There is a certain look that a woman has that makes her the most attractive thing in heaven and on earth to a man. It is a look of desire more akin to an unnamed hope combined with an expectation of a feeling reciprocated. Sometimes, this look is a confident one, expressing a certainty that her feelings will be returned. Other times, this look combines uncertainty. Even if her words express certainty that she will be loved, her underlying feelings that this might not be so make their way to the surface and are expressed in her face, body language and speech. In either case, she may reserve her feelings because they are underlain and suffused with a fear that perhaps she is wrong and any overtures might be rejected. It is this cautious, expectant hope of love in her face that arouses in a man not just desire, but an expectant hope as well.
This look is reflected in songs, movies and books. In Spiderman 2, Mary Jane is the most beautiful when she and Peter Parker sit in the coffee shop and she is trying to figure out what his feelings are. She is cautious yet hopeful and confident enough to ask him to kiss her. You can see this expectant look in her face and hear it in the tenor of her voice.
In the opening lines of Bruce Springsteen’s Thunder Road, the music evokes and the words describe this as well.
The screen door slams, Mary’s dress waves.
Like a vision she dances across the porch as the radio plays
Roy Orbison singing for the lonely,
"Hey that’s me and I want you only."
Don’t turn me home again;
I just can’t face myself alone again.
This vignette describes a woman who is looking for her hero "to rise from the streets." She runs across the porch to see if the singer is the hero she is looking for. One can just imagine the hopeful yet cautious feelings Mary has that perhaps this is the love she is looking for.
Finally, in M. Night Shyamalan’s new movie The Village, when Ivy Walker and Lucius Hunt talk on the porch at night, that same look is in her face, confident and demanding. It is during this scene that she is the most beautiful. The look in her face and her blind eyes reflect her love for him, her certainty that he loves her in return and the hope that he will overcome his own fears and express those feelings to her.
Are this look and this feeling the sole possession of the young? I remember it in my youth, though I didn’t recognize it. Now I am older and I recognize it, though I rarely see it only in movies or reflected in songs or books. Can older women still express that feeling in their faces and bodies or do people practice suppressing it over the years and let fear practice hiding it? Is it only found by accidental discovery? Can it be found by searching? Where would one begin to look?
Saturday, July 31, 2004
I have made it a policy in this blog to avoid giving any clues as to my location in the universe. Of course, the three or four people who actually read it probably know where I am, so it is a pointless policy anyway. Just this once, however, I am going to appeal to the readers who live in Washington and Oregon regarding the presidential campaign.
I have made no secret that I voted for Nader in 2000 and am actively supporting John Kerry this time around. Hell, I even sent the Kerry campaign money. For those of you who live in Washington and Oregon and are thinking of supporting Kerry, I urge you to change your passive support to active support. These states are considered swing states. If you do not act to make sure that John Kerry wins in these states, there is a possibility that they will fall to George Bush. If this happens, then not even winning Ohio or Florida will make up for it. Kerry would have to win both Ohio and Florida and pick up more states than Gore did in 2000 in order to win in the electoral college. As a side note, if Kerry picks up all the states that Gore did in 2000, except Oregon and Washington and including Florida, then the electoral college would be tied and the decision would go to the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans.
For those of you who are uncertain whether to vote for Bush or Kerry, I urge you to take a close look at the differences between the two candidates on John Kerry's website and George Bush's website. Don't just look at their voting records; look at their leadership styles, their values and their accomplishments over the past 40 years and judge between them. I think John Kerry will come out more favorably than George Bush. John Kerry makes much of his service in Vietnam for the simple reason that his service there reflects his commitment to defending our country and shows that he has experience as a leader that goes back over 30 years. John Kerry has been accused of being a flip-flopper, but where the Republican activists accuse him of flip-flopping, I see a nuanced view of the world from a man who understands complex issues and is constantly challenging his own opinions in order to arrive at the correct outcome. I trust a man with this approach far more than I would someone who sees the world in black and white and refuses to change in the face of changed circumstances. Also, religious values are important. Kerry said in his acceptance speech that he does not wear his religion on his sleeve but his religious values underpin all his actions and views.
For those of you who voted for Bush or Nader last time but are unhappy with the direction Bush is taking the country, think about the restriction of civil liberties, the secrecy and manipulative control of information by the Bush administration and the use of false information to take us into an unjust war of choice. Think about Bush's promises in the 2000 campaign of compassionate conservatism and his vow to be a uniter, not a divider. Do you see the compassion in his conservatism? Is the country more united or more divided than it was in 2000?
