There's been a lot of controversy surrounding the use of the word "God" in our daily lives--from the Pledge to prayer in our schools.
I have always known that the Founding Fathers were not a religious group in the sense that we would think today. They were philosophers, statesmen, and debaters. They sought to relinquish religion to its proper corridors, far from the intrusion of humanity and its government.
I came across an interesting article on Time magazine's website that illustrates this point. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were deists. They saw God as a somewhat maniacal figure that lurked in the cosmic shadows. For them, God was not a viable figure, but one of an "absentee landlord" (please forgive my quotation from The Devil's Advocate). That's to say if he even exists at all, then he doesn't care about trivial human matters.
The irony of this is apparent in the fact that most people erroneous believe that the Founding Fathers were so religious. In fact, Thomas Jefferson never placed the figure "God" in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the more elusive term "god." This was later changed by other elements.
Religion was a simple construct of humanity, rather than an omnipresence forged in the chaos of creation, for the majority of our so-called Founders.
The question remains, would Thomas Jefferson agree that the word "God" belongs in the Pledge? The answer is definitely he would not. Jefferson would argue that God should remain in the churches and other religious sanctuaries. By placing God in the realm of our daily public lives we alienate a portion of our population. We make them uncomfortable and we belittle their personal beliefs. Essentially, religion belongs in our private lives, if we choose to embrace it.
And while we're on the subject of religious tolerance, let's look at my favorite issue regarding how most radical Christians will say, "Well, you can put up your religious documents and symbols too." I'd honestly like to see someone try to erect a Buddha in the courthouse or offer a Muslim prayer before a school function. It is impossible for me to even imagine the amount of disdain and hypocrisy that would be present if those situations arose.
The next time you hear someone say, "The Founding Fathers meant to have God in our society and our government," please remember that ignorance does not replace the facts of history, nor the hearts of those that lived it!
Monday, June 28, 2004
A Republican US Supreme Court?
Ever since the 2000 presidential election, subsequently the first election I was able to vote in, when the president was elected by the justices of the Supreme Court, I have been a little weary of them! I think rightly so, too!
The United States Supreme Court should technically be called the Constitutional Court of the United States of America. Its sole purpose, under the Constitution, is to interpret the Constitution! It's as simple as that! No where does it say that the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the outcome of elections. In all seriousness, we were not in a Constitutional crisis as some (Republicans) might have pointed out.
The US Constitution clearly states that any questions revolving around a presidential election are the clear territory of the United States House of Representatives. It's ironic that a court devoted entirely to the Constitution missed this important point!
Now beyond this...
The Supreme Court redeemed itself to a certain degree in my eyes today. The Court ruled that George Bush (aka. King George) does not have the entire authority that he gave himself. Rather, the Court decided that the "enemy combatants" that he holds illegally are entitled to a certain degree of legal courtesy (i.e., legal representation).
Specifically, these rights are attributed to those that hold the status of American citizen. The Court stated: "[it's] made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
If citizenship is waived upon the committing of a crime, then all persons will at one time or another waive their citizenship, considering all adult Americans have committed a criminal act; whether in the form of speeding in an automobile or other grievous act. It is illogical that any president, or other authority figure, would presume the loss of constitutional liberties based solely on the acts of the individual.
I rest better knowing that the highest court in the land said: "We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns."
It is indeed within the rights of the Supreme Court to offer review of these cases. Even though, these individuals committed their alleged acts during a time of strain upon the United States, they should not reside, however, outside the constitutional and legal framework of our judicial system.
After all, without our centuries old legal framework, we would be no better than those nations that disdain us; considering, they seek to demolish the very fabric of our society. By denying proper justice to these individuals we award them a victory over us!
The United States Supreme Court should technically be called the Constitutional Court of the United States of America. Its sole purpose, under the Constitution, is to interpret the Constitution! It's as simple as that! No where does it say that the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the outcome of elections. In all seriousness, we were not in a Constitutional crisis as some (Republicans) might have pointed out.
The US Constitution clearly states that any questions revolving around a presidential election are the clear territory of the United States House of Representatives. It's ironic that a court devoted entirely to the Constitution missed this important point!
Now beyond this...
