Is Wikipedia good for the National psyche?

I get to spend a lot of time with people. Not always speaking with them, but as a commuter, you're just around them constantly. In this situation, you can't forget people all have their pet interests, and they're going to tell you about them whether you're listening or not.

In this regard, Wikipedia might be the e-zanax this country needs.

The site takes its knocks for being unreliable, constantly changeable by any fringe group of nuts with an agenda. That true, but if you're going to Wikipedia for information on World War II, presidential administrations in the last 100 years, or science thats your own damn fault.

Wikipedia was made for the pet topic. Lets just look at the possible sales pitch, "debate the minutia of semi-colons, sea chantys from pre-1880, and the darning of socks with others who are prepared to get into the historial blood match that is [your pet topic]."

And there it is. The outlet to blather your insignificant interests into. And I have to believe the site knows this. Drop by the front page and you'll have riveting topics handed to you such as...

The Byzantine navy

Japanese settlement in Palau

or

Wilfred Buckland

And because of this, it bothers me when people say its unreliable.

"people can just go in and EDIT!"

I can't imagine how bored you'd need to be to edit anything related to the Byzantine Navy, but who am I to say. Maybe someones pet issue is complaining about how unrealiable Wikipedia is, and maybe they engage in self-preservation.

Novels have been written about stranger characters.

thoughts on life # 7621

it should be known, before you think the worst of me, that I've never been a woman, and therefore cannot comment on them in the same way

There comes a time in everyone’s man's life when chaos envelops everything. You believe people see you as crazy or inept from some occurrence of events, you believe other people are lying or crazy because their telling you they don't know what you mean.

I couldn't tell you what the answer to those moments are, but what’s always served me best is to come to the table and give every side something. Yes, you made mistakes and exposed a weakness in the armor, but don't always give your opponents credit. More often than not they aren't even looking. If you think about it, we're all running around like mad, hiding our own exposures or chasing our own goals and making opportunities to achieve them.

Its only in the mad grip of obsession when we can start to smell the blood of those who've wronged us. And more often than not, those people will expose themselves as wounded by their own hands or admission. In these cases, silence will never serve you better, even if the accusations or slander is in our face. Sometimes, letting them say what you are shows who they are. People will hear, in the absence of truth and reason, the cutting words of a bitter man who couldn't take his lumps in life, and instead blamed everyone else. It’s been my experience that people see, at those times, attacks and think of themselves and their own interests and can reason that any man who'd say that to someone is capable of saying it to them.

Part of running a tight ship, be it an actual ship or a business, is walking the delicate line between knowing when to address something, when to let it address itself, and when to admit defeat but carry on. In all things though, if a man cannot be honest with himself, if he rationalizes, then his ship will go down in flames while he convinces himself that there’s a draft in his cabin.

Nixon, Rudy, and the Rebirth and Rise of a smarter GOP.

The New York Times reports today that Rudy Guiliani is considering a strong run for the Governorship of New York State, and while Cathy's probably going to kick me in the mouth for saying so, I couldn't be more thrilled.

One of the more fun things about getting good at the political game is seeing how things in the background are being set-up to shape the future 5 to 10 years on. And while most of the pundits are crowing about an increasingly neo-con right wing, they’re only focusing on the Legislature. Its true there aren’t many republicans left in the Upper Right states, but with the moderation of national Republican figures the GOP is poised for a nationwide rebirth 5 to 10 years down the line. That is to say, if the Republican’s get obliterated in 2012 like they are on course to, the party will fall to Charlie Christ, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and, if he wins, Rudy Giuliani.

Say what you will about his hard stance on foreign policy and his alignment with the Hawks – that’s never stopped a young voter from choosing the GOP. Most people can understand through the lens of history that war is ugly, but certainly necessary at times. Despite what lasting image the 60’s peace movement has left, the ugly specter of Hitler casts a longer shadow and Giuliani won’t be penalized for a war he thought was needed. No, Rudy will take rank on two things that happened well before 9/11 – his stance on crime, and his stance on homosexuals.

