there be? This all ties back to one of the main problems with socialism in any form -- barring intrinsic motivation (which has been proven unreliable in a general population) -- what motivates people when they have all their needs met and don't have to work to get anything they need? It's a riddle for the ages.

Should we force companies to provide benefits on the most basic of jobs? Maybe. But who's going to pay for that? The consumers? We're already talking about moving jobs out of the country (see unions above) -- if we increase the cost of items to offset the additional costs, we lose more jobs. This is actually very simple math. It is beyond the reach of most lefties, though. That or they want to paint over it and move on to "But it's better because everybody's equal!" The righties say "Bah, humbug" to the whole thing -- employees are cogs in the machine and nothing more. These are fallacious assumptions as well.

So when MoveOn (or anyone else on the fringe) asks if I can get behind them, vote their way, throw money at them, etc. -- no, I can't get behind at all. When you (and all the rest of the fringe) start to realize that concession and compromise are the language of the vast majority of the country, THEN we'll get behind you and start to follow and believe that this country is capable of working together and not pointless, petty bickering --- until then, NO.

Repost: Seth Godin shares a Linchpin session

To help offset Seth's bandwidth, I'm hosting this file on my server -- feel free to pass along and share with friends, per Seth on his blog here:

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/04/aprillinchpin.html

To download the session, click here:

http://www.webcruiser.org/sethgodin_linchpin/linchpinsessionsethgodinapril.mp3

or browse the directory there to save to your machine locally.

Seth Godin is a ray of light into an occasionally bleak business and political world -- he really helps to frame the discussion for how to improve things. Now we just need to get the word out. How can you help make the world better? Are you a Linchpin?

Joe

Disappointed...

I am so disappointed in our political system. I am disappointed with our country. I'm disheartened by the lack of intelligent conversation (not debate, necessarily) about the problems that plague our nation. I'm disgusted by the threats being made on the lives of our elected officials. Regardless of whether I think these people are vermin (many of them are) or how I feel about the whole health care situation and how it's being rammed forcibly down our throats, I'm disappointed that we can't do better than this.

We are a largely intelligent people. We communicate and create new ways of communicating (including this blog, all the technologies that make it possible, etc.) daily. And yet for all the tools and words at our disposal, we settle on the most barbaric of methods -- threats on individuals' lives, their families, their homes, etc.

This isn't an attack on any particular group. I don't care who is perpetrating these acts, whether it's a Tea Party or PETA. It's wrong. Out-shouting the person next to you doesn't make you right. It just makes you louder -- and in my case, less likely to be saying something of any value.

It's time to end the sophomoric prattling and sword-rattling; it's time to discuss, to decide a best path and to take action together.

It's time to end the us vs. them mentality; it's time to realize that compromising what we believe in is not the only way to move forward, to realize that it is possible to come together and find the best possible path for the common good.

People -- let's start being what we said we were -- "United States" -- with a common goal.

Take a look here -- what do these words mean to you?

¿Que Ingles?

A friend of mine, whom I think very highly of, posted a story about having found a store in her area (Arizona) where the majority of the signage were in Spanish rather than English. From what I can tell, she took offense from the fact that Spanish was the predominant language of the establishment. To me, if the primary clientele speaks Spanish, Spanish makes sense. But there's a part of me that thinks that all signage should be in the primary language of the country it resides in also... I posted a response on FaceBook and realized I'd like to re-post it and see if anyone out there has a thought on it.

Reposted from Facebook reply:

I think life would be better for all if we were all multilingual -- regardless of what other language it is. I don't think it's outrageous to ask people to learn a second language. Canadians learn French and English (most do, at least) and they are more able to communicate with others outside their borders. Learning another language is a window in to other cultures and helps to stop being so insular and close-minded about people who are "different" than we are. It's a short step between "English only" and other forms of elitism and bigotry (not implying anything to any particular person -- just an observation).

That said, English is the primary (if not official) language of the United States, and it should be the de factor language for any form of communication, just as it is in Canada. Learning it should be required for citizenship and for other services. As Mary pointed out -- the citizenship test wasn't available in German, French, Creole, Vietnamese, Latin, or dozens of other worthy (and widely used) languages -- why are we showing preference to Spanish? Because there are more people who come in from Spanish-speaking countries? Or because the people who do are unwilling to learn our primary language? That's a more difficult question to answer.

As a challenge to those who say "Just Learn English" -- as an adult, try to pick up a new language. You'll find it's not as easy as one would like it to be. I've been trying to learn Spanish and French for the last 5 years and am still struggling. I am reasonably certain that I sound like a backwards hillbilly when I try to speak French. English is arguably one of the most difficult non-Kanji languages to learn, with it's complex structure and an exception to nearly every rule. I've noticed I'm much more patient after I realized that I couldn't do what I was asking them to do. As the saying goes, before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes -- at least then, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. :-)

Intolerance personified

Geez -- our Prez can't win. He's taking a step he believes is the right step for him and for the government he represents, and both sides hate him for it. Fortunately, it's only the total whack-jobs on both sides: American Atheists on one side (approrpriately abbreviated AA for their need to find a 12-step program to stop being so intolerant and ignorant), and Shirley Dobson, wife of Dr. James Dobson, poster boy for the relgious zealots on the right (you know -- hate gay people, no abortion in even the most dire cases, and in no way does evolution occur -- the Bible is to be interpreted COMPLETELY literally, including the Old Testament).

