I've just taken a brief hiatus from blogging. I will be back to the usual semi-regular posting in a couple days time once time avails itself. A couple months back I mentioned doing a couple posts on the nature of lying versus the truth. That will be coming shortly. I have decided to include potential political implications that come along with following lying and telling the truth.
Does anyone think it's odd that there's a common verb for not telling the truth (to lie/lying) but not one for telling the truth? I don't even know if there is a rare or archaic verb that is used "to tell the truth."
Anyhow, more later.
-rl
November 30, 2006
November 16, 2006
This one is for MJ
Things never seem to change at my alma mater. Its old conservative... er... "traditional" roots seem to have found fertile ground amongst certain residents of Lang Hall. In this week's issue of the Exponent, Matthew Jurick chimes in on the revival of racism on the campus of Baldwin-Wallace College.
Matthew Jurick is the Editor-in-Chief for the Baldwin-Wallace College Exponent, the student-run newspaper.
The hatred knows no end, does it?
Matthew J. Jurick
Editor-In-Chief
Everything quieted down and a sense of normalcy seemed to return to Emma Lang Hall. Of course, something as ugly as hatred never really goes away that easily, does it?
I was both suprised and completely disgusted to hear that the racist acts of hatred are continuing STILL in Lang. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, why the hell is this shit still happening? I was talking with one of the ustodians for my dorm (by the way, Baglet custodians ARE the best custodians ever), and she was telling me that now there has been intentional flooding going on in the third floor of the V-Vault. It's honestly gotten to the point now where it's no longer warranting the, "Oh my God! This is terrible!" response from me. Now it's just, "Oh yeah? The racist idiots know no end, do they?"
If you are one of these racist idiots of whom I speak, then please know this: in the beginning, I was a big proponent of not chucking your ass out of here, as that would only further reinforce you now-seemingly bottomless pit of hatred and ignorance. Now? Now I'm not so sure I want racist idiots who refuse point-blank to consider reason attending the same school that's going to be stamped on my diploma.
Did you think by coming to COLLEGE you wouldn't be exposed to black people? Because if you honestly thought that, then you really don't deserve to be here on lack of intelligence alone. College is about learning, not just about academic matters, but social matters - the matters that REALLY count in life.
On a sidenote but still somewhat related, I am a big supporter of equality for all people. I found it particularly disheartening that the creator of the "Gay? NOT fine by B-W" group was a member of a recently persecuted minority group here on campus. If you expect the campus to rally around you when you get discriminated against, you better grow up and stop perpetuating the ignorance.
I have one request, really, and this is to anyone here who shows any form of ignorance: grow up, or get the hell out because hatred is certainly not welcome here.
Matthew Jurick is the Editor-in-Chief for the Baldwin-Wallace College Exponent, the student-run newspaper.
Post-Mortem on Election 2006 with Dr. John Green
Dr. John Green of the Bliss Institute at the University of Akron and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life met with several local members of the Ohio blogosphere last evening at the Crowne Plaza on Quaker Square in Akron. He is currently serving as a Senior Fellow with the Pew Forum. Dicussed at length were the causes, through the perspective of polling, of the results of the November election and the emergence of a religious left.
Firstly I'd like to touch upon the concepts of the religious left. There are two main paradigms of religious leftism: 1) those having a conservative theology, yet are socially and economically progressive and 2) those having a liberal interpretation on theology. Within these two "sects" of the religious left, there are even more specific delineations. These two main branches do not always agree on the issues and from some perspectives, it would appear that they are the religious left only because they are not the religious right.
Prior to the 1990s, it seemed quite unnecessary to be religiously liberal, mainstream/mainline Christianity had helped drive the civil rights movement, the economic progressivism of the early to mid 1900s, and the feminist movement. But the election of a solidly conservative Republican Congress in 1994 and the (re-)election of President George W. Bush in 2004 helped propel the religious left into action in 2006. Why was the religious left unimportant in 2000? We must take off our post-Sept 11 glasses and look at a world that was decidedly different: the economy, by and large, was still holding up; the World Trade Center towers still stood; and President Bill Clinton had just fended off an attack from Republicans (and some Democrats) on impeachment. Governor George W. Bush and Vice-President Al Gore both ran as moderates. Regardless of personal opinions on the election process itself, George W. Bush was declared the victor. Hope ran high, a new of era of conmpassionate conservative was upon us.
Sadly conservatism won out over compassion... and then September 11th.