The one thing the legislators can’t really do in the House of Congress is be results based. The New York City crime rate, according to the most consistent statistic, dropped a mythic 69% under the Giuliani Administration at a time when it (the city) was considered ungovernable. This is, in modern political trade, on par with the feats of Hercules in that its one of the few times a politician actually fulfilled the good-time promises of the euphoria of campaign season. For those not fortunate enough to be in the Upper Right, NYC – where Giuliani was elected twice – is the most Liberal portion of the state. If not for Manhattan, New York might be a swing state. And given the Democrats recently…”follies” its not very hard to see how Rudy might start taking on some Rudy qualities.

But some of you may be thinking, “Hey, Brow, I don’t live in NY. Who cares?” Fair point, but Giuliani’s win, should it come, would mean while the numbers in the Congress dwindle, the parties standing within the country starts to improve. And nowhere is this more important than outside of the Bible Belt where over the course of the last few years the GOP has been taking a beating, dropping long held Republican bastions to the Democratic Party. In the 90’s it was California, this decade it seems to be Florida.

In case that sounds crazy to you, and for someone like me who was born in 1982, it should. Lets take a look at California, long considered “Liberal Land” by many of the far rights biggest voices. Prior to Clinton, the GOP lost California in 1964 only when the social climate and a weak opponent (Goldwater) allowed LBJ to carry something like 42 of the 50 states. Its hard to say which state gave in quickest. California stuck with Ford when Florida voted Carter. Florida stuck with Bush, when CA finally went a permanent shade of blue. Either way – it’s a certainty they’ve been Republican Strong holds. But in the 2000 election, Florida faltered and the election results still aren’t agreed upon by the ideological extreme wings. 2004’s results we’re likely a result of the last being uncertain, but in 2008 Florida went, and given its demographic its tough to say if it won’t revert. If its going to, the question is: Who in the GOP is going to take it? As of right now, that seems to be directed at the GOP, as in who amongst you will take up the gauntlet?


But don’t be surprised if the Democrats have their flanks turned on them. While the whole country is waiting for the results of the Palin/Romney death match, with a possible Jindal or Pawlenty emerging from that ruckus as the Dark Horse candidate. But if Giuliani takes the Governorship up in New York, Florida may be taken by a future Republican Party of a more Moderate flavor. In short – Eisenhower, not Reagan, may be the key to a continued dominance of the Sunshine State.

Lets look ahead at some of the math, as it stands now. Depending on the health care debate, the 2010 elections could go either way, but as is customary in the mid-terms, the Republicans will probably pick up some seats. By the time 2012 comes, the economy will be the biggest factor. If it improves Obama will walk in, if it fails he’s got no shot. Its really that simple. Regardless of what major factor is taking place there, that’s going to be the issue at hand. Jobs, which are the largest lagging indicator, will be in full swing then and that’s going to be the most enduring test of the President.

Given the current climate of the GOP right now, the thought that McCain lost because he wasn’t conservative enough still has a firm grip on the party. Malkin and Coulter haven’t made room for Steve Schmidt and Megan McCain at this point, so the voices are still rallying to the right. Hannity and Beck have formed an impressive tag team that’s likely going to keep the party on course, but if it fails (and it likely will) we’re going to awake in 2012 in a world completely different than we know now.

The democrats, having won enough to warrant it, will drift leftward, leaving a middle open for courting. If the blue states start presenting high-profile republicans, that are in positions to be results based (and generally do, when the opposite faction controls the Executive they often can only work.) you’re likely going to see the moderation return to the Senate.

I don’t know if the moderation scares or entices you, but the writings on the wall. The one thing this country cannot afford is a lack of options. To have the Republican Party represent mostly southern white voters is not an option.

As a finisher I’ll say this, I didn’t include it in my general math because it could be a whole lot of nothing, but recently it was said that the third biggest city in America is about ready to switch from Chicago to Houston. The presence of a major city in one of America’s most conservative states may prove to be pretty interesting 20 years on. With Austin already a liberal enclave, if Houston slowly turns as many cities do. You may see a strong Democratic presence emerge from Texas in time for the 2032 elections.

Health Care or whats wrong with the president?

While I'm a registered independent, when it comes to healthcare I'm Democrat Blue all the way. And i feel I need to weigh in at this point, if only to keep score, so that the 3 people who read this infrequent mouthpiece can throw their support where its needed, if they should choose to do so.