The Supreme Court redeemed itself to a certain degree in my eyes today. The Court ruled that George Bush (aka. King George) does not have the entire authority that he gave himself. Rather, the Court decided that the "enemy combatants" that he holds illegally are entitled to a certain degree of legal courtesy (i.e., legal representation).
Specifically, these rights are attributed to those that hold the status of American citizen. The Court stated: "[it's] made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
If citizenship is waived upon the committing of a crime, then all persons will at one time or another waive their citizenship, considering all adult Americans have committed a criminal act; whether in the form of speeding in an automobile or other grievous act. It is illogical that any president, or other authority figure, would presume the loss of constitutional liberties based solely on the acts of the individual.
I rest better knowing that the highest court in the land said: "We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns."
It is indeed within the rights of the Supreme Court to offer review of these cases. Even though, these individuals committed their alleged acts during a time of strain upon the United States, they should not reside, however, outside the constitutional and legal framework of our judicial system.
After all, without our centuries old legal framework, we would be no better than those nations that disdain us; considering, they seek to demolish the very fabric of our society. By denying proper justice to these individuals we award them a victory over us!
Friday, June 25, 2004
Elect Democrats this November 2!
After hearing all the press in recent days about the war in Iraq and the loss of military life and the life of those innocent Iraqi citizens, I don't think we can support the increase of military personnel in Iraq.
It is illogical and irresponsible to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq. Recently, we have seen an increase of attacks aimed at Western interests, specifically American, by an elite number of Iraqi and foreign insurgents.
We must not overlook the simple fact that we did not have a logical reason to invade Iraq in the first place, except for a son's misplaced rage.
I offer Senator John F. Kerry as a viable alternative to King George. Please visit Senator Kerry's website and review his positions on important issues: http://www.johnkerry.com
In addition to the Presidency, I offer Dr. Daniel Mongiardo as an alternative to Jim Bunning (R-KY). Mr. Bunning is senator simply because he falls into the Mitch McConnell political machine. It's time that we have a senator that stands outside the McConnell vacuum. Please visit: http://www.drdan2004.com to learn more about Dr. Mongiardo.
It is illogical and irresponsible to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq. Recently, we have seen an increase of attacks aimed at Western interests, specifically American, by an elite number of Iraqi and foreign insurgents.
We must not overlook the simple fact that we did not have a logical reason to invade Iraq in the first place, except for a son's misplaced rage.
I offer Senator John F. Kerry as a viable alternative to King George. Please visit Senator Kerry's website and review his positions on important issues: http://www.johnkerry.com
In addition to the Presidency, I offer Dr. Daniel Mongiardo as an alternative to Jim Bunning (R-KY). Mr. Bunning is senator simply because he falls into the Mitch McConnell political machine. It's time that we have a senator that stands outside the McConnell vacuum. Please visit: http://www.drdan2004.com to learn more about Dr. Mongiardo.
Zell Miller
I am outraged by the recent announcement that Democratic Senator Zell Miller (Georgia) will address the Republican National Convention!
This individual has been an advocate of the Republican agenda; yet he wears the banner of the Democratic Party. There is something wrong with this situation. If you are going to support Republicans, support failed Republican domestic and foreign policies, and address Republican "church," then you should just become a Republican!
I think all Democrats in Georgia must send a clear message to Zell Miller--we will not allow Republicans to operate in the upper house of the Congress, the United States Senate!
This individual has been an advocate of the Republican agenda; yet he wears the banner of the Democratic Party. There is something wrong with this situation. If you are going to support Republicans, support failed Republican domestic and foreign policies, and address Republican "church," then you should just become a Republican!
I think all Democrats in Georgia must send a clear message to Zell Miller--we will not allow Republicans to operate in the upper house of the Congress, the United States Senate!
Sunday, June 13, 2004
A History Lesson
I hope that no one is insulted by the title, but I have to teach a lesson in history. If you are insulted, then close your eyes and take a nap.
In 1917, the Russian Empire was falling. The czar, Nicholas II, and his dynasty, the Romanovs, were in decline and headed for political and personal destruction. A small, radical group, called the communists, led by one V.I. Lenin, raised enough power from the czar's unpopular and basic laissez-faire policies to throw him out of his palace on his butt!
As the years went by, Lenin brought to the people of Russia, now the Soviet Union, prosperity, equality, and renewed hope in their common future. Shortly after the revolution of 1917, Lenin died. His body still lies in repose at the Kremlin in Moscow. Yes, you can go see it if you want. It just costs a few kopeks...but now I digress.