Nothing was conservative about the Bush White House following that day. The government grew by leaps and bounds in the name of security of the public, but the Administration continued to posture itself as conservative. The President took the step of endorsing a constitutional amendment to define the definition of marriage: that itself certainly isn't conservative, at least politically. Indeed, it seems to run against the current of conservatism, goading for larger government and more "interference" in the business of the public. Conservative isn't the word to use anymore, rather, I think it is a traditionalist government. It is claimed by many people who say they are conservative: liberals are against social traditions and clearly they are not. Add to that the disaster of the Iraq war and the failure of Bush's faith-based initiatives (highlighted in David Kuo's recently released book) and religious liberals were left wanting.
Religious liberals wised up to these failures in 2004, yet unfortunately had a Presidential candidate who was born with a silver spoon and his left foot in his mouth. Democrats were defeated in Congressional elections, yet picked up notable positions, namely the Governorship in Montana. Religious conservatives seemed to win the day once more, but it wasn't to last long.
In Ohio, different dynamics drove the Republican party to the brink of disaster by mid-2005. Between a lagging economy and a state administration that was one of the most corrupt in recent memory, Republican Governor Bob Taft witnessed his approval ratings drop into the low teens. Democrats seized upon this opportunity. In May 2006, Democrats chose Congressman Ted Strickland as their candidate for Governor.
A brief summary wouldn't do Ted Strickland the justice he deserves. He is a former minster with the United Methodist Church and a Professor of Psychology. Ted Strickland was a man that the religious left felt they could get behind. The Republicans and religious right picked the condescending and disingenuous Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, to be their standard-bearer. Why disingenuous? From the beginning of the campaign, Blackwell made it clear that he was going to pander to the religious right. And he did. He spewed statements to create fear and draw support to him from his base, but drove away mainstream voters.
In the 2006 elections, the self-described religious right composed roughly 24% (white protestant-evangelical) of the electorate, 70% of whom voted for the Republican. Blackwell certainly captured his base. But he didn't even muster 40% of the popular vote. Why? Blackwell drove away people who could be described as religious moderates or religious liberals. Catholics and mainline Protestants voted in large numbers for Ted Strickland. Of course, this wasn't all of Blackwell's doing. The Ohio Democratic Party and Ted Strickland themselves helped motivate voters into voting for Strickland and other Democrats. Result: Democrats took all of the elected executive offices except for Auditor. The Auditor's race, was a different story that deserves its own post.
Democrats would also pick up the Senate and the House of Representatives. Was this the result of a religious shift or a general disgust with perceived Republican corruption? Again, that is a topic for a another post at another time.
"It seems to me we had shrillness before bloggers."
-Dr. John Green, 11/15/2006
-rl
Firstly I'd like to touch upon the concepts of the religious left. There are two main paradigms of religious leftism: 1) those having a conservative theology, yet are socially and economically progressive and 2) those having a liberal interpretation on theology. Within these two "sects" of the religious left, there are even more specific delineations. These two main branches do not always agree on the issues and from some perspectives, it would appear that they are the religious left only because they are not the religious right.
Prior to the 1990s, it seemed quite unnecessary to be religiously liberal, mainstream/mainline Christianity had helped drive the civil rights movement, the economic progressivism of the early to mid 1900s, and the feminist movement. But the election of a solidly conservative Republican Congress in 1994 and the (re-)election of President George W. Bush in 2004 helped propel the religious left into action in 2006. Why was the religious left unimportant in 2000? We must take off our post-Sept 11 glasses and look at a world that was decidedly different: the economy, by and large, was still holding up; the World Trade Center towers still stood; and President Bill Clinton had just fended off an attack from Republicans (and some Democrats) on impeachment. Governor George W. Bush and Vice-President Al Gore both ran as moderates. Regardless of personal opinions on the election process itself, George W. Bush was declared the victor. Hope ran high, a new of era of conmpassionate conservative was upon us.
Sadly conservatism won out over compassion... and then September 11th.
Nothing was conservative about the Bush White House following that day. The government grew by leaps and bounds in the name of security of the public, but the Administration continued to posture itself as conservative. The President took the step of endorsing a constitutional amendment to define the definition of marriage: that itself certainly isn't conservative, at least politically. Indeed, it seems to run against the current of conservatism, goading for larger government and more "interference" in the business of the public. Conservative isn't the word to use anymore, rather, I think it is a traditionalist government. It is claimed by many people who say they are conservative: liberals are against social traditions and clearly they are not. Add to that the disaster of the Iraq war and the failure of Bush's faith-based initiatives (highlighted in David Kuo's recently released book) and religious liberals were left wanting.
