When your lawyer won't let you say "I'm Sorry"

As I read more about the sorry state of affairs with regards to the "Catholic priest scandals" it occurs to me that what most of the victims would have liked -- and probably still would appreciate -- is a simple, heartfelt apology.

Imagine if folks in the Catholic leadership would have said early on:

"You have been wronged and we are horrified at what has happened. Here is what we will do to prevent this from happening again..."

This same approach would be similarly the 'right thing' to do in many other circumstances as well, I believe.

"We found that two of our regional banks were overcharging approximately 4000 of our customers on their checking account monthly fees. We screwed up, plain and simple, and would like to offer our humble apologies... a credit for the overcharge... and additionally three months of waived fees for the inconvenience."

But the problem is, many organizations are damned if they do and damned if they don't come clean.

If they admit to wrongdoing, people (including greedy opportunists and their facilitating lawyers) are likely to take this admission of guilt as a ticket to sue them out of existence.

And of course, when these organizations do the 'legally recommended' thing and simply deny and often cover up guilt, we end up in situations whereby harm is multiplied and -- when the truth is found out -- the organizations are often skewered just as mercilessly (and by that time, often for good reason!).

Of course, it's not just organizations that are put between a rock and a hard place. If I had a dime for every time an obviously guilty person pleaded innocent, I'd be a (very) wealthy man.

"Mr. Smith, you were found at the scene of the crime with blood on your hands, a knife in your jacket pocket... and you were screaming 'die die die you yuppie scum!' when the police came across you and the newly deceased man you were kneeling over. How do you plead?"

"Innocent, Your Honor."

Uh huh.

I wish there were some way we could promote a greater urgency of truth telling in our culture without creating such strong legal repercussions.

Saying "I'm sorry" should be a course of first resort, not the result of someone speaking without his lawyer's permission.

Corporate Communications B.S.

I'm sure most folks probably don't pay much attention to tiny-print and speed-spoken corporate admonishments and disclaimers and the like, but I find them fascinating all the same.

They generally fall into two categories:
- Warnings about potential socially-undesireable outcomes / safety risks, like "Don't drink and drive" and "Commercial filmed by stunt driver... do not attempt these maneuvers."
- "Small print" restrictions, such as stuff outlining extra fees and taxes.

Does anyone else find this stuff to be completely ludicrous?



From my perspective, these 'notices' completely fail to either persuade or inform.

Are teens really going to drive more responsibly because the 7pt text on the bottom of the sports car ad urges them to do so?

How about college students, and the "Drink Responsibly" urgings of the liquor industry? I can just imagine it now, "Ya know, Biff, I'm totally digging this frat party and normally I'd love another shot and all... but I just saw this ad today, and on the very bottom it said to 'Drink Responsibly' so I guess I better have a 7up instead."

I also love the contests featured on TV in which some announcer speed-speaks the terms and/or the terms are displayed with 90mph scrolling in tiny text:

Send a 3x5 card to [ridiculously-long-and-hard-to-spell-address] along with a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Not valid in TN, WY, FL, GA, NC, SC, or states whose postal abbreviations contain two consonants. Odds are 17 in 48,819,901 or as determined by the jurisdictional laws and regulations of CA, unless entrant enters from NV, in which case different laws and regulations may apply. Taxes are the responsibility of the winner. In the case that winner is not of the age of majority, parents or guardians will be required to co-sign for delivery of prize, unless applicant is not of legal driving age in which parents will be required to claim and maintain ownership of any prize vehicles, excepting in Puerto Rico. For a complete list of terms and conditions, send a postcard to..."

This, of course, takes approximately 2 seconds or 2 millimeters, whichever comes first.

The drug TV ads are more amusing, however. Attractive housewife with husband and 2.4 kids and a dog are romping through a beautiful meadow, accompanied by bland-and-inoffensive-and-usually-unidentifiable music, all in the noble pursuit of making consumers aware that if they badger their doctors enough for this particular drug by name, they'll be saved from having to be prescribed an equally effective and considerably less costly generic alternative.

