Stone-Cold

A "serious" Trifecta entry this weekend:

The word lithium comes from the Greek word lithos, which means stone (http://chemistry.about.com/od/lithium/a/10-Lithium-Facts.htm). This weekend, we want you to give us a thirty-three response using the word stone as one of your thirty-three words. You can use any definition of the word that you'd like, but we are specifically looking for serious, well-conceived entries. This isn't the weekend for light-hearted posts about the difficulty of posting before the linkz close, and we are not looking for hilarious commentary about your cats (THIS time). We want something serious and deep from you guys this weekend, because the sun is starting to shine a bit more, and we think we can handle it now. Take your time with it and give us your very best work.

So:

Do not burnish your ego until you can see yourself in its polished surface; reflections are but backwards shadows of reality. After all, the finest diamond is, in the end, just a stone.

Relieved of Corporeality

Back after a lengthy hiatus with a Trifecta entry.  I've let myself be distracted by some political issues, which can be found over at "Dispatches From the Culture War,"  if that's of interest to anyone.

Anyway, great prompt at Trifecta this weekend:

"Below are photos from the 33rd page of one of our very favorite books, Elizabeth Strout's Olive Kitteridge. What we want you to do is to scour the page (click to enlarge), choose 33 words, and reshape those words into a piece of your own. "

 

 

 

 

And my entry:

 

All he wanted was to lie on the pine needles, the lilies of the valley near him; the white starflowers, wild violets, pink impatiens.  Relief came as a sensation, the remnants of corporeality.

Happy Birthday!!

Chinese Philosopher Lao Tzu said: "Kindness in words creates confidence. Kindness in thinking creates profoundness. Kindness in giving creates love."

Today is the birthday of one of the most confident, profound, and loving people I know, if measured by the above parameters.  In my experience, she is the embodiment of kindness in living, consistantly more concerned with others than herself, yet always seems grateful for the things that she has. 

She has given me beautiful art, birthday meatloafs, and is always ready to lend a hand with anything.  Most of all though, she has been kind enough to share with me her daughter and her family, welcoming me as if I had always been a part of it.

Today, all I can say is: thank you, Sandi.

Check out her blog at Sandipaints, and you'll soon see what I mean.

Scalia, the 2nd Amendment and Dead Babies.

By now, most everyone is probably familiar with the Newtown CT shooting that took place Friday morning.  While details will still come to light, initial reports are that there are around 27 people dead, 20 of whom are children.  The reports also indicate that up to 4 weapons were involved, including 2 relatively powerful handguns, and a "Bushmaster" assault rifle. 

There have been and will be outpourings of grief, anger, and, incredibly, disbelief.  The two words used in almost all the coverage to date are "unimaginable" and "unthinkable."  While these sentiments are perhaps understandable, they aren't quite accurate.  It is all too thinkable and imaginable in a society in which there are approximately 80 guns for every 100 citizens.

The National Rifle Association and its "gun lobby" barely need to spend money anymore to pass their agendas.  Politicians in this country are so afraid of "blow back" from the supporters of this organization that reasonable dialogue can no longer be had on this issue.

The case in point is the past presidential election.  While the Democrats and the Obama administration have done nothing to restrict the ownership of guns, and in fact, have presided over a repeal on the Federal assault weapon ban, much anti-Obama sentiment focused on his "plan to take our guns." The Saturday Night Live skit aired during the election hit the nail in both parties' planks when it had the candidates respond to a question about what they would do about gun control: "Nothing," and "I will also do nothing," respectively.

Long-term studies in Australia and Austria have shown marked decreases in gun violence in those societies after the implementation of strict gun control.  Law enforcement organizations have repeatedly come out in favor of stricter gun control laws.

