No doubt the title of this blog entry got your attention. "Euthanasia" is a loaded word, emotionally packed on both sides of the issue. Here in America, that word still invokes memories of news stories involving Dr. Jack Kevorkian (aka "Dr. Death") and his administering of assisted suicides to patients deemed terminally ill and who wanted their suffering to end during the 1990's. The idea of death with dignity, including Death with Dignity laws having been passed in Washington state and Oregon, was, and remains, the impetus for assisted suicides.
In this entry, however, I want to focus on a story out of Belgium that took place two months ago, but just recently came to my attention. It's the story of twin brothers, Marc and Eddy Verbessem, who were euthanized late last year. The 45-year-old twins were already deaf when they learned they were also beginning to go blind. It was their deafness and pending blindness that were their reasons for petitioning to be euthanized.
You read that correctly: their deafness and blindness -- pending blindness, that is -- was the basis for their argument in favor of euthanasia for both of them. Apparently the twins were so close, growing up together and living together in their adult life, that felt they had no other option since they were so emotionally distraught about their deteriorating situation. As Belgium is one of just three countries that allow for euthanasia on non-terminal cases -- Switzerland and the Netherlands are the other two -- the twin brothers looked for a hospital that would honor their request. Initially turned down, their request was finally accepted, following a two-year search. Once they received confirmation, family noted that they were relieved their suffering would end soon.
Marc and Eddy Verbessem were euthanized on December 14, 2012.
The usual understanding of euthanasia is the peaceful ending of someone's life who is suffering from a terminal illness or whose quality of life is irreversibly affected in a negative manner. It is also known as mercy killing. In the case of the Verbessem brothers, I'm wondering about the illness that reports say they had. I haven't seen what the illness was, so I am assuming it had something to do with their loss of hearing, their loss of sight, or both. I'm also wondering about their quality of life. They would have to become dependent due to the loss of those two senses, something they did not want.
What appears from the reporting on this story as the real tipping point for the brothers was the knowledge that they would not only be unable to hear each other, but would also be unable to see each other. That thought was their ultimate unbearable weight. That thought was the catalyst for their decision to end their lives.
I neither presume to know the depth of emotional distress the brothers experienced, nor do I feel it is appropriate for me to condemn their decision. It is also important to remember here the special bond that twins have for each other and how that must have played a part in this. All I can offer here is simply my agreement or disagreement with their decision, while acknowledging my lack of access to inside their brains.
I do believe the loss of any of our five senses (sight, touch, smell, taste, hearing) is never an easy thing with which to deal, let alone live with it. To lose more than one sense is hardly easily dismissed, so I know they did not have an easy burden. Nonetheless, I would offer my disagreement with their decision. My disagreement is not, and cannot be, based in knowing better than they do.
My disagreement is with their basis for requesting euthanasia. While I am certain that they were extremely distraught, I feel ill at ease with their being unable to bear not being able to see each other as a reason for ending their lives. I can understand about their having to become dependent, as I care for my legally blind mother who is dependent on me, but at forty-five years of age, they could have been able to learn to have some sort of a functional life.
I also disagree with Belgium, as well as Switzerland and the Netherlands, making euthanasia available to non-terminal cases. It would seem to require that any non-terminal individuals requesting for euthanasia should be put under an even stricter scrutiny, although I believe that if it is legal and offered, then it really should be reserved for solely terminal cases.
I am not arguing pro or con regarding euthanasia, but I feel that something which is no small consideration -- clearly a life-changing decision -- was not applicable to their situation. My fear is that anyone who is extremely distraught for whatever their situation is, or issues are, will see this as an open door to change the nature of euthanasia. It is called mercy killing because it is intended to show a suffering individual mercy at the end of their life.
Marc and Eddy Verbessem's decision is their decision; no one can take that away from them. My concern is that this will change the nature of euthanasia, where mercy killing is transformed into convenience killing.
Terry
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Friday, February 1, 2013
Word of the Day: FINALE
Recently -- two weeks ago today, to be exact -- a weekly television program of which I was a huge fan ended its run after five years. It seemed likely that the show would only last two seasons, but a huge fan campaign gained the show a third season. Getting a fourth season seemed far more unlikely, but the fans from Twitter went into super-tweet mode and, voila, season four was given a green light. As hard as getting a fourth season was, it was felt by many that a fifth season was just about impossible. Elongated negotiations made it seem we were right.
In addition to viewer input, it was likely that the show only had thirteen more episodes to reach 100 episodes total -- the magic number to get a show syndicated. Syndication is sustained revenue for the networks long after a series' final episode has aired. It was announced in the Spring of last year, late in its fourth season, that a thirteen-episode fifth and final season was green lighted. And so, what began as a new series in the Fall of 2008 wrapped up five years two weeks ago.
The show to which I am referring is Fox Television's 'Fringe'.
The show was a science fiction series. Here's a description from the show's website:
Set in Boston, the FBI's Fringe Division started when Special Agent Olivia Dunham enlisted institutionalized "fringe" scientist Walter Bishop and his globe-trotting, jack-of-all-trades son, Peter, to help in an investigation of an airline disaster that defied human logic. After the defining case was solved and furthermore revealed to be one of a series of unusual incidents linked together, the unlikely trio -- supervised by Special Agent Phillip Broyles and assisted by FBI Junior Agent Astrid Farnsworth -- was formed.
The main cast, mentioned in order of the above description, was:
Anna Torv as Special Agent Olivia Dunham
John Noble as Dr. Walter Bishop
Joshua Jackson as Peter Bishop
Lance Reddick as Special Agent Phillip Broyles
Jasika Nicole as Junior Agent Astrid Farnsworth
Other actors in significant recurring roles were:
Kirk Acevedo as Special Agent Charlie Francis
Seth Gabel as Agent Lincoln Lee
Blair Brown as Nina Sharp
Leonard Nimoy -- yes, THAT Leonard Nimoy -- as William Bell
There has been much talk, particularly among the show's fans, but also among some television critics, about John Noble getting an Emmy Award for his work on the show, which has not happened. I would agree wholeheartedly. His work has been particularly stand-out, not only for his pure acting chops, but also redefining, I believe, the archetype of the mad scientist. It is probably likely that he won't because of the show being of the science fiction genre, which is not a huge favorite of television (or motion picture) award voters. If he has any chance at receiving the gold statuette, it may be this Fall, when the awards honoring this past season (2012-2013) are handed out, since the show has now ended its run. Award shows tend to give awards to series or actors at their end or their beginning, as a kind of "Welcome to the neighborhood" or "Thanks for the memories" gesture.
To be fair, however, everyone mentioned above gave anywhere from a fine job to an outstanding job in his or her own right week after week. Everyone did such a great job with their roles, including playing anywhere from two to five versions of their character -- and even one character playing another character (taken over by that other character) -- that it truly falls into two categories: a solid ensemble cast and a cast that you cannot imagine anyone else playing those roles.
Although I have had my gripes about the writing on the show leaving a number of unfilled holes and some rather unusually sloppy writing in the last season -- a criticism I am not alone on -- the writing overall, looking at the entire five years, was intelligent and, at times, flat-out witty. The boundaries were stretched for creative purposes, but the fore-fronted science element had some sort of truth to it. That gave the show a sense of authenticity, even it was far-fetched authenticity at times to both the casual and regular viewer alike.
I'm not here hawking a television show that I am just crazy over, especially now that it is finished (which would be silly), and I just think everyone should watch it. I am not that kind of television viewer. Perhaps it's due to my age -- I am a couple of years outside the "desirable demographic" for television advertisers -- but I don't get all silly and head over heels for a program. To be frank, I used to when I was much younger. That is not a commentary on younger viewers -- as if to say they "just need to grow up" -- not at all. That does, however, lead me to my larger point.
I do not find television, as a whole, very entertaining, and I haven't for many, many years. Not just "reality TV" programs, which, for the most part, are a particular waste of time, but programming in general seems to have gone from being a field of creativity and skill to a wasteland that is, for the most part, void of any creativity and skill. People in front of the camera being famous for being famous and people behind the camera collecting paychecks. Television twenty, thirty, forty years ago, and even further back, was far better that it is now. I can remember television before cable, when we had only seven or eight stations (using "rabbit ears" to get the signal) and programming was far superior then than it is now. That is probably why I was silly and head over heels for programs back then.