My favorite part of these commercials, however, is the breathlessly ejected warnings, which usually sound something like this: "Debtimaxinine may cause swelling of the small intenstines, hairloss, dry mouth, and other minor complications. In particularly severe cases, death may occur. Ask your doctor if debtimaxinine is right for you!"

Is a TV ad really the right forum to be even mentioning the pros and cons of taking a particular prescription drug? For that matter, is it really the best idea to be pushing potent childrens' prescription anti-depressants and the like on national TV anyway?

If our government were really smart, they'd put out the following bulletin to America's corporations:

CEO's, advertising agencies, and the like, pay attention! From this date forth, bullshit disclaimers will not carry any weight whatsoever in a court of law, nor will they fulfill any legal requirements for truthfully informing consumers about your products. You're going to have to do something shocking instead: ACTUALLY inform relevant parties (doctors, patients, people who buy or sell SUV's, etc.) of any substantive risks of your products.

Good news for you alcohol beverage producers: Despite your oft-questionable moral backbone in selling hard liquor to those who can least afford the drunkenness, we're going to actually side with the concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and PARENTAL GUIDANCE on this topic. We realize that requiring or encouraging you to post stupid pap like 'Drink responsibly' is never going to change behaviors. Indeed, we are not going to hold you responsible when some latchkey kid gets drunk and fries his housecat or when some schmuck drinks one two many and stupidly drives home.

But pharmaceutical company folk, wipe that grin off your faces. You've got a bit more responsibility here, since you've been often buying off doctors with expensive cruises, misleading the public with questionable claims, and basically squashing sales of generic or even herbal remedies that work with less expense and often less danger than your fancy-pants super-drugs.

We're going to require you to disclose your contributions to hospitals, doctors, and any other medical personnel, and we're also going to insist that you publish both plain-English notices about your drugs' risks, and also include a chart comparing their efficacy to relevant generics and even placebos.

Most importantly... boys... cut it out with the ridiculous 'disclosures' and 'disclaimers' that you know no one understands or even reads. Get real. Or we're gonna sic the same lawyers who won all the tobacco settlements on you guys, too.

Sick of being sick

Just a brief vent / whiny / self-pity exercise here.

I'm sick of being sick. I have a rager headache now (without an enjoyable party the night before to blame it on), and I'm congested. And of course, I'm scheduled to hang out with the fam tomorrow. Can't cancel on 'em, can't breathe on 'em, what's a guy to do?

I'd just smile and suck it up, but Jewish moms have a wonderous and frighteningly accurate way to know when your "I'm fine!" is a baldfaced lie.

So it's probably yet another cold, like my 4th or 5th this year. This sucks. I work out regularly, I eat well, I generally sleep okay. I even take vitamins, dangit.

Okay, so I'm just being a big baby right now.

Blah.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Just wanted to wish you tens of thousands of loyal readers a Happy Thanksgiving -- or for those of you from outside the good ol' U.S. of A., a very Happy November :-D

We're already all reminded to be thankful for the obvious -- our friends, family, health, etc. -- but hey, let's take a moment to be thankful for 'other' stuff, shall we? Here's my off-the-cuff list of the moment of untraditional appreciation, definitely in no particular order:

- Google... yay!
- Culinary spices... cinnamon, cilantro, basil... yum!
- Towel service at my gym
- Finding quarters, not just pennies underneath my couch or bed
- Random e-mails from nice people
- Good green tea
- Days with no allergies
- My friend's Akita
- Tito Puente
- Jimmy Carter
- Salon.com

Lots more, but I guess that's enough for now :-)

No Sex (parodies) please, we're British!

I had no idea that by British broadcasting regulations, it's not permitted to parody living celebrities, politicians, or other famous folk without their permission.

As one British TV producer wryly noted, this could make for some complications in parodying Mr. Bin Laden since "he's a bit tricky to track down at the moment."

Due to this restriction, a recent commercial that, in part, parodied President Bush by having a cartoon likeness stick a DVD into a toaster, was nixed by a British advertising watchdog agency.

Really, now, that's a bit much. We all know that Bush likely uses only VHS tapes, finding DVD's to be Nice and Shiny, but a bit confusing.

