So, in a blatant act of commercialism I decided to join AdSense and display some advertising on my blog (down a ways, on the right hand side, but feel free to ignore it). I was conflicted about this for awhile, but the idea of a little extra money, even just a nickel here, a dime there, was too much to resist! Now I'm just sitting back, waiting for the riches to flow.
And so I load up the page, and look over there, and right there on my blog, my very own so-liberal-it-hurts blog, was a Bush/Cheney ad.
Lordy, but I deserved that. It hurt, it hurt!
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Monday, August 30, 2004
My musical weekend
Well, that was fun. So we didn't get to play quite as much as I'd hoped we would, the event at the Paper Heart was a total blast! It's a good thing, being able to gather together with one's peeps and, for at least one evening, not feeling quite so crazy.
Richard and I played well, though I think the first set was a little ... I dunno, staid, sedate ... could barely hear my guitar. Our second set, though, was pretty much on fire and we had the whole house singing along on our parody, "This Land is My Land." Great fun!
Now the challenge is to see if I can fit music-playing into my schedule in the next few months. Opportunities seem to be presenting themselves.
Oh, and Mike's birthday pub-bash was fun last night, too, even if I spent more time talking to his work colleagues and to Richard than to him. Ach, well, the beer was good!
Richard and I played well, though I think the first set was a little ... I dunno, staid, sedate ... could barely hear my guitar. Our second set, though, was pretty much on fire and we had the whole house singing along on our parody, "This Land is My Land." Great fun!
Now the challenge is to see if I can fit music-playing into my schedule in the next few months. Opportunities seem to be presenting themselves.
Oh, and Mike's birthday pub-bash was fun last night, too, even if I spent more time talking to his work colleagues and to Richard than to him. Ach, well, the beer was good!
Friday, August 27, 2004
My new song
I wrote a new song for this weekend's (tomorrow's) performance and though it's a little rough, I'm generally quite pleased with it. And there's a word in it I've never heard in a song before, which officially puts the song nebulously into wonky/silly/perhaps even a little clever territory. No title yet, but here are the lyrics (as best I can remember them ... I'll actually be going off a lyric sheet tomorrow night since we have so much new material we haven't had time to memorize) ...
You say it's the will of God,
You say this is shock and awe,
You speak only absolutes,
You stay strong and resolute
But you only speak in simple sentences
As you impose your death sentences
You lean on the podium,
Oblivious to opprobrium.
If your lies didn't cause such hurt,
They'd sound only too absurd
But you only speak in simple sentences
As you impose your death sentences
And you wonder why they hate you ...
It's not because of freedom, they hate us less than you
It's because in the name of freedom you
Lied and cheated and maimed and tortured and raped and murdered and bombed and burned
And built profane things in their holy land.
How do you sleep?
How do you sleep?
Don't slumber too deep
Because you have to decide
Is God on your side or are you on God's side?
In defense of truth, we're coming for you (x2)
You say it's the will of God,
You say this is shock and awe,
You speak only absolutes,
You stay strong and resolute
But you only speak in simple sentences
As you impose your death sentences
You lean on the podium,
Oblivious to opprobrium.
If your lies didn't cause such hurt,
They'd sound only too absurd
But you only speak in simple sentences
As you impose your death sentences
And you wonder why they hate you ...
It's not because of freedom, they hate us less than you
It's because in the name of freedom you
Lied and cheated and maimed and tortured and raped and murdered and bombed and burned
And built profane things in their holy land.
How do you sleep?
How do you sleep?
Don't slumber too deep
Because you have to decide
Is God on your side or are you on God's side?
In defense of truth, we're coming for you (x2)
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Now Playing
John Mann - Acoustic Kitty
The solo CD from Spirit of the West's front man and one-time major character on UPN's Haunted. This ain't a review, I'm just celebrating having gotten it in the mail from amazon.ca. Small things brighten my day!
The solo CD from Spirit of the West's front man and one-time major character on UPN's Haunted. This ain't a review, I'm just celebrating having gotten it in the mail from amazon.ca. Small things brighten my day!
Live music goodness!
I keep forgetting to mention this, and it's worth mentioning, if you, my faithful reader, are in Phoenix!