Josef Stalin, literally the man of iron, took for himself the prosperity and glory of the Soviet people. He was a man with a giant complex of inferiority. He could never see beyond his own security and selfish goals. Even though, he beat the Nazis, even though American history will tell you otherwise, he was still a deeply disturbed man. He literally sent tens-of-thousands to the gulags in Siberia, and outright slaughtered millions more. But why? These were his people, but they were reminders of how precarious his position was. He was one small man (literally), but he commanded the masses to unyielding loyalty; therefore, if you uttered a word against him, you probably wouldn't be around to see the next day. All in all, the Soviet Union reached its zenith under Stalin. His policies and ideas for expansion would see the Soviet Union grow in technological and agragrian markets, including humanity's conquering of space.
Even though, Stalin is a hated figure today, the people of his Soviet Union seemingly adored the man (he was their "Grandfather"). His death in the early 1950s, sent the Soviet Union into a political vaccuum. The Communist Party was in disarray and fighting within itself, but one figure led the Soviet Union on out of the darkest years it had seen, Nikita Khrushchev.
Khruschev debated Vice-President "Tricky Dick" Nixon in Moscow during the late 1950s. John F. Kennedy, who was unprepared for the political genius of Khrushchev, left a conference with him feeling like he'd been horse-whipped by Khrushchev's tongue. Khruschev laid the foundations for a modern Soviet Union. He expanded Stalin's ideas and principles with one hand and denounced and belittled him with the other. Khrushchev, however, was ahead of his time, and the ruling Communist Party, whom he represented, was unprepared for his propositions and they forced him from power in the 1960s.
Khrushchev was replaced by moderate Leonid Brezhnev. Brezhnev was a party boy. He knew how to play by their rules and keep them smiling. He was also the one that sent the Soviet Union down the road of stagnation. It was during his tenure from the mid-1960s to early 1980s that the Soviet Union headed into its decline. Brezhnev was not Stalin nor Khrushchev. He lacked the vision and determination to be anything more than what the Communist Party told him to be. Brezhnev spent big bucks (or rubles) on the Soviet military and the Cold War. The Soviet Union also spent atrocious amounts of money on the "space race" with the US.
Brezhnev's death was followed by a rapid succession of leadership within a two year period. The period of 1982-1985, saw the Soviet Union under the leadership of four individuals (including Brezhnev and Gorbachev).
By 1985, Mikail Gorbachev was the youngest and last leader of the Soviet Union. The Communist Party had given him the highest position because of his youth and the embarrassment of losing so many leaders in so few years. Gorbachev, like Stalin and Khrushchev, was a tactician and visionary. He had great plans for the Soviet Union. He had to undo over twenty years of economic stagnation and failed policies of the Brezhnev-era, but he was determined to accomplish this feat.
Although, Gorbachev was a polarizing figure, he lacked the political strength to control his policies. His policies were radical compared to his predecessors and his contemporaries. The Communist Party said little at first, but they became more vocal and adament after the effects of these policies were apparant.
Gorbachev, like Nicholas II before him, was leading the Soviet Union into a trap that had been set by radical reformers within his own country, and those nations of the West, like the United States. Today, many westerners call Gorbachev a great man, but his own short-sightedness led to the collapse of what he was attempting to save, the Soviet Union. His policies were radical, but they were not beyond the scope of Communist thought and ideology.
I like to compare this to licking the spoon when you are baking a cake. Gorbachev allowed the Soviet people to lick the spoon from the cake he was making. His inability to see beyond the short term effects allowed the Soviet people to break out and go for the entire cake! How is this wrong? Gorbachev did not calculate the risks of a nation of people who were starved and devestated by twenty years of economic decline. By tasting the cake, the Soviet people rebelled for greater access to the "cake."
Now what is the point of this long-winded essay?
Today, many people attribute the fall of this "Evil Empire" to Ronald Reagan. I argue, however, that Reagan was merely at the right place at the right time. Reagan's policies did little, if anything, to facilitate the fall of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was on the decline long before Reagan was president.
The Soviet Union's decline was a result of many factors, including Brezhnev's starving of the people--both mentally and physically, and Gorbachev's haphazard baking!