Most of what I watch now on a regular basis, now that 'Fringe' has finished its run, are news, a few documentaries, and political pundit shows -- I find politics both fascinating and entertaining -- and although my comments on reality TV earlier , I do have to admit to liking one show of that genre, 'Ghost Hunters', which airs on the SyFy cable network. Most of my television viewing has followed that pattern for years (except for 'Ghost Hunters', which I didn't start watching until last year). Why? The lack of creativity, in my view, in television programming.
The means that, unlike my former self of twenty, thirty, and forty years ago, I haven't followed any television series (and I mean scripted, serialized series) for a long time...because none have been worth my time. The last show prior to 'Fringe' that really caught my attention was a short-lived drama called 'The Nine', which ran for only thirteen episodes during the 2006-2007 season. It centered on nine individuals who were held hostage during a bank robbery, and each episode showed bits and pieces of what happened during the stand-off as well as the memories each individual had of the experience. It was slow-moving, but interesting enough for me to come back each week. The show was, as I mentioned, short-lived. That was two seasons before the debut of 'Fringe'.
The show which ran for more than one season and which I followed religiously week after week was one that aired from 1990-1991, one-and-a-half seasons -- a mid-season replacement for the 1989-1990 season, and a full season for the 1990-1991 year -- and to which I gladly called myself a "Peaks Freak" as a fan. The show was 'Twin Peaks'. It was one of those shows that was so bizarre in its own right, maybe even more bizarre than 'Fringe' in many ways, that it appealed to mostly just die-hard fans.
I don't really count 'The Nine', even though I watched most of the episodes, as the last show of any substance (more than one season) that I really followed like a fan. So, between the end of 'Twin Peaks' and the beginning of 'Fringe', there's a period of seventeen years. Seventeen years of not following any show that adamantly for more than, well, less than one season. Then, the Fall of 2008 came along, 'Fringe' debuted, I was instantly hooked, and I have been a five-year, full-term fan.
Hooked to the point of being a fan of the show, whereby I have seen every single episode of the 100 produced, have purchased boxed sets of previous seasons (I have 1-4 and waiting for 5), wrote a blog about the show, and even appeared as a co-host of a podcast about it ('Following the Pattern'). I am a true fan of the show.
The ultimate point to all of this is that those who put together, produced, and presented 'Fringe' are collectively responsible for this one individual finding something extremely special to watch. It not only held my attention consistently (even when I hated season four overall), but it showed that creativity, real creativity, can be had on television. It showed that the combination of talent, ability, skill, creativity, and imagination can come together and make something wonderful to watch week in and week out.
Not only that, but it also provided, via social media, a viewership family (what is referred to as the "Fringe universe") that connected people from around the world as fans of the show. I have personally been in contact with people from Britain, Germany, and Mexico, in addition to many other parts of the United States. It has been an amazing experience, both in front of the television and in front of the computer!
In addition to the actors I listed early on, I want to give credit to the main production crew of the show as well:
J.J. Abrams, Executive Producer (and co-creator)
Alex Kurtzman, Executive Producer (and co-creator)
Roberto Orci, Executive Producer (and co-creator)
J.H. Wyman, Executive Producer
Jeff Pinker, Executive Producer (seasons 1-4)
Joe Chappelle, Executive Producer
Michael Giacchino, Musical Composer (season 1-3)
Chris Tilton, Musical Composer (seasons 2-5)
Chad Seiter, Musical Composer (season 1)
And the production companies:
Bad Robot Productions
Warner Bros. Television
And, of course, Fox Television. And many thanks to its executives to allow the show to end on its own creative terms...an extreme rarity in television!
While I cannot say this show will spill over into my watching more and more series, I can say with heartfelt sincerity a huge thank you to all involved with 'Fringe'. You all made television, at least with your one show, worthwhile, and that meant a lot to me! I am sorry to see the show end.
(And yes, I, too, would like to see a 'Fringe' movie as soon as possible.)
Terry
In addition to viewer input, it was likely that the show only had thirteen more episodes to reach 100 episodes total -- the magic number to get a show syndicated. Syndication is sustained revenue for the networks long after a series' final episode has aired. It was announced in the Spring of last year, late in its fourth season, that a thirteen-episode fifth and final season was green lighted. And so, what began as a new series in the Fall of 2008 wrapped up five years two weeks ago.
The show to which I am referring is Fox Television's 'Fringe'.
The show was a science fiction series. Here's a description from the show's website:
Set in Boston, the FBI's Fringe Division started when Special Agent Olivia Dunham enlisted institutionalized "fringe" scientist Walter Bishop and his globe-trotting, jack-of-all-trades son, Peter, to help in an investigation of an airline disaster that defied human logic. After the defining case was solved and furthermore revealed to be one of a series of unusual incidents linked together, the unlikely trio -- supervised by Special Agent Phillip Broyles and assisted by FBI Junior Agent Astrid Farnsworth -- was formed.
The main cast, mentioned in order of the above description, was:
Anna Torv as Special Agent Olivia Dunham
John Noble as Dr. Walter Bishop
Joshua Jackson as Peter Bishop
Lance Reddick as Special Agent Phillip Broyles
Jasika Nicole as Junior Agent Astrid Farnsworth
Other actors in significant recurring roles were:
Kirk Acevedo as Special Agent Charlie Francis
Seth Gabel as Agent Lincoln Lee
Blair Brown as Nina Sharp
Leonard Nimoy -- yes, THAT Leonard Nimoy -- as William Bell
There has been much talk, particularly among the show's fans, but also among some television critics, about John Noble getting an Emmy Award for his work on the show, which has not happened. I would agree wholeheartedly. His work has been particularly stand-out, not only for his pure acting chops, but also redefining, I believe, the archetype of the mad scientist. It is probably likely that he won't because of the show being of the science fiction genre, which is not a huge favorite of television (or motion picture) award voters. If he has any chance at receiving the gold statuette, it may be this Fall, when the awards honoring this past season (2012-2013) are handed out, since the show has now ended its run. Award shows tend to give awards to series or actors at their end or their beginning, as a kind of "Welcome to the neighborhood" or "Thanks for the memories" gesture.
To be fair, however, everyone mentioned above gave anywhere from a fine job to an outstanding job in his or her own right week after week. Everyone did such a great job with their roles, including playing anywhere from two to five versions of their character -- and even one character playing another character (taken over by that other character) -- that it truly falls into two categories: a solid ensemble cast and a cast that you cannot imagine anyone else playing those roles.
Although I have had my gripes about the writing on the show leaving a number of unfilled holes and some rather unusually sloppy writing in the last season -- a criticism I am not alone on -- the writing overall, looking at the entire five years, was intelligent and, at times, flat-out witty. The boundaries were stretched for creative purposes, but the fore-fronted science element had some sort of truth to it. That gave the show a sense of authenticity, even it was far-fetched authenticity at times to both the casual and regular viewer alike.
I'm not here hawking a television show that I am just crazy over, especially now that it is finished (which would be silly), and I just think everyone should watch it. I am not that kind of television viewer. Perhaps it's due to my age -- I am a couple of years outside the "desirable demographic" for television advertisers -- but I don't get all silly and head over heels for a program. To be frank, I used to when I was much younger. That is not a commentary on younger viewers -- as if to say they "just need to grow up" -- not at all. That does, however, lead me to my larger point.
I do not find television, as a whole, very entertaining, and I haven't for many, many years. Not just "reality TV" programs, which, for the most part, are a particular waste of time, but programming in general seems to have gone from being a field of creativity and skill to a wasteland that is, for the most part, void of any creativity and skill. People in front of the camera being famous for being famous and people behind the camera collecting paychecks. Television twenty, thirty, forty years ago, and even further back, was far better that it is now. I can remember television before cable, when we had only seven or eight stations (using "rabbit ears" to get the signal) and programming was far superior then than it is now. That is probably why I was silly and head over heels for programs back then.
Most of what I watch now on a regular basis, now that 'Fringe' has finished its run, are news, a few documentaries, and political pundit shows -- I find politics both fascinating and entertaining -- and although my comments on reality TV earlier , I do have to admit to liking one show of that genre, 'Ghost Hunters', which airs on the SyFy cable network. Most of my television viewing has followed that pattern for years (except for 'Ghost Hunters', which I didn't start watching until last year). Why? The lack of creativity, in my view, in television programming.
The means that, unlike my former self of twenty, thirty, and forty years ago, I haven't followed any television series (and I mean scripted, serialized series) for a long time...because none have been worth my time. The last show prior to 'Fringe' that really caught my attention was a short-lived drama called 'The Nine', which ran for only thirteen episodes during the 2006-2007 season. It centered on nine individuals who were held hostage during a bank robbery, and each episode showed bits and pieces of what happened during the stand-off as well as the memories each individual had of the experience. It was slow-moving, but interesting enough for me to come back each week. The show was, as I mentioned, short-lived. That was two seasons before the debut of 'Fringe'.