Richard and I (aka Haiku Road, as discussed some months ago in this very blog/journal) are to play our first-ever public gig (at least, under this name) Saturday August 28, 8 p.m., at the Paper Heart Gallery in downtown Phoenix. It's a farewell party for George W. Bush sponsored by the Committee to De-Elect and will feature much fun and frivolity, spoken word, music, performance art, poetry and general mayhem. Politically-oriented organizations like the Arizona Democratic Party and Az Vote will be there as well.
We've been practicing really hard for awhile. It's gonna be a good show.
Richard and I (aka Haiku Road, as discussed some months ago in this very blog/journal) are to play our first-ever public gig (at least, under this name) Saturday August 28, 8 p.m., at the Paper Heart Gallery in downtown Phoenix. It's a farewell party for George W. Bush sponsored by the Committee to De-Elect and will feature much fun and frivolity, spoken word, music, performance art, poetry and general mayhem. Politically-oriented organizations like the Arizona Democratic Party and Az Vote will be there as well.
We've been practicing really hard for awhile. It's gonna be a good show.
Stress and insanity; school and work.
Well. It begins.
I managed, just barely, through begging, borrowing, thriftiness and deft maneuvering to avert a financial disaster and pay for my last semester of graduate school ... at least for the moment.
I further managed to narrowly avoid class registration disasters with Arizona State Univ., which required further deft maneuvering and mid-day direction changes, many flying e-mails, etc., etc., etc. So the upshot is that I'm now a full-time sit-in-class graduate student for the first (and last) time in my library science master's career.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, it's gonna just plain suck. For the next 3.5 months I will have, in essence, no free time, no leisure time, no time to eat and no time to sleep. I have to skip or curtail lunches at work to make up for the time that I'm away at classes; I have to set aside most of even the simplest household tasks in order to have time to do my various legion and hefty school projects and homework.
A thousand ways to fail, and only one to succeed (by avoiding all of the ways I can fail). And barely enough money to squeak by on.
I've really never had to focus this hard on going this hard for this long. I'm a little scared.
Should be some interesting classes, though.
But if you write to me between now and the end of the year and I don't answer, or answer briefly or not entirely appropriately, don't take it personally. After I walk in December, I'll be back to normal. So to speak.
I managed, just barely, through begging, borrowing, thriftiness and deft maneuvering to avert a financial disaster and pay for my last semester of graduate school ... at least for the moment.
I further managed to narrowly avoid class registration disasters with Arizona State Univ., which required further deft maneuvering and mid-day direction changes, many flying e-mails, etc., etc., etc. So the upshot is that I'm now a full-time sit-in-class graduate student for the first (and last) time in my library science master's career.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, it's gonna just plain suck. For the next 3.5 months I will have, in essence, no free time, no leisure time, no time to eat and no time to sleep. I have to skip or curtail lunches at work to make up for the time that I'm away at classes; I have to set aside most of even the simplest household tasks in order to have time to do my various legion and hefty school projects and homework.
A thousand ways to fail, and only one to succeed (by avoiding all of the ways I can fail). And barely enough money to squeak by on.
I've really never had to focus this hard on going this hard for this long. I'm a little scared.
Should be some interesting classes, though.
But if you write to me between now and the end of the year and I don't answer, or answer briefly or not entirely appropriately, don't take it personally. After I walk in December, I'll be back to normal. So to speak.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
From Randi Rhodes' message board, I got the following (I can't figure out how to link to a single posting, alas), which boils down the information on a Web page concerning how to talk to conservatives in a way that will make them listen to you:
When talking with conservatives, particularly leaners, we can't approach issues in too many "liberal" terms, with words like "sharing" and "protection" and "assistance" and other warm, fuzzy, "sensitive" words! Those are democratic terms, and they work for us, but not conservatives. Most of them operate on a "strict father" approach to the world- that is, independence, self-reliance, honor, punishment and tough love. You must speak in these terms to get their attention and respect for your arguements. Sadly, facts alone just won't do it.