You don't give a man dying from dehydration in the desert a gallon of water to drink at once. You give him a little bit at a time until he's back on his feet and well again. Just like when you're baking and a hundred homeless people show up at your bakery, you don't let them in or they'll take over your shop!
Hence, the story of the Soviet Union.
In 1917, the Russian Empire was falling. The czar, Nicholas II, and his dynasty, the Romanovs, were in decline and headed for political and personal destruction. A small, radical group, called the communists, led by one V.I. Lenin, raised enough power from the czar's unpopular and basic laissez-faire policies to throw him out of his palace on his butt!
As the years went by, Lenin brought to the people of Russia, now the Soviet Union, prosperity, equality, and renewed hope in their common future. Shortly after the revolution of 1917, Lenin died. His body still lies in repose at the Kremlin in Moscow. Yes, you can go see it if you want. It just costs a few kopeks...but now I digress.
Josef Stalin, literally the man of iron, took for himself the prosperity and glory of the Soviet people. He was a man with a giant complex of inferiority. He could never see beyond his own security and selfish goals. Even though, he beat the Nazis, even though American history will tell you otherwise, he was still a deeply disturbed man. He literally sent tens-of-thousands to the gulags in Siberia, and outright slaughtered millions more. But why? These were his people, but they were reminders of how precarious his position was. He was one small man (literally), but he commanded the masses to unyielding loyalty; therefore, if you uttered a word against him, you probably wouldn't be around to see the next day. All in all, the Soviet Union reached its zenith under Stalin. His policies and ideas for expansion would see the Soviet Union grow in technological and agragrian markets, including humanity's conquering of space.
Even though, Stalin is a hated figure today, the people of his Soviet Union seemingly adored the man (he was their "Grandfather"). His death in the early 1950s, sent the Soviet Union into a political vaccuum. The Communist Party was in disarray and fighting within itself, but one figure led the Soviet Union on out of the darkest years it had seen, Nikita Khrushchev.
Khruschev debated Vice-President "Tricky Dick" Nixon in Moscow during the late 1950s. John F. Kennedy, who was unprepared for the political genius of Khrushchev, left a conference with him feeling like he'd been horse-whipped by Khrushchev's tongue. Khruschev laid the foundations for a modern Soviet Union. He expanded Stalin's ideas and principles with one hand and denounced and belittled him with the other. Khrushchev, however, was ahead of his time, and the ruling Communist Party, whom he represented, was unprepared for his propositions and they forced him from power in the 1960s.
Khrushchev was replaced by moderate Leonid Brezhnev. Brezhnev was a party boy. He knew how to play by their rules and keep them smiling. He was also the one that sent the Soviet Union down the road of stagnation. It was during his tenure from the mid-1960s to early 1980s that the Soviet Union headed into its decline. Brezhnev was not Stalin nor Khrushchev. He lacked the vision and determination to be anything more than what the Communist Party told him to be. Brezhnev spent big bucks (or rubles) on the Soviet military and the Cold War. The Soviet Union also spent atrocious amounts of money on the "space race" with the US.
Brezhnev's death was followed by a rapid succession of leadership within a two year period. The period of 1982-1985, saw the Soviet Union under the leadership of four individuals (including Brezhnev and Gorbachev).
By 1985, Mikail Gorbachev was the youngest and last leader of the Soviet Union. The Communist Party had given him the highest position because of his youth and the embarrassment of losing so many leaders in so few years. Gorbachev, like Stalin and Khrushchev, was a tactician and visionary. He had great plans for the Soviet Union. He had to undo over twenty years of economic stagnation and failed policies of the Brezhnev-era, but he was determined to accomplish this feat.
Although, Gorbachev was a polarizing figure, he lacked the political strength to control his policies. His policies were radical compared to his predecessors and his contemporaries. The Communist Party said little at first, but they became more vocal and adament after the effects of these policies were apparant.
Gorbachev, like Nicholas II before him, was leading the Soviet Union into a trap that had been set by radical reformers within his own country, and those nations of the West, like the United States. Today, many westerners call Gorbachev a great man, but his own short-sightedness led to the collapse of what he was attempting to save, the Soviet Union. His policies were radical, but they were not beyond the scope of Communist thought and ideology.
