It's hard to have a crisis of faith when one is not even sure anymore in what to have faith. I've always had faith in myself, and I've always come through for myself. But for a while now I've wondered if even that is enough anymore. For many their faith gets them through tough times - usually faith in God, Allah, or whatever deity to which they can relate (Atheists notwithstanding, but even then there is still faith in oneself).
I've always relied on the fact that I can always count on myself. I can always rely on myself. I will always figure something out. It's what keeps me going. It's why I keep pushing myself - always forward, never straight.
But what happens when that isn't enough anymore? When the light starts to fade? When you have fought for so long to get to a point where the faith in oneself just might be rewarded in some fashion what happens if that isn't enough anymore. After having to dig deep for so long to muster the will to keep fighting is there anything left when the fight is over? Is the fight over or is it just a few minutes to catch one's breath? What if you don't know anymore?
There is an adage that a "rising tide lifts all ships" but I wonder something...what if the ship has taken on too much water.
There have been times the last several months where some very dark and disturbing thoughts have crossed my mind and during those times I find myself tested - Do I have anything left? How far down into ones own self can be reached before you hit bottom? And when that happens, then what? Keep digging? Find a new bottom? I've never been one to quit and I haven't yet but being beat is different from quitting.
This could be a week where some of these questions might find answers. I don't know. I don't know anything anymore nor do I trust myself half the time it seems. I just keep moving, keeping pushing, keep fighting to go forward through it all. How far back do I have to go? Where's the line? Each time I think I'm making progress regarding home, work, or love lives the illusion seems to collapse in on itself, leaving me to wonder if it was real to begin with or am I fighting so hard for anything that resembles "light" - because the deeper down I go, the darker things get.
I'm still fighting. I'm still keeping the faith in myself.
I don't know how much I have left but the band keeps playing on.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
War is a necessary form of diplomacy...
...and it's also a job, specifically for those in the military. It works like this: Our nation's defense is so important we have a department in the government that focuses solely on defending this nation. It is, in no clever form of wordplay, called the Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD is the "parent" to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines (who technically fall under the Navy, but I digress). The DoD's mission is defending this nation from its enemies and yes, in some cases, that means going to war.
Sorry folks, but the peace loving days of the 60s are over. They ended for this nation on February 26, 1993 - the first time terrorists tried bombing the World Trade Center. Don't think our peace loving days ended then? Okay, then how about April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed. By the way, that bombing was conducted by an American.
A few facts about that "home grown" terrorist act: It was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until September 11, 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen–block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The reason? Mr. McVeigh was protesting the government's handling of the Waco Siege in 1993 and the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992. Long gone are the days of protests being conducted in the more civilized manner of the 1960s (peace marches, sit-ins, love-ins, etc.). I'm not saying those protests were all peaceful in their own right as a fair amount of riots also occurred, but compare the death toll and the number of people injured compared to Oklahoma City.
My point here is that we are living in a new world order and not everyone is playing by the same set of rules. It's a new game and as such we have to play a little bit of catch up in some areas, namely fighting an enemy who is not afraid to die.
Think about it for a moment. Most people fight to live. There are some people who want to die and will aspire to do so by nearly any means possible. It's not a stereotype to say that most of these people are enemies of the United States, and as such, we must fight these enemies so that we might live, thrive, prosper, and grow. (It's inconsequential these individuals want to die, our fight is for our survival).
In general we don't fight because we want to, we fight because we have to. For those individuals that want to be part of this fight and protect our nation, its interests, and its people, we have an organization devoted to such a cause: The aforementioned Department of Defense (DoD).
The DoD is an all volunteer force. I will repeat this because it bears repeating - the United States Department of Defense, the military, is an all volunteer force. The draft has been over for almost 37 years. (January 27, 1973 - Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird announces the draft is ended in favor of voluntary enlistment.) This means that this nation, and its government, have not drafted anyone to take up this fight since January 1973. How do we staff the military? Volunteers.