Don't say "It isn't fair that bush's tax plan doesn't help the neediest americans". This is true- but what do they care? they may think, "These people should pull themselves up by their own bootsraps without any help, like I did! No one gave me any hand-outs"
So, to someone who seems to be an economic conservative, try
"Does it concern you to see your hard-earned tax dollars being squandered by this administration in corporate handouts? As a tax payer, doesn't you gut tell you that it is dangerous to drain our national treasury dry just when the country and our military need it the most? Would you spend someone else's money like that and leave your kids to pay when the bill comes due?"
What can they say but "no"? Now you have validated how much they hate to pay taxes and appealed to the frugal, pay my own way side AND got into feelings with the "doesn't your gut tell you". Phrases like that, and "In your heart you know" tell your opponent that really, he already agrees with you, he just didn't realize it yet.
To a libertarian, don't quote statistics, just ask "So do you find a benefit in this tax shell game the president has set up, where our federal taxes are reduced-- and our state taxes go up?" You have negated the "relief" claim by re-naming it as a shell game, which it is, frankly.
Don't try to explain why "liberal" and "trial lawyer" aren't bad words. Just change them. Liberal becomes "progressive", "trial lawyers" become "Public protection attorneys".
We also have to refuse to use their words.
When they say "New water purity initiatives" we must refer to it as "poison water policy".
When they say "Defense of Marriage" we must refer to it as "The assault on American Freedoms" or "the bill of No Rights".
What they call "war on terror" we must call the" policy of incubating terrorists".
Everyone needs to write to their local newspapers, and get a dialogue going on these terms. When conservatives hear democratic ideals presented in conservative terms, it is harder to ridicule and dismiss them.
Read the tutorial and write a letter today!!
When talking with conservatives, particularly leaners, we can't approach issues in too many "liberal" terms, with words like "sharing" and "protection" and "assistance" and other warm, fuzzy, "sensitive" words! Those are democratic terms, and they work for us, but not conservatives. Most of them operate on a "strict father" approach to the world- that is, independence, self-reliance, honor, punishment and tough love. You must speak in these terms to get their attention and respect for your arguements. Sadly, facts alone just won't do it.
Don't say "It isn't fair that bush's tax plan doesn't help the neediest americans". This is true- but what do they care? they may think, "These people should pull themselves up by their own bootsraps without any help, like I did! No one gave me any hand-outs"
So, to someone who seems to be an economic conservative, try
"Does it concern you to see your hard-earned tax dollars being squandered by this administration in corporate handouts? As a tax payer, doesn't you gut tell you that it is dangerous to drain our national treasury dry just when the country and our military need it the most? Would you spend someone else's money like that and leave your kids to pay when the bill comes due?"
What can they say but "no"? Now you have validated how much they hate to pay taxes and appealed to the frugal, pay my own way side AND got into feelings with the "doesn't your gut tell you". Phrases like that, and "In your heart you know" tell your opponent that really, he already agrees with you, he just didn't realize it yet.
To a libertarian, don't quote statistics, just ask "So do you find a benefit in this tax shell game the president has set up, where our federal taxes are reduced-- and our state taxes go up?" You have negated the "relief" claim by re-naming it as a shell game, which it is, frankly.
Don't try to explain why "liberal" and "trial lawyer" aren't bad words. Just change them. Liberal becomes "progressive", "trial lawyers" become "Public protection attorneys".
We also have to refuse to use their words.
When they say "New water purity initiatives" we must refer to it as "poison water policy".
When they say "Defense of Marriage" we must refer to it as "The assault on American Freedoms" or "the bill of No Rights".
What they call "war on terror" we must call the" policy of incubating terrorists".
Everyone needs to write to their local newspapers, and get a dialogue going on these terms. When conservatives hear democratic ideals presented in conservative terms, it is harder to ridicule and dismiss them.
Read the tutorial and write a letter today!!
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
John Kerry gave away the game when he answered the question (had you known then what you know now ... ) in the first place, but his answer now is not inconsistent with what he said then.
From his floor speech at the time:
In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.
The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.
So in other words, had the president actually fulfilled his obligations with regard to the bill, (1) the war probably wouldn't have happened and (2) the Iraq 'problem' would have been solved multilaterally however things would've gone.
He didn't vote for war, at least not directly. He voted for clearly-delineated presidential power and responsibility. So what, Bush is laughing at Kerry for thinking that the president would keep his word?
