I post infrequently to this blog. I posted fairly frequently during the election, I suppose, but I have posted less frequently post-election. I have posted occasionally in the last 10 days to express my considerable approval for the job our president is doing in his first days in office. I expect I will continue to do so. I heart Obama, I suppose.
I also heart Stephen Fry, as attested by a couple of posts in December. (One on the 18th. Another on the 19th) And as someone who enjoys Stephen and his blog and his blessays I was quite happy to see that he has finally posted a new blog entry – not a blessay, this time – on his site. Stephen blogs less frequently than myself, you see, but when he does it’s worth reading.
And I suppose today’s would be worth reading if I tweeted. If I were a Twitter user. Which I am not.
If I were it might have been useful to absorb, fully, Stephen’s suggested ground rules for tweeting / twittering him. He has a number of Twitter followers you see, and he simply cannot keep up with them all, but he shall try and he has presented them with suggestions for how best to tweet in his particular case.
He ends the post saying “Welcome to my twitterworld, I am delighted to have you as a follower. Let’s enjoy ourselves and to hell with those who don’t get it.”
Well, I don’t get it. I will not be a part of Stephen's twitterworld, or anyone’s. So to hell with me.
(Well, maybe Obama’s… That might be cool… I don't know if Obama ever tweeted, though, and if he did I doubt he is permitted to do so now. So...)
I don’t tweet.
I don’t tweet. I haven’t tweeted. I do not intend to tweet. I will not tweet.
On some level the very concept of constantly updating people as to where I am and what I’m doing simply disturbs me.
I think I can safely say that Twitter was inspired by Facebook and its users’ ability to update their status, and their tendency to do so constantly.
Just now I logged into Facebook to see exactly how I worded my last status update. I see that on the 19th I updated it to reflect that I am “indulging in high hopes for the Obama presidency” and I see no need to update that. I still am indulging my high hopes even though many of my hopes have already been met. I have higher hopes, still.
The point: Apparently it’s been 10 days since I updated my facebook status.
...
In the midst of this column I find myself tempted to update my Facebook status, which is annoying, as I am in mid-rant about the frivolousness of the entire enterprise.
Here’s the thing: It might not be frivolous today.
...
We’ve had kind of a big week in Louisville, Kentucky. Many hours of freezing rain has caused trees to become over-weight with ice. This was later compounded with snow, so trees have fallen or dropped branches, snapping power-lines in the process. Some of the power-lines snapped under the weight of the ice and snow without any trees’ helpful assistance. This has resulted in power outages for roughly a third of the population of the city / county.
Louisville had finally recovered from the remnants of Hurricane Ike which had much the same effect back in September. (My neighbor finally got his roof fixed last week...) Of course, Ike knocked out power for nearly three-fourths of the metro area, affecting many more people than are affected now.
So I find, as I look at Facebook, that I am becoming apprised of the status of various folks I know. A few are thankful they have power. Others have uploaded photos of various ice-covered or icicle-laden objects.
Perhaps it would be of some utility to update my status to “is without power at home, but is able to get to work without difficulty from his fiancee’s.” Anyone concerned for my well-being would be instantly updated, with no real effort on their part.
I’d like to see a little effort, though.
During this time of difficulty my parents have called to make sure I’m alright. (They have power, incidentally, but they have one tree leaning on their garage and another that is partly in their neighbors’ driveway.) My intended and I have been updating each other frequently. (She’s safely at work at our state capitol today, although there was a significant delay on the interstate.) Through my parents I am aware that my brother and his family have power and cell phones, although their land-line is out (but the DSL is working – what’s up with that?).
What I’m saying is that I do not feel the need to broadcast my status, or changes to my status, to any group of people. Individuals can learn of my status by contacting me directly, or through traditional social-networking to which the word “online” does not pertain.
Individuals can alternatively simply assume that everything’s fine - that's usually the case - in a detail-free kind of way.
I guess that’s it – the details. So much of current online interaction is about sharing the details of one’s life with everyone who cares to know. I did this effectively - but much less efficiently - in my 20’s through direct social interaction and near-constant use of the phone (and a little email, too) until I finally had a minor epiphany that even my best friends did not require and were perhaps uninterested in the level of detail I was providing.
This was a hard-won revelation, and I find myself unwilling to reverse my relatively newfound position.
For that matter, the older I get the more I appreciate a certain degree of privacy, just for its own sake.