The computer thinks I'm Gay and Pregnant

Ray Everett-Church of Fremont, Calif., who is gay, ordered "Queer as Folk" videos from Amazon.com. Understandably, the site began suggesting gay-related calendars and books. Then he bought a baby book for a pregnant friend. So for weeks, the site also recommended parenting books. He says it was as if Amazon.com decided he was "a pregnant gay man."

- Humorous-yet-serious article in the Wall Street Journal talking about how computers (like via Tivo and Amazon.com) profile us

"My, you're looking thin... AND very, uh, happy to see me!"

One candidate that Dr. Cummings described as the "darling" of obesity researchers would be a drug that could stimulate a brain structure called the melanocortin-4 receptor, to decrease appetite and cause weight loss. But side effects always loom, and one drug tested in animals made them lose weight but also caused erections.

"That may sound great, but when the erections are unsolicited and prolonged, that's a bad side effect," Dr. Cummings said.

- From an article on weight loss pharmaceutical research in the New York Times (free registration required)

If this isn't fodder for Jay Leno, I don't know what is. Newly-thin people getting "unsolicited and prolonged" erections, as described by a Dr. Cummings. :D

With friends like this...

"He's not a moron at all. He's my friend."

- Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien's amusing "praise" of our President, as noted in this Salon.com article

Spectacular Stupidity

Apparently -- get this -- something bad is going to happen to us!

No, we don't know when. Maybe soon?
We don't know where.
We don't know how.
We don't know much of anything about it, actually.

Most importantly, we, your clueless ass-covering government folk don't even have any suggestions of what to do.

Er, no, wait. Be careful! Be cautious! Yeah.

---

Am I advocating that our government keep warnings from us? Not necessarily. But at least they could give us some guidance and actually encourage us to do something useful for ourselves and our neighbors.

For instance, if they had credible evidence that something was goin' down on the East Coast, perhaps they could encourage people in that area to donate blood or plasma. If there IS a horrible terrorist act, we'll be better prepared to help the injured. If not, I'm sure it all can be put to good use anyway.

Maybe our government could take just a teensy fraction of the ridiculous amounts of cash it spends subsidizing big business and upgrade a few thousand ambulances or create salaries for extra emergency personnel.

Sure, all of this would only help AFTER the fact, but at least that's something.

It's a whole lot more useful than the "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" crap that's being spewed by various government officials.

God's speech serves as valuable reminder

When I read about uprisings and massacres in God's name in articles like this, I'm reminded about a blunt and poignant speech made by God, clarifying his already-pretty-damn-clear "Thou Shalt Not Kill" guideline.

Girls are pretty, boys are hardy

My blogger friend Jen just posted an insightful essay about Grrlpower and how women and girls are faced with the frustrating perception that femininity and power are mutually exclusive.

Without meaning to steal the female-thunder on this, I'd like to suggest that men face a similar conundrum.

When push comes to shove, we cannot actually be both Strong and Sensitive at the same time (despite this being an oft-requested combo in personal ads). Strong = masculine and manly and decisive. Sensitive = in touch with the 'feminine' site, thoughtful, collaborative.

Can you think of any CEO's who are respected for their strength and sensitivity? I can't. Er, maybe Meg Whitman (of ebay), but... hmm... any males?

Politicians? Hmm. Too often it seems to be stereotypically delineated by party label. Republicans = Strong (security, defense, upholding of paternalistic morals, etc.), Democrats = Sensitive (caring, community, health, etc.)

Why did Republicans sweep the recent elections? We're Afraid; they're Strong. Why have most Democrats become spineless booted-out-office-wimps? Because they failed to see how being characteristically sensitive (feeling our unemployed pain, for instance) could have been balanced against fears of national (in)security.

One day, we'll note that successful CEO's, effective politicians, wonderful potential boyfriends and great parents CAN have a mixture of Strength and Sensitivity.

Until then, though, girls will be girls and boys will be boys. And we'll keep talking and acting past each other, not with each other.

So what do YOU want to read?

You may have noticed that some of my recent blog entries have been more sarcastic than smiley, more political than personal. Perhaps that suits you fine, and perhaps it doesn't.

But worry not! By selecting links on the righthand side under "Bladam Categories" you can read exactly the entries that interest you, whether that be my musings on Dance, strange and wonderful photos, blatherings on travel, and so on.