If you have been a loyal republican in the past but are unhappy with Bush, you probably can't bring yourself to vote for Kerry but don't want to vote for Bush. I cannot advocate not voting at all, but perhaps you can look more closely at some of the other candidates for President. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party might be more to your taste, or Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. Perhaps you might vote for Ralph Nader running as an independent or even former porn star Marilyn Chambers of the Personal Choice party. Well maybe not Marilyn Chambers; she's running for Vice-President anyway.
I have made no secret that I voted for Nader in 2000 and am actively supporting John Kerry this time around. Hell, I even sent the Kerry campaign money. For those of you who live in Washington and Oregon and are thinking of supporting Kerry, I urge you to change your passive support to active support. These states are considered swing states. If you do not act to make sure that John Kerry wins in these states, there is a possibility that they will fall to George Bush. If this happens, then not even winning Ohio or Florida will make up for it. Kerry would have to win both Ohio and Florida and pick up more states than Gore did in 2000 in order to win in the electoral college. As a side note, if Kerry picks up all the states that Gore did in 2000, except Oregon and Washington and including Florida, then the electoral college would be tied and the decision would go to the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans.
For those of you who are uncertain whether to vote for Bush or Kerry, I urge you to take a close look at the differences between the two candidates on John Kerry's website and George Bush's website. Don't just look at their voting records; look at their leadership styles, their values and their accomplishments over the past 40 years and judge between them. I think John Kerry will come out more favorably than George Bush. John Kerry makes much of his service in Vietnam for the simple reason that his service there reflects his commitment to defending our country and shows that he has experience as a leader that goes back over 30 years. John Kerry has been accused of being a flip-flopper, but where the Republican activists accuse him of flip-flopping, I see a nuanced view of the world from a man who understands complex issues and is constantly challenging his own opinions in order to arrive at the correct outcome. I trust a man with this approach far more than I would someone who sees the world in black and white and refuses to change in the face of changed circumstances. Also, religious values are important. Kerry said in his acceptance speech that he does not wear his religion on his sleeve but his religious values underpin all his actions and views.
For those of you who voted for Bush or Nader last time but are unhappy with the direction Bush is taking the country, think about the restriction of civil liberties, the secrecy and manipulative control of information by the Bush administration and the use of false information to take us into an unjust war of choice. Think about Bush's promises in the 2000 campaign of compassionate conservatism and his vow to be a uniter, not a divider. Do you see the compassion in his conservatism? Is the country more united or more divided than it was in 2000?
If you have been a loyal republican in the past but are unhappy with Bush, you probably can't bring yourself to vote for Kerry but don't want to vote for Bush. I cannot advocate not voting at all, but perhaps you can look more closely at some of the other candidates for President. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party might be more to your taste, or Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. Perhaps you might vote for Ralph Nader running as an independent or even former porn star Marilyn Chambers of the Personal Choice party. Well maybe not Marilyn Chambers; she's running for Vice-President anyway.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
One political convention and a bottle of 2000 Beringer Knights Valley Cabernet later, what kind of comments do I have about the Presidential race?
America can be stronger and respected in the world.
God is not on any one side, we must pray that we are on God's side.
America can do better and help is on the way.
We are not red states and blue states, but one America, red, white and blue.
Send John Kerry.
He sold me, but then, I was already sold.
Here are a few thoughts for those who might not have decided whom to vote for in November.
Are you Catholic? Remember that there are other sins besides abortion. If it is a sin to vote for a politician who supports abortion, it must also be a sin to vote for a politician who supports the death penalty and unjust war. Those are also sins under Catholic theology. George Bush presided over a lot of executions a governor of Texas, is unapologetic and seems proud of it. The Catholic Church declared that the war in Iraq was not a just war. There are a lot of issues that are important to the nation besides abortion. There are a lot of issues of importance to Catholic values besides abortion. The Catholic Church and Catholics in general have been at the forefront of social justice in this country. We were taught by Jesus to love the poor, the weak and the disenfranchised. It might be a sin to practice homosexuality, but judgment lies with God, not us. We should not enshrine prejudice into the Constitution. Let the states decide whether to allow gay marriage. Marriage has always been an issue decided in the states. The Bush administration might be anti-abortion, but it is also divisive and hateful. It represents the privileged and well-connected, not the poor and downtrodden.