In the middle of august in the first year of the Obama administration, the democrats at this point are trying to walk back the public option, the republicans and freedomworks (led my former majority leader dick army) are equating insurance reform with "tyranny" and it looks as if the liberal democrats are the only ones trying to salvage this bill from the watery grave of compromise which is looking more and more like its going to do nothing but keep the status quo that kills 20,000 Americans every year.

Maybe its paranoia, but if the Republicans win this one are the insurance companies going to be drunk with power and inflate prices on a regular basis? More so than they’ve been doing?

Lets start from the beginning here. This started off with the stimulus fight. Not the bill, the fight. The president took from that bill that he shouldn't lead with compromise, he should let the Senators put things like tax cuts in so they can take credit for something, give them a bargaining chip, and find the bill at compromise later. But he took the wrong lesson from that.

For all the president admires the legacy of Reagan, he should have taken this one lesson from the gipper, and every haggle you've ever been in on; Highball 'em. Its not hard to see how you could walk back a single-payer system to a public option and be where we should be both morally and governmentally (meaning not too much gov. intervention). Instead he took from the stimulus debate that he should do nothing but request a bill and let them hash it out in Congress. Ever the good sport that Obama is.

But as we know at this point, he's been getting hammered for not having specifics. Another argument for the idea that presidents should go for broke. In 1981 then President Reagan demanded a 30% tax cut down the line. He ended up getting 25%. See how that works? If he'd gone in asking for a compromise of 15%, he'd had been lucky to get 5% and he'd have ruined any chance to revive the economy. But at this point its spilt milk.

The President at the time of my writing this has 3 options at this point.

1. Let the bill fail and purge from congress the representatives that should have listened harder to their constituencies. This is a gamble but if he looks at the numbers and sees a punishing result for the blue dogs who can't get the job done, it may not be a bad solution. They're only benefit at this point has been to give the Democrats a majority, but not let them pass any meaningful legislation. You can bank hard on an economic resurgence and in a year from now and ride it to a new, less resistant democratic base.

2. Get something watered down. This is what the republicans want. It will ruin the administration. Its not worth mentioning what it might do since the list carries on and on but lets just say the people won't benefit from this one and therefore, neither will either political party.

3. Reconciliation. Not even sure its legal. Will most likely be worse than 2.

Obama says he's walked back from the public option (according to Chuck Todd) because even those who supported it didn't know what it was and if the phrase of "public option" was hanging things up, we can remove it. But the Public Option is something that we need because for those who can't afford to eat and buy their medication.

In 1910 Churchill said we should judge a country by the way it treats its Prisoners. He should know, he was POW during the Boers War. It was an argument then, about how a society should treat its most vulnerable and underprivileged sect. Modern American Prisoners have a better healthcare system than more of the working poor, and in many cases better living conditions. Today our most vulnerable people are the families that work 3 or 4 jobs amongst two parents and are struggling to feed people, and praying that no one gets so sick they need real care.

Its been nearly 80 years since the first proposed health care system was left out of the Social Security bill, and at countless times along the way presidents from both sides of the aisle have attempted to get something done. The forces against us can often be ourselves, and senators and congressmen have long been just as guilty as private insurers. But the concerns today aren't all out of line or ridiculous; will this fund abortions? Are illegal aliens covered? What is all this "end of life counseling" about?

The republicans are suggesting a mandate, similar to what Nixon proposed, and almost exactly like what we've got here in MA, but the costs keep rising. Its braking the bank and if it isn't stopped a mandate will only serve to punish the poor or make them choose between Healthcare and food. (same problem only reversed because of government interference)

There have been concerns that the protesters at rallies aren't really protesting healthcare for any real reason. Concerns that the government will overthrow the country via healthcare. That Obama is taking gun rights, and that he's not a native born citizen. But the concern I can't shake was a free 8-day clinic in Inglewood California where doctors came to give free care to teh first 18,000 people that showed up. Depending on our political prism you’re either looking to see how many people worked full time, or how many were homeless. I guess one would show the difference between need and want but what I noticed was this:

from the larger article "...Over the eight days, dentists extracted 2,200 teeth, completed almost 5,500 fillings and performed nearly 2,000 cleanings. Nearly 1,800 pairs of eyeglasses were made and 400 women received mammograms." (http://www.dailybreeze.com/lifeandculture/ci_13151844)

Cleanings, Fillings, Glasses, and Mammograms. This wasn't even major work being done, this wasn't million dollar care being given out. People lined up and waited 8 days just to get things that are about as basic as going for a regular check-up. And while the idea that medical care can cost as much as a 1st time mortgage and can strike from no where is concerning, whats more concerning is that when the representatives from all over the country come together the debate is this...

