Dear Ken Buck and Michael F. Bennett:
I have no doubt that you, or someone on your campaign staffs, will read these words. This blog entry will show up in your daily Web searches.
Both of you are running for the U.S. Senate, representing the great state of Colorado. The thrust of Michael Bennett's entire campaign has been "Don't Vote for Buck." Bennett's television ads and paper materials have gone on and on about how terrible it will be if I vote for Ken Buck, based on what he has said and what he has done. But Ken Buck's hands aren't clean, either. The thrust of Buck's entire campaign has been "Don't Vote for Bennett." Buck's television ads and paper materials have gone on and on about how terrible it will be if I vote for Michael Bennett, based on what he has said and what he has done.
I just wanted you both to know that your campaigns have been very persuasive. I have made my decision. I won't vote for Mr. Bennett, and I won't vote for Mr. Buck.
When I apply for a job, I always present myself in the best possible light. I do not waste space on my resume, nor time in the interviews, talking about how bad the other job candidates are compared to me. No hiring manager would be swayed by my cutting down the other candidates in order to make myself look good. The hiring manager wants to know what I can do, not what the other candidates cannot do.
Why couldn't either one of you have taken the time to tell me what you stood for, what you have done that qualifies you to serve in the U.S. Senate, and what you will do, not just for me, and not just for Colorado, but for the good of the country? I know the information's out there, but I have to dig to find it. Don't make me work that hard to find something good about you, when all I have to do is sit and listen passively to find out all the bad stuff about you.
I have no doubt that one of you will win the election. But my vote will still be counted. I will vote for one of the other candidates, and I will appear in the election results as someone who did not choose you to represent me.
p.s. To Betsy Markey and Cory Gardner: you're on the list too, you know. Tell me some of the reasons why I should elect you. If you can't, if all you can do is tell me why I shouldn't elect your major opponent, then I'll be voting for Doug Aden or Ken Waszkiewicz. And you'd better do it quick, because I'm not waiting until November 2 to vote.
p.p.s. It's a good thing Waszkiewicz isn't running as a write-in candidate. That surname is harder to spell than my own!
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
On Blasphemy as "Art"
Nobody should be surprised.
But don't say, "That's just how Loveland is." The art was created by a resident of San Francisco, California, loaned to the museum by a resident of Lyons, Colorado, and destroyed by a resident of Montana.
Loveland has been branding itself for several years now as an art hub. Artists come from all over the nation - no, world - to exhibit at its annual sculpture shows, and the city hosts several sculpture gardens, art galleries, an opera company, and other displays of fine art.
The Loveland Museum/Gallery opened a new exhibit this week, called "The Legend of Bud Shark and his Indelible Ink." Part of the exhibit was a series of small panels created by Enrique Chagoya, an artist and professor at Stanford University, entitled "The Misadventures of the Royal Cannibals." One of these small panels was a collage of images from comic books and other sources, assembled to show an image of Jesus Christ engaged in a sexual act.
(Some people actually insisted that that's not what the picture was about. Images of the artwork are available online, so you can look at it and judge for yourself. You know, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.)
Many people, including the artist, do not understand the furor the picture has caused. "It's such a small picture," they say, "not much bigger than a postcard, in a much larger exhibit." The comparatively miniscule size of the image does not excuse its obscene and offensive nature. Besides, it's disingenuous to call it "such a small picture" and a relatively insignificant part of the exhibit when it is, or was, valued at $3400.
(Ironically, these same defenders ignore the fact that the "much larger exhibit" includes pictures collected from Mexican pornography, among other sources, according to the Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald.)
Again, many people, including the artist, do not understand why the picture caused such a furor in Loveland, when it has been exhibited in so many other towns and cities without any similar reaction. They say this as if Loveland were an aberration that needs to be corrected. I can think of a couple of other reasons for the way the citizens of Loveland reacted. First, maybe Loveland is the first city where anyone looked closely at the artwork. Second, maybe Loveland is the first city the artwork has been displayed where the people have standards, and where people cared enough to speak out in public about it and say what should have been said all along.
The artist also defends his work by saying that it was his response to the recent sex scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. and elsewhere. That's poor justification, if justification at all, for creating this piece and exhibiting it anywhere.