The show which ran for more than one season and which I followed religiously week after week was one that aired from 1990-1991, one-and-a-half seasons -- a mid-season replacement for the 1989-1990 season, and a full season for the 1990-1991 year -- and to which I gladly called myself a "Peaks Freak" as a fan. The show was 'Twin Peaks'. It was one of those shows that was so bizarre in its own right, maybe even more bizarre than 'Fringe' in many ways, that it appealed to mostly just die-hard fans.
I don't really count 'The Nine', even though I watched most of the episodes, as the last show of any substance (more than one season) that I really followed like a fan. So, between the end of 'Twin Peaks' and the beginning of 'Fringe', there's a period of seventeen years. Seventeen years of not following any show that adamantly for more than, well, less than one season. Then, the Fall of 2008 came along, 'Fringe' debuted, I was instantly hooked, and I have been a five-year, full-term fan.
Hooked to the point of being a fan of the show, whereby I have seen every single episode of the 100 produced, have purchased boxed sets of previous seasons (I have 1-4 and waiting for 5), wrote a blog about the show, and even appeared as a co-host of a podcast about it ('Following the Pattern'). I am a true fan of the show.
The ultimate point to all of this is that those who put together, produced, and presented 'Fringe' are collectively responsible for this one individual finding something extremely special to watch. It not only held my attention consistently (even when I hated season four overall), but it showed that creativity, real creativity, can be had on television. It showed that the combination of talent, ability, skill, creativity, and imagination can come together and make something wonderful to watch week in and week out.
Not only that, but it also provided, via social media, a viewership family (what is referred to as the "Fringe universe") that connected people from around the world as fans of the show. I have personally been in contact with people from Britain, Germany, and Mexico, in addition to many other parts of the United States. It has been an amazing experience, both in front of the television and in front of the computer!
In addition to the actors I listed early on, I want to give credit to the main production crew of the show as well:
J.J. Abrams, Executive Producer (and co-creator)
Alex Kurtzman, Executive Producer (and co-creator)
Roberto Orci, Executive Producer (and co-creator)
J.H. Wyman, Executive Producer
Jeff Pinker, Executive Producer (seasons 1-4)
Joe Chappelle, Executive Producer
Michael Giacchino, Musical Composer (season 1-3)
Chris Tilton, Musical Composer (seasons 2-5)
Chad Seiter, Musical Composer (season 1)
And the production companies:
Bad Robot Productions
Warner Bros. Television
And, of course, Fox Television. And many thanks to its executives to allow the show to end on its own creative terms...an extreme rarity in television!
While I cannot say this show will spill over into my watching more and more series, I can say with heartfelt sincerity a huge thank you to all involved with 'Fringe'. You all made television, at least with your one show, worthwhile, and that meant a lot to me! I am sorry to see the show end.
(And yes, I, too, would like to see a 'Fringe' movie as soon as possible.)
Terry
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Word of the Day: NEW
Happy New Year, dear readers! I hope your holidays during December as well as the New Year's holiday went well and that you had much happiness in your lives during that festive time. My holidays were, as usual, small scale, but they were nonetheless enjoyable.
Well, we find ourselves in a brand new year, 2013. In terms of the Gregorian calendar, which is the most widely used calendar system in the world, we are now in the thirteenth year of the third millennium, denoted both as C.E. (Common Era) and A.D. (Anno Domini).
In Chinese culture, specifically their zodiac, 2013 is the Year of the Snake. It is relative to those born (at least in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries) in the following years: 1905, 1917, 1929, 1941, 1953, 1965, 1977, 1989, 2001, and 2013. Being born in the Year of the Snake symbolizes being analytical (non-impulsive), materialistic, creative, problem solvers; preferring calm and steadiness over chaos and frenetic situations; and keeping feelings to themselves.
While most of us acknowledge this year as 2013, other calendars from various cultural traditions numerically mark this year differently. Some examples are the Juche calendar of North Korea and the Minguo calendar of China, both of which designate this year as 102; the Hebrew calendar denotes this year as 5773 (changing in September, not next January); and the Holocene calendar (which begins at 10,000 B.C.) marks this year as 12013.
In addition to all of that information, I am able to write this because we are all still here. The doomsday that was supposed to be December 21, 2011, did not happen. (Big surprise.) After roughly two years of heightened hubbub about that late-December date, the Earth started off intact, and ended the same. I always understood it -- in terms of "the world as we know it will end" -- as a beginning of a mass shift in consciousness, a kind of attitudinal, perceptual, and beliefs-based paradigm shift. (Yes, new agey, I know, but hey, I think we need a paradigm shift.) Of course nothing of the kind took place on that very day. Such a large-scale shift would not and could not happen on one singular day...unless H.G. Wells was right about Martians. The whole Maya calendar phenomenon is explained well in this video from NASA, titled Why the World Didn't End Yesterday, and ironically released before December 21, 2012.
The Maya mindset was of marking time and the continuation of time, not the ending of it. In fact, there is nothing with regard to the Maya calendar, or anything in Maya prophecies, that even deals with the end of time. According to Maya priest and historian Carlos Barrios, Maya elders have viewed December 21, 2012 as a rebirth.
So, we have a new year filled with twelve months of new opportunities to create a new paradigm, if we so choose. Twelve months of opportunities to make new friends, to learn new skills, and to possibly go in new directions in our own lives. It can also be a time to take stock of ourselves -- the proverbial looking in the mirror -- and to reassess, to see ourselves in a new way...or perhaps to collectively see ourselves as we used to centuries ago. That, too, is key to a much-needed paradigm shift.
Or we could just say, "Eh, it's just another year."
Terry
Well, we find ourselves in a brand new year, 2013. In terms of the Gregorian calendar, which is the most widely used calendar system in the world, we are now in the thirteenth year of the third millennium, denoted both as C.E. (Common Era) and A.D. (Anno Domini).
In Chinese culture, specifically their zodiac, 2013 is the Year of the Snake. It is relative to those born (at least in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries) in the following years: 1905, 1917, 1929, 1941, 1953, 1965, 1977, 1989, 2001, and 2013. Being born in the Year of the Snake symbolizes being analytical (non-impulsive), materialistic, creative, problem solvers; preferring calm and steadiness over chaos and frenetic situations; and keeping feelings to themselves.
While most of us acknowledge this year as 2013, other calendars from various cultural traditions numerically mark this year differently. Some examples are the Juche calendar of North Korea and the Minguo calendar of China, both of which designate this year as 102; the Hebrew calendar denotes this year as 5773 (changing in September, not next January); and the Holocene calendar (which begins at 10,000 B.C.) marks this year as 12013.
In addition to all of that information, I am able to write this because we are all still here. The doomsday that was supposed to be December 21, 2011, did not happen. (Big surprise.) After roughly two years of heightened hubbub about that late-December date, the Earth started off intact, and ended the same. I always understood it -- in terms of "the world as we know it will end" -- as a beginning of a mass shift in consciousness, a kind of attitudinal, perceptual, and beliefs-based paradigm shift. (Yes, new agey, I know, but hey, I think we need a paradigm shift.) Of course nothing of the kind took place on that very day. Such a large-scale shift would not and could not happen on one singular day...unless H.G. Wells was right about Martians. The whole Maya calendar phenomenon is explained well in this video from NASA, titled Why the World Didn't End Yesterday, and ironically released before December 21, 2012.
The Maya mindset was of marking time and the continuation of time, not the ending of it. In fact, there is nothing with regard to the Maya calendar, or anything in Maya prophecies, that even deals with the end of time. According to Maya priest and historian Carlos Barrios, Maya elders have viewed December 21, 2012 as a rebirth.
So, we have a new year filled with twelve months of new opportunities to create a new paradigm, if we so choose. Twelve months of opportunities to make new friends, to learn new skills, and to possibly go in new directions in our own lives. It can also be a time to take stock of ourselves -- the proverbial looking in the mirror -- and to reassess, to see ourselves in a new way...or perhaps to collectively see ourselves as we used to centuries ago. That, too, is key to a much-needed paradigm shift.
Or we could just say, "Eh, it's just another year."