These volunteers do benefit from their military service, traditionally in the form of specialized training and experience, as well as other tangible benefits such as the G.I. Bill to help pay for college, or the VA Loan Guarantee so a veteran can buy a home (with no down payment or PMI as the VA is guaranteeing the loan). This guarantee is no small thing either. For example, in most Virginia counties, the VA backed loan for a single family home is $812,500, with a Ginnie Mae backed maximum guaranty of $1,000.000. Read those numbers again, I'll wait.
For example, the home loan guarantee is a significant benefit. It enabled me to buy my first house at the age of 23 - one year out of the Navy and into a new job (for which the Navy provided the training and experience).
These are just two of the many benefits available to veterans. My point here is that we have a volunteer military, and those volunteers are compensated for their service in many ways. These benefits have their price, and that price is doing the job for which one volunteered. Now that might not seem like such an extreme point, I mean, if one accepts a job as a mechanic and is told to change a car's oil, you do it because it's part of the job. You don't protest, or complain, or try to get out of it because you are being compensated, in the form of a paycheck (and in some cases, additional benefits). You don't like it, you quit and leave because in this country the right to work at will is protected. You didn't sign a contract. There's no obligation.
But in the military there is a contract and an obligation. When one enlists or accepts an officer's commission, what is also accepted are the duties and responsibilities of the job for which one volunteered. One of those jobs is war. Going to war, fighting a war, and ideally, winning such war. (Granted the term "winning" applies to conventional warfare, such as when one's enemy is vanquished or surrenders, but I refer back to my earlier statement that the "rules have changed").
When I enlisted in the Navy I understood that fighting in a war was a possibility - a risk. In the legal world one might say I "assumed the risk". I was working August 2nd, 1990 - the night Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. We all looked at one another and knew, without having to say it, that it was only a matter of time before the United States officially declared war. In the subsequent days and weeks we didn't talk about how to get out of fighting, or ways to avoid being sent to the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East, we talked about how our roles had changed, about how our jobs were now more important, and most important, this is what all the training and drills was about - fighting a war. We were ready. We didn't like it. We didn't write or sing war songs. We didn't glorify things. We accepted matters. War was part of our job.
While we prepared for work the civilians we were protecting were glorifying matters. Topps, the makes of sports cards, printed sets of Desert Storm Trading Cards with pictures of tanks, weapons, and other war related paraphernalia. My own father would call me to tell me the latest war joke he heard, laughing about how "MRE" (Meals Ready to Eat) stood for "Meals Rejected by Ethiopians". He's laughing while tens of thousands of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines, are eating these very same MREs for each meal. I was irritated by his jokes but I also understood no harm was meant by them. No understanding either. Something every one of these soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines will say is this statement, word for word: "I might not like what you say but I defend your right to say it."
Think about that for a moment. While many sit here and make jokes about the military, and the food (which over time has improved but still nothing like a hot home cooked meal), the very same military is "out there" fighting, killing, and dying, to protect those rights. In my opinion, the only ones who can make fun of military living are those who have served. The right has been earned. Furthermore, those have lived it. They've done the work. They've prepared for the fight. If another Navy vet tells me a joke about living on a ship or a submarine I will almost assuredly have a good laugh. If a non-veteran tells me a joke about living on a ship or a submarine I will not laugh but rather ask them "What gives you the right? Have you been there? Have you done it?".
There are some who have joined the military who have decided they don't want to go to war and will do whatever they can to get out of doing their job. I'm not talking about a higher calling regarding "serving one's country" but rather the basic premise of "doing your job", especially the job for which you volunteered. It is no secret when one signs the contract that being deployed to some far off land is a possibility, especially if one signed such a contract after September 11th, 2001.
War has been deemed a necessary part of diplomacy and politics but war is a terrible thing that serves no purpose but its own. However, war is also a necessary responsibility, and requirement, of those who have volunteered to fight it. No solider, airman, sailor, or marine takes joy in having to fight. War is not a Hollywood movie; war is a job.