And yet, the gun lobby continues to push laws that would allow employees to bring guns to the workplace (and leave them in their cars,) for the reason that "they have a commute and may need to protect themselves."  Really.  Just in case you need to fire a warning shot across the bow of that Prius that looks like it might cut you off.  They have been responsible for the expansion of the "Castle Doctrine" which originally allowed deadly force to be used in one's own home, if one's life were under "imminent threat."  Now, more than 20 states have either passed or are considering legislation similar to Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law," which allows one to use deadly force without having to attempt to avoid it first.  This is the law often cited in the Treyvon Martin case. 

As a fairly staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights, and being generally in favor of an expansive reading of them, I have personally wavered on the issue of gun control.  However, as evidence continues to pile up for the seemingly obvious proposition that the more guns there are, the more people get shot, I've done some deep thinking on the issue. 

Justice Antonin Scalia, a strict constructionist, said recently that courts should look to the words themselves and their meanings when written when interpreting the Constitution.  Well, the 2nd Amendment reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It is the only one of the ten amendments that make up the Bill Of Rights that mentions regulation.  The first Amendment, in contrast, states that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedoms of speech, press and assembly.   The 5th Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that "no person shall be held to answer..." for various crimes "without due process of law."  No mention of regulation, these are, in the language of the constitution, more or less "absolute rights."  And yet, our courts have continuously found that there are limits to these rights when it is necessary for the good of society. 

Still, the Gun Lobby screams about the 2nd Amendment rights of its members and individuals cry that the government can have their guns when they "pry them from our cold dead hands."  It seems to me, that if we take Justice Scalia's comment to heart, we should look at the words "Well-regulated," as contained in the 2nd Amendment.  The situation concerning firearms is the farthest thing from well-regulated.  It seems to me that if Congress wished, it could regulate  that firearms only be held by those who belong to a government-sanctioned military organization.  I don't know that such an extreme measure would be wise policy, but it would behoove our nation to look to Europe and Scandinavia for the type of regulation that tends to suppress firearms violence. 

These questions should not be raised only when terrible mass tragedies strike, as such are still relatively rare.  It is the everyday shootings, accidental and intentional, that kill and maim hundreds every week, and that do not get more than a 2 minute mention on television, or a short column in the paper.  It is these victims, young and old, that should be pressing a real discussion of gun control in this country, not knee jerk "pry it from my cold dead hands" rhetoric. If we could do that, perhaps crimes such as this, while not disappearing completely, may actually become "unthinkable." 

The following is a response to a prompt over at Wattpad.


Using less that 400 words describe the setting in this photograph:

As the angle of the sun in the sky diminished, the blinding brilliance of the light reflected off the snow faded enough that he could see more clearly. It also meant that the scant warmth daylight had provided would be fading as well, replaced by a cutting wind as darkness fell. He zipped his parka to the neck and listened intently for a moment, bathed in the silence unique to the muffling effects of snow on sound. As the man peered from his vantage point in the copse of evergreen trees, he noted that the tracks he was following had been made either while the snow was still falling, or before new fresh flurries had partially filled them. The lack of white residue clinging to most of the visible tree branches confirmed his fear that he was at least a day behind. This was middle-aged ground covering, lacking the fresh smell of a new fall, but it had not yet been transformed to the mostly grey sludge that would invariably follow the human activity within his present suburban surroundings.

He carefully picked up his left foot and shook it, attempting to rid his toes of the numbness brought on by the liquid cold that managed to seep in even through his boots. Repeating the action with his right, he winced at the prickly pain that invaded his lower extremities as sensation returned momentarily due to the increased blood flow.
 
So, he was left with two potential courses of action: follow the tracks and hope to pick them up again on the other side of the street, or return to the dry warmth of his study and find some other way. It seemed an easy decision. His gaunt figure slowly dissolved back into the grey of the lengthening shadows, until there remained nothing except the faint rustle of branches stirred by the strengthening breeze.

Bill O'Reilly's Biggest Nightmare

Bill O'Reilly's biggest nightmare is coming true.  He said as much last night on Fox News:

"The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things? ...
"The demographics are changing," he said. "It's not a traditional America anymore."

