Wow, a few months ago I was completely jaded and had completely lost all interest in this presidential election; my how the tides have turned! First, there were the VP picks; both of which piqued my interest and renewed some faith in the whole process for me. Now, we have the seasoned Senator actually calling to cancel…er, ahem, I mean, postpone the first of three presidential debates (not to mention the canceling of the VP debate altogether, but I’m not even touching that mess). It’s all crazy right?
Well, I don’t know. In my humble opinion, it might just be genius. Really, if McCain can convince the American public that he is genuinely taking an “above politics” approach then he might just reel in a new crop of supporters; I’m just not sure how many Americans are biting on this tactic. I fear for the old man, that many will view it with complete derision. It’s a lovely sentiment and whatnot, but really I think the majority of Americans want a President that is capable of a little multi-tasking.
Anyway, I know I’ve been a negligent blogger, and I have so much more churning on this one as well as the bailout / economic situation disaster that we’re in; however, I’ve just too much to do in too little of time these days. Ugh, okay, I can’t sign off without saying a little more…It’s unlikely that the calamitous state of our economy is going to improve through hurried legislation. This bailout biz is a train wreck for the general public. Actually, perhaps there’s an even more applicable analogy; it’s a band-aid for a situation that needs a far more in-depth treatment plan. I don’t know about the rest of you (I certainly welcome your thoughts on it all), but I don’t trust such an exorbitant amount of money in so few hands.
I implore everyone to be actively involved in your political choices though. Read the news. Watch the debates (when they happen). Etc. With regard to the bailout I urge you to read a little something from the Campaign for Liberty peeps.
On a friendly note, I also wish you all a fantastic weekend!
Friday, September 26, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Hot
She was a golden flame that night,
Red as the fire upon a hearth on a cold night.
All was still when she began to dance,
As the licking flame dances.
Slowly at first she twisted her body, as though hungry,
Just as the growing flames twist and lick outwardly
and hungrily.
Her body was a living pillar of fire
Covered with the flowering glitter of a million sparks,
Turning, twisting, tossing,
As if in agony, and yet, caressing.
From the flaming red you were changed to a
sinister green,
A flame of poison, of treachery and of lust;
A flame one might expect to find
Creeping among the forest giants
to kill them while they slept;
A poison as choking as the gas from which you spring;
And the lust call dripping from every movement of
your lithe body.
And then to the silver flame,
A flame when only the moon is high in the heavens
A sparkling, gleaming flame, reaching upward,
While silver glitterings fall at your feet;
Then suddenly to turn and play with them,
Lightly, laughingly,
Until the shining call of the moon beckons,
And you seek to answer
With all the power of your silvery form.
Red as the fire upon a hearth on a cold night.
All was still when she began to dance,
As the licking flame dances.
Slowly at first she twisted her body, as though hungry,
Just as the growing flames twist and lick outwardly
and hungrily.
Her body was a living pillar of fire
Covered with the flowering glitter of a million sparks,
Turning, twisting, tossing,
As if in agony, and yet, caressing.
From the flaming red you were changed to a
sinister green,
A flame of poison, of treachery and of lust;
A flame one might expect to find
Creeping among the forest giants
to kill them while they slept;
A poison as choking as the gas from which you spring;
And the lust call dripping from every movement of
your lithe body.
And then to the silver flame,
A flame when only the moon is high in the heavens
A sparkling, gleaming flame, reaching upward,
While silver glitterings fall at your feet;
Then suddenly to turn and play with them,
Lightly, laughingly,
Until the shining call of the moon beckons,
And you seek to answer
With all the power of your silvery form.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
United We Lick and some other stuff
...gosh! No...perverts!
I was just taking a little break and decided to peruse The Colbert Report's page, whereupon I came across this oldy but goody. Stephen Colbert, I do so HEART you!
You have to watch as he interviews Ben and Jerry, and the commentary that their political views are evident in ice cream names such as "Chunky Monkey" had me laughing out loud...pro-evolution - teehee!