If you don't like the job then don't volunteer to do the job when called upon.
Sorry folks, but the peace loving days of the 60s are over. They ended for this nation on February 26, 1993 - the first time terrorists tried bombing the World Trade Center. Don't think our peace loving days ended then? Okay, then how about April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed. By the way, that bombing was conducted by an American.
A few facts about that "home grown" terrorist act: It was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until September 11, 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen–block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The reason? Mr. McVeigh was protesting the government's handling of the Waco Siege in 1993 and the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992. Long gone are the days of protests being conducted in the more civilized manner of the 1960s (peace marches, sit-ins, love-ins, etc.). I'm not saying those protests were all peaceful in their own right as a fair amount of riots also occurred, but compare the death toll and the number of people injured compared to Oklahoma City.
My point here is that we are living in a new world order and not everyone is playing by the same set of rules. It's a new game and as such we have to play a little bit of catch up in some areas, namely fighting an enemy who is not afraid to die.
Think about it for a moment. Most people fight to live. There are some people who want to die and will aspire to do so by nearly any means possible. It's not a stereotype to say that most of these people are enemies of the United States, and as such, we must fight these enemies so that we might live, thrive, prosper, and grow. (It's inconsequential these individuals want to die, our fight is for our survival).
In general we don't fight because we want to, we fight because we have to. For those individuals that want to be part of this fight and protect our nation, its interests, and its people, we have an organization devoted to such a cause: The aforementioned Department of Defense (DoD).
The DoD is an all volunteer force. I will repeat this because it bears repeating - the United States Department of Defense, the military, is an all volunteer force. The draft has been over for almost 37 years. (January 27, 1973 - Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird announces the draft is ended in favor of voluntary enlistment.) This means that this nation, and its government, have not drafted anyone to take up this fight since January 1973. How do we staff the military? Volunteers.
These volunteers do benefit from their military service, traditionally in the form of specialized training and experience, as well as other tangible benefits such as the G.I. Bill to help pay for college, or the VA Loan Guarantee so a veteran can buy a home (with no down payment or PMI as the VA is guaranteeing the loan). This guarantee is no small thing either. For example, in most Virginia counties, the VA backed loan for a single family home is $812,500, with a Ginnie Mae backed maximum guaranty of $1,000.000. Read those numbers again, I'll wait.
For example, the home loan guarantee is a significant benefit. It enabled me to buy my first house at the age of 23 - one year out of the Navy and into a new job (for which the Navy provided the training and experience).
These are just two of the many benefits available to veterans. My point here is that we have a volunteer military, and those volunteers are compensated for their service in many ways. These benefits have their price, and that price is doing the job for which one volunteered. Now that might not seem like such an extreme point, I mean, if one accepts a job as a mechanic and is told to change a car's oil, you do it because it's part of the job. You don't protest, or complain, or try to get out of it because you are being compensated, in the form of a paycheck (and in some cases, additional benefits). You don't like it, you quit and leave because in this country the right to work at will is protected. You didn't sign a contract. There's no obligation.
But in the military there is a contract and an obligation. When one enlists or accepts an officer's commission, what is also accepted are the duties and responsibilities of the job for which one volunteered. One of those jobs is war. Going to war, fighting a war, and ideally, winning such war. (Granted the term "winning" applies to conventional warfare, such as when one's enemy is vanquished or surrenders, but I refer back to my earlier statement that the "rules have changed").
When I enlisted in the Navy I understood that fighting in a war was a possibility - a risk. In the legal world one might say I "assumed the risk". I was working August 2nd, 1990 - the night Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. We all looked at one another and knew, without having to say it, that it was only a matter of time before the United States officially declared war. In the subsequent days and weeks we didn't talk about how to get out of fighting, or ways to avoid being sent to the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East, we talked about how our roles had changed, about how our jobs were now more important, and most important, this is what all the training and drills was about - fighting a war. We were ready. We didn't like it. We didn't write or sing war songs. We didn't glorify things. We accepted matters. War was part of our job.