All of these attempts to excuse or justify the obscenity do not change the fact that it's still obscenity. It's not the kind of thing you'd want your grandmother to catch you looking at. You can find this same kind of "art" at the 7-Eleven, but it's in magazines kept behind the counter, and even the magazines' front covers are hidden. You can find this same kind of "art" on cable TV, but it's on the pay channels. It's free on the Internet, but let's not even go there.
To be brutally honest, it's more than obscenity. It's blasphemy - go look up the definition. It offends the sensibilities of the community at large, and if it were brought to a public vote, I'm sure that the vast majority of the city of Loveland would vote to ban it from public display - especially in a public gallery, supported by tax dollars.
Yesterday's act of vandalism makes that moot, however. A woman from Kalispell, Montana, took a crowbar to the display case, ripped out the offending panel and tore it to pieces. A witness heard her cry, "How can you desecrate my Lord?" while she did it. She was arrested without resisting and hauled off to jail.
What she did violated the law, and she will be tried and punished according to the law. But it also took a lot of courage and personal conviction. It was the right thing to do, and nobody else would do it.
In a sense, the artist, the art's owner, the museum and the Loveland city council should consider themselves lucky. In 2005, Danish cartoonists drew some cartoons poking fun at the prophet Mohammed. The cartoons were published in a Danish newspaper and reprinted in periodicals in 50 other countries. While many non-Muslims deplored the cartoons as blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, Muslims did more than just deplore the cartoons: they rioted in cities all over the world, they attacked and set fire to Danish embassies in Muslim nations, they threatened American troops in Muslim countries (as if they had anything to do with it), they issued fatwas and death threats against the artists, and they boycotted Danish exports. Oh, and they actually tried to kill the cartoonists and bomb newspaper offices in several European cities.
And by "they" I don't mean "a small handful of them." Hundreds of Muslims participated in these activities.
Compare that reaction to this one. Here in small town USA, in a very Christian town in what is still a Christian nation, when an act of unimstakable blasphemy is commited against Christians, one lone disciple of the Prince of Peace defended His honor when nobody else did, by destroying the offending piece of artwork and then submitting herself meekly to the authorities.
But don't say, "That's just how Loveland is." The art was created by a resident of San Francisco, California, loaned to the museum by a resident of Lyons, Colorado, and destroyed by a resident of Montana.
Loveland has been branding itself for several years now as an art hub. Artists come from all over the nation - no, world - to exhibit at its annual sculpture shows, and the city hosts several sculpture gardens, art galleries, an opera company, and other displays of fine art.
The Loveland Museum/Gallery opened a new exhibit this week, called "The Legend of Bud Shark and his Indelible Ink." Part of the exhibit was a series of small panels created by Enrique Chagoya, an artist and professor at Stanford University, entitled "The Misadventures of the Royal Cannibals." One of these small panels was a collage of images from comic books and other sources, assembled to show an image of Jesus Christ engaged in a sexual act.
(Some people actually insisted that that's not what the picture was about. Images of the artwork are available online, so you can look at it and judge for yourself. You know, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.)
Many people, including the artist, do not understand the furor the picture has caused. "It's such a small picture," they say, "not much bigger than a postcard, in a much larger exhibit." The comparatively miniscule size of the image does not excuse its obscene and offensive nature. Besides, it's disingenuous to call it "such a small picture" and a relatively insignificant part of the exhibit when it is, or was, valued at $3400.
(Ironically, these same defenders ignore the fact that the "much larger exhibit" includes pictures collected from Mexican pornography, among other sources, according to the Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald.)
Again, many people, including the artist, do not understand why the picture caused such a furor in Loveland, when it has been exhibited in so many other towns and cities without any similar reaction. They say this as if Loveland were an aberration that needs to be corrected. I can think of a couple of other reasons for the way the citizens of Loveland reacted. First, maybe Loveland is the first city where anyone looked closely at the artwork. Second, maybe Loveland is the first city the artwork has been displayed where the people have standards, and where people cared enough to speak out in public about it and say what should have been said all along.