Terry
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Word of the Day: INSANITY
Within my three-part posting titled 'Massacre' earlier this year, I made reference to the massacre at Columbine High School thirteen years ago and how someone at my church could tell how deeply troubled I was about it just by my facial expressions. Just five months ago, I wrote the three-part 'Massacre' posting regarding the mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Just five months ago! Now, I am writing about another school shooting, only this time the vast majority of those murdered (twenty out of twenty-seven) were children just six or seven years old.
Early on here, let me state that am as heartbroken as I am fed up with events like the one that took place this past Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Massachusetts. I have never had children, but I am stunned at this news. I am also finding a passionate fire welling up in me, more than ever before, in terms of those in power MUST take appropriate steps in response.
One of my questions for those in power is What is it going to take for you to do the right thing for those you are supposed to serve, the American citizens? What, indeed!
Many references in the news and on political pundit shows have been to the massacres at the Aurora movie theater and at Columbine High School. To any of you who have been keeping up with the news, those markings of time -- April 1999 (Columbine), July 2012 (Aurora), and December 2012 (Sandy Hook) -- are not the only sadly significant moments of such tragedies. Here is an incomplete list of some of them:
April 20, 1999 -- Columbine High School (deadliest U.S. shooting at a high school)
March 21, 2005 -- Red Lake Senior High School
October 2, 2006 -- A one-room Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania
April 16, 2007 -- Virginia Tech (deadliest U.S. school shooting of all time)
January 8, 2011 -- Former U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords and others
July 20, 2012 -- Aurora movie theater shooting
August 5, 2012 -- Oak Creek Sikh temple in Wisconsin
December 11, 2012 -- Clackamas Town Center shopping mall
December 14, 2012 -- Sandy Hook Elementary School (deadliest U.S. shooting at an elementary school)
As I said, that is only a partial list. Is that sad enough, disgusting enough, angering enough yet?
School shootings are not a phenomenon beginning at the end of the twentieth century C.E. (In fact, the first attack on a school, which was with bombs, not firearms, took place eighty-five years ago.) You could probably trace non-school-related public shootings and massacres back to the gangster era in this country...further back, a few centuries back, if you include the U.S. Civil War and the murders of Native Americans.
Face it, part of the identity of the United States of America, current culture and historic past included, is not an attention to weapons and murder, but a regard for and an obsession with weapons and murder. The idea of "frontier mentality" is not misplaced here, and feelings about the right to bear arms (the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment) within the borders of this very country differ from region to region.
Personally, I would prefer no one had weapons. That includes not only individuals, but governments and other leaders of state around the world. That is my preference. On a practical level, however, I cannot see removing all weapons as feasible, just to follow my preference. (The U.S. government, military, and police forces would keep theirs, anyway.) Since the Second Amendment guarantees the right for individuals to bear arms, I feel that anyone who is SANE, CAUTIOUS, and RESPONSIBLE should be allowed to do so. SANE, CAUTIOUS, and RESPONSIBLE are unequivocally vital!
Freedom inextricably includes responsibility, and rights include the same. Strike responsibility from the equation in any way, shape, or form, and you are no longer discussing freedoms or rights...you are declaring open season on the citizenry.
To the issue of safety, it is true that no one can be safe 100% of the time. Injury, sickness, or death can happen to anyone at any time. Parents will always try to keep their children as safe as possible. For your own lives, staying home all the time wouldn't protect you 100%, either. You might be safer than most, granted, but something can happen to you at home as well. "100% safe" is a fallacy. As President Obama said at his address at the interfaith vigil held in Newtown this past Sunday, "No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society...but that can't be an excuse for inaction." I would add that it can't be an excuse to do too little (a band-aid on a broken leg), either. Something must be done, something significant, something measurable, something far-reaching.
Far-reaching should not and must not include an undermining of the rights of the those who are sane, cautious, and responsible gun holders -- which, by the way, includes the vast majority of gun holders in this country. Punish the many for the few never has settled with me, and it won't in regard to gun control, either. To those legal and responsible owners who are afraid of such an undermining, I get it. Washington, however, better get it, too. This problem is not just guns and rifles. It includes mental health, which has been steadily given less and less necessary attention year after year for some time now. It does not include media (i.e. films, video games, etc.), as many like to place the blame, but it does on the involvement of parents telling their kids over and over again that those same movies and games are fantasy, not reality. They are escapism, not realism. I've seen hundreds of movies and television shows with violence and they have never inspired me to commit any acts of violence on another person, and I believe that the vast majority of others who see violence act in the same manner.
It also includes political structure, which means that politicians need to sever ties with gun manufacturers for their own and those companies' profits, for such is the influence of destruction. It also displays an evil distortion of "U.S. citizens" as only them and not the population at large.
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What this meant at that time and for several generations after related to enforcement of laws, insurrections, invasions, national defense, self-defense, and tyrannical government. In any of the shootings I mentioned above, or any mass shooting, for that matter, tell me how the shooters are enforcing any law, protecting against insurrections or invasions, defending the country, defending themselves, or fighting a tyrannical government. The instances where any of those points were somehow reasons (and distorted reasons) for the murderers to do what they did would be few and far-between. They would be too few and far-between to do little to nothing in response.
If the conversations that lead to progress include law enforcement, gun manufacturers, the mental health community, citizen groups, and victims, then true change for the better can be had. It will be to our peril if not. On that note, I'd like to address the National Rifle Association (NRA). I have read lately that majorities of the members of the NRA would like to see changes in gun laws. However, the members do not run the NRA gun lobby; the NRA leadership does. So, the leadership needs to address this. Why hasn't the NRA publicly denounced, in no uncertain terms, these acts of violence? Why hasn't the NRA publicly stated, again in no uncertain terms, that they are for gun owners' rights, not the rights of anyone to get his/her hand on firearms? In other words, why don't they just come out and demand that the right to bear arms is not synonymous with the right to unload reason? Are they so narrow-minded that they really believe reasonability is in direct opposition to a Constitutionally-guaranteed right?
The NRA recently released a statement saying it was "shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown". It explained its silence regarding the massacre in the following way: "Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting." Yes, common decency is good, but I would be hard-pressed to believe that, when NRA rallies are many times held in or near the towns in which such tragedies occur. (Note to the NRA: The mourning, prayers, and the full investigation have not ended yet. I'm just saying.) They also want to make "meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
Pardon my cynicism, but I'll believe that when I see it.
It is not just those who are insane who commit these horrific acts of violence, but the state of how things are in this country that is insane. The U.S. has the highest number of gun owners in the modern, civilized world along with the highest numbers of deaths via firearms in the modern, civilized world. I have never heard any gun owner, and I know a few, give any reason why an individual MUST have weapons (and even gear) of war -- not hunting or self-defense, but war -- in their possession. I haven't heard one reasonable justification yet because there is no reasonable justification to be found. None.
Are we, as a society, sad enough, disgusted enough, angered enough yet to make the necessary changes to stop (or at least to greatly curb) this insanity? We better be.
Terry
Early on here, let me state that am as heartbroken as I am fed up with events like the one that took place this past Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Massachusetts. I have never had children, but I am stunned at this news. I am also finding a passionate fire welling up in me, more than ever before, in terms of those in power MUST take appropriate steps in response.
One of my questions for those in power is What is it going to take for you to do the right thing for those you are supposed to serve, the American citizens? What, indeed!
Many references in the news and on political pundit shows have been to the massacres at the Aurora movie theater and at Columbine High School. To any of you who have been keeping up with the news, those markings of time -- April 1999 (Columbine), July 2012 (Aurora), and December 2012 (Sandy Hook) -- are not the only sadly significant moments of such tragedies. Here is an incomplete list of some of them:
April 20, 1999 -- Columbine High School (deadliest U.S. shooting at a high school)
March 21, 2005 -- Red Lake Senior High School
October 2, 2006 -- A one-room Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania
April 16, 2007 -- Virginia Tech (deadliest U.S. school shooting of all time)
January 8, 2011 -- Former U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords and others
July 20, 2012 -- Aurora movie theater shooting
August 5, 2012 -- Oak Creek Sikh temple in Wisconsin
December 11, 2012 -- Clackamas Town Center shopping mall
December 14, 2012 -- Sandy Hook Elementary School (deadliest U.S. shooting at an elementary school)
As I said, that is only a partial list. Is that sad enough, disgusting enough, angering enough yet?
School shootings are not a phenomenon beginning at the end of the twentieth century C.E. (In fact, the first attack on a school, which was with bombs, not firearms, took place eighty-five years ago.) You could probably trace non-school-related public shootings and massacres back to the gangster era in this country...further back, a few centuries back, if you include the U.S. Civil War and the murders of Native Americans.
