One popular assumption I've never bought into is that when you have a television in a public place, it should be turned to a news channel - usually CNN. Hotel lobbies, airport terminals, even the waiting room at Jiffy Lube broadcast nothing but a stream of headline news garbage.
I'm sure news is the official programming of waiting rooms because it's something everyone has some interest in, and I admit there's reason in this argument. But let's take a step back and think about what topics dominate the news - politics and religion. Not exactly the best waiting room conversation.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't want to have a debate over international terrorism with the guy next to me at the airport. They always seem to end with me either nodding and smiling, swallowing my rage, or calling the guy an ignorant bigot - which also tends to make things a bit uncomfortable.
But I'm not one of these people who complains without offering a solution. Those televisions need to have something on, something that won't spark hostility. I think I've come up with the answer: The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. What show sparks less debate than The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air? There isn't one. The only real potential for comment is if some guy mutters "this show sucks." That will only lead to the simple response "yes, this show certainly does suck." Consensus.
And if people still insist on tuning these TVs to the news, maybe we could at least segregate our waiting rooms a bit. People of sound mind could sit on one side, while uninformed Bush drones could sit on the other. Yes, I know, we need more of a dialogue if we're ever going to achieve unity in this country. But I'm not in the mood to start it while I'm waiting for an oil change.
Imploding Towers
Ah, who doesn't relish those carefree memories of college? Well, mine exploded on Tuesday. Part of them anyway.
Iowa State University demolished half of the Towers dormitory complex - the fabled "suitcase" buildings. Urban legends about the origins and fate of the Towers have floated around for years. Several people told me the 39-year-old buildings were only intended to last for eight years. Somehow, I always doubted that the 11-story concrete structures were ever intended as "temporary" housing. But the final bell tolled for Knapp-Storms when the concrete facades began crumbling, dropping chunks of concrete on the students below.
Having lived for two years in the Towers, a time when I learned a lot about the world and about myself, watching the buildings come down made me think "WHAT A SWEET EXPLOSION!"
Do you like to watch things blow up? Of course you do. Check out some great video footage from KCCI-TV.
George W. Nixon
Few things are as pervasive or annoying as the proverbial Watergate comparisons that accompany every presidential scandal. Remember Lewinskygate? Travelgate? It's as if "gate" were the Latin root for scandal, not just the name of a hotel that happened to be the piece of rope Tricky Dick hung himself with.
But the developing story of Bush officials leaking the name of a CIA operative as an act of revenge recalls the Nixon days in more than name alone. The crown jewel of Nixon's undoing was, of course, the Republican orchestrated break-in to Democratic campaign headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. But the break-in was far from the only seedy thing going on. The investigation revealed a pattern of abuse-of-power. Nixon and his cronies regularly ordered surveillance and generally made trouble for anyone they considered a political enemy. In fact, the articles of impeachment make more mention of Nixon's use of White House power to bully than the break-in itself.
What does this have to do with George W. Bush? Quite a damn bit, actually. Administration officials may not be accused of anything so obviously criminal as the Watergate break-in, but the intent is the same. Bush and friends are clearly using their power to threaten anyone who gets in their way. Revealing the identity of an undercover agent because her husband (correctly) told the world you were full of shit about WMDs is absolutely despicable. And that's what the Bush people have done. They put an American agent in danger to protect their ability to send us to war over a lie. Call me a moral relativist if you will, but I find that more deplorable than schtoinking an intern in the Oval Office.
The White House is already fortifying its position of plausible deniability, and it's exactly the type of spineless leadership you'd expect from this President. The question of who knew and who authorized this leak of information is going to be forced as low down the food chain as possible. But it strains common sense to believe that the man known as "Bush's Brain" would have orchestrated this without the W. knowing what was going on.
And even if Bush didn't know, he's still on the hook - just like he's on the hook for the Iraq war. Harry Truman had that great slogan for leadership - Presidential or otherwise. "The buck stops here." All it really means is when you're the boss, you take responsibility for the good and the bad. This President made a case for war based on false information, then tried to excuse himself by saying he was only presenting what was given to him by intelligence officials. Now he's in the process of laying the blame for the CIA agent leak on his underlings. It doesn't work that way, Chief.
The Talking Heads (and by all accounts the Special Prosecutor) seem to be debating whether or not a crime was committed with this leak, and if so who is guilty. That seems like a moot point. What's clear is that our top executives are at best incompetent, and at worst using their power to push around those with a different point of view, often known as the truth.
For a great primer on the whole Karl Rove/CIA agent leak story, check out this article in today's San Francisco Chronicle.