I like to compare this to licking the spoon when you are baking a cake. Gorbachev allowed the Soviet people to lick the spoon from the cake he was making. His inability to see beyond the short term effects allowed the Soviet people to break out and go for the entire cake! How is this wrong? Gorbachev did not calculate the risks of a nation of people who were starved and devestated by twenty years of economic decline. By tasting the cake, the Soviet people rebelled for greater access to the "cake."
Now what is the point of this long-winded essay?
Today, many people attribute the fall of this "Evil Empire" to Ronald Reagan. I argue, however, that Reagan was merely at the right place at the right time. Reagan's policies did little, if anything, to facilitate the fall of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was on the decline long before Reagan was president.
The Soviet Union's decline was a result of many factors, including Brezhnev's starving of the people--both mentally and physically, and Gorbachev's haphazard baking!
You don't give a man dying from dehydration in the desert a gallon of water to drink at once. You give him a little bit at a time until he's back on his feet and well again. Just like when you're baking and a hundred homeless people show up at your bakery, you don't let them in or they'll take over your shop!
Hence, the story of the Soviet Union.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
$20, $10, and Dimes (and now the Pentagon)
Any other time such a title would be absurd, but it's not today.
I think the "National Week of Mourning" has become a little absurd itself. We have gone from tens-of-thousands standing in line to pay tribute to a man who struck deals with the communists and negotiated with Iran to printing him on our money. I don't care if he didn't know about these things. It's simple. When you're the boss, then you're responsible for those in your workplace.
(A perfect example is when you're the United States Supreme Court's choice for Commander-in-Chief of the military, you are responsible for the actions of those below you [no matter how small and radical they are].)
Now we've gone from mourning-in-mass to daffy legislators who want to put Ronald Reagan's image on our money. Even our own devious Senator Mitch McConnell would like to see him take the place of the United States first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. I'm surprised they don't want to put him on the dollar bill. I'm sure he is more privileged than the first president of the United States. All George Washington did, after all, was win our independence from a world superpower! But again, that was so long ago.
They would also like to see him take the place of good old President Andy Jackson on the $20. I think I'd rather see Alex go than Andy. I've grown accustomed to his choice in hairstyles. I mean, his untamed locks really make me feel a bit more free to experiment with my own do! How about you? So obviously he can't go.
Then there's Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the dime. This man lifted us up out of the nation's worst financial faux pas in its history, namely the Great Depression. He fought and won World War II, too. He's the only president in the history of the United States to win the presidency four times in a row! (Now I think that deserves some recognition.) And to top it all off, he did all of this while he was in a wheelchair.
Finally, we arrive at the Pentagon. I don't think anyone would really want their name associated with such a secretive institution. When I think of the Pentagon, I picture operatives in dark suits and sunglasses speaking into their cuffs. Even though, that is a false image (or is it) of the Pentagon, I still don't think it's time for it to undergo a name change. But if there is one thing I would mind least being changed, the Pentagon is it.
I just want to look inside my wallet and see "my boys" Alex and Andy looking back at me. That's the way it's always been, and the way it should always remain...or at least until my own slipping "from the surly bonds" of life!
I think the "National Week of Mourning" has become a little absurd itself. We have gone from tens-of-thousands standing in line to pay tribute to a man who struck deals with the communists and negotiated with Iran to printing him on our money. I don't care if he didn't know about these things. It's simple. When you're the boss, then you're responsible for those in your workplace.
(A perfect example is when you're the United States Supreme Court's choice for Commander-in-Chief of the military, you are responsible for the actions of those below you [no matter how small and radical they are].)
Now we've gone from mourning-in-mass to daffy legislators who want to put Ronald Reagan's image on our money. Even our own devious Senator Mitch McConnell would like to see him take the place of the United States first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. I'm surprised they don't want to put him on the dollar bill. I'm sure he is more privileged than the first president of the United States. All George Washington did, after all, was win our independence from a world superpower! But again, that was so long ago.
They would also like to see him take the place of good old President Andy Jackson on the $20. I think I'd rather see Alex go than Andy. I've grown accustomed to his choice in hairstyles. I mean, his untamed locks really make me feel a bit more free to experiment with my own do! How about you? So obviously he can't go.