And then there’s the matter of security. If I broadcast the details of my daily routine then characters of a malicious nature would be able to know when my house is empty and therefore easily robbed. They might also know that there’s nothing worth stealing, so it would probably be moot, but still...
It just seems odd, in an age in which many people are very concerned about identity theft and fraud, that many people are now willing to put many details of their life out there for all to see. A traditional con artist could make bank exploiting this. It seems to me like a constant series of unnecessary risks.
I guess I don’t get it. So to hell with me.
Maybe I should update my status to “is going to hell.”...?
That wouldn’t really be an update, though. Surely my Facebook friends already knew that.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
President Obama! (continued)
In Friday's post I went over many of President Obama's accomplishments in his first 3.5 days in office. Today I want to draw your attention to a couple things that have transpired since.
I'll update this post or add new posts as I become aware of additional exciting or interesting accomplishments of the new administration.
- President Obama has been interviewed by Al-Arabiya, and Arabic-language news channel that broadcasts from Dubai. Here's a transcript of the interview.
- President Obama has signalled the reversal of a decision made by the EPA under Bush. California will soon again be allowed to set its own car emissions and fuel-efficiency standards, as it did prior to 2005.
I'll update this post or add new posts as I become aware of additional exciting or interesting accomplishments of the new administration.
Friday, January 23, 2009
President Obama!
In fact, I think I owe that same friend another “I was wrong.”…
I was, of course, overjoyed by the inauguration. That being said, I am yet more joyed (over-overjoyed? Uberoverjoyed? Superjoyed?) at what Obama has done in just a few days in office.
- He’s begun the process of closing Gitmo.
- He’s ordered an end to torture by American intelligence.
- He’s begun the process of withdrawing from
- He’s also approved a drone-strike on an Al-Qaeda leader within
- He’s instituted a pay freeze for White House staff making over $100,000 a year.
- He’s banned anyone who serves in the administration from lobbying the executive branch for the entire duration of his presidency
- He’s directed decision-makers to err on the side of transparency when it comes to Freedom of Information Act requests and other requests.
- He’s been in direct contact with
- He’s appointed George Mitchell as Middle East Envoy.
- Key components of his recovery plan are making their way through the House.
- And the FDA has allowed increased stem cell research.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The latest on Electric Cars
Every once in a while I pop over to betterplace.com to see what's the latest with their take on the electric car. It so happens that Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek has recently interviewed Shai Agassi of Better Place. Here's the interview, in which Agassi makes the case for electric cars.
This is gonna take a while, but I think it's going to happen for populated areas. There will still be huge portions of the midwest where some kind of fuel-burning vehicles - or perhaps hybrids - will have to remain the norm for a long, long time, but for the East Coast and the Left Coast I think Agassi has made his case.
This is gonna take a while, but I think it's going to happen for populated areas. There will still be huge portions of the midwest where some kind of fuel-burning vehicles - or perhaps hybrids - will have to remain the norm for a long, long time, but for the East Coast and the Left Coast I think Agassi has made his case.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Presidency, Homosexuality, and The Church(es)
There are a number of items in the news lately that have me thinking about these evidently interrelated subjects.
Let’s start with Rick Warren.
I like Rick Warren when he’s speaking out of the public side of his face. He has seemed, at times, to be moving past the big hot-button issues of abortion and homosexuality – almost setting them aside as issues that are being adequately addressed by conservative Christian churches already – in order to concentrate on other issues that are in need of more attention such as poverty, illness, and illiteracy. Those three issues are specifically addressed in the ACE portion of his PEACE plan, in fact. I agree with him that doing these things is part of the “Great Commandment” (as it is sometimes known) to “do unto others...” For that matter, there are more specific verses in the Bible that command its followers to feed, clothe and shelter the poor and the sick then there are to heave stones at the occasional homosexual, so I applaud someone who prioritizes appropriately.
But out of the other side of his mouth Warren exhorted his parishioners to vote in favor of California’s Proposition 8. And he also made a – possibly unnecessary – statement the day after his presidential election Civic Forum that let it be known that he could not find it within himself to vote for Obama. Specifically, Warren compared the aborted to victims of the Holocaust, and likened Obama to a Holocaust denier.
Nice. Yeah.
So Warren is now giving the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Many people on the left are completely up in arms about this. They seem much more upset about Warren’s support of Proposition 8 than they do about the Holocaust comparisons.
Warren is certainly an interesting choice on Obama’s part. It shows Obama’s willingness and ability to work with people with whom he has disagreements.