But the developing story of Bush officials leaking the name of a CIA operative as an act of revenge recalls the Nixon days in more than name alone. The crown jewel of Nixon's undoing was, of course, the Republican orchestrated break-in to Democratic campaign headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. But the break-in was far from the only seedy thing going on. The investigation revealed a pattern of abuse-of-power. Nixon and his cronies regularly ordered surveillance and generally made trouble for anyone they considered a political enemy. In fact, the articles of impeachment make more mention of Nixon's use of White House power to bully than the break-in itself.
What does this have to do with George W. Bush? Quite a damn bit, actually. Administration officials may not be accused of anything so obviously criminal as the Watergate break-in, but the intent is the same. Bush and friends are clearly using their power to threaten anyone who gets in their way. Revealing the identity of an undercover agent because her husband (correctly) told the world you were full of shit about WMDs is absolutely despicable. And that's what the Bush people have done. They put an American agent in danger to protect their ability to send us to war over a lie. Call me a moral relativist if you will, but I find that more deplorable than schtoinking an intern in the Oval Office.
The White House is already fortifying its position of plausible deniability, and it's exactly the type of spineless leadership you'd expect from this President. The question of who knew and who authorized this leak of information is going to be forced as low down the food chain as possible. But it strains common sense to believe that the man known as "Bush's Brain" would have orchestrated this without the W. knowing what was going on.
And even if Bush didn't know, he's still on the hook - just like he's on the hook for the Iraq war. Harry Truman had that great slogan for leadership - Presidential or otherwise. "The buck stops here." All it really means is when you're the boss, you take responsibility for the good and the bad. This President made a case for war based on false information, then tried to excuse himself by saying he was only presenting what was given to him by intelligence officials. Now he's in the process of laying the blame for the CIA agent leak on his underlings. It doesn't work that way, Chief.
The Talking Heads (and by all accounts the Special Prosecutor) seem to be debating whether or not a crime was committed with this leak, and if so who is guilty. That seems like a moot point. What's clear is that our top executives are at best incompetent, and at worst using their power to push around those with a different point of view, often known as the truth.
For a great primer on the whole Karl Rove/CIA agent leak story, check out this article in today's San Francisco Chronicle.
To the moon Alice ... I mean, Andy
My gay upstairs neighbors have started fighting very loudly, and I must say it's a culturally confusing situation.
Of course it's awkward - it always is when couples start referring to each other as "you f***ing asshole!" So it's got that whole COPS, white trash domestic disturbance flair. But the fact that it's two dudes puts the whole thing in a different light.
If a husband and wife are fighting, you think to yourself "if he hits her, I'm going to have to call the cops." But with two men I find myself thinking "sweet, maybe there's going to be a fight." Instead of "I hope Judy can get out of that awful situation," we neighbors ask questions like "do you think Ken could kick Gary's ass?" They seem pretty evenly matched to me, and believe it or not they're both in really good shape.
Let's face it, there's a rhythm to how men and women fight. The woman's voice will generally reach a very high pitch, and she'll unload a litany of complaints at blinding speed. Then the man will say something to the effect of "well, f*** it then", tip over a piece of furniture and slam the door on his way to the bar. Instead, I'm getting two guys saying "f*** it" and tipping something over. I just hope they've worked out different bars to go to.
Of course it's awkward - it always is when couples start referring to each other as "you f***ing asshole!" So it's got that whole COPS, white trash domestic disturbance flair. But the fact that it's two dudes puts the whole thing in a different light.
If a husband and wife are fighting, you think to yourself "if he hits her, I'm going to have to call the cops." But with two men I find myself thinking "sweet, maybe there's going to be a fight." Instead of "I hope Judy can get out of that awful situation," we neighbors ask questions like "do you think Ken could kick Gary's ass?" They seem pretty evenly matched to me, and believe it or not they're both in really good shape.
Let's face it, there's a rhythm to how men and women fight. The woman's voice will generally reach a very high pitch, and she'll unload a litany of complaints at blinding speed. Then the man will say something to the effect of "well, f*** it then", tip over a piece of furniture and slam the door on his way to the bar. Instead, I'm getting two guys saying "f*** it" and tipping something over. I just hope they've worked out different bars to go to.
Live Strong Etc.
Maybe it's just my Midwestern sense of modesty but I cringe every time I see one of these "I gave money to a cause" wrist bands.
You know what I'm talking about. As far as I know, it all started with those yellow, rubber, Lance Armstrong "Live Strong" bracelets. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in the City of Angels you couldn't cross the street without running into some hipster/hipstette who was wearing one. It got so big there were even people selling phony yellow wristbands to make a profit. I thought the whole thing had run its course, but now I see people wearing blue, green, red, whatever. And each one apparently denotes that the wearer has the high moral standing of having donated a couple bucks to some worthy cause.
