Telling Stories

Believing What You Believe In

I've been checking out several Buddhist blogs recently.  And by "Buddhist blogs" I mean blogs that talk about Buddhism, practice, etc., and not necessarily blogs by Buddhists (though most of them are).  I was somewhat surprised at the amount of debate and discussion about Buddhism that takes place among Buddhists that takes place in "the Internets."  Fortunately, all the discussions I've seen are nowhere near the flame wars I've gotten used to in the political blogs.

One of the Buddhist precepts pertains to refraining from "false speech."  Although this is generally understood as not lying, it also means that we are not to use our speech in a mindless or hurtful way.  And along those lines, there is some concern about what happens when people start arguing about an issue and each side argues passionately for their point of view.

A blogger wondered whether we should stop arguing over things that, in the final analysis, aren't really that important.  My response somewhat laid the basis for this post.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama on Political Correctness

Via Precious Metal:

The Dalai Lama was recently in the Czech capital at a conference on Human Rights issues in Asia. He was asked what he thought of political correctness.

With a look not often found on His Holiness’ face, puzzled, he asked “what do you mean?” This threw the audience into laughter, but His Holiness still looked puzzled and repeated fervently “what do you mean?”

After having the words explained to him, His Holiness than gave a wise and profound answer, “I don’t know… I openly express – if someone’s short, I express it as short. If someone’s very tall, I say very tall… Of course, if you create embarrassment, you can’t be saying this. But otherwise, black is black, white is white, yellow is yellow. And that’s it.”

Emphasis added.  Wise indeed.

The Future

As my faithful readers - all three of them -  may have noticed, I've been pretty slow to blog for a while.  I've been pondering whether I want to keep blogging and, if so, whether I want to keep talking about the same things.

Much has happened in my personal life.  Thankfully, knock on wood, neither my wife nor I have been seriously affected by the economic downturn.  We still have jobs, food, a roof to live under, and can afford to pay our bills.  We are changing our lifestyle somewhat because we realized how vulnerable we would be if we were to lose our jobs.

I am also tired of politics right now.  Tired of the Right, the Left, the Middle, and the Fringes.

And over the last few months, I've been focusing more on religious/spiritual endeavors.  That, and just the plain business of life, leaves very little time for much else.  And my wife and I will take on some added responsibilities that will leave virtually no time to do much of anything, except on weekends.

So I need a break.  I don't think I'll be going away into "that digital dark night" (also known as the 404 Error).  But I may come back with a new focus and ideas.  It will be "Telling Stories."  Just different stories.

See you soon, guys!

Having Your Cake and Eating it Too

That seems to be the message from a NYT/CBS News Poll:

Most Americans continue to want the federal government to focus on reducing the budget deficit rather than spending money to stimulate the national economy, a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds. Yet at the same time, most oppose some proposed solution for decreasing it.

Fifty-six percent of respondents said that they were not willing to pay more in taxes in order to reduce the deficit, and nearly as many said they were not willing for the government to provide fewer services in areas such as health care, education and defense spending.

Emphasis added.  This is why I could never be a politician.  I could not, for the life of me, go before my constituents if they tell me something like that and not say something like "You're all full of s**t!"  I can't believe people are this stupid.

See, reducing the deficit is like running your household when you have debt.  You either try to pay your debt down and go without some stuff (less services) or you go out and get another job so you have more money available to pay your debt (raising taxes).

It's one, the other, or maybe both, people!  There's no "none of the above" option here.

I know.  Maybe the federal government should reduce the amount of assistance it gives states.  That's it.  Let the states be the ones faced with having to raise taxes or cut spending!  Presto-whammo!  That should satisfy all those "limited government" types out there.

"Obama-Gates"-Gate

Via CBS News:

I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.

I know everyone is all bent out of shape about Obama's "acted stupidly" passage and the suggestion that race played a factor in Professor Gates' arrest.  I could excuse that on the basis that they're good friends.  What I can't excuse under any circumstance is that he said it after saying this:

"I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here," the president said. "I don't know all the facts."

and

"Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."

You must admit that he was due for a whopper of a mistake.  In fact, I can't recall him saying something this dumb or this stupid ever.  First, he acknowledges that he doesn't know all the facts and that he doesn't have a first-hand account of what happened.  And then he goes on to say that police procedure was stupid and to make a comment that suggests that the police officer's actions were somehow racially motivated.

I have stayed away from this issue for the same reason Obama should have stayed away from it: I don't know what happened.  Second, the guy was arrested for disorderly conduct, not for breaking and entering.  In other words, there was no dispute in the cops' mind that Professor Gates was in his house.

How did Professor Gates act?

Was he warned?

Was he behaving like a jerk?

Was he menacing and threatening the police officer?

I don't know.  But since I am an attorney, I know that many times the facts are not what they appear to be at the beginning of a case and that there's a world of difference between allegations and what you can prove objectively.  And Obama should know that and should have just stayed away from it all.