The artist also defends his work by saying that it was his response to the recent sex scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. and elsewhere. That's poor justification, if justification at all, for creating this piece and exhibiting it anywhere.
All of these attempts to excuse or justify the obscenity do not change the fact that it's still obscenity. It's not the kind of thing you'd want your grandmother to catch you looking at. You can find this same kind of "art" at the 7-Eleven, but it's in magazines kept behind the counter, and even the magazines' front covers are hidden. You can find this same kind of "art" on cable TV, but it's on the pay channels. It's free on the Internet, but let's not even go there.
To be brutally honest, it's more than obscenity. It's blasphemy - go look up the definition. It offends the sensibilities of the community at large, and if it were brought to a public vote, I'm sure that the vast majority of the city of Loveland would vote to ban it from public display - especially in a public gallery, supported by tax dollars.
Yesterday's act of vandalism makes that moot, however. A woman from Kalispell, Montana, took a crowbar to the display case, ripped out the offending panel and tore it to pieces. A witness heard her cry, "How can you desecrate my Lord?" while she did it. She was arrested without resisting and hauled off to jail.
What she did violated the law, and she will be tried and punished according to the law. But it also took a lot of courage and personal conviction. It was the right thing to do, and nobody else would do it.
In a sense, the artist, the art's owner, the museum and the Loveland city council should consider themselves lucky. In 2005, Danish cartoonists drew some cartoons poking fun at the prophet Mohammed. The cartoons were published in a Danish newspaper and reprinted in periodicals in 50 other countries. While many non-Muslims deplored the cartoons as blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, Muslims did more than just deplore the cartoons: they rioted in cities all over the world, they attacked and set fire to Danish embassies in Muslim nations, they threatened American troops in Muslim countries (as if they had anything to do with it), they issued fatwas and death threats against the artists, and they boycotted Danish exports. Oh, and they actually tried to kill the cartoonists and bomb newspaper offices in several European cities.
And by "they" I don't mean "a small handful of them." Hundreds of Muslims participated in these activities.
Compare that reaction to this one. Here in small town USA, in a very Christian town in what is still a Christian nation, when an act of unimstakable blasphemy is commited against Christians, one lone disciple of the Prince of Peace defended His honor when nobody else did, by destroying the offending piece of artwork and then submitting herself meekly to the authorities.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Cleaning up your (non-Mac) PC
I'm rebuilding my sweet wife's computer's hard disk today. We tried all the other solutions to speed up her PC, and none of them restored it to its original speed. Two of the tools that I had put on her computer before the rebuild were CCleaner and Registry Booster, tools that do a really good (but obviously not good enough) job of cleaning all the junk that accumulates, like electronic grit, in the machinery of a Windows computer.
After the rebuild I went to the Internet to download a new copy of Registry Booster for her, and I found an interesting discussion that went something like this. Each entry is from a different player:
"Why does PC World even recommend Registry Booster? When you go to the Registry Booster website, they offer a free scan of your PC, and then they tell you that you have 354 problems with your registry but they won't correct them for you unless you buy the full version of RB. That's not fair!"
"Yeah, that's called scareware." (No smiley.)
"What a rip-off."
"All registry cleaners are rip-offs."
"I don't know why nobody uses the free, web-based registry cleaner from Microsoft. It's at http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/center/cleanup.htm ."
"Nobody uses it because nobody knows about it, you moron. But thanks for telling us about it. Now I'm gonna start using it."
"Hey everybody, i just found out that you have to run it from IE 7 or IE 8. And it temporarily installs an Active X control on your computer, but it deletes it later."
I just tried it. It displays an EULA that you have to accept, then it downloads a couple of things to your computer, runs a bunch of tests, does the cleanup, and then the last step is "Uploading information to Microsoft." Yikes. I should have read the EULA better before I ran it. Oh, well. The Internet's collective opinion is that it works as well as Registry Booster but it doesn't cost any money. It does require you to become more dependent on Microsoft, though. If that's a price you're willing to pay, then go ahead and try it on your own computer.
Registry Booster is available from http://www.uniblue.com/.
CCleaner is available from http://www.filehippo.com/download_ccleaner.