While we prepared for work the civilians we were protecting were glorifying matters. Topps, the makes of sports cards, printed sets of Desert Storm Trading Cards with pictures of tanks, weapons, and other war related paraphernalia. My own father would call me to tell me the latest war joke he heard, laughing about how "MRE" (Meals Ready to Eat) stood for "Meals Rejected by Ethiopians". He's laughing while tens of thousands of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines, are eating these very same MREs for each meal. I was irritated by his jokes but I also understood no harm was meant by them. No understanding either. Something every one of these soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines will say is this statement, word for word: "I might not like what you say but I defend your right to say it."
Think about that for a moment. While many sit here and make jokes about the military, and the food (which over time has improved but still nothing like a hot home cooked meal), the very same military is "out there" fighting, killing, and dying, to protect those rights. In my opinion, the only ones who can make fun of military living are those who have served. The right has been earned. Furthermore, those have lived it. They've done the work. They've prepared for the fight. If another Navy vet tells me a joke about living on a ship or a submarine I will almost assuredly have a good laugh. If a non-veteran tells me a joke about living on a ship or a submarine I will not laugh but rather ask them "What gives you the right? Have you been there? Have you done it?".
There are some who have joined the military who have decided they don't want to go to war and will do whatever they can to get out of doing their job. I'm not talking about a higher calling regarding "serving one's country" but rather the basic premise of "doing your job", especially the job for which you volunteered. It is no secret when one signs the contract that being deployed to some far off land is a possibility, especially if one signed such a contract after September 11th, 2001.
War has been deemed a necessary part of diplomacy and politics but war is a terrible thing that serves no purpose but its own. However, war is also a necessary responsibility, and requirement, of those who have volunteered to fight it. No solider, airman, sailor, or marine takes joy in having to fight. War is not a Hollywood movie; war is a job.
If you don't like the job then don't volunteer to do the job when called upon.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
I'm confused. Is this an interview for a job or a date?
I've found many similarities between finding a new job and finding a date. Both start with one submitting one's qualifications in some manner.
Job hunting: Here is my cover letter and my resume.
Dating: Here is the car I drive and my resume.
Then comes the Q&A period, usually starting with a phone call.
Job hunting: This is an initial phone screening before we move on to an interview (in person).
Dating: This is an initial phone screening before we move on to an interview (in person).
Then once one has said all the right things and has struck a balance between knowledgeable, charming, and humble, the next step can happen.
Job hunting: Thank you for meeting with us so we can talk more in person about what we're looking for regarding this position.
Dating: Thank you for meeting me so we can talk more in person about what I'm looking for in a potential boyfriend/husband.
What's even more ironic is the line of questions that follow almost become interchangeable.
What can you do for me/us?
Why are you looking for something new?
What relevant experience do you have?
Can you provide references?
When are you available?
This is all leads to further exasperation because there are many applying for the one position, whether it be a job or as a boyfriend. With the advent of the internet coming into both of these practices it's even worse when the initial contact is via on-line. With a resume, if certain words don't match up to some recruiting database you'll likely be passed over. With dating, if certain words don't match up with prospective mates, you'll likely be passed over. What has developed is what I refer to as the "Buzzword Bingo" approach.
To give an idea of what I'm talking about, here is an example. If I listed everything I've done (of some significance) on my resume it would come in about 8-9 pages long. I've done it and decided it was just too overwhelming. To put it into perspective, technical resumes tend to be longer because of some of the detail that might be necessary, such as the aforementioned "Buzzword Bingo". Further example, I could fill almost half a page if I listed all the types of networks I have designed, engineered, and/or supported. It can be a bit much.
So I choose a few of the more common types and summarize the rest under broader terms. But if the recruiting database, often used by recruiters who don't understand what they're looking for anyway, doesn't "understand" this then I'm passed by. It's like saying you know how to drive a stick shift vehicle, and that's what your resume says, but the database is configured to look for words or phrases such as "manual", "clutch", or "standard". See the problem? So what? The resume also becomes a thesaurus? Stop the insanity.