Face it, part of the identity of the United States of America, current culture and historic past included, is not an attention to weapons and murder, but a regard for and an obsession with weapons and murder. The idea of "frontier mentality" is not misplaced here, and feelings about the right to bear arms (the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment) within the borders of this very country differ from region to region.
Personally, I would prefer no one had weapons. That includes not only individuals, but governments and other leaders of state around the world. That is my preference. On a practical level, however, I cannot see removing all weapons as feasible, just to follow my preference. (The U.S. government, military, and police forces would keep theirs, anyway.) Since the Second Amendment guarantees the right for individuals to bear arms, I feel that anyone who is SANE, CAUTIOUS, and RESPONSIBLE should be allowed to do so. SANE, CAUTIOUS, and RESPONSIBLE are unequivocally vital!
Freedom inextricably includes responsibility, and rights include the same. Strike responsibility from the equation in any way, shape, or form, and you are no longer discussing freedoms or rights...you are declaring open season on the citizenry.
To the issue of safety, it is true that no one can be safe 100% of the time. Injury, sickness, or death can happen to anyone at any time. Parents will always try to keep their children as safe as possible. For your own lives, staying home all the time wouldn't protect you 100%, either. You might be safer than most, granted, but something can happen to you at home as well. "100% safe" is a fallacy. As President Obama said at his address at the interfaith vigil held in Newtown this past Sunday, "No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society...but that can't be an excuse for inaction." I would add that it can't be an excuse to do too little (a band-aid on a broken leg), either. Something must be done, something significant, something measurable, something far-reaching.
Far-reaching should not and must not include an undermining of the rights of the those who are sane, cautious, and responsible gun holders -- which, by the way, includes the vast majority of gun holders in this country. Punish the many for the few never has settled with me, and it won't in regard to gun control, either. To those legal and responsible owners who are afraid of such an undermining, I get it. Washington, however, better get it, too. This problem is not just guns and rifles. It includes mental health, which has been steadily given less and less necessary attention year after year for some time now. It does not include media (i.e. films, video games, etc.), as many like to place the blame, but it does on the involvement of parents telling their kids over and over again that those same movies and games are fantasy, not reality. They are escapism, not realism. I've seen hundreds of movies and television shows with violence and they have never inspired me to commit any acts of violence on another person, and I believe that the vast majority of others who see violence act in the same manner.
It also includes political structure, which means that politicians need to sever ties with gun manufacturers for their own and those companies' profits, for such is the influence of destruction. It also displays an evil distortion of "U.S. citizens" as only them and not the population at large.
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What this meant at that time and for several generations after related to enforcement of laws, insurrections, invasions, national defense, self-defense, and tyrannical government. In any of the shootings I mentioned above, or any mass shooting, for that matter, tell me how the shooters are enforcing any law, protecting against insurrections or invasions, defending the country, defending themselves, or fighting a tyrannical government. The instances where any of those points were somehow reasons (and distorted reasons) for the murderers to do what they did would be few and far-between. They would be too few and far-between to do little to nothing in response.
If the conversations that lead to progress include law enforcement, gun manufacturers, the mental health community, citizen groups, and victims, then true change for the better can be had. It will be to our peril if not. On that note, I'd like to address the National Rifle Association (NRA). I have read lately that majorities of the members of the NRA would like to see changes in gun laws. However, the members do not run the NRA gun lobby; the NRA leadership does. So, the leadership needs to address this. Why hasn't the NRA publicly denounced, in no uncertain terms, these acts of violence? Why hasn't the NRA publicly stated, again in no uncertain terms, that they are for gun owners' rights, not the rights of anyone to get his/her hand on firearms? In other words, why don't they just come out and demand that the right to bear arms is not synonymous with the right to unload reason? Are they so narrow-minded that they really believe reasonability is in direct opposition to a Constitutionally-guaranteed right?
The NRA recently released a statement saying it was "shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown". It explained its silence regarding the massacre in the following way: "Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting." Yes, common decency is good, but I would be hard-pressed to believe that, when NRA rallies are many times held in or near the towns in which such tragedies occur. (Note to the NRA: The mourning, prayers, and the full investigation have not ended yet. I'm just saying.) They also want to make "meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
Pardon my cynicism, but I'll believe that when I see it.
It is not just those who are insane who commit these horrific acts of violence, but the state of how things are in this country that is insane. The U.S. has the highest number of gun owners in the modern, civilized world along with the highest numbers of deaths via firearms in the modern, civilized world. I have never heard any gun owner, and I know a few, give any reason why an individual MUST have weapons (and even gear) of war -- not hunting or self-defense, but war -- in their possession. I haven't heard one reasonable justification yet because there is no reasonable justification to be found. None.
Are we, as a society, sad enough, disgusted enough, angered enough yet to make the necessary changes to stop (or at least to greatly curb) this insanity? We better be.
Terry
Friday, November 30, 2012
Phrase of the Day: SENDING A MESSAGE
Just last week, in certain department stores across America, the latest trend in Christmas season shopping insanity continued...and got even worse. The Friday after Thanksgiving Day is known as Black Friday. It is called such because that is the one day in which retailers are supposed to begin turning a profit for the year (being "in the black") after spending the year running at basically a deficit (being "in the red"). The term came about sometime in the early 1960s and gained wider usage in the following decade.
However, for the past several years, the black connotation given to that day has also come to mean something different: black, as in a black mark on society as a whole. In addition to this blog entry's title, Sending a Message, some other words are key here -- greed, behavior, family, and necessity.
One of the basic precepts of going into business in the first place is to, hopefully, make a profit. Even if your main thrust is to provide a service or certain products, you certainly don't intend to lose money. That is how it should be, so keep in mind that I personally have no problem with any business turning a profit. It seems to me, however, that the earlier and earlier start times for doors to open to shoppers is, in one sense, about greed. Why stop at turning profits with closing on Thanksgiving Day and then opening up on Black Friday, when you can push the envelope further and further. The longer you're open, the likelihood of greater profits.
I can remember Black Fridays past from my childhood. My mother and I would always go to the old Audubon Shopping Center -- a kind of really neat semi-outdoor mall -- and wait for Santa Claus to arrive. He did, via helicopter, and he made his way through the throng of excited children (including me!) there to see him. Then we'd go to one of the department stores that had a special area set up and we'd wait in line to see Santa, just as children and their parents do nowadays mostly in malls. It never took place on Thanksgiving Day, always on Black Friday. As I grew up -- and I'm counting from my teens now -- I neither felt, nor did I ever hear anyone else say, that being able to shop on Thanksgiving Day would be a great idea. Thanksgiving Day was a holiday...at least for most of us...and going shopping (except for something last minute at the food store) was the last thing on anyone's mind. Period.
When the malls began to open on Black Friday an hour or two earlier than their usual weekday opening time, it seemed not too terribly big of a deal. Around here, the 10:00 a.m. opening at the malls would be 8:00 a.m., maybe 9:00. Then, a slight push up in the time kept happening. When 7:00 a.m. was the opening time, my family and many of my friends thought that it was ridiculous. However, the shoppers came. When the opening time was 6:00 a.m., our collective "That's ridiculous" exhortation echoed again. Again, the shoppers came. It seemed like each year, or every two years, the opening time was a little earlier and a little earlier. 5:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. opening times bordered on the absurd. Undeterred, the shoppers still came. Lining up late at night or even camping out became more and more commonplace.
For a couple of years, there were no changes, but the next leap was on the horizon...and it was a big leap. Last year, an opening time of midnight on Thanksgiving night was announced by several retailers. The greed was multiplying. It was disappointing, but the shoppers didn't disappoint retailers. They came...and they came in droves. The insanity would not end there.
This year, for the first time ever, many of those same retailers (i.e. Wal-Mart, Sears, Toys R Us) opened up on Thanksgiving evening. Some stores opened at 10:00 p.m.; some opened at 9:00 p.m. Others opened at 8:00 p.m. That's right, 8:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving night. The words "ridiculous" and "absurd" now seem woefully inadequate. And, you guessed it, the shoppers stood in line and camped out so that they could storm the stores just like starving animals hunting prey...not like savvy consumers, but like starving animals.