Anyway, my days & nights are super-full lately so my apologies for being an absent blogger or if I've been slow on email responses, etc. Sadly, I don't think it's going to get much better for a while. I start the second job tomorrow at Jack's Gourmet. It's not my favorite place, but it's relatively close to my house, not open too late and has high check averages. I hope that this doesn't result in me disappointing the Twitter crew with a cancellation on Wet Hot American Summer and costume contest. I do enjoy the Twitter peeps, and everyone knows I love to get dressed up :-(
I simply must start that second job as that = mo' money, and mo' money = MINI Cooper sooner for me :-) Oh yeah, yesterday I actually drove a tiny bit on Forum, traffic signals and everything *rolls eyes*. New goal is driving to work in the a.m.'s before October (rush hour on Providence & Stadium...hooray!)
Lastly, I am beyond excited to be enrolling in YogaFit® certification in November. It's just basic but will allow me to instruct if I can find a place - woohoo!
It's going to be a busy autumn, but I am eager to keep progressing with these things. I'll try not to be MIA too often. In between work(s), Studio and driving I am working up little somethings on the electoral college and orthorexia (separate blogs of course) for your leisurely reading enjoyment ;-)
Putting much love and happiness out there. Hope you enjoy(ed) Mr. Colbert and the masterminds of lactose novelties.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Conscious Chaos
I've had a crazy week thus far and am ready for some down time this weekend!
Like a broken compass,
I don't know whether you're pushing me away
or pulling me towards.You seemed so alive then,
so soft and so bright,
yet quiet inside of you.
I never knew how to be
still like that.
I wrote your words on my arms,
never too clean to get a tad dirty.
The words are pungent and broken on my tummy,
but they are alive.
Alive, because sometimes you speak to me this way,
with touches and tattoos,
in whispers and shouts,
eager for your words I tug my hair out,
and I remember that you must have been
broken once, too.
I'm close to okay, though.
Almost fixed,
I've glued me back
with little thanks to you.
There are few cracks in sight
and then just this
seamless whisper
of your hands
on my shoulders
pushing me or pulling me
in every direction
of you.
Like a broken compass,
I don't know whether you're pushing me away
or pulling me towards.You seemed so alive then,
so soft and so bright,
yet quiet inside of you.
I never knew how to be
still like that.
I wrote your words on my arms,
never too clean to get a tad dirty.
The words are pungent and broken on my tummy,
but they are alive.
Alive, because sometimes you speak to me this way,
with touches and tattoos,
in whispers and shouts,
eager for your words I tug my hair out,
and I remember that you must have been
broken once, too.
I'm close to okay, though.
Almost fixed,
I've glued me back
with little thanks to you.
There are few cracks in sight
and then just this
seamless whisper
of your hands
on my shoulders
pushing me or pulling me
in every direction
of you.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
What's in a name?
Really, I hate to argue with the bard, but would a rose by any other name still smell as sweet? It seems to me that humans are an easily influenced bunch…
Just trying to avoid work so catching up on some reading from a couple of my favorite spots. Right now, it’s Ben Smith. Ben reports on a recent poll by the True Patriot Network which found that more Americans (of the ones polled) find McCain patriotic than do Obama.
I don’t have much time, but I wonder if perhaps the people polled have confused “patriotic” with “jingoist”. While they might often be cross-referenced as synonymous, they really are not. Clearly one of the two is sweeter than the other.
Anyway, just bored, and I am anxiously awaiting the Senator’s VP pic…I’m aware this does not make my life sound very exciting, but I don’t care. For what it's worth, I think he's leaning Romney, but I'm a bit intrigued by Ridge (not to mention a bit sad I missed him in my initial top 3).
Just trying to avoid work so catching up on some reading from a couple of my favorite spots. Right now, it’s Ben Smith. Ben reports on a recent poll by the True Patriot Network which found that more Americans (of the ones polled) find McCain patriotic than do Obama.
I don’t have much time, but I wonder if perhaps the people polled have confused “patriotic” with “jingoist”. While they might often be cross-referenced as synonymous, they really are not. Clearly one of the two is sweeter than the other.
Anyway, just bored, and I am anxiously awaiting the Senator’s VP pic…I’m aware this does not make my life sound very exciting, but I don’t care. For what it's worth, I think he's leaning Romney, but I'm a bit intrigued by Ridge (not to mention a bit sad I missed him in my initial top 3).