Then there's Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the dime. This man lifted us up out of the nation's worst financial faux pas in its history, namely the Great Depression. He fought and won World War II, too. He's the only president in the history of the United States to win the presidency four times in a row! (Now I think that deserves some recognition.) And to top it all off, he did all of this while he was in a wheelchair.
Finally, we arrive at the Pentagon. I don't think anyone would really want their name associated with such a secretive institution. When I think of the Pentagon, I picture operatives in dark suits and sunglasses speaking into their cuffs. Even though, that is a false image (or is it) of the Pentagon, I still don't think it's time for it to undergo a name change. But if there is one thing I would mind least being changed, the Pentagon is it.
I just want to look inside my wallet and see "my boys" Alex and Andy looking back at me. That's the way it's always been, and the way it should always remain...or at least until my own slipping "from the surly bonds" of life!
Monday, June 07, 2004
Decision, Decisions!
I'm back to the death of a president issue.
John Kerry has decided to offload his "politicking" for the duration of this week due to President Reagan's death. Okay, on the surface this seems like a wonderful thing, with one minor (or is it minor) detail: will King George suspend his campaign or is this just gravy for him?
On the "National Day of Mourning," I don't think that Georgey will calm down his rhetoric. I think this funeral will be nothing more than a pre-Republican Convention with grandiose parades down Constitution Avenue, eulogies, and scripted mourning, does it get anymore devious than this?
I know what you're thinking: wouldn't the Democrats do the same thing if Jimmy or Billy died? Of course! It's foolish to pretend the opposite is true. Americans are dumb. Let me clarify that statement--Yes, you can fool most of the people most of the time! There, I said it! Americans are sometimes like sheep. We forget our vulnerability while we walk over to pat the wolf on the back.
While I think this passing may put a little wind in the Republicans' sails, we mustn't forget the other truth about the American populace--we're a fickle bunch. In a month, we'll have forgotten this week and the reason for it. We'll return our attention to the "real" issues, those of nation building, gross combat casualities and economic turmoil.
Good times!
Now what was the purpose of this blog again? (Exactly!)
John Kerry has decided to offload his "politicking" for the duration of this week due to President Reagan's death. Okay, on the surface this seems like a wonderful thing, with one minor (or is it minor) detail: will King George suspend his campaign or is this just gravy for him?
On the "National Day of Mourning," I don't think that Georgey will calm down his rhetoric. I think this funeral will be nothing more than a pre-Republican Convention with grandiose parades down Constitution Avenue, eulogies, and scripted mourning, does it get anymore devious than this?
I know what you're thinking: wouldn't the Democrats do the same thing if Jimmy or Billy died? Of course! It's foolish to pretend the opposite is true. Americans are dumb. Let me clarify that statement--Yes, you can fool most of the people most of the time! There, I said it! Americans are sometimes like sheep. We forget our vulnerability while we walk over to pat the wolf on the back.
While I think this passing may put a little wind in the Republicans' sails, we mustn't forget the other truth about the American populace--we're a fickle bunch. In a month, we'll have forgotten this week and the reason for it. We'll return our attention to the "real" issues, those of nation building, gross combat casualities and economic turmoil.
Good times!
Now what was the purpose of this blog again? (Exactly!)
Sunday, June 06, 2004
2004 or 1984?
I'm sure that everyone in the known world is aware of Ronald Reagan's death yesterday. I know when anyone dies they deserve a degree of respect and remembrance. But what gets me is this obsession that we seem to have fallen into in the past twenty-four hours.
I understand that being president is an important job (especially when the president is actually elected). I guess what bugs me is the fact that this man who served two terms as president is now the greatest thing to come along since milk in a yellow jug. Why do we wait until now to acknowledge this seeming grandiosity?
What about 1994? Was he not a great man then? It's actually kind of disgusting for anyone to have to die to hear what a wonderful person they were. I think it would be nice to hear these things while I can still smile and enjoy it. It seems that we value the ability to lavish praise on the dead. If I am great, then tell me while I'm alive; otherwise, shut up!
That is the moral of today's blog.
On a lighter note, after watching all the coverage of this event, I love the flashbacks to the 1980s! God, that was a gaudy time! Just look at all the fashion faux pas for an example of what I mean!
I understand that being president is an important job (especially when the president is actually elected). I guess what bugs me is the fact that this man who served two terms as president is now the greatest thing to come along since milk in a yellow jug. Why do we wait until now to acknowledge this seeming grandiosity?