First, we have AA who say that the complete separation of church and state includes not allowing our leaders to pray publicly -- or to organize events where prayer is included (nevermind that they're not FORCING anyone to attend -- it's an optional event and they can pay homage to any religion that wants to attend as part of a prayer event). These anti-religious fanatics are every bit as zealous and unyielding in their diatribe -- no religion for anyone in public. Keep it to yourself.

I say that's malarkey (well, I say it's worse than that, but this is a public forum). Our leaders are human beings who have their own beliefs and faiths; not allowing them to demonstrate their faith is just as intolerant as forcing faith on someone. The founders who wrote the documents were largely of a Christian bent, and yet they wrote the words of the First Amendment to allow the separation of church and state such that the church (specifically the Church -- as in the various flavors of Catholic church who act with the autonomy of governments) would never rule as they had in England, France -- most of Europe, in fact. Instead, we'd have a government that based it's decisions on foundational documents and agreed upon societal values.

These societal values/norms are based on the society at large and can change with the wind and times; a great example is the gradual change to allow forms of profanity on network television. When television and radio were first born, the thought of using profanity in a public media like that was unacceptable, and the rules were written such that it was a punishable act. This included all forms of indecency -- but as the years have gone by and society has grown to accept "ass", "damn", "crap" etc as acceptable content for public radio, the rules have been amended (or at least enforced appropriately based on the times, depending on the ruling body) to realize the shift in society's views.

But there's still a fundamental basis to these societal values/norms -- and nearly all of them come from some form of religious or moral compass/guideline. Some are based in practicality, to be sure -- a murder statute is a great example. Nearly all religions have some form of law/guidance against murdering -- but it's also a practical consideration. We don't want to have people killing each other, because eventually there would be mayhem. That's why eugenics doesn't fly -- who's to say who the killees and killers should be?

But there are other, less obvious laws. Why is prostitution illegal? Are there victims? What about smoking marijuana? If these things have "victims" (which I don't believe they do), why isn't alcohol illegal? Or tobacco? Or electronic devices? Or fast food? Nearly all have a basis in religion, so for the AA group to get their knickers in a twist over a Presidential Prayer Party is plain ignorant and intolerant.

Then we have the Dobsons, to whom vitriole is a pastime and hobby (as well as a very lucrative career). Like many others in the religious right, they've no problem in hawking their wares to any who would listen and accept their hate speech as dogma. I grew up listening to several Focus on the Family programs, and there are several that I still enjoy -- Adventures in Odyssey is a particularly well done piece. Unfortunately, many other FotF products tend to head toward the less tolerant and "love"-based Christianity, straight back to the Old Testament fire and brimstone rules.

One question I've still never gotten a decent answer to -- if we're still supposed to be following all that Old Testament stuff, why are we still eating pork? Why do we not label women as unclean during their periods? (Okay, some men still do, but they're jerks). Sue Bohlin of Probe Ministries posts a reply (I haven't vetted any of it for accuracy other than the statements on this page: http://tinyurl.com/d5sbdp).

Now -- back to President Barack Obama. He's decided not to schedule a big to-do event for National Day of Prayer -- he's going to pray at home, and encourage others to do the same. He's going to sign a proclomation as many other Presidents have done. So instead of portraying his religion as a big show, he wants to keep his prayers private. Instead of having a big flashy event with reporters and drama, he keeps his faith conservative (irony intended). His predecessor wanted all the posh and pizzazz of the event and wanted it all on the news (Fox News in particular).

So let's compare these 2 men:

George W. Bush -- BIG public faith
Barack H. Obama -- private faith

George W. Bush -- lied to us, dealt in murder, torture, etc., etc., etc.
Barack H. Obama -- so far, has opened up the details about all George W's failings/lies and is making things much more publicly accessible. I've not seen (meaning I'm open to people pointing out anything I've missed, but from what I've observed, he's been open, honest and forthcoming about everything that's going on -- even the faux pas and screwups)

So -- if I had to choose between a president who lies/tortures/murders and professes a faith that isinconsistent with his actions and a president who keeps his faith to himself (as do I) and consistently lives his faith, I can tell you who I'm going to pick everytime.

As the intro to the DC Talk song "What if I Stumble" says, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." The quote is from Brennan Manning, priest, friar, author and speaker -- and it's true in this case as well. Who wants to be the next George W. Bush? Who would follow that type of faith?

My Christian faith tells me that loving my neighbor as myself is one of the central tenants of my faith (Matthew 22:36-40); the type of spew and rhetoric that came from most of the religious right are as abhorrent to me as the liberalist leanings and anti-religious views espoused by the Atheist Association.

What are your thoughts on this? The CNN article that spawned my response is linked below.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/obama.prayer/index.html

This is a very heartening story from Hawai'i, and proof why government should never become too large. These people were depending on government to help save their livelihoods, and because government becomes more inept as it grows, the bureaucratic red tape tied up this small repair that took volunteers only 8 DAYS to fix. It had already been in discussions for several months, and had a projected cost of $4 million dollars.

It's great to hear that people are doing great things with volunteer work and pitching in to make their homes, businesses, neighborhoods, and even STATE PARKS better -- maybe if all of America went back to this type of "Work Together" mentality instead of depending on a hand-out or the government to do everything but eat and sleep for them, things would improve.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/09/hawaii.volunteers.repair/index.html