Friday, August 22, 2008
Stupid is as stupid does
So, I wasn’t even sure that I was going to share the following little convo and my thoughts, but then as I was perusing the news articles on Yahoo’s homepage yesterday this one prompted me to go ahead and write about it. Upon finishing, I think it’s only fair to hop back up here and offer a little fair warning of wandering and turning a tad tangential…nothing out of the ordinary there ;)
As I’m sitting with someone she says to me, “You know what I’m sick of?”
I presume this is rhetorical, but the pause is actually a tad too long so I say, “Stupid people?” This is usually what I am ‘sick of’ so I assume it’s a decent guess. It’s not that I think I’m a genius per se, quite to the contrary really; however I am confident that a fair number of the people I come into contact with on any given day are intellectually lacking, and that I actually fair well-enough. I recently read somewhere that with regard to national average IQ the U.S. ranks 18th. I suppose that isn’t too terrible, but really given our purported measures toward educational success and higher learning it seems a less-than-impressive ranking.
Anyway, I digress…it turns out that was exactly what she was sick of; however, she was using a rather biased means to identify said “stupid people”. She said (and maybe I shouldn’t be using quotes because this may not be verbatim – close though), “YuhhYES! I am sooo sick of stupid people. These idiots that live near me have a ton of election signs in their yard, but the only reason they have them is because they are the most “Christian” candidates. Ask them about their platforms, and they know nothing. I don’t understand why it is that religious people vote for someone just because they share the same religion? It’s stupid.”
Me, “Ouch, wow! You realize that’s a rather judgmental remark that not only implies that people with a belief system are stupid, but it also implies that it is somehow wrong or stupid for their beliefs to impact the way that they vote?” Her response was something like, “Well, you know I don’t get the belief thing, and honestly it is a bit stupid to let it decide your vote…separation of church and state...”
Me? Well, I just rolled my eyes. “Church and state” – I’ll get back to that. For now let me offer the following reminder: I think that everyone that knows me also knows that I’m not really sure what I believe with regard to an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal creator. I can tell you that what I do believe in is the practice of respect for other people’s faith and practices, and that is what I said to her. To discredit someone based on their faith is just as bad as discounting them because of their race or gender. Now people that present as pseudo-religious? The ones that are lacking compassion, good works…the ones that purport a commitment to their faith but really never live it? Those are the people that I find difficulty in acknowledging or respecting their belief system, but I wouldn’t really expect them to vote for anything or anyone simply out of religious allegiance; however the people in possession of a full-on commitment to their faith? Well, that I can respect, and those are the people that I presume will allot for their religious beliefs to have some influence when making their political decisions. To do so isn’t “stupid”.
Faith is about the spiritual, the way we live our lives, treat each other, etc. Politics are about the temporal, taxes, legalities, etc. It is altogether asinine to think that, for a devout religious practitioner, there is no intersection between faith and politics. If religious faith functions as a means to delineate what is right or wrong, to clarify what goodness is how could someone in possession of a truly meaningful communion with God completely divorce Him from his/her voting decisions? The person could not.
Where is that line though? The one she mentioned as separating church and state? Well, don’t you think that when developing our government, the U.S. looked at the troubled history of Europe and her religious wars as a warning? I think that while it was expected that politicians would be religious and religious philosophy would inform their decisions, the Founders’ view was also such that we would be a nation that had faith but one that kept doctrinal disputes out of the political sphere. I don’t know…My knowledge is limited, but it seems people that are almost anti-religion fall back on that “Church and State” thing without really knowing anything about the Founders’ intent for our nation.