Over time, I promise to make finding what you want to read even easier. And in the meantime, I do welcome your frank and constructive comments about what you find particular cool and uncool about my blog... contentwise, structurewise, anythingwise :-)

As always, thanks for reading! I write for myself, but I also write for you.

Friends and 'keeping in touch'

"Adam," my mom enthused, "You know, I was just talking to Aunt Elli, and -- remember her friends the Bronstiers? Well, their daughter Maura is now living in Oakland! I told Auntie to pass on your e-mail to her. Maybe you two can have lunch or whatever and..."

"Mom, please don't" I politely protested. "I don't need another friend right now. I need to be a better friend to the ones I've got."

My mom, bless her soul, was neither enlightened nor convinced.

"How can you have too many friends?!" she argued, "We're not talking marriage here, for Godsake, Adam, just lunch or coffee..."

I insisted more firmly: No. I felt guilty, but only a little bit.

Making friends is easy. Making GOOD friends is much harder. But maintaining or -- even scarier -- breaking off friendships? That's the toughest.

Rewarding? Hopefully. Frustrating? Often that, too. And sometimes painful along the journey? Yes.

---

My parents have lived in the same city -- actually, the same house! -- for three decades, and have been members at the same temple for about the same length of time. They have pretty much the same (many!) friends now as they did when I was growing up at home, and I am thankful for this, though admittedly sometimes almost envious that their social life is currently more rockin' than mine.

My folks clearly haven't had the same transience of friendships as I've dealt with, though, at least not recently. In just the last 10 years, I've lived and made friends in Evanston (near Chicago), Bloomington (near Indianapolis), Mannheim (in Germany), Boston, and lastly San Francisco, where I live now. Then there are the friends I have who now live in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Costa Rica, and more than a dozen other countries. And no, I'm not counting "Internet friends."

All in all, I count more than 500 contacts in my addressbook. All are 'friends' of various degrees... former work friends, gym buddies, MBA colleagues, that couple I met while kayaking, and so on. To put it in perspective, if I were to contact each of these folks just once a quarter and spend ten minutes in the process, that's nearly an hour a day of just 'keeping in touch'. And while some of these folks can be "hello'd" in under 10 minutes, perhaps, quite a few deserve far more of my time and, yes, my friendship.

That's a lot of dedication per day. That's a lot of dedication in my life. And it's dedication that I have sadly failed in carrying out.

So, unsurprisingly, I've lost friends. Some got married and we seemed to have less and less in common, as we cross-talked about babies and babes, mortgages and job searching. Distance, too, has been a definite issue. Out of sight out of mind may be grossly clich?d, but no less a factor.

But marriage and distance account for only a part of the lost friendship tally. Sometimes people -- or their interests or needs or circumstances -- simply change, and, well, the friendship no longer applies as it once did. In these cases, sometimes it seems preferable to 'pull the plug' rather than watch the friendship slowly, painfully wither... with plodding uncomfortableness hidden under strained and feigned interest: "So, what's new?"

But who can bear to tell someone, "I don't think we should be friends anymore"? With similar wording, romantic relationships can be at least theoretically 'cut clean'. Employers can (and oh so frequently DO) nowadays sever increasingly dysfunctional work 'relationships' at the drop of a hat without even having to bluster through much of a rationale much less an apology. But saying goodbye to a friend for the last time? Who can do that?

"Let's keep in touch," we tell each other. Perhaps we mean it, perhaps we don't. More likely, we simply don't know where we'll be or how we'll feel in 5 years or even 5 months.

Thus, with faded friendships too often experienced and understandably feared, the challenge then becomes more effectively managing the remaining (500+!) friendships.

"Managing." So businesslike. Outlook entries, IM lists, Christmas-cards-or-not, form letters, ad naseum. Oh, for the days of the small village, tighter boundaries, and simpler world!

The answer, then, becomes one constrained by practicalities and too removed from idealism, but nonetheless clear. Prioritize, organize, and balance frequency of contacts with Quality Time. Remember birthdays, if nothing else.