Obama doesn’t support gay marriage, though, so Prop 8 may be an area in which he and Warren agree.
It’s not an area where he agrees with another inaugural invocator: Openly gay bishop the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson. Robinson stated in an interview with The Advocate that he would be "pushing" Obama on the issue of gay marriage, in fact.
Incidentally, Robinson has not been placed on the bill as a response to complaints about Warren.
He was scheduled prior to the dust-up about the Saddleback pastor.
Maybe it just shows foresight on Obama's part. Foresight is a good thing for a president to have.
I have to admit that playing to both sides of this issue really clouds Obama’s position. Which is probably what he wants. Obama is a centrist. He was often portrayed as a leftist, but anyone who familiarizes themselves with Obama’s positions shouldn’t mistake him for one. (That doesn’t mean Obama won’t give people opportunity to mistake his position on the political spectrum, though.)
And then there’s Ted Haggard.
At best, Haggard is tangential to this post, I admit. Still, it seems like I should be able to fit a former pastor who continues to wrestle with his own sexuality into a post about religious leaders on both sides of the gay marriage issue.
In this story from Newsweek it is revealed that Haggard was completely rejected by his church at a time when he most needed their support and help. His church even required him, for a while, not just to leave the New Life Church but to leave the state of Colorado. The church has since relented and has allowed him to return to both, if he chooses.
He has chosen to return to Colorado, but not to New Life Church. Haggard’s new life, then, is that of a mortgage salesman. Evidently he’s doing okay.
His spiritual life is a purely private matter now. He and his family are not attending services at any church. He fears he is not able to do so without bringing inordinate attention to any congregation he might encounter.
You know, if there’s a church in Colorado that would like some publicity, all it would have to do is invite Ted to attend... Just saying.
Hmmm, maybe Obama could invite Haggard to the inauguration? It would confuse the issue even more, if that's possible.
- Rick Warren of Saddleback Church is delivering the invocation at Obama’s swearing-in ceremony next Tuesday.
- Openly gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson will deliver the invocation for this Sunday’s kickoff inaugural event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
- Ted Haggard, former head and founder of New Life Church and formerly an unofficial advisor to President W, is leading a quiet life these days, but not so quiet that it doesn’t warrant a piece in Newsweek. (That may say more about Newsweek than it does about Haggard)
Let’s start with Rick Warren.
I like Rick Warren when he’s speaking out of the public side of his face. He has seemed, at times, to be moving past the big hot-button issues of abortion and homosexuality – almost setting them aside as issues that are being adequately addressed by conservative Christian churches already – in order to concentrate on other issues that are in need of more attention such as poverty, illness, and illiteracy. Those three issues are specifically addressed in the ACE portion of his PEACE plan, in fact. I agree with him that doing these things is part of the “Great Commandment” (as it is sometimes known) to “do unto others...” For that matter, there are more specific verses in the Bible that command its followers to feed, clothe and shelter the poor and the sick then there are to heave stones at the occasional homosexual, so I applaud someone who prioritizes appropriately.
But out of the other side of his mouth Warren exhorted his parishioners to vote in favor of California’s Proposition 8. And he also made a – possibly unnecessary – statement the day after his presidential election Civic Forum that let it be known that he could not find it within himself to vote for Obama. Specifically, Warren compared the aborted to victims of the Holocaust, and likened Obama to a Holocaust denier.
Nice. Yeah.
So Warren is now giving the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Many people on the left are completely up in arms about this. They seem much more upset about Warren’s support of Proposition 8 than they do about the Holocaust comparisons.
Warren is certainly an interesting choice on Obama’s part. It shows Obama’s willingness and ability to work with people with whom he has disagreements.
Obama doesn’t support gay marriage, though, so Prop 8 may be an area in which he and Warren agree.
It’s not an area where he agrees with another inaugural invocator: Openly gay bishop the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson. Robinson stated in an interview with The Advocate that he would be "pushing" Obama on the issue of gay marriage, in fact.
Incidentally, Robinson has not been placed on the bill as a response to complaints about Warren.
He was scheduled prior to the dust-up about the Saddleback pastor.
Maybe it just shows foresight on Obama's part. Foresight is a good thing for a president to have.
I have to admit that playing to both sides of this issue really clouds Obama’s position. Which is probably what he wants. Obama is a centrist. He was often portrayed as a leftist, but anyone who familiarizes themselves with Obama’s positions shouldn’t mistake him for one. (That doesn’t mean Obama won’t give people opportunity to mistake his position on the political spectrum, though.)