The same thing happens in the dating world. Everything is online these days, and I'm not even talking about online dating sites (Match.com, eHarmony, Singles.net, jdate, American Singles, whowantsaslut.com, etc.), I'm talking about MySpace, Facebook, and even Linkedin, can all be used to vet potential dates. All you need to do is enter your prospective date's name into a search box and voila! There you will find everything you want to know without actually talking to this person, but more on this in another rambling.
If we focus on the online dating sites (ok, I made up whowantsaslut.com, or did I?), the same approach applies. There is no sense of discovery. Each of these profiles has check boxes next to certain activities and damn it...gnome bowling is a real sport! As is midget tossing! As is curling! (Ok...one of these might be made up). But that's my point.
We are reduced to entries in a database, whether it be for a job or a date. We're rapidly losing whatever individuality we have left, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better. The rejection in either of these scenarios is just as frustrating. Some companies will reject your resume out of hand because it didn't have enough of certain "key phrases" based on a database match. Even though "stick shift", "manual", and "clutch" all describe the same operation. Dating? Same principle applies. Dwarf tossing might as well be midget tossing but if there isn't a check box to match these two prospects up it becomes another missed opportunity and you end up being "rejected".
Einstein once defined insanity as "performing the same task in a repeated manner expecting a different result each time." With this in mind, I'm confused. Is this an interview for a job or a date?
Job hunting: Here is my cover letter and my resume.
Dating: Here is the car I drive and my resume.
Then comes the Q&A period, usually starting with a phone call.
Job hunting: This is an initial phone screening before we move on to an interview (in person).
Dating: This is an initial phone screening before we move on to an interview (in person).
Then once one has said all the right things and has struck a balance between knowledgeable, charming, and humble, the next step can happen.
Job hunting: Thank you for meeting with us so we can talk more in person about what we're looking for regarding this position.
Dating: Thank you for meeting me so we can talk more in person about what I'm looking for in a potential boyfriend/husband.
What's even more ironic is the line of questions that follow almost become interchangeable.
What can you do for me/us?
Why are you looking for something new?
What relevant experience do you have?
Can you provide references?
When are you available?
This is all leads to further exasperation because there are many applying for the one position, whether it be a job or as a boyfriend. With the advent of the internet coming into both of these practices it's even worse when the initial contact is via on-line. With a resume, if certain words don't match up to some recruiting database you'll likely be passed over. With dating, if certain words don't match up with prospective mates, you'll likely be passed over. What has developed is what I refer to as the "Buzzword Bingo" approach.
To give an idea of what I'm talking about, here is an example. If I listed everything I've done (of some significance) on my resume it would come in about 8-9 pages long. I've done it and decided it was just too overwhelming. To put it into perspective, technical resumes tend to be longer because of some of the detail that might be necessary, such as the aforementioned "Buzzword Bingo". Further example, I could fill almost half a page if I listed all the types of networks I have designed, engineered, and/or supported. It can be a bit much.
So I choose a few of the more common types and summarize the rest under broader terms. But if the recruiting database, often used by recruiters who don't understand what they're looking for anyway, doesn't "understand" this then I'm passed by. It's like saying you know how to drive a stick shift vehicle, and that's what your resume says, but the database is configured to look for words or phrases such as "manual", "clutch", or "standard". See the problem? So what? The resume also becomes a thesaurus? Stop the insanity.
The same thing happens in the dating world. Everything is online these days, and I'm not even talking about online dating sites (Match.com, eHarmony, Singles.net, jdate, American Singles, whowantsaslut.com, etc.), I'm talking about MySpace, Facebook, and even Linkedin, can all be used to vet potential dates. All you need to do is enter your prospective date's name into a search box and voila! There you will find everything you want to know without actually talking to this person, but more on this in another rambling.