Once again, the Microsoft tool is available from http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/center/cleanup.htm, and it only runs under Internet Explorer 7 or 8.
These tools work for Windows XP, Vista and 7.
After the rebuild I went to the Internet to download a new copy of Registry Booster for her, and I found an interesting discussion that went something like this. Each entry is from a different player:
"Why does PC World even recommend Registry Booster? When you go to the Registry Booster website, they offer a free scan of your PC, and then they tell you that you have 354 problems with your registry but they won't correct them for you unless you buy the full version of RB. That's not fair!"
"Yeah, that's called scareware." (No smiley.)
"What a rip-off."
"All registry cleaners are rip-offs."
"I don't know why nobody uses the free, web-based registry cleaner from Microsoft. It's at http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/center/cleanup.htm ."
"Nobody uses it because nobody knows about it, you moron. But thanks for telling us about it. Now I'm gonna start using it."
"Hey everybody, i just found out that you have to run it from IE 7 or IE 8. And it temporarily installs an Active X control on your computer, but it deletes it later."
I just tried it. It displays an EULA that you have to accept, then it downloads a couple of things to your computer, runs a bunch of tests, does the cleanup, and then the last step is "Uploading information to Microsoft." Yikes. I should have read the EULA better before I ran it. Oh, well. The Internet's collective opinion is that it works as well as Registry Booster but it doesn't cost any money. It does require you to become more dependent on Microsoft, though. If that's a price you're willing to pay, then go ahead and try it on your own computer.
Registry Booster is available from http://www.uniblue.com/.
CCleaner is available from http://www.filehippo.com/download_ccleaner.
Once again, the Microsoft tool is available from http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/center/cleanup.htm, and it only runs under Internet Explorer 7 or 8.
These tools work for Windows XP, Vista and 7.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
One Small Indicator that the Economy is Improving
Like the first birds of spring, that arrive even before the snow has started melting, I saw an early sign yesterday that the economy is improving.
I got called by a headhunter.
When employers are engaging headhunters to find talent among the ranks of the already employed, that's a harbinger of better times ahead.
I got called by a headhunter.
When employers are engaging headhunters to find talent among the ranks of the already employed, that's a harbinger of better times ahead.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
A Really, Truly, Empty Nest, Part 1: Crying Over an Old Blanket
UPDATE, 27 NOVEMBER 2022:
When I wrote this entry, I fully intended to follow up with a Part 2. I don't remember what Part 2 was supposed to be. However, I do have a Part 2 now. You can read it here: A New Quilt.
THE ORIGINAL ENTRY:
Please don't misinterpret me. I’m not complaining at all. It looks like we did it right again. We may actually go five for five on raising our kids right.
We picked up our youngest daughter at the SLC airport on Wednesday night (from AZ, visiting a friend) and took her back to the airport on Thursday morning (to NC, visiting mission friends). Then we got onto I-80 and drove back to Colorado by ourselves, and we've been kind of in a daze since we got home. There are no kids here to worry about! For the first time in 30 years!
Emotions are kind of confusing right now. We're mostly numb. My sweet wife got teary on the way to the airport Thursday morning, about something only tangentially related to the empty nest. She thought it was silly. I don't know what my daughter thought. I thought, "I'm sure lucky to be married to this woman."
I got teary on Saturday morning. Wanna know what caused it? I know it's because of the empty nest, but that's not what caused it. It's even sillier than whatever caused Mama to cry. (No, this isn't a contest. I'm just being honest.)
Before we got married, my fiancée made a quilt for me. It had mountains all over it. It was gorgeous. I loved it. I used it until we got married.
My firstborn son appropriated that quilt at some point in his childhood, and it stayed on his bed until he left for the Air Force Academy. Then my lastborn son appropriated it, and it stayed on his bed until he left for BYU. I ended up sharing that quilt with my sons for 30 years.
There was magic in that quilt. Remember how it had mountains all over it? Well, by sharing the quilt with my sons, I also shared my love of the mountains with them. And as surely as the colors in the quilt faded over the years, my sons absorbed that love of the mountains and made it their own.