Or better yet, call. In this age of D.I. (Digital Instantaneousness), the phone may seem so anachronistic, especially for us Geek Guys. But it conveys a warmth that cannot be duplicated by anything other than looking into someone's eyes and smiling.

Of equal importance is the concept of letting go. With direct goodbyes not a pallatable option, at least we should drift gracefully, honestly. As tempting as it is to promise future contact ("I'll write!"), 'tis better to follow our hearts before succumbing to conventional politeness.

---

No, Mom, I don't need a new friend. I have too many friends that need my friendship, and they've been waiting too long already.

Lawsuits -- Greed or Need?

In an earlier entry, I called attention to "yet another example" of an American legal system run absurdly amuck. In this example, a lawyer had sent a cease and desist letter insisting that a journalist stop using his own name in his byline, due to theoretical confusion over the lawyer's similarly named (famous) client.

Of course, it's easy, perhaps too easy to poke fun of ridiculous lawyer-speak and lawsuits, and for much of this, we have only the lawyers (and their misguided / greedy clients) to blame.

Or is it really that simple? An article in the New York Times instead insists that lawsuits are a logical and not-all-that-improper response to a decentralized government.

People have used the tort system to rightfully take on major causes -- product safety, womens' rights, and so forth -- that our American legislature was unable or unwilling to tackle.

As some of you may be aware, I'm a law school graduate myself, and yes, I'm admittedly torn about this. Just as the New York Times article highlights, our tort system is based upon adversarial relationships, which understandably is sometimes neither desireable, efficient, nor fair. But on the other hand, it is true that with our government in the pocket of Big Business, there aren't many other existing means for the common guy to take on, say, General Motors.

All that said, however, I still strongly believe that our tort system is but a bandaid on the sores inflicted by a government which has thoroughly abdicated its proper role as a progressive and reliable watchdog... one with more bite than bark. Americans CAN (and sure, often do) sue large industrial companies for knowingly poisoning the populace, but it'd be so much better if our government actually did its job and protected our health and our environment without us having to fight tooth and nail for this 'privilege.'

Pictoral Oxymoron

For the kids! For the kids!

Best way for politicians to pander to the Religious Right and much of middle America? Pass a law to protect kids!

It doesn't matter if your law actually results in helping kids. It doesn't matter if it actually results in harm to those some children. What counts is that you're actually winning the hearts and votes of soccer moms all over the country.

More importantly, how could you ever vote AGAINST kids? You won't support library filtering? You WANT our kids exposed to filth... with our taxes? Kiss goodbye to reelection.

A current example of this hypocritical frenzy is the congressional establishment of a new kids.us domain. No one has offered how this is supposed to work in practice, or even provided any evidence to suggest that it's actually a good idea in the first place. But really, what congresscritter could afford to face attack ads claiming: "Senator Smith voted against protecting your children from pornography and gambling on the net"?

From a practical perspective, I can't see how this new domain would be beneficial in any way.

Let's say schools and libraries decided to limit kids to browsing ONLY sites in this domain. How could this possibly work for both a five year old and a twelve year old, with such vastly different capacities for absorbing and synthesizing info?

Even if such access restrictions were thrust upon only elementary school kids, what content would be designated as 'kid-friendly'? In particularly what about such borderline resources as dictionaries (could be some bad words!), news sites (disturbing content), international pen pal forums (all those pedophiles!), and so on?

What incentive would companies have to even create and maintain content for this domain and this demographic, especially when such efforts would require extra work on top of existing .com (and .uk, .ca, etc.) sites?

What if 'questionable content' was found on a site in kids.us? Would the offending site be immediately removed? Could parents sue? Would there be criminal sanctions?

In a nutshell, then, the new domain is of questionable usefulness and has been ill-defined to say the least. I'm betting the Congress spent less than an hour studying the issue. After all, it's for the kids! Who could say no?

Want to know more? Read articles here.

Please stop using your name

Yet one more reason why lawyers get a (deservedly!) bad rap.

Common sense up in smoke

District Judge Thomas Gilbert has taken indefinite voluntary leave from his duties after he was spotted smoking the joint at a Rolling Stones concert at Ford Field in Detroit.
- news item on ananova.com, November 9, 2002

Am I in the minority for seeing this as absolutely absurd? Can you imagine a similar situation in which a cop caught speeding tearfully turns in his badge the next day? Oh wait, there's a key difference: the judge in the above story wasn't endangering anyone's life.