Why would I use such strong language? Did I go shopping on a Black Friday and have a really bad experience? No, I did not. In fact, whenever I did go to a mall on a Black Friday -- which was extremely rare (rarer than rare, in fact) -- it was to pick up a couple Christmas cards and maybe some gift wrap. Not only that, but I usually went sometime around 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., when most shoppers would be at the food court getting dinner. The bulk of my Black Friday experience was watching the annual news reports of shoppers packing malls. That whole fighting crowds scene, even before this Black Friday/Thanksgiving madness ever started, never seemed worth it to me. That kind of behavior was, quite frankly, repulsive to me.
That behavior has gotten worse each year. Here are some examples from just this year alone.
In the rush of all this hullabaloo, the family has taken a real hit. It's not just for those employees who have to work (employers telling you when you can have Thanksgiving with your family), but it's also for consumers (letting shopping dictate how you'll structure your holiday). Looks like the score is Retailers 1, Families 0, with no change in sight.
Tacked on to all of this, and no less important, is the concept of necessity. I gotta have this...I gotta have that...little Johnny's gotta have this...little Jane's gotta have that, and so on. Gotta have? Wow! Really? If pressed, many of these same folks would say that, of course, life would go on if they didn't buy this or that, but...they...just...gotta...have...it. (Maybe they'd soften their language by saying they "really want it".) "Want" would be more appropriate, but "gotta have" seems to be the prevalent nomenclature. We have been told what is necessity -- come buy it from our stock -- and too many of us have bought that message. The fundamental five -- air, water, food, shelter, clothing -- are necessities. Period. Anything else beyond that is superfluous.
We have given up our power as consumers -- yes, there is such a thing beyond raising a stink or filing a lawsuit -- in order to make stores our new recreational rooms, and to make cashiers and salespersons our new extended families. Perhaps you know the famous line from the film 'Field of Dreams': "If you build it, they will come." Maybe you know the line that became famous in the 1960s: "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" (There was a 1970 film of the same name, and the phrase was a line in The Monkees' song 'Zor and Zam'.) Well, if you don't show up, the retailers will change. Retailers follow consumer's patterns, but many act as though consumers must follow retailers' patterns. So, if you don't show up, aside from apparently feeling less of a person for not going, do you really think that a year or two of consumers not showing up on Thanksgiving night wouldn't force retailers to go back to being closed on Thanksgiving Day and open on Black Friday? If you don't think so, then they own you, plain and simple.
As far as I'm concerned, a necessity for this time of year is a paradigm shift. Fast!
For the record, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people buying gifts for loved ones, none at all. My point is regarding how that has been tainted. All of this is easy to blame on the retailers alone. True, greed is a powerful motivator and that falls clearly on their collective shoulders, but there is another and equal part in all of this madness...consumers. Keep showing up earlier and earlier when they are open earlier and earlier and watch what happens next year or the following. If we didn't show up, they wouldn't open. It is that simple! We are, and have been, sending a strong message: We are owned...we liked to be owned...we like to behave like wild animals...and we only value families as justifications for all of the above.
Somehow, I never thought that was supposed to be the message of this time of year.
Terry
However, for the past several years, the black connotation given to that day has also come to mean something different: black, as in a black mark on society as a whole. In addition to this blog entry's title, Sending a Message, some other words are key here -- greed, behavior, family, and necessity.
One of the basic precepts of going into business in the first place is to, hopefully, make a profit. Even if your main thrust is to provide a service or certain products, you certainly don't intend to lose money. That is how it should be, so keep in mind that I personally have no problem with any business turning a profit. It seems to me, however, that the earlier and earlier start times for doors to open to shoppers is, in one sense, about greed. Why stop at turning profits with closing on Thanksgiving Day and then opening up on Black Friday, when you can push the envelope further and further. The longer you're open, the likelihood of greater profits.
I can remember Black Fridays past from my childhood. My mother and I would always go to the old Audubon Shopping Center -- a kind of really neat semi-outdoor mall -- and wait for Santa Claus to arrive. He did, via helicopter, and he made his way through the throng of excited children (including me!) there to see him. Then we'd go to one of the department stores that had a special area set up and we'd wait in line to see Santa, just as children and their parents do nowadays mostly in malls. It never took place on Thanksgiving Day, always on Black Friday. As I grew up -- and I'm counting from my teens now -- I neither felt, nor did I ever hear anyone else say, that being able to shop on Thanksgiving Day would be a great idea. Thanksgiving Day was a holiday...at least for most of us...and going shopping (except for something last minute at the food store) was the last thing on anyone's mind. Period.
When the malls began to open on Black Friday an hour or two earlier than their usual weekday opening time, it seemed not too terribly big of a deal. Around here, the 10:00 a.m. opening at the malls would be 8:00 a.m., maybe 9:00. Then, a slight push up in the time kept happening. When 7:00 a.m. was the opening time, my family and many of my friends thought that it was ridiculous. However, the shoppers came. When the opening time was 6:00 a.m., our collective "That's ridiculous" exhortation echoed again. Again, the shoppers came. It seemed like each year, or every two years, the opening time was a little earlier and a little earlier. 5:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. opening times bordered on the absurd. Undeterred, the shoppers still came. Lining up late at night or even camping out became more and more commonplace.
For a couple of years, there were no changes, but the next leap was on the horizon...and it was a big leap. Last year, an opening time of midnight on Thanksgiving night was announced by several retailers. The greed was multiplying. It was disappointing, but the shoppers didn't disappoint retailers. They came...and they came in droves. The insanity would not end there.
This year, for the first time ever, many of those same retailers (i.e. Wal-Mart, Sears, Toys R Us) opened up on Thanksgiving evening. Some stores opened at 10:00 p.m.; some opened at 9:00 p.m. Others opened at 8:00 p.m. That's right, 8:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving night. The words "ridiculous" and "absurd" now seem woefully inadequate. And, you guessed it, the shoppers stood in line and camped out so that they could storm the stores just like starving animals hunting prey...not like savvy consumers, but like starving animals.
Why would I use such strong language? Did I go shopping on a Black Friday and have a really bad experience? No, I did not. In fact, whenever I did go to a mall on a Black Friday -- which was extremely rare (rarer than rare, in fact) -- it was to pick up a couple Christmas cards and maybe some gift wrap. Not only that, but I usually went sometime around 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., when most shoppers would be at the food court getting dinner. The bulk of my Black Friday experience was watching the annual news reports of shoppers packing malls. That whole fighting crowds scene, even before this Black Friday/Thanksgiving madness ever started, never seemed worth it to me. That kind of behavior was, quite frankly, repulsive to me.
That behavior has gotten worse each year. Here are some examples from just this year alone.
In the rush of all this hullabaloo, the family has taken a real hit. It's not just for those employees who have to work (employers telling you when you can have Thanksgiving with your family), but it's also for consumers (letting shopping dictate how you'll structure your holiday). Looks like the score is Retailers 1, Families 0, with no change in sight.
Tacked on to all of this, and no less important, is the concept of necessity. I gotta have this...I gotta have that...little Johnny's gotta have this...little Jane's gotta have that, and so on. Gotta have? Wow! Really? If pressed, many of these same folks would say that, of course, life would go on if they didn't buy this or that, but...they...just...gotta...have...it. (Maybe they'd soften their language by saying they "really want it".) "Want" would be more appropriate, but "gotta have" seems to be the prevalent nomenclature. We have been told what is necessity -- come buy it from our stock -- and too many of us have bought that message. The fundamental five -- air, water, food, shelter, clothing -- are necessities. Period. Anything else beyond that is superfluous.
We have given up our power as consumers -- yes, there is such a thing beyond raising a stink or filing a lawsuit -- in order to make stores our new recreational rooms, and to make cashiers and salespersons our new extended families. Perhaps you know the famous line from the film 'Field of Dreams': "If you build it, they will come." Maybe you know the line that became famous in the 1960s: "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" (There was a 1970 film of the same name, and the phrase was a line in The Monkees' song 'Zor and Zam'.) Well, if you don't show up, the retailers will change. Retailers follow consumer's patterns, but many act as though consumers must follow retailers' patterns. So, if you don't show up, aside from apparently feeling less of a person for not going, do you really think that a year or two of consumers not showing up on Thanksgiving night wouldn't force retailers to go back to being closed on Thanksgiving Day and open on Black Friday? If you don't think so, then they own you, plain and simple.
As far as I'm concerned, a necessity for this time of year is a paradigm shift. Fast!
For the record, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people buying gifts for loved ones, none at all. My point is regarding how that has been tainted. All of this is easy to blame on the retailers alone. True, greed is a powerful motivator and that falls clearly on their collective shoulders, but there is another and equal part in all of this madness...consumers. Keep showing up earlier and earlier when they are open earlier and earlier and watch what happens next year or the following. If we didn't show up, they wouldn't open. It is that simple! We are, and have been, sending a strong message: We are owned...we liked to be owned...we like to behave like wild animals...and we only value families as justifications for all of the above.