And then there’s Ted Haggard.
At best, Haggard is tangential to this post, I admit. Still, it seems like I should be able to fit a former pastor who continues to wrestle with his own sexuality into a post about religious leaders on both sides of the gay marriage issue.
In this story from Newsweek it is revealed that Haggard was completely rejected by his church at a time when he most needed their support and help. His church even required him, for a while, not just to leave the New Life Church but to leave the state of Colorado. The church has since relented and has allowed him to return to both, if he chooses.
He has chosen to return to Colorado, but not to New Life Church. Haggard’s new life, then, is that of a mortgage salesman. Evidently he’s doing okay.
His spiritual life is a purely private matter now. He and his family are not attending services at any church. He fears he is not able to do so without bringing inordinate attention to any congregation he might encounter.
You know, if there’s a church in Colorado that would like some publicity, all it would have to do is invite Ted to attend... Just saying.
Hmmm, maybe Obama could invite Haggard to the inauguration? It would confuse the issue even more, if that's possible.
Pirates receive ransom then capsize, drown.
In case you haven't heard: The pirates who seized a Saudi oil tanker received roughly $3,000,000.00 in exchange for letting the ship go. They took their loot and fled, releasing the tanker.
According to this article in the Telegraph, "dozens of pirates" left the tanker. One small getaway boat carrying eight of the pirates capsized in a storm. Five of those eight pirates drowned, and all of the eight pirates' portion of the $3,000,000.00 ransom was lost at sea.
Fascinating.
CNN also has information on this, but its article says that the getaway skiff had five pirates aboard, four of whom drowned.
UPDATE: CNN is somehow talking to a surviving pirate, who is providing some kind of first hand account of the mishap.
According to this article in the Telegraph, "dozens of pirates" left the tanker. One small getaway boat carrying eight of the pirates capsized in a storm. Five of those eight pirates drowned, and all of the eight pirates' portion of the $3,000,000.00 ransom was lost at sea.
Fascinating.
CNN also has information on this, but its article says that the getaway skiff had five pirates aboard, four of whom drowned.
UPDATE: CNN is somehow talking to a surviving pirate, who is providing some kind of first hand account of the mishap.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Legalize it Obama!
With a headline that says "legalize it" I expect to attract a number of potheads to this blog. Sadly, weed is not what I'm wanting legalized. Not today, anyway.
No, I actually would like to see the American military presence in Iraq legalized. I want to see Congress legalize the SOFA.
Our presence in Iraq was legal. I'm not one of those Bush-detractors who claim that we went in there illegally. (I'm a Bush detractor who claims that we went in there immorally and unethically, but not illegally.)
Here's the thing: As of January 1st - as of today - our military presence in Iraq is illegal.
Our presence in Iraq was approved by Congress. Specifically, they approved the use of force in order to “defend the national security of the US from the threat posed by Iraq” and “enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.”
Iraq no longer poses a threat, and the relevant UN Security Council resolution expired at the end of December 31st.
Our military presence in Iraq is no longer approved by Congress. It's illegal.
It can be made legal. Bush has negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. Congress needs to approve the Status of Forces Agreement - the SOFA - in order to make our military presence in Iraq legal.
If they don't - if they let the SOFA stand without their explicit approval - then it sets a dangerous precedent that tacitly expands presidential power.
Obama, please present the SOFA to Congress for their approval.
Read more at the Daily Beast.
No, I actually would like to see the American military presence in Iraq legalized. I want to see Congress legalize the SOFA.
Our presence in Iraq was legal. I'm not one of those Bush-detractors who claim that we went in there illegally. (I'm a Bush detractor who claims that we went in there immorally and unethically, but not illegally.)
Here's the thing: As of January 1st - as of today - our military presence in Iraq is illegal.
Our presence in Iraq was approved by Congress. Specifically, they approved the use of force in order to “defend the national security of the US from the threat posed by Iraq” and “enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.”
Iraq no longer poses a threat, and the relevant UN Security Council resolution expired at the end of December 31st.
Our military presence in Iraq is no longer approved by Congress. It's illegal.
It can be made legal. Bush has negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. Congress needs to approve the Status of Forces Agreement - the SOFA - in order to make our military presence in Iraq legal.
If they don't - if they let the SOFA stand without their explicit approval - then it sets a dangerous precedent that tacitly expands presidential power.
Obama, please present the SOFA to Congress for their approval.
Read more at the Daily Beast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)