I'm disappointed he didn't have enough sense to do so.

UPDATE- 3:26 P.M. After reading the Police reports in The Smoking Gun, it looks even worse.  The police report filed by Sgt. Crowley - the alleged racist cop - states that there were "several" officers and passers-by who witnessed the incident.  And there's a separate report filed by Officer Carlos Figueroa pretty much confirming that Gates was flipping out and that Sgt. Gates was trying to calm him down and defuse the situation.

Regardless of whether Gates feels aggrieved or not, it doesn't look good for him.

I Love America!!! But . . .

. . . I'm really getting fed up with our puritanical obsession about sexual matters.  I'm talking about Gov. Mark Sandford.  In my opinion, the only thing he did that's worth taking him to task over was leaving for Argentina without leaving someone in charge while he was out.  That's just plain stupid and irresponsible.

But what's making news - of course - is the affair.

This is why I have so much difficulty with the GOP.  Was he wrong to have an affair?  Was he wrong to cheat on his wife?  Was he wrong in trying to conceal it from everyone?

The answer is: who the heck knows?  If you are married or have been in any kind of serious relationship, you know that the only people who know what's going on in that relationship are the two persons involved in it.  They - and, unfortunately, the kids - will have to deal with this issue.  It's an intensely personal matter that does not belong in the public arena.  Period.

If you want him to quit because he flaked out, went to Argentina, and didn't leave anyone in charge, I'm OK with that.  Love may make you do stupid things, but if you're a governor, you can't afford to do dumb stuff like that for love, money, or anything else.

But if you just think it's immoral that he's running around having an affair and it offends your sensibilities, remember this:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."  Matthew 7.1-2

Conservatives Engage in CENSORSHIP (as Defined by a Fellow Conservative)

In response to my last post, a fellow blogger and I had the following exchange (relevant parts only):

El Loco:   I don't think the original comment was a personal attack, but rather, a bad joke. A really ill-conceived bad joke. But again, that stuff happens when you're a public persona.

Offensive? Yes. But lets move on to something a little more substantive, shall we? If the right is so bent out of shape, it can boycott Letterman's sponsors, and it can use the power of the remote to watch something else.

Oh, wait. I forgot you call that censorship and not free speech.

Conservative Blogger's Response: No Loco, we call it censorship if NOW (the group not the time) all of a sudden would ask for Letterman to be fired, the way they fired Imus.

He can say whatever he wants, and he can be boycotted, there are responsibilities for your actions.

Unless my fellow blogger suggests that it's only censorship when NOW does it, and I know she's too smart to suggest that, it appears that Conservatives are engaged in censorship.  Via The Raw Story:

In spite of Letterman's apology, conservatives have launched a Web site calling for his job. The site, FireDavidLetterman.com, appears to mimic the layout of The Drudge Report. The group responsible is planning to protest outside New York's Ed Sullivan Theater on Tuesday afternoon.

Emphasis added.  If you feel compelled to check out their site, by all means.  But it only goes to show that, for some people, freedom of speech only applies if you say stuff I don't find offensive.

The moral of the story?  There are way too many people with waaaaay too much time on their hands out there right now.

"Sarah Palin & David Letterman : Dan Quayle & Murphy Brown"?

I really don't know what to make of this. To me, it was clear from the first time I heard Letterman's monologue that he was referring to Bristol Palin.  Sarah Palin's older daughter whose out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancy became something of an issue during last year's presidential campaign.  And who is also over 18.  And the reason I thought so is that nobody else seems to care about the other Palin children.

It's particularly revealing that this person, who many consider a "front runner" in the GOP for the '12 presidential election, is choosing to spend this much time and effort on such a small issue.  It's really not Letterman's fault that while Palin was advocating abstinence-only, her daughter was not abstaining and because she did not practice or believe in using prophylactics she got pregnant.  And it's not Letterman's fault that it became revealed to everyone because her mother agreed to become the GOP's vice-presidential nominee.

Politicians should know that picking fights with entertainers is not in their interest: they have very little to gain, and the entertainer gets better ratings.

Let it go, Sarah.  There's so much work the GOP must do to pick itself up and become a meaningful alternative to the Democrats for you to waste it on this.

Nothing to see here.

Moving right along . . .

The Most Adequate Representation of New York State's Senate

 

I don't think we need to elaborate . . .

Jack Kemp, R.I.P.

It won't take anybody too long to figure out my political preferences by reading this blog.  That said, my disagreements with the Republicans are more on social conservatism than anything else.  When it comes to economics, I'm a pragmatist.  And if it works, then it's good no matter what it is.

There have been precious few Republicans who have made me think about crossing party lines in a positive way (and by that I mean voting for the Republican as opposed to voting against the Democrat). 

Jack Kemp was one of those Republicans.

We're all lucky to have had him around.  And now more than ever, Republicans need more guys like Jack Kemp.

Thank you, Jack.