If we focus on the online dating sites (ok, I made up whowantsaslut.com, or did I?), the same approach applies. There is no sense of discovery. Each of these profiles has check boxes next to certain activities and damn it...gnome bowling is a real sport! As is midget tossing! As is curling! (Ok...one of these might be made up). But that's my point.
We are reduced to entries in a database, whether it be for a job or a date. We're rapidly losing whatever individuality we have left, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better. The rejection in either of these scenarios is just as frustrating. Some companies will reject your resume out of hand because it didn't have enough of certain "key phrases" based on a database match. Even though "stick shift", "manual", and "clutch" all describe the same operation. Dating? Same principle applies. Dwarf tossing might as well be midget tossing but if there isn't a check box to match these two prospects up it becomes another missed opportunity and you end up being "rejected".
Einstein once defined insanity as "performing the same task in a repeated manner expecting a different result each time." With this in mind, I'm confused. Is this an interview for a job or a date?
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Meghan McCain, Twitter, and Boobs
I waited for the furor to die down before I chimed in on this ridiculous piece of "news".
By way of introduction. Here is a copy of the, by now infamous, Twitter photo of Meghan McCain, her book, and her boobs.
Second, what's the big deal? As we do in law school, let's break this down into its elements.
Meghan McCain. Love her. Hate her. Don't care either way. I give the woman credit for at least having a voice and using it. One might not always agree with the things she says but at least she is articulate enough to express her thoughts into words that are not coated in the media news or political candy shell covering. I'm not saying she is the "be all and end all" but at least she tries to contribute to the world in a positive way - with her thoughts and her words. For those who might not know, Meghan is also a contributing writer to The Daily Beast. She is known for being a bit outspoken, notably with her "Pro Sex" views that seems to send the conservatives into a tailspin.
But here's the thing that I find interesting...she is contributing in some positive manner. By comparison what are some other women constantly in the media doing to contribute? Driving drunk through an In-and-Out drive-thru (Paris Hilton, I'm talking to you), "leaking" a sex tape (Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson, Vanessa Hudgens, shall I continue....?), or confusing their acting roles with the real world (Martin Sheen, just because you played the President on TV doesn't mean you actually were, or are, the President).
This world has been turned upside down that the media whores get themselves into a frenzy because a woman posted a picture of herself wearing a tank top that had a bit of a "push up" effect. But because she has large breasts - in her own words "bigger than some other women, not as big as others" - she is a slut looking for media attention. There were many who responded to this picture by calling her a "slut". Why? Are we so insecure that we , as a people, will throw anyone under the bus just so we can feel good about ourselves.
In her own words, she was wearing sweatpants and a tank shirt and posted the picture to highlight she was being a "dork" by staying in one night reading (Andy Warhol's biography). From a purely physical perspective Meghan is a healthy size 10. What I want to know is this: When did a women being a size 10 be considered "large"? An example by comparison, Marilyn Monroe fluctuated around size 14/16. Today it seems no one would pay her any attention unless she was a contestant on "The Biggest Loser."
I have women friends who range in size from 0-16 and there is an interesting shared trait amongst all of them when it comes to clothing, and a trait that the "offending" Twitter picture seemed to highlight: the way tank shirts are cut seem to add a "push up" effect to a woman's cleavage. It happens. Men have shrinkage in cold water, women have "breast enhancement" in tank shirts. It's not fair. Get over it. Move on.
It seems to me that if you are an attractive woman, by all that is holy in this world, cover up those legs and those breasts. Unless you are putting them out there "for sale" (see aforementioned celebrity references) and are willing to close the deal, cover them up! How ridiculous is this? In rebellion against our Puritanical roots we have become so sex obsessed nowadays that we see it in everything, including pictures taken by parents of their young (at the time of the incident, the girls were 5, 4 and 1 1/2) children taking a bath. Wal-Mart of Peoria, Arizona, I'm talking to you!