I don't begrudge these charities for attempting to raise the old awareness, but is that really what's happening here? Hats off to Lance for raising all that money for cancer or cycling or living strong or whatever the hell that was all about. But sporting a piece of jewelry to alert the world that you donated some money to charity makes you kind of a tool in my book.
I guess I have an old fashioned notion of charity, where you give to a worthy cause because it feels like the right thing to do. Demanding recognition cheapens the transaction. The wrist band phenomenon pisses me off for the same reason I can't stand wealthy people donating money to have buildings named after them. It's great when our financial superiors lay down the cash for a new concert hall or University building. But then naming the building after yourself turns it into something other than a selfless act.
Give to charity - whatever your means. But do it for some satisfaction other than your name on a building or a trendy wristband.
You know what I'm talking about. As far as I know, it all started with those yellow, rubber, Lance Armstrong "Live Strong" bracelets. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in the City of Angels you couldn't cross the street without running into some hipster/hipstette who was wearing one. It got so big there were even people selling phony yellow wristbands to make a profit. I thought the whole thing had run its course, but now I see people wearing blue, green, red, whatever. And each one apparently denotes that the wearer has the high moral standing of having donated a couple bucks to some worthy cause.
I don't begrudge these charities for attempting to raise the old awareness, but is that really what's happening here? Hats off to Lance for raising all that money for cancer or cycling or living strong or whatever the hell that was all about. But sporting a piece of jewelry to alert the world that you donated some money to charity makes you kind of a tool in my book.
I guess I have an old fashioned notion of charity, where you give to a worthy cause because it feels like the right thing to do. Demanding recognition cheapens the transaction. The wrist band phenomenon pisses me off for the same reason I can't stand wealthy people donating money to have buildings named after them. It's great when our financial superiors lay down the cash for a new concert hall or University building. But then naming the building after yourself turns it into something other than a selfless act.
Give to charity - whatever your means. But do it for some satisfaction other than your name on a building or a trendy wristband.
The 4th of July
The 4th of July is here again, and so is my annual rant on how misdirected our celebration has become.
It's gotten to the point where every Independence Day celebration begins and ends by remembering the noble veterans who fought and even died in armed conflicts. Should we remember those who fought for this country? Absolutely. That's what we have Veterans Day for. And we even have Memorial Day to specifically remember those who died. The 4th of July is something different.
Today is supposed to be a day we celebrate our nation as a whole - especially our stated values of freedom and equality. And our nation is more than just a sum of its armed conflicts - justified and otherwise.
When I think about the men and women who made this country great, I think about those who fought unarmed battles on our own shores. If you really hold the ideals of freedom and equality high, how can you not honor those who waged war for labor and civil rights? Many of these people also gave their lives, and without the benefit of the popular and federal approval that comes with fighting in a war.
And yes, we do have Labor Day and to some extent Martin Luther King Day to remember these sacrifices. But our disingenuous fixation on the sacrifices of war threatens to turn every holiday into the same faux patriotic lip service. We're not far from a time when Labor Day is the day we remember the men and women who work hard and then give their lives defending this country. Or perhaps Groundhog Day will become the day a small rodent tells us if there will be six more weeks of winter in which we can remember the men and women who gave their lives defending this country. You see where it's going.
We've gotten to the point where we honor the fighting more than we honor the cause, and that's just not right. So as you indulge in charred meat and beer, please take a moment to remember all the great things about this nation other than shooting people from other nations.
It's gotten to the point where every Independence Day celebration begins and ends by remembering the noble veterans who fought and even died in armed conflicts. Should we remember those who fought for this country? Absolutely. That's what we have Veterans Day for. And we even have Memorial Day to specifically remember those who died. The 4th of July is something different.
Today is supposed to be a day we celebrate our nation as a whole - especially our stated values of freedom and equality. And our nation is more than just a sum of its armed conflicts - justified and otherwise.
When I think about the men and women who made this country great, I think about those who fought unarmed battles on our own shores. If you really hold the ideals of freedom and equality high, how can you not honor those who waged war for labor and civil rights? Many of these people also gave their lives, and without the benefit of the popular and federal approval that comes with fighting in a war.
And yes, we do have Labor Day and to some extent Martin Luther King Day to remember these sacrifices. But our disingenuous fixation on the sacrifices of war threatens to turn every holiday into the same faux patriotic lip service. We're not far from a time when Labor Day is the day we remember the men and women who work hard and then give their lives defending this country. Or perhaps Groundhog Day will become the day a small rodent tells us if there will be six more weeks of winter in which we can remember the men and women who gave their lives defending this country. You see where it's going.
We've gotten to the point where we honor the fighting more than we honor the cause, and that's just not right. So as you indulge in charred meat and beer, please take a moment to remember all the great things about this nation other than shooting people from other nations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)