Somehow, I never thought that was supposed to be the message of this time of year.
Terry
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Word of the Day: GRATEFUL
Well, here it is, Thanksgiving night. The parades are over. The dinners have been cooked and eaten, with leftovers being put in the refrigerator. Tummies are full, if not overstuffed, and more than one belt has been loosened.
In preparing for this blog entry, I was surprised to find out how many countries celebrate their form of Thanksgiving or some sort of "harvest festival", or mark it in other ways. In addition to the United States, the list includes:
Canada (Jour de l'Action de grâce)
Germany (Erntedankfest or Harvest Thanksgiving Festival)
Grenada (commemorating the anniversary of the 1983 U.S.-led invasion following the deposition and execution of Grenadian Prime Minister Maurice Bishop)
Japan (Kinrō Kansha no Hi or Labor Thanksgiving Day)
Korea (Chuseok; a harvest festival based on the lunar calendar)
Liberia (commemorating its colonization by many former U.S. slaves)
The Netherlands (commemorating the hospitality extended to pilgrims on their way to the New World)
Norfolk Island (brought to the island by those working on U.S. whaling ships visiting there)
For many people here in the U.S., Thanksgiving is nothing more than a day off from work, except for those who work for certain retailers here in the U.S. (i.e. Sears, Target, Wal-Mart, etc.). How working on Thanksgiving night, beginning at eight or nine o'clock, is justifiable would suffice to fill up another blog posting. (Hint: I will be doing that soon.) For those who do have the day off, it is a day to relax, hopefully, perhaps depending on who is cooking and for how many.
One of my pet peeves is regarding Thanksgiving in relation to Christmas. I am one of those people who do not want to hear Christmas music until after Thanksgiving. A couple of radio stations in the area begin playing some Christmas tunes prior to Thanksgiving. Yes, I also love Christmas songs, but I want to enjoy them for the Christmas holiday, not as an enticement to go out and buy things. In fact, I actually heard one Christmas song being played before Halloween this year! (Before Thanksgiving is bad enough, but before Halloween?) Here's a cartoon that I saw a couple of years ago that captures my sentiments exactly in a humorous way:
Although not a religious holiday at its core, many churches here mark this day by highlighting the act of giving thanks or being in the state of gratitude. Whether lived out religiously or not, being grateful is worthwhile...and, I would argue, necessary. We have so much for which we should be grateful. Then again, we do tend to focus on, and get all wrapped up in, all the negative in our lives. Mind you, I am not discounting those who have things really hard -- which does not include being furious that the jerk in front of you got the last one of the latest technological fad or some other on-sale item -- or that the burdens one carries on his/her shoulders don't matter at all. My focus here is on those who have problems but see them as greater than what they are, as well as those who just simply have a lot on their plate (sans the Thanksgiving meal, that is). Problems aplenty or problems overblown, being grateful is both a necessary state of mind and way to live one's life.
I, too, have fallen into the trap of letting focusing on the negative usurp gratitude's rightful place in one's life. It is an easy and a common trap. After spending literally decades of doing that, I have become better at not focusing on the negative, and the times I have noticed myself do that have been a welcome change. I am on the right track, where I wasn't for far too long, and I am grateful for that.
See, there's one thing already!
Now, let me add to that one thing...because I can. While this is not a comprehensive list, and I admit that my focus is not always clear from time to time regarding these, they are things for which I am truly grateful:
My (relative) health: There are those with chronic pain and/or other health issues I've never faced
A roof over my head: Not everyone can say that
Heating, cooling, hot water, electricity, clean and running water: Not everyone has these; many have none of these
I never go hungry: Too many go hungry and too many die because of it
A bed to sleep in: An easy one to overlook, while many people do not have that simple comfort
My parents: Without them, who knows what would have happened to me
My close friends: They offer me their laughter, their open ears, their open hearts, and their uniqueness
My acquaintances/people who share a particular similar interest: I would probably have no one with whom I could exchange ideas and similar experiences in relation to those interests
Those who have treated me unkindly or unfairly: They remind me of how not to be and keep me on the right path of being a good person
My life experiences, good and bad: While I hate the bad ones, they teach me and make me who I am
Like I said, this isn't a comprehensive list, but it's not a bad start, wouldn't you say? When I look at these, I say to myself, "Wow, how could I forget these?" Try making a list yourself and see what you come up with. Be honest, don't make any items up, and don't scrimp. If, after you finish, you say to yourself, anything along the lines of, "Yeah, but...", imagine your life without all of them! I think your perspective might just change.
So, what would be on your grateful list?
Terry
In preparing for this blog entry, I was surprised to find out how many countries celebrate their form of Thanksgiving or some sort of "harvest festival", or mark it in other ways. In addition to the United States, the list includes:
Canada (Jour de l'Action de grâce)
Germany (Erntedankfest or Harvest Thanksgiving Festival)
Grenada (commemorating the anniversary of the 1983 U.S.-led invasion following the deposition and execution of Grenadian Prime Minister Maurice Bishop)
Japan (Kinrō Kansha no Hi or Labor Thanksgiving Day)
Korea (Chuseok; a harvest festival based on the lunar calendar)
Liberia (commemorating its colonization by many former U.S. slaves)
The Netherlands (commemorating the hospitality extended to pilgrims on their way to the New World)
Norfolk Island (brought to the island by those working on U.S. whaling ships visiting there)
For many people here in the U.S., Thanksgiving is nothing more than a day off from work, except for those who work for certain retailers here in the U.S. (i.e. Sears, Target, Wal-Mart, etc.). How working on Thanksgiving night, beginning at eight or nine o'clock, is justifiable would suffice to fill up another blog posting. (Hint: I will be doing that soon.) For those who do have the day off, it is a day to relax, hopefully, perhaps depending on who is cooking and for how many.
One of my pet peeves is regarding Thanksgiving in relation to Christmas. I am one of those people who do not want to hear Christmas music until after Thanksgiving. A couple of radio stations in the area begin playing some Christmas tunes prior to Thanksgiving. Yes, I also love Christmas songs, but I want to enjoy them for the Christmas holiday, not as an enticement to go out and buy things. In fact, I actually heard one Christmas song being played before Halloween this year! (Before Thanksgiving is bad enough, but before Halloween?) Here's a cartoon that I saw a couple of years ago that captures my sentiments exactly in a humorous way:
Although not a religious holiday at its core, many churches here mark this day by highlighting the act of giving thanks or being in the state of gratitude. Whether lived out religiously or not, being grateful is worthwhile...and, I would argue, necessary. We have so much for which we should be grateful. Then again, we do tend to focus on, and get all wrapped up in, all the negative in our lives. Mind you, I am not discounting those who have things really hard -- which does not include being furious that the jerk in front of you got the last one of the latest technological fad or some other on-sale item -- or that the burdens one carries on his/her shoulders don't matter at all. My focus here is on those who have problems but see them as greater than what they are, as well as those who just simply have a lot on their plate (sans the Thanksgiving meal, that is). Problems aplenty or problems overblown, being grateful is both a necessary state of mind and way to live one's life.
I, too, have fallen into the trap of letting focusing on the negative usurp gratitude's rightful place in one's life. It is an easy and a common trap. After spending literally decades of doing that, I have become better at not focusing on the negative, and the times I have noticed myself do that have been a welcome change. I am on the right track, where I wasn't for far too long, and I am grateful for that.
See, there's one thing already!
Now, let me add to that one thing...because I can. While this is not a comprehensive list, and I admit that my focus is not always clear from time to time regarding these, they are things for which I am truly grateful:
My (relative) health: There are those with chronic pain and/or other health issues I've never faced
A roof over my head: Not everyone can say that
Heating, cooling, hot water, electricity, clean and running water: Not everyone has these; many have none of these
I never go hungry: Too many go hungry and too many die because of it
A bed to sleep in: An easy one to overlook, while many people do not have that simple comfort
My parents: Without them, who knows what would have happened to me
My close friends: They offer me their laughter, their open ears, their open hearts, and their uniqueness
My acquaintances/people who share a particular similar interest: I would probably have no one with whom I could exchange ideas and similar experiences in relation to those interests
Those who have treated me unkindly or unfairly: They remind me of how not to be and keep me on the right path of being a good person
My life experiences, good and bad: While I hate the bad ones, they teach me and make me who I am
Like I said, this isn't a comprehensive list, but it's not a bad start, wouldn't you say? When I look at these, I say to myself, "Wow, how could I forget these?" Try making a list yourself and see what you come up with. Be honest, don't make any items up, and don't scrimp. If, after you finish, you say to yourself, anything along the lines of, "Yeah, but...", imagine your life without all of them! I think your perspective might just change.