The Pew Research Center breakdown for the demographics in the U.S. by 2050 is 47% "White," "29%" Hispanic," 13% "Black,"  and 9% "Asian."   Women already outnumber men in the general population by about 2 percentage points.  For once, Bill O'Reilly is right.  The demographics are changing, and the question is, what lessons will the Republican Party take from O'Reilly's observations?

Leaving aside the vaguely racist undertones of O'Reilly's statement, there's some wisdom there for the GOP.  That the economic system is stacked against these minority voters (and women), is what many in the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party have been saying for decades.  Many of these voters tend toward the middle and lower rungs of the economic spectrum.  That wealthier people benefit more from laissez-faire economic policies than the less-well off is an idea that seems to mystify no one except the leadership of the Republican Party, and their "tea-party" mouthpieces and supporters. 

This election was not about abortion, or foreign policy, or Sandy, or even really heath care or the deficit. It was about policies of voter-suppression and the continued marginalization of the economic underclass.  Poll after poll suggest that women are generally as likely to hold pro-life positions as men. What the polling does suggest, is that women disproportionately oppose foreign military intervention, and worry more about loss of funding for social programs, such as food stamps and medicaid.  These are also issues which concern people of middle and lower incomes. 

The GOP could, perhaps, come up with policies to address these problems.  There may be solutions that fit the "free-market" approach the Republican Party likes to claim as its own. There are no doubt very capable, intelligent people in the GOP, and they may be able to sell these solutions to 21st Century Americans.  But as long as conservatives are stuck in the endless droning on about "lower taxes," and trapped in the Reaganesque time warp of the "supply side," and "running government like a business," they will continue to fail with these new demographic realities.  People who live paycheck to paycheck, or have to rely on food stamps to feed their families don't benefit from lower income taxes.  Their investment portfolios don't see dramatic gains from cutting the capital gains rate.  Their children don't become wealthier by doing away with estate taxes. 

The Great American Myth of the "self-made man" is starting to crumble.  Ever since human beings banded together and formed civil societies, there has been no such thing.   We are all interdependent upon each other and, in turn, on the society in which we live.  Every individual success story is really a testament to the collective effort of human beings to create the circumstances in which that success occurs.  Unless we are willing to all go back to being subsistence farmers, that will continue to be the case.

Many of us whom demographers classify as "white," have swallowed the Myth for generations, even in lower economic classes, because we've been inculcated with it by our schools, our parents and our leaders.  There are new generations coming, however, whose parents have seen the reality that unfettered corporate autonomy and "every man for himself" economic policies create.  Every society eventually has to face the realities of the inequalities of the distribution of wealth, and how that society deals with the problem generally defines whether that society thrives or declines. 

The Republican Party can be a part of the solution.  The best ideas come about after debating the relative merits of differing viewpoints.  But clinging to outmoded policies that benefit only a very few, is a recipe for disaster, not only for that political party, but for any nation foolish enough to embrace them. 

I invite Republicans to listen to Bill O'Reilly's observations, then ditch him, and others like him who long for a "Traditional America" that doesn't exist and never did.  People don't just "feel" entitled to things; they are entitled to a government that doesn't treat them like employees, but like partners, a government that recognizes that there are no "traditional" Americans, only people now living in American society and trying to make it work for them. 

If they don't, they may be in for more disappointment, as the country moves on without them.    

Zombie Zoo

Trifecta's weekend prompt is inspired by Zora Neal Hurston's encounter with an alleged Zombie in Haiti.  They are asking for "thirty three words that are somehow related to Hurston's zombie sighting." Here's the Photo:

Here's the challenge answer:

Eight o’clock.  Shadowed forms stagger in a macabre dance accompanied by an electronic hum.   Stiffly, they hunker down, wide-eyed, staring, bathed in the bluish glow of the cathode ray.  It eats their brains.