I am not a feminist in male clothing. I don't care. Man. Woman. White. Black. Yellow. Polka-dot. All I've ever cared about is "can you do the job you've been hired to do?" That's it. Everything else doesn't matter. What I care about is whether or not you have something to add that is of value. Does your presence or input make the world a better place?
For the record, I happen to think Meghan McCain is attractive. When I saw her on The Colbert Report I thought "Wow! This is a woman who knows how to carry herself. She is confident." See, to me, a confidant woman is sexy. A confidant and smart woman? Hell, I'll marry you right now.
Which brings me to what I found more of interest in "Twittergate". While the media boobs were obsessing over, well, boobs, did anyone really happen to take notice of the book she was reading? Andy Warhol's biography. Andy Warhol was a person of depth and dimension. From Wikipedia: Andy Warhol was an American painter, printmaker, and filmmaker who was a leading figure in the visual arts movement known as "pop art". Andy Warhol was someone who contributed to the world, and it wasn't with a sex tape, reality TV show, or some grand Hollywood staged event, he did it with his work. There is much today that can be attributed to Andy Warhol, even the very "15 minutes of fame" that everyone seems to seek was codified by Warhol.
What interests me about Meghan McCain and this book is that she was expressing a curiosity about the world in a manner that belies a desire to seek a deeper understanding. It wasn't some Hollywood daughter's [auto]biography, or the latest issue of People, or US Weekly, or some other print media that could be considered a crime against nature for its very existence. Don't get me wrong, I like good brain candy as much as anyone else but I don't let it consume me and become my very raison d'etre. To me, current events are about what's happening in the world, not Lindsay Lohan's latest DUI, or who Paris Hilton's best friend of the week happens to be (is there a club requiring membership dues, like a book-of-the-month club or the like?), or whichever celebrity is famous for doing whatever it was she did to be famous to begin with. I wonder how many of these "celebrities" or other persons of notoriety would actually read a book. I mean, a book has words requiring the use of one's brain. Generally a book has no pictures, perfume samples, or gossip.
I like a woman with a brain, and who not only knows how to use it, but isn't afraid to use it either. If I had a choice of a woman who wearing a little black cocktail dress carrying a martini glass in her hand but nothing to say or a woman in sweats reading a book, I'd take the latter every time. To me, the second is the sexier of the two options without question. But that's the thing, that's "to me". Others have their own preferences and desires. Good. No where in any writings through the years has it been written we should be lemmings and follow one another over the edge of a cliff. We're supposed to have independent thoughts and ideas and we shouldn't be chastised for expressing them. Just because we, as a people, might not like what we hear, we should still listen, because next time, maybe we will like what we hear, or we might even learn something (this fact alone could bring the end of the world to some).
As for Meghan McCain, her book, and her boobs. I'd love the opportunity to have dinner with all three. Maybe we can exchange ideas, have good conversation, and while we might not agree on all things, maybe, just maybe, we might at least agree on some good books to read.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Be careful what you wish for
The original intention of this blog was to keep everyone updated regarding my adventures in far off lands. Now, who knows what's going to happen and where I'm going to end up...both physically and emotionally (as it were).
In response to numerous demands I'll be writing more here, but as the adage goes, be careful what you wish for. Lately I've felt more at times like I've been in a dark place...fighting to get out, and losing. I don't know what's going to happen but I have no intentions of editing myself here.
In the last six months I've lost my job, my mom (this means all grandparents and parents are gone), pretty much all of my money, and in danger of losing my house.
This is the worst time in 30+ years to be looking for work. Work -> money -> saving house.
How am I doing?
You've been warned.
In response to numerous demands I'll be writing more here, but as the adage goes, be careful what you wish for. Lately I've felt more at times like I've been in a dark place...fighting to get out, and losing. I don't know what's going to happen but I have no intentions of editing myself here.
In the last six months I've lost my job, my mom (this means all grandparents and parents are gone), pretty much all of my money, and in danger of losing my house.
This is the worst time in 30+ years to be looking for work. Work -> money -> saving house.
How am I doing?
You've been warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)