Yesterday, Saturday morning, I was staring at that quilt sitting in the laundry basket where my lastborn had deposited it, and I realized that, faded and flattened though it might be, it was mine again. I thought about the fact that I had loaned one of my most precious possessions to my sons for 30 years, and never resented a minute of it. I would rather have shared it the way I did, than kept it and preserved it and never passed on that part of me to them.
And although it sounds silly now, that's the thought that made my tears start to flow.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Dr. Jack Horkheimer, the Star Hustler, passes away
I just found out that Dr. Jack Horkheimer, the animated and personable host of "Star Hustler" (later renamed "Star Gazer"), passed away on August 20.
Horkheimer's PBS show was only 5 minutes long, and it was always worth watching. He delighted in teaching his audience about something that was happening in the sky that they could go see RIGHT NOW.
His program started as a local Miami feature, then went national and finally international. Horkheimer was on my list of "people I'd like to meet." It's too bad he left before I could meet him.
He moved to Florida on a doctor's advice. He had a lung condition that did better in the warm, humid climate of Miami. Apparently the doctor gave good advice. He finally succumbed to the degenerative lung disease, but he lasted until age 72, so that was pretty darn good.
I'll miss Dr. Horkheimer, his enthusiasm and knowledge, and the words with which he closed every show: "Keep looking up!"
Randy Cassingham posted a great eulogy for the man at his This is True website. Go take a look.
Horkheimer's PBS show was only 5 minutes long, and it was always worth watching. He delighted in teaching his audience about something that was happening in the sky that they could go see RIGHT NOW.
His program started as a local Miami feature, then went national and finally international. Horkheimer was on my list of "people I'd like to meet." It's too bad he left before I could meet him.
He moved to Florida on a doctor's advice. He had a lung condition that did better in the warm, humid climate of Miami. Apparently the doctor gave good advice. He finally succumbed to the degenerative lung disease, but he lasted until age 72, so that was pretty darn good.
I'll miss Dr. Horkheimer, his enthusiasm and knowledge, and the words with which he closed every show: "Keep looking up!"
Randy Cassingham posted a great eulogy for the man at his This is True website. Go take a look.
Friday, August 20, 2010
"Loud Pipes Save Lives"?
I heard it again this morning. One of the radio morning show DJs said, "I'm a firm believer in 'loud pipes save lives.'"
Most people know that he was talking about motorcycles. The theory is that the loud noise of an unmuffled motorcycle exhaust alerts automobile drivers to the biker's presence, which makes the biker safer.
I think that "loud pipes save lives" is insincere and hypocritical. Helmets save lives too, and yet way too many owners of loud bikes refuse to wear a motorcycle helmet. It's all about personal freedom, they say, as they oppose laws requiring them to wear a helmet.
Okay, forget the law, then. Just wear it out of common sense, okay?
(I still shake my head when I think of the Harley rider I encountered on I-25. He was roaring along on his bike, with his helmet firmly strapped to the seat behind him.)
I will believe the sincerity of the "loud pipes save lives" argument when I see its proponents wearing helmets while they ride. Until then, in my opinion, they're merely being obnoxious and hypocritical.
(On the other hand, I will smile and give a thumbs-up to any bareheaded rider honest enough to say "Nah, I just like loud pipes.")
Most people know that he was talking about motorcycles. The theory is that the loud noise of an unmuffled motorcycle exhaust alerts automobile drivers to the biker's presence, which makes the biker safer.
I think that "loud pipes save lives" is insincere and hypocritical. Helmets save lives too, and yet way too many owners of loud bikes refuse to wear a motorcycle helmet. It's all about personal freedom, they say, as they oppose laws requiring them to wear a helmet.
Okay, forget the law, then. Just wear it out of common sense, okay?
(I still shake my head when I think of the Harley rider I encountered on I-25. He was roaring along on his bike, with his helmet firmly strapped to the seat behind him.)
I will believe the sincerity of the "loud pipes save lives" argument when I see its proponents wearing helmets while they ride. Until then, in my opinion, they're merely being obnoxious and hypocritical.
(On the other hand, I will smile and give a thumbs-up to any bareheaded rider honest enough to say "Nah, I just like loud pipes.")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