So (“so” the fall-back segue of a tired and lazy writer – forgiveness asked), ultimately I think it's far from “stupid” for a person to consider their faith when deciding what policies to favor, provided that when considering policies that are going to apply to everyone, to figure out how to justify those policies to people with different faiths or none. My partner in conversation was fairly adamant that there was not a way to interweave the two and still be within appropriate political “rights” or limits. She was insistent that in allowing one’s faith to impact one’s politics that the person of faith was forcing a personal religious agenda onto others. I had to disagree, and I think that it disappointed her. You see, people both atheists as well as those that have a strong belief system, are often quick to make assumptions about a person such as myself. They assume that because I do not attend a church or profess my commitment to a specific religion that I am simply an atheist; the soul, the heart, the mind, the spiritual, et. Al. is not so simple, and you should never assume unless you are prepared to listen to me drone on and on. I certainly don’t think she was prepared, but I addressed the following anyway (what can I say I get a little indignant when anyone is being attacked?):
If we’re talking about Christianity, the truest message there is one of love, forgiveness, compassion, intended to be spread through witnessing, not force. I like to think of witnessing as different than proselytizing, even more so since reading a book my friend recently loaned me. The authors, in addition, to presenting a thorough, fact-based and quite convincing argument for the resurrection of Christ also address the appropriate means to share His message. Again I can respect the person of faith that attempts to share his/her beliefs in a way that is also respectful of others, one that is free of coercion, force, trickery or disrespect. When shared and acted upon correctly the person of faith is also then still recognizing our free will. And isn’t free will, a preservation of our liberty what we’re really making our political decisions for? Even the believer of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal God should vote contrary to anything that would demolish the freedom of individuals to live under the umbrella of liberty so if they are in keeping with this mindset I don’t see how a little intersection of faith and politics is “stupid” or a problem.
Enjoy the weekend peeps! I intend to :-)
As I’m sitting with someone she says to me, “You know what I’m sick of?”
I presume this is rhetorical, but the pause is actually a tad too long so I say, “Stupid people?” This is usually what I am ‘sick of’ so I assume it’s a decent guess. It’s not that I think I’m a genius per se, quite to the contrary really; however I am confident that a fair number of the people I come into contact with on any given day are intellectually lacking, and that I actually fair well-enough. I recently read somewhere that with regard to national average IQ the U.S. ranks 18th. I suppose that isn’t too terrible, but really given our purported measures toward educational success and higher learning it seems a less-than-impressive ranking.
Anyway, I digress…it turns out that was exactly what she was sick of; however, she was using a rather biased means to identify said “stupid people”. She said (and maybe I shouldn’t be using quotes because this may not be verbatim – close though), “YuhhYES! I am sooo sick of stupid people. These idiots that live near me have a ton of election signs in their yard, but the only reason they have them is because they are the most “Christian” candidates. Ask them about their platforms, and they know nothing. I don’t understand why it is that religious people vote for someone just because they share the same religion? It’s stupid.”
Me, “Ouch, wow! You realize that’s a rather judgmental remark that not only implies that people with a belief system are stupid, but it also implies that it is somehow wrong or stupid for their beliefs to impact the way that they vote?” Her response was something like, “Well, you know I don’t get the belief thing, and honestly it is a bit stupid to let it decide your vote…separation of church and state...”
Me? Well, I just rolled my eyes. “Church and state” – I’ll get back to that. For now let me offer the following reminder: I think that everyone that knows me also knows that I’m not really sure what I believe with regard to an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal creator. I can tell you that what I do believe in is the practice of respect for other people’s faith and practices, and that is what I said to her. To discredit someone based on their faith is just as bad as discounting them because of their race or gender. Now people that present as pseudo-religious? The ones that are lacking compassion, good works…the ones that purport a commitment to their faith but really never live it? Those are the people that I find difficulty in acknowledging or respecting their belief system, but I wouldn’t really expect them to vote for anything or anyone simply out of religious allegiance; however the people in possession of a full-on commitment to their faith? Well, that I can respect, and those are the people that I presume will allot for their religious beliefs to have some influence when making their political decisions. To do so isn’t “stupid”.
Faith is about the spiritual, the way we live our lives, treat each other, etc. Politics are about the temporal, taxes, legalities, etc. It is altogether asinine to think that, for a devout religious practitioner, there is no intersection between faith and politics. If religious faith functions as a means to delineate what is right or wrong, to clarify what goodness is how could someone in possession of a truly meaningful communion with God completely divorce Him from his/her voting decisions? The person could not.
Where is that line though? The one she mentioned as separating church and state? Well, don’t you think that when developing our government, the U.S. looked at the troubled history of Europe and her religious wars as a warning? I think that while it was expected that politicians would be religious and religious philosophy would inform their decisions, the Founders’ view was also such that we would be a nation that had faith but one that kept doctrinal disputes out of the political sphere. I don’t know…My knowledge is limited, but it seems people that are almost anti-religion fall back on that “Church and State” thing without really knowing anything about the Founders’ intent for our nation.