Mind you, I didn't agree with the vote then, and I don't now. I knew then that Bush only wanted to go to war in Iraq and that he would stretch anything he was given as far as he could to achieve that objective. But Kerry's position is consistent now with what it was then.
From his floor speech at the time:
In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.
The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.
So in other words, had the president actually fulfilled his obligations with regard to the bill, (1) the war probably wouldn't have happened and (2) the Iraq 'problem' would have been solved multilaterally however things would've gone.
He didn't vote for war, at least not directly. He voted for clearly-delineated presidential power and responsibility. So what, Bush is laughing at Kerry for thinking that the president would keep his word?
Mind you, I didn't agree with the vote then, and I don't now. I knew then that Bush only wanted to go to war in Iraq and that he would stretch anything he was given as far as he could to achieve that objective. But Kerry's position is consistent now with what it was then.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Following Kniwt's example, I decided to look back at the past year or so and see what I've been reading. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and some I actually think I read more than a year ago. But it's pretty representative, and not a clunker in the bunch except Tommy's Tale (ugh.). Even Clinton's book is enjoyable, if only for the fact that no one seems to get it. Yes, he rambles and goes off on tangents, but between the lines he's saying as much about current events as past ones. And some of it is very enlightening.
Ilya Zbarsky- Lenin's Embalmers
Olympia Dukakis- Ask Me Again Tomorrow: A Life in Progress
Michael Chabon- The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay
Alan Cumming- Tommy's Tale
Douglas Coupland- Girlfriend in a Coma, Souvenir of Canada
Bill Clinton- My Life [still working on this one]
Oscar Wilde- The Picture of Dorian Grey [in progress]
Iain M. Banks- Inversions, Excession, Look to Windward, Consider
Phlebas, The Player of Games, The Wasp's Nest
Neal Stephenson- Quicksilver, The Diamond Age
Al Franken- Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Rush Limbaugh is a
Big Fat Idiot
Michael Moore- Dude, Where's My Country?, Downsize This!
Sue Monk Kidd- The Secret Life of Bees
Yann Martel- The Life of Pi
Nikolai Gogol- Dead Souls
Catherine Ryan Hyde- Pay it Forward
Dai Sijie- Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress
Marc Almond- Beautiful Twisted Night
Wally Lamb- She's Come Undone
Robert Morgan- Gap Creek
Jeffrey Ford- The Physiognomy
Ilya Zbarsky- Lenin's Embalmers
Olympia Dukakis- Ask Me Again Tomorrow: A Life in Progress
Michael Chabon- The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay
Alan Cumming- Tommy's Tale
Douglas Coupland- Girlfriend in a Coma, Souvenir of Canada
Bill Clinton- My Life [still working on this one]
Oscar Wilde- The Picture of Dorian Grey [in progress]
Iain M. Banks- Inversions, Excession, Look to Windward, Consider
Phlebas, The Player of Games, The Wasp's Nest
Neal Stephenson- Quicksilver, The Diamond Age
Al Franken- Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Rush Limbaugh is a
Big Fat Idiot
Michael Moore- Dude, Where's My Country?, Downsize This!
Sue Monk Kidd- The Secret Life of Bees
Yann Martel- The Life of Pi
Nikolai Gogol- Dead Souls
Catherine Ryan Hyde- Pay it Forward
Dai Sijie- Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress
Marc Almond- Beautiful Twisted Night
Wally Lamb- She's Come Undone
Robert Morgan- Gap Creek
Jeffrey Ford- The Physiognomy
Friday, August 06, 2004
A classic -- one for the books! One the whole family can enjoy! From the New York Times:
At one point, some of Mr. Bush's listeners began laughing when the president became tangled up in response to a question about the meaning of tribal sovereignty in the 21st century, and how Americans should resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and state governments.
"Tribal sovereignty means that it's sovereign," Mr. Bush replied. "You're a - you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."
At one point, some of Mr. Bush's listeners began laughing when the president became tangled up in response to a question about the meaning of tribal sovereignty in the 21st century, and how Americans should resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and state governments.
"Tribal sovereignty means that it's sovereign," Mr. Bush replied. "You're a - you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)