Are you an environmentalist? I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 along with a lot of other people. As a result, a man who would have been the best environmental President ever was defeated. I will not let that happen again. Under President Bush, we have seen the roll-back or attempted roll-back of countless policies designed to protect our environment, including forest protection, clean air and clean water, and limiting oil drilling and exploration in pristine wilderness. The Bush administration has had the worst environmental policy since Reagan. Don't get fooled into voting for Nader because you think he would be better on environmental issues. The hopes of environmentalists lie with the democrats, not a third party. Greens voted for Nader in 2000 in order to send a wake-up call to the democrats to not take the environmental vote for granted. Instead, it sent a wake-up call to the left in general, we can't go it alone and must make common cause with the center.
Are you in the military or a veteran? Why not put a man in office who knows what it is like to serve in the military, who knows what it is like to face the enemy. While George Bush might have served in the Air National Guard in Texas (or Alabama or wherever he was), it does not compare to active combat. A man who has faced combat will be far less eager to send troops into harm's way unless he is sure of his facts and has no other choice. War is an important enough endeavor that we should not trust it to a man who rarely reads even the headlines, let alone policy briefs given to him. It should be trusted to a man who understands the complexity of international relations and is willing to read the fine print on a document on which rests the fate of nations. I have heard that re-enlistment rates in the military are the lowest they have been since the end of the Vietnam War. Many military observers fear for a hollowing-out of our mid-level officer corps that will jeopardize our military strength for years to come. The military is overstretched like it never has been since the end of World War II. How will we be able to defend ourselves against our enemies in the War on Terror under such conditions?
Are you a democrat or a republican? Wouldn't you rather that politics dealt with issues rather than divided us vs. them? America was united after September 11. Leftists and liberals rediscovered their patriotism. I flew the flag on July 4 this year. I have never before in my life done that. We want to reclaim the symbols of patriotism. We want this nation to be one nation, not divided between red states and blue states, between rich and poor, between left and right, gays and straights, black and white. Politics in Washington has become more personal and vindictive over the past four years. We are one nation and we want to be led as one nation. George Bush claimed he was a uniter not a divider, that he would practice compassionate conservatism. In 2000, he did not seem so dangerous. My only conclusion four years later is that he lied. As soon as he was sworn into office, without a mandate from the people he immediately pandered to the extreme right. He did not notice that the majority in the country voted against him and he promptly rewarded his political core supporters rather than trying to appeal to the majority. I won't be fooled again.
America can be stronger and respected in the world. God is not on any one side, we must pray that we are on God's side. America can do better and help is on the way. We are not red states and blue states, but one America, red, white and blue.
Send John Kerry.
America can be stronger and respected in the world.
God is not on any one side, we must pray that we are on God's side.
America can do better and help is on the way.
We are not red states and blue states, but one America, red, white and blue.
Send John Kerry.
He sold me, but then, I was already sold.
Here are a few thoughts for those who might not have decided whom to vote for in November.
Are you Catholic? Remember that there are other sins besides abortion. If it is a sin to vote for a politician who supports abortion, it must also be a sin to vote for a politician who supports the death penalty and unjust war. Those are also sins under Catholic theology. George Bush presided over a lot of executions a governor of Texas, is unapologetic and seems proud of it. The Catholic Church declared that the war in Iraq was not a just war. There are a lot of issues that are important to the nation besides abortion. There are a lot of issues of importance to Catholic values besides abortion. The Catholic Church and Catholics in general have been at the forefront of social justice in this country. We were taught by Jesus to love the poor, the weak and the disenfranchised. It might be a sin to practice homosexuality, but judgment lies with God, not us. We should not enshrine prejudice into the Constitution. Let the states decide whether to allow gay marriage. Marriage has always been an issue decided in the states. The Bush administration might be anti-abortion, but it is also divisive and hateful. It represents the privileged and well-connected, not the poor and downtrodden.
Are you an environmentalist? I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 along with a lot of other people. As a result, a man who would have been the best environmental President ever was defeated. I will not let that happen again. Under President Bush, we have seen the roll-back or attempted roll-back of countless policies designed to protect our environment, including forest protection, clean air and clean water, and limiting oil drilling and exploration in pristine wilderness. The Bush administration has had the worst environmental policy since Reagan. Don't get fooled into voting for