Religious liberals wised up to these failures in 2004, yet unfortunately had a Presidential candidate who was born with a silver spoon and his left foot in his mouth. Democrats were defeated in Congressional elections, yet picked up notable positions, namely the Governorship in Montana. Religious conservatives seemed to win the day once more, but it wasn't to last long.
In Ohio, different dynamics drove the Republican party to the brink of disaster by mid-2005. Between a lagging economy and a state administration that was one of the most corrupt in recent memory, Republican Governor Bob Taft witnessed his approval ratings drop into the low teens. Democrats seized upon this opportunity. In May 2006, Democrats chose Congressman Ted Strickland as their candidate for Governor.
A brief summary wouldn't do Ted Strickland the justice he deserves. He is a former minster with the United Methodist Church and a Professor of Psychology. Ted Strickland was a man that the religious left felt they could get behind. The Republicans and religious right picked the condescending and disingenuous Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, to be their standard-bearer. Why disingenuous? From the beginning of the campaign, Blackwell made it clear that he was going to pander to the religious right. And he did. He spewed statements to create fear and draw support to him from his base, but drove away mainstream voters.
In the 2006 elections, the self-described religious right composed roughly 24% (white protestant-evangelical) of the electorate, 70% of whom voted for the Republican. Blackwell certainly captured his base. But he didn't even muster 40% of the popular vote. Why? Blackwell drove away people who could be described as religious moderates or religious liberals. Catholics and mainline Protestants voted in large numbers for Ted Strickland. Of course, this wasn't all of Blackwell's doing. The Ohio Democratic Party and Ted Strickland themselves helped motivate voters into voting for Strickland and other Democrats. Result: Democrats took all of the elected executive offices except for Auditor. The Auditor's race, was a different story that deserves its own post.
Democrats would also pick up the Senate and the House of Representatives. Was this the result of a religious shift or a general disgust with perceived Republican corruption? Again, that is a topic for a another post at another time.
"It seems to me we had shrillness before bloggers."
-Dr. John Green, 11/15/2006
-rl
November 15, 2006
Learn and Earn: The Corrupt Bargain
Turns out that Learn and Earn wasn't just a corrupt bargain for our kids, but also for its field-level employees. This is from the blog of a former office director whose name has been removed:
How's that for you?
-rl
Finally... and I do mean FINALLY... I am off of the campaign trail.
Issue 3, Learn & Earn, was a wild ride for me. I had so many staff come and go, went through several layers of changes, and even quit my job three seperate times -- all resulting in increased wages & benefits.
Many of you have asked if I was upset to be layed off after each campaign cycle, and the answer is no. The best thing about working on campaigns in the unemployment through the holidays. You get to sit back, relax, visit with family and friends, not to mention catch up on all of the little things that you missed over the year.
I enjoying working on campaigns because I get to meet alot of new people and make new friends. If it were not for Issue 3, I would not have met cool people like ... and so many others.
It was and continues to be a pleasure to work with those individuals and to establish a relationship that will last. Campaigns, especially grassroots campaigns, are about the people -- on the ground -- talking and establishing a connection -- and that's my favorite part of my job.
I do have to say however that although my employer during the campaign, Field Works, did treat me exceptionally well -- for one reason or another, they continued to screw up the hourly and daily staff wages week after week since April.
My only hope is that people have a voice and stand up and say that they were not paid correctly or on time and that these issues are resolved. Although these issues are no longer my responsibility to solve, I feel it is the humanly decent thing to do and therefore I will attempt to help everyone with their pay roll issues to the best of my ability.
Well, I hope you enjoyed reading this blog, as there will be many others now that I have down time. I am single and have a lot of free time, so keep those date requests coming -- the appointment calender is filling up fast.
As always: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily represent those views of the staff, management, or advertisers of this blog of John Doe Worldwide. :-D
How's that for you?
-rl
November 14, 2006
Whatever happened to the good old days...
... when you could count on right-wing evangelical airbag not unlike Jerry Falwell to go into a mindless diatribe about the godless heathens in Israel? Apparently it is no more: For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is ‘God’s Foreign Policy’
I don't support Israeli's aggressive policy with retaliatory strikes... at all. After what they did to Lebanon this summer, Israel must be watched more carefully by the United States. Not watched after. Watched.
Whatever happened to the right-wing nutjob of old?
-rl
I don't support Israeli's aggressive policy with retaliatory strikes... at all. After what they did to Lebanon this summer, Israel must be watched more carefully by the United States. Not watched after. Watched.
Whatever happened to the right-wing nutjob of old?
-rl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)