Is making sure people can get cleanings and mammograms a tyrannical government takeover?

Really? Everyone interviewed was a working world stiff who just wanted preventative maintenance. Lets talk about that just quickly. If everyone knew what they could do to prevent major medical problems, wouldn't we be a lot better off? At least at that point couldn't we say you had your chance? In the end 60% of this country (roughly) has private insurance. Lets just leave that fact as it is. I can't say what % of the country is on Government care (every senior is for example) so lets just say America isn't 40% uninsured. But if its 10% or 15% if we could pass legislation so those folks had a shot...would that really take down the greatest republic the world has produced to date?

American's have always espoused the virtues of freedom and liberty. America's about options, and when we look to other nations where class systems still exist, or that a good amount of the population has no chance other than the States to go to college, I'm always reminded that for all our flaws we're still the last best hope - not for the well to do euros - but for the third worlders who want a better place for their families. I can tell you I walk about 4 different languages a day here on my way to the bus and they didn't come here because of our blinding arrogance. America is still a place where so much can be yours if you really want it. Sometimes we're chastised for how hard you have to work, but you can be assured that if you only have one goal in life, you can get it here. People are given fame and money unfairly sometimes, but that never stops you from yours. The idea that nothing is impossible on our shoes, no matter how minute, superficial, or sentimental is still something most of us believe.

The dream of preventative care, that someone who knows what their talking about can say "you need to be careful of X" or "try eating more of Y", and that everyone has the opportunity to just know that the ticking time bomb of a heart attack isn't around the corner orphaning children, burdening your family. Is that really the right we want to start denying? We've got our differences but we need to understand that this has been ruined every time politics was introduced. The time has come for Americans to stand up for one another, for the voiceless fools working too many jobs to have time to speak, and say that - no, we don't want free government handouts - but these people should have a choice, and if the private market is abandoning them in the interest of profits then the government should make sure that its citizenry is looked after.

I'll finish my tirade with a line from the most Liberal of Lions, Ted Kennedy and his all too famous closing at the DNC in 1980.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

NYT: A modern love

As with all aggrigated news postings, please click the link to give due credit and revenue to author and publisher respectivly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/fashion/02love.html?_r=1&em=&pagewanted=print



Modern Love

Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear

By LAURA A. MUNSON

LET’S say you have what you believe to be a healthy marriage. You’re still friends and lovers after spending more than half of your lives together. The dreams you set out to achieve in your 20s — gazing into each other’s eyes in candlelit city bistros when you were single and skinny — have for the most part come true.

Two decades later you have the 20 acres of land, the farmhouse, the children, the dogs and horses. You’re the parents you said you would be, full of love and guidance. You’ve done it all: Disneyland, camping, Hawaii, Mexico, city living, stargazing.

Sure, you have your marital issues, but on the whole you feel so self-satisfied about how things have worked out that you would never, in your wildest nightmares, think you would hear these words from your husband one fine summer day: “I don’t love you anymore. I’m not sure I ever did. I’m moving out. The kids will understand. They’ll want me to be happy.”

But wait. This isn’t the divorce story you think it is. Neither is it a begging-him-to-stay story. It’s a story about hearing your husband say “I don’t love you anymore” and deciding not to believe him. And what can happen as a result.

Here’s a visual: Child throws a temper tantrum. Tries to hit his mother. But the mother doesn’t hit back, lecture or punish. Instead, she ducks. Then she tries to go about her business as if the tantrum isn’t happening. She doesn’t “reward” the tantrum. She simply doesn’t take the tantrum personally because, after all, it’s not about her.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying my husband was throwing a child’s tantrum. No. He was in the grip of something else — a profound and far more troubling meltdown that comes not in childhood but in midlife, when we perceive that our personal trajectory is no longer arcing reliably upward as it once did. But I decided to respond the same way I’d responded to my children’s tantrums. And I kept responding to it that way. For four months.