So (“so” the fall-back segue of a tired and lazy writer – forgiveness asked), ultimately I think it's far from “stupid” for a person to consider their faith when deciding what policies to favor, provided that when considering policies that are going to apply to everyone, to figure out how to justify those policies to people with different faiths or none. My partner in conversation was fairly adamant that there was not a way to interweave the two and still be within appropriate political “rights” or limits. She was insistent that in allowing one’s faith to impact one’s politics that the person of faith was forcing a personal religious agenda onto others. I had to disagree, and I think that it disappointed her. You see, people both atheists as well as those that have a strong belief system, are often quick to make assumptions about a person such as myself. They assume that because I do not attend a church or profess my commitment to a specific religion that I am simply an atheist; the soul, the heart, the mind, the spiritual, et. Al. is not so simple, and you should never assume unless you are prepared to listen to me drone on and on. I certainly don’t think she was prepared, but I addressed the following anyway (what can I say I get a little indignant when anyone is being attacked?):
If we’re talking about Christianity, the truest message there is one of love, forgiveness, compassion, intended to be spread through witnessing, not force. I like to think of witnessing as different than proselytizing, even more so since reading a book my friend recently loaned me. The authors, in addition, to presenting a thorough, fact-based and quite convincing argument for the resurrection of Christ also address the appropriate means to share His message. Again I can respect the person of faith that attempts to share his/her beliefs in a way that is also respectful of others, one that is free of coercion, force, trickery or disrespect. When shared and acted upon correctly the person of faith is also then still recognizing our free will. And isn’t free will, a preservation of our liberty what we’re really making our political decisions for? Even the believer of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal God should vote contrary to anything that would demolish the freedom of individuals to live under the umbrella of liberty so if they are in keeping with this mindset I don’t see how a little intersection of faith and politics is “stupid” or a problem.
Enjoy the weekend peeps! I intend to :-)
Friday, August 15, 2008
Lexiconic Prurience, I guess…
So those that know me know that I am a complete sucker for neologisms and fancy myself a rather creative lexiconist (yep, think I’ll write my own dictionary of fun words someday). Additionally, I just love words, grammar, language, et. al. Today, I share with you a silly post along those lines. Let’s wordplay.
Orchasm – n. The immeasurable distance between one choice and another.Or, with its grammar of gestation. Or, with its suggestive reservoir of participles of posing; its gerunds of guessing; its infinitives of "to do this" or "to do that." Or, the signature nomenclature of choice and mystery.But is it possible for the divide between "either" and "or" to be exciting? I don't know. Anxiety-producing, yes, but exciting? Probably not. After all, can Sir Climax enter, stage right, without Madame Tension's exit, stage left? [Reverse genders there, if you like.] Anyway, ask Soren Kierkegaard.For orchasm, picture Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken," a paean to the possibilities of choice.
Orgasm: Such a fun…a-hem, word to play with.
orghasm - n. A ghastly but somehow pleasurable sexual experience.
boregasm - n. The peak of sexual pleasure evoked by an utterly boring person.
floorgasmic - adj. Having the qualities of a sexual crescendo that just floors you!
soargasmic – adj. Having the qualities of a sexual crescendo that cause you to feel as though floating or flying.
Orchasm – n. The immeasurable distance between one choice and another.Or, with its grammar of gestation. Or, with its suggestive reservoir of participles of posing; its gerunds of guessing; its infinitives of "to do this" or "to do that." Or, the signature nomenclature of choice and mystery.But is it possible for the divide between "either" and "or" to be exciting? I don't know. Anxiety-producing, yes, but exciting? Probably not. After all, can Sir Climax enter, stage right, without Madame Tension's exit, stage left? [Reverse genders there, if you like.] Anyway, ask Soren Kierkegaard.For orchasm, picture Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken," a paean to the possibilities of choice.
Orgasm: Such a fun…a-hem, word to play with.
orghasm - n. A ghastly but somehow pleasurable sexual experience.
boregasm - n. The peak of sexual pleasure evoked by an utterly boring person.
floorgasmic - adj. Having the qualities of a sexual crescendo that just floors you!
soargasmic – adj. Having the qualities of a sexual crescendo that cause you to feel as though floating or flying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