What about 1994? Was he not a great man then? It's actually kind of disgusting for anyone to have to die to hear what a wonderful person they were. I think it would be nice to hear these things while I can still smile and enjoy it. It seems that we value the ability to lavish praise on the dead. If I am great, then tell me while I'm alive; otherwise, shut up!
That is the moral of today's blog.
On a lighter note, after watching all the coverage of this event, I love the flashbacks to the 1980s! God, that was a gaudy time! Just look at all the fashion faux pas for an example of what I mean!
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Let's rock!
Okay, okay! I'll admit this is my first time using a so-called "blog." I've heard about them from my friends and seen them on television. I've thought about having my own for a while now, but the added work seemed to be the Achilles' heel that kept me away from my own blog.
Technology has really changed the dynamics of how we live. I sometimes sit and think about how life was different a hundred years ago. Although, I'm a few years shy of actually having lived in that time, I can relate to how life has changed in the just the past twenty years.
Just think how life has changed with the creation of the mobile telephone. In the past five years everyone has gotten one. I know I got my first one in 1998 while in college. I think I was the first one, actually. You never saw them and I felt like the cool kid because I walked around with it plastered to my head while everyone gawked at me. (Yeah, I love attention!)
The only not so cool part was when the bill came in the mail for $390! I guess there is a price you have to pay to be famous. Yes, I learned a valuable lesson that day. I learned if you are going to have a cell phone you should really get it in the service area where you'll be using it, and no you can't talk for hours on the thing on a thirty-minute plan (yes, it really was 1998)!
Sufficed to say, I have grown since then (and so has my monthly minutes...all the way up to a thousand). I love the feeling of being able to call and chat with my friends while going 90mph on I-75! It's wonderful. And no, I really can't wait until I get home to make the call. So don't even start in on me!
Okay, why am I yammering on about cell phones and my inability to control my mouth? Simple. Progress changes the way we perceive the world. Imagine how our country might have been different today if the technology and knowledge that exists today were around in 1904! We'd probably be taking vacations on the moon or Mars. It's interesting, or so I think.
If Thomas Jefferson could have called King George III instead of writing him that nasty little letter we gleefully call the Declaration of Independence nowadays, the world may be a different place. In my humble opinion, we often don't take the time to consider the impact of our decisions. In a climate of fast paced media we are left with impulsive ideas and needs. I want it and I want it now!
Live life like there's no tomorrow! Who knows, in a today of big oil and nation building there may not be a tomorrow!
Technology has really changed the dynamics of how we live. I sometimes sit and think about how life was different a hundred years ago. Although, I'm a few years shy of actually having lived in that time, I can relate to how life has changed in the just the past twenty years.
Just think how life has changed with the creation of the mobile telephone. In the past five years everyone has gotten one. I know I got my first one in 1998 while in college. I think I was the first one, actually. You never saw them and I felt like the cool kid because I walked around with it plastered to my head while everyone gawked at me. (Yeah, I love attention!)
The only not so cool part was when the bill came in the mail for $390! I guess there is a price you have to pay to be famous. Yes, I learned a valuable lesson that day. I learned if you are going to have a cell phone you should really get it in the service area where you'll be using it, and no you can't talk for hours on the thing on a thirty-minute plan (yes, it really was 1998)!
Sufficed to say, I have grown since then (and so has my monthly minutes...all the way up to a thousand). I love the feeling of being able to call and chat with my friends while going 90mph on I-75! It's wonderful. And no, I really can't wait until I get home to make the call. So don't even start in on me!
Okay, why am I yammering on about cell phones and my inability to control my mouth? Simple. Progress changes the way we perceive the world. Imagine how our country might have been different today if the technology and knowledge that exists today were around in 1904! We'd probably be taking vacations on the moon or Mars. It's interesting, or so I think.
If Thomas Jefferson could have called King George III instead of writing him that nasty little letter we gleefully call the Declaration of Independence nowadays, the world may be a different place. In my humble opinion, we often don't take the time to consider the impact of our decisions. In a climate of fast paced media we are left with impulsive ideas and needs. I want it and I want it now!
Live life like there's no tomorrow! Who knows, in a today of big oil and nation building there may not be a tomorrow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)