“I don’t love you anymore. I’m not sure I ever did.”

His words came at me like a speeding fist, like a sucker punch, yet somehow in that moment I was able to duck. And once I recovered and composed myself, I managed to say, “I don’t buy it.” Because I didn’t.

He drew back in surprise. Apparently he’d expected me to burst into tears, to rage at him, to threaten him with a custody battle. Or beg him to change his mind.

So he turned mean. “I don’t like what you’ve become.”

Gut-wrenching pause. How could he say such a thing? That’s when I really wanted to fight. To rage. To cry. But I didn’t.

Instead, a shroud of calm enveloped me, and I repeated those words: “I don’t buy it.”

You see, I’d recently committed to a non-negotiable understanding with myself. I’d committed to “The End of Suffering.” I’d finally managed to exile the voices in my head that told me my personal happiness was only as good as my outward success, rooted in things that were often outside my control. I’d seen the insanity of that equation and decided to take responsibility for my own happiness. And I mean all of it.

My husband hadn’t yet come to this understanding with himself. He had enjoyed many years of hard work, and its rewards had supported our family of four all along. But his new endeavor hadn’t been going so well, and his ability to be the breadwinner was in rapid decline. He’d been miserable about this, felt useless, was losing himself emotionally and letting himself go physically. And now he wanted out of our marriage; to be done with our family.

But I wasn’t buying it.

I said: “It’s not age-appropriate to expect children to be concerned with their parents’ happiness. Not unless you want to create co-dependents who’ll spend their lives in bad relationships and therapy. There are times in every relationship when the parties involved need a break. What can we do to give you the distance you need, without hurting the family?”

“Huh?” he said.

“Go trekking in Nepal. Build a yurt in the back meadow. Turn the garage studio into a man-cave. Get that drum set you’ve always wanted. Anything but hurting the children and me with a reckless move like the one you’re talking about.”

Then I repeated my line, “What can we do to give you the distance you need, without hurting the family?”

“Huh?”

“How can we have a responsible distance?”

“I don’t want distance,” he said. “I want to move out.”

My mind raced. Was it another woman? Drugs? Unconscionable secrets? But I stopped myself. I would not suffer.

Instead, I went to my desk, Googled “responsible separation” and came up with a list. It included things like: Who’s allowed to use what credit cards? Who are the children allowed to see you with in town? Who’s allowed keys to what?

I looked through the list and passed it on to him.

His response: “Keys? We don’t even have keys to our house.”

I remained stoic. I could see pain in his eyes. Pain I recognized.

“Oh, I see what you’re doing,” he said. “You’re going to make me go into therapy. You’re not going to let me move out. You’re going to use the kids against me.”

“I never said that. I just asked: What can we do to give you the distance you need ... ”

“Stop saying that!”

Well, he didn’t move out.

Instead, he spent the summer being unreliable. He stopped coming home at his usual six o’clock. He would stay out late and not call. He blew off our entire Fourth of July — the parade, the barbecue, the fireworks — to go to someone else’s party. When he was at home, he was distant. He wouldn’t look me in the eye. He didn’t even wish me “Happy Birthday.”

But I didn’t play into it. I walked my line. I told the kids: “Daddy’s having a hard time as adults often do. But we’re a family, no matter what.” I was not going to suffer. And neither were they.

MY trusted friends were irate on my behalf. “How can you just stand by and accept this behavior? Kick him out! Get a lawyer!”

I walked my line with them, too. This man was hurting, yet his problem wasn’t mine to solve. In fact, I needed to get out of his way so he could solve it.

I know what you’re thinking: I’m a pushover. I’m weak and scared and would put up with anything to keep the family together. I’m probably one of those women who would endure physical abuse. But I can assure you, I’m not. I load 1,500-pound horses into trailers and gallop through the high country of Montana all summer. I went through Pitocin-induced natural childbirth. And a Caesarean section without follow-up drugs. I am handy with a chain saw.

I simply had come to understand that I was not at the root of my husband’s problem. He was. If he could turn his problem into a marital fight, he could make it about us. I needed to get out of the way so that wouldn’t happen.