So, what would be on your grateful list?
Terry
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Word of the Day: ELECTION
[To my readers, I still have not recovered 100% from my shoulder injury, but it is well enough that typing at length is possible. We are fine where I am in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy and a nor'easter that hit just days ago, about a week after Sandy. We had no damage and the electricity stayed on the entire time during Sandy, and just a little snow shower and sleet during the nor'easter. I am grateful we fared well with the storms and glad to be back at the keyboard, commenting.]
Two days ago, along with millions of other Americans, I went to the polls to vote in the general election. Although born here in America, I am a late arrival to the act of voting; this was only my third general election. In addition, I have voted in two mid-term elections (2006 and 2010) and local special elections.
I spent most of my life jaded with the election process and politics in general. I was well aware of the political mantra of Every vote counts, but I refused to believe it. I would say that the word that best described my sentiment was "irrelevant".
My parents never voted -- they shared my same sentiment -- but I would always watch the election night results. I first started in 1972, when Richard Nixon won re-election. In the past several years, as well as when I was much younger, I went to bed before the election was decided and found out who won in the morning. (Well, there was that pesky 2000 election that wasn't decided until over a month later!)
Speaking of the 2000 presidential election, the events that took place to decide that election, along with the policies and actions of then-President George W. Bush and his administration (i.e. 9/11, Iraq War, War on Terrorism, Hurricane Katrina response) were enough to persuade me to vote for the first time. My first votes were cast in the 2004 general election. I voted for John Kerry, and even though he didn't win, I continued to vote: in the 2006 mid-terms, the 2008 general election, the 2010 mid-terms, and this year's general election.
My non-voting parents always sided with the Democrats, and my voting record in the last two presidential elections shows I followed in their understanding: John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. My feeling is that the Democrats are, to varying degrees, more for the working person, and the Republicans are more for businesses and the wealthy. I admit my cynicism has remained in the form that what good for the common individual that either party does is not always high on their respective to-do lists.
However, in retrospect, I must also admit that my votes for Democratic presidential nominees were cast not so much as pro-Kerry or pro-Obama, but more anti-Bush and anti-Republican. Of course, when someone votes for something, it inherently, by its nature, means it is subtextually a vote against something else. What I was voting for was coming from a place inside of me that was based more in "not him" or "not them", rather than "for someone else".
Like many other Americans, I was told that a vote for someone other than a Democratic or Republican nominee -- a third-party candidate -- was a wasted vote. Granted, third-party candidates, at least in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, rarely break or come close to 10% of the national vote, but is everyone who votes for a third-party candidate really throwing away their vote? What if a voter agrees more with what the third-party candidate says than what the two major party candidates say? The thinking is that they should ignore that and vote for one of the two major party candidates anyway. Really? So, car companies can offer several types of vehicles (and more than one type of the same vehicle), Starbucks can offer dozens of coffee choices, cable TV can offer hundreds of stations, and that's all okay...but serious consideration of a third-party candidate is not okay? I have come to a place where I believe voting your conscience is key, while far too many others will say that voting one's own conscience might be ... irrelevant.
Freedom of choice is a very narrow concept politically.
A vote cast as "the lesser of two evils" is a wasted vote. A vote cast as "I'm not crazy about this candidate, but I know I dislike the other candidate more" is a wasted vote. Both are abdication of one's own responsibility as a voter. Both say that your vote is the same as a game show consolation prize. Not to mention that both are reflective of people's impressions of candidates, parties, and politics in general. I won't add votes not cast, since I understand very well about feeling disenfranchised, and a vote cast for the wrong reasons is a wasted vote. A vote not cast is simply a missed opportunity.
This year, for the first time, I voted third party. It wasn't because I wanted to pick a lesser evil or because I disliked one major candidate less than the other. It was because I wanted to take part in the voting process, but I was unhappy with the two main choices offered. It was because I feel more candidates should be given a fair shot in elections. It was because my vote is neither a consolation prize nor an abdication of responsibility.
My vote was for Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein and her Vice-Presidential running mate Cheri Honkala. Even though they finished fourth overall, with less than 1/2 of 1% of the vote, I still felt good about my vote. I knew it was unlikely she, or any third-party candidate, would win, but I also knew that my vote, while among the few and far-between, stood for something more than dissatisfied resignation.
And that is not a wasted vote.
Terry
Two days ago, along with millions of other Americans, I went to the polls to vote in the general election. Although born here in America, I am a late arrival to the act of voting; this was only my third general election. In addition, I have voted in two mid-term elections (2006 and 2010) and local special elections.
I spent most of my life jaded with the election process and politics in general. I was well aware of the political mantra of Every vote counts, but I refused to believe it. I would say that the word that best described my sentiment was "irrelevant".
My parents never voted -- they shared my same sentiment -- but I would always watch the election night results. I first started in 1972, when Richard Nixon won re-election. In the past several years, as well as when I was much younger, I went to bed before the election was decided and found out who won in the morning. (Well, there was that pesky 2000 election that wasn't decided until over a month later!)
Speaking of the 2000 presidential election, the events that took place to decide that election, along with the policies and actions of then-President George W. Bush and his administration (i.e. 9/11, Iraq War, War on Terrorism, Hurricane Katrina response) were enough to persuade me to vote for the first time. My first votes were cast in the 2004 general election. I voted for John Kerry, and even though he didn't win, I continued to vote: in the 2006 mid-terms, the 2008 general election, the 2010 mid-terms, and this year's general election.
My non-voting parents always sided with the Democrats, and my voting record in the last two presidential elections shows I followed in their understanding: John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. My feeling is that the Democrats are, to varying degrees, more for the working person, and the Republicans are more for businesses and the wealthy. I admit my cynicism has remained in the form that what good for the common individual that either party does is not always high on their respective to-do lists.
However, in retrospect, I must also admit that my votes for Democratic presidential nominees were cast not so much as pro-Kerry or pro-Obama, but more anti-Bush and anti-Republican. Of course, when someone votes for something, it inherently, by its nature, means it is subtextually a vote against something else. What I was voting for was coming from a place inside of me that was based more in "not him" or "not them", rather than "for someone else".
Like many other Americans, I was told that a vote for someone other than a Democratic or Republican nominee -- a third-party candidate -- was a wasted vote. Granted, third-party candidates, at least in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, rarely break or come close to 10% of the national vote, but is everyone who votes for a third-party candidate really throwing away their vote? What if a voter agrees more with what the third-party candidate says than what the two major party candidates say? The thinking is that they should ignore that and vote for one of the two major party candidates anyway. Really? So, car companies can offer several types of vehicles (and more than one type of the same vehicle), Starbucks can offer dozens of coffee choices, cable TV can offer hundreds of stations, and that's all okay...but serious consideration of a third-party candidate is not okay? I have come to a place where I believe voting your conscience is key, while far too many others will say that voting one's own conscience might be ... irrelevant.
Freedom of choice is a very narrow concept politically.
A vote cast as "the lesser of two evils" is a wasted vote. A vote cast as "I'm not crazy about this candidate, but I know I dislike the other candidate more" is a wasted vote. Both are abdication of one's own responsibility as a voter. Both say that your vote is the same as a game show consolation prize. Not to mention that both are reflective of people's impressions of candidates, parties, and politics in general. I won't add votes not cast, since I understand very well about feeling disenfranchised, and a vote cast for the wrong reasons is a wasted vote. A vote not cast is simply a missed opportunity.
This year, for the first time, I voted third party. It wasn't because I wanted to pick a lesser evil or because I disliked one major candidate less than the other. It was because I wanted to take part in the voting process, but I was unhappy with the two main choices offered. It was because I feel more candidates should be given a fair shot in elections. It was because my vote is neither a consolation prize nor an abdication of responsibility.
My vote was for Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein and her Vice-Presidential running mate Cheri Honkala. Even though they finished fourth overall, with less than 1/2 of 1% of the vote, I still felt good about my vote. I knew it was unlikely she, or any third-party candidate, would win, but I also knew that my vote, while among the few and far-between, stood for something more than dissatisfied resignation.
And that is not a wasted vote.
Terry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)