In a written statement Mr Gilbert said: "I broke the law by twice puffing on a marijuana cigarette during a rock concert. I deeply regret this error in judgment, for I have let down my fellow judges, the court staff, my family, and the community."

Could this not have appeared in The Onion without anyone blinking? What will it take for our American society to join the rest of the industrialized, civilized world and stop the guilt and -- more importantly -- stop the absolutely asinine "War on Drugs"?

I'm not all that fond of the concept of 'wars' on anything, frankly, but if we must use macho language to hammer home political themes, how about a War on Poverty (but this time, finish the job)? Or a War on Domestic Abuse?

I'm also all for a "War on Political Opportunism and Far Right Pandering" but I don't think even the spineless Democrats in office would be any help with that.

Simple relationship truths

- We want what we cannot have.
- We want what we do not have.
- When we have something, we want something else.
- This doesn't mean we cannot enjoy what we have.
- We have great advice for everyones' problems but don't follow our own advice.
- It's easier to bitch than to change.

- We cannot change others. Really.
- Women assume all men just want sex. They're wrong.
- Men assume all women want commitment. They're wrong.
- Men and women don't really love what the media suggests we love.
- If you're not getting hurt, you're not living.
- Seeking love is expensive. Love itself is priceless.
- Online dating attracts some real creeps. Just like offline dating.
- Attraction is >90% non-verbal. You cannot really be in love with someone without seeing them in person.
- Swing dancing is a great way to meet a special someone.
- Swing dancing is a sucky way to meet a special someone.
- See that 'unattractive' guy and his hottie girlfriend and visa versa? There's hope.
- Not sure how you're coming across (e.g., desperate, too flirtatious, cold, etc.)? Buy a friend (not a best friend) a drink, ask a few questions, and you'll know. You may cry, but you'll know.
- You're not the only one depressed by the pukey pda in the park.
- Work out. You'll look more attractive in the long run and exercise = endorphins which make you FEEL better, too.
- Keeping a journal helps you sort out your thoughts. Just beware / be aware of who reads it.
- Just because I'm writing this on a Friday night does not mean I'm a lame ass :D

[Originally written and posted by me on a national swing dance board]

Yet more evidence that "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron

Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay.

- from an AP newswire article on November 14

Pathetic.

Here we have the world's greatest superpower, which also happens to be sorely and dangerously lacking in military personnel who can speak critical foreign languages, dismissing folks because of their sexual predilection.

It sometimes takes years to kick out sexual harrassers in the military, and my understanding is that harrassment against women officers is still very much a problem in the military.

But it takes just one admission or shred of evidence to highlight someone's homosexuality, and boom, they're out the door.

How ironic that we trumpet Freedom with a capital F around the world and decry discrimination around the world, yet somehow can't manage to break out of our own homophobia.

Idea for Compulsory Service in America

I think America should have compulsory service (military/humanitarian) for all 18 year olds, male and female.

Germany and many other democratic countries have compulsory service, though many only require men to serve, which I think is ridiculous.

I'd like to see our country require every 18 year old to serve one year in either a branch of the military or in civil service, with the latter including teaching in an underprivileged area, road construction, aid to seniors, etc.

No one would be exempt, period. No deferrals, no buying your way out of it, no nothing. Everyone could -- and IMHO should -- help our country in some way.

College would then (optionally) start at age 19 for most folks.

In exchange for a very modest housing/food coverage, the government -- and our country -- would get new roads built, more English-proficient youngsters (via bilingual ed assistance), more cared-for seniors, and so on.

Also, our military would likely contain a higher percentage of more-educated and upper-class youth.

Another nice side benefit would be that kids would enter college with some additional real-life experience and perhaps a bit more maturity, not to mention an appreciation for the likely-easier student life.

And lastly, I sincerely believe this requirement would add to civic pride and bring meaning to citizenship beyond merely taxation obligations and oft-ignored voting rights.

I don't have any illusions that this would ever happen in America. In the aggregate we're too individualistic at the expense of caring about our community and we're too, well, damn selfish.

But I can dream.

What do you think about this idea of compulsory service?
And have any of you actually lived in countries that already require such 'giving' back to the State?

[ I posted the note above in the 'kitchen sink' (anything goes) topic of a national swing dance board ("Yehoodi"). Read the ensuing (vigorous!) debate here. Feel free to add your own thoughts either (or both!) in the comments section on this blog, or directly at Yehoodi if you wish. ]

Sinful thoughts

A wise old nun was once asked, "Do you ever entertain sinful thoughts?"

"No," she replied, "they entertain me."

On fire

Pot of wine with spices (with a special German name that I forget!) is lit on fire, then happily sipped on this cozy New Year's Eve with friends in Viernheim, Germany.

Click on the photo for a larger version.

"They don't resent our wealth, just what we do with it"

I lived and worked for a year in Germany, and was often amused and sometimes appalled at how others saw America and Americans.

For a warm-fuzzy look at this, check out my essay "on being human."

For a more scholarly, serious, and sobering examination, read this interview with Mark Hertsgaard, author of a book that examines just how the rest of the world sees the U.S.

The people spoke (and I cry)

Some charming samples of "democracy," according to Nevada in the election yesterday.

- Smoke a joint, (still) go to jail.
- Want to marry your same-sex partner? Go to hell.

Republicans are gloating that yesterday signaled a mandate for their 'causes.'

Somehow I just can't get myself to see <50% voter turnout as a mandate of anything except apathy and disenfranchisement.

I wonder if there's something to the whole compulsory voting thing, like they have in Australia. But I think that's material for another entry.

Voting

I've heard there may be, well, a few folks in the U.S. who won't be voting today.

My feeling on the matter is clear: Barring extenuating circumstances, failing to vote is laziness or misguidedness. It is not a vote for change, or a vote for protest. It is simply not a vote.

Don't like the candidates from the 'big' parties? Research about the candidates from the non-mainstream parties and find which are closest to your views.

Can't find ANYONE at all to vote for for the big races? Well, in most jurisdictions, there are still many propositions, school board members, and many other local officials to vote for. Keep in mind that some of the most charming "I don't believe in science / evolution" schoolboard members have been elected in our country due to voter apathy and inaction, probably from folks who were just 'conscientious objectors' to the voting process. So yeah, those votes do make a difference, they really do.

So steamed about the process that you can't even stomach supporting any proposition or any person? At least go to vote and submit an empty ballot. That says that at least you cared enough to vote.

In Australia, voting is mandatory, and -- from what my Australian friends have told me -- few grumble about it there.

I know that no countries and no political systems are perfect, but something tells me that they likely have fewer [bleep'd] up politicians there and less corruption than we have.

Back here in the U.S., you can write letters, you can be "aware," you can know the candidate's brothers' wife's standard poodle's favorite dinner food, but until you punch that ballot or hit that touch screen, you're still giving up not only one of your rights, but IMHO, one of your responsibilities.

What concerns me most is that, as others have noted, the lower that voter turnout dips, the more inclined our local and federal governments are to simply ignore The People. You can claim that you're sending a message, and indeed you are. The message is: Tax me more, [bleep] up my medical care, meddle with other countries' governments, mess up the environment, spend public assistance money on campaign airfare, screw me over! I'm going to stay home with my Cheetos because I don't care what you fatcats do. You're certainly not accountable to ME!

At minimum, promise me, promise everyone that you're not gonna bitch one iota about our society unless you voted, or until you do vote next time 'round.

Thanks.

It's Wine but is it Art?

Click above to see a larger version.

Death of courtesy, part II

This is not an original lament. And I am cranky. So I'll keep this short.

I'm sick and tired of people lacking a sense of common courtesy, respect, and responsibility.

When someone promises, that promise should be kept. Or at minimum, apologies should be forthcoming.

I'm tired of people not having the courtesy to RSVP even after a personal invite. Or worse, accepting an invitation, then bowing out at last minute due to a 'better offer.'

Some of it, I think, is San Francisco. People mistake laid-back for not-a-care which is ever so close to I-don't-care.

Well, I care. And it hurts. Maybe I should care less.