Privately, I decided to give him time. Six months.

I had good days, and I had bad days. On the good days, I took the high road. I ignored his lashing out, his merciless jabs. On bad days, I would fester in the August sun while the kids ran through sprinklers, raging at him in my mind. But I never wavered. Although it may sound ridiculous to say “Don’t take it personally” when your husband tells you he no longer loves you, sometimes that’s exactly what you have to do.

Instead of issuing ultimatums, yelling, crying or begging, I presented him with options. I created a summer of fun for our family and welcomed him to share in it, or not — it was up to him. If he chose not to come along, we would miss him, but we would be just fine, thank you very much. And we were.

And, yeah, you can bet I wanted to sit him down and persuade him to stay. To love me. To fight for what we’ve created. You can bet I wanted to.

But I didn’t.

I barbecued. Made lemonade. Set the table for four. Loved him from afar.

And one day, there he was, home from work early, mowing the lawn. A man doesn’t mow his lawn if he’s going to leave it. Not this man. Then he fixed a door that had been broken for eight years. He made a comment about our front porch needing paint. Our front porch. He mentioned needing wood for next winter. The future. Little by little, he started talking about the future.

It was Thanksgiving dinner that sealed it. My husband bowed his head humbly and said, “I’m thankful for my family.”

He was back.

And I saw what had been missing: pride. He’d lost pride in himself. Maybe that’s what happens when our egos take a hit in midlife and we realize we’re not as young and golden anymore.

When life’s knocked us around. And our childhood myths reveal themselves to be just that. The truth feels like the biggest sucker-punch of them all: it’s not a spouse or land or a job or money that brings us happiness. Those achievements, those relationships, can enhance our happiness, yes, but happiness has to start from within. Relying on any other equation can be lethal.

My husband had become lost in the myth. But he found his way out. We’ve since had the hard conversations. In fact, he encouraged me to write about our ordeal. To help other couples who arrive at this juncture in life. People who feel scared and stuck. Who believe their temporary feelings are permanent. Who see an easy out, and think they can escape.

My husband tried to strike a deal. Blame me for his pain. Unload his feelings of personal disgrace onto me.

But I ducked. And I waited. And it worked.

Laura A. Munson is a writer who lives in Whitefish, Mont.

the printed word from the horses elitist mouth

people say twitter is going to achieve the breaking point of information. That we'll have access to so much unfiltered information that we'll go running back to the newspapers.

they keep using the same talking point. I've never been to the twitter page, but I can tell you no one tweets about the cheese sandwich they are eating. No one checks on those people.

i think the newspapers are smug. And I think writers are worse. I read somewhere I can't recall that journalists don't see it as a job, but as if they're doing something for the good of the people. thats how we got in this mess. i guess they're breaking the old maxim "don't live to work, work to live."

your jobs no more important than mine, and anyone can learn my job. maybe filtered news is the problem though i doubt thats industry wide. the local news is a sham. as the dig tells it, its a "cavalcade of car accidents and house fires" and I've used that example ever since.

Periodicals are the only news source I trusted and you get the same thing in the long run. a well researched article with all angles covered. in 2007, on the lead up to Time's Man of the Year i remember the dopes in the "media" fighting over whether it should be david petraeus or al gore.

Time picked vladimir putin. which was a logical choice. the first two were fixing issues, the third ressurected a 25 year old corpse of a nation.

i don't have writers or the media because they are bias - i'm bias. i hate them because somewhere out there in their training as journalists they beleive they become ghandi. its too bad too because i liked the op-ed section.

tears of a clown

funny ain't funny anymore. Attempt to be droll. Stop thinking. Sculpted set-ups don't play well anywhere.

I heard ya have to stumble over a joke in order to achieve success. Bad jokes are only funny if they are bad enough, to point out how bad bad jokes are.

I was watching daniel tosh on saturday and she said to me "he's only funny because he's shocking, and people don't know what else to do so they laugh." I think its funny because it got out of its cage. No one else says these things because they want to stay in good graces. Pirates are funny.

Pirates and those little kids at the Chinese restaurant who do things intentionally to piss off their parents. My father turned to me and said "its the same in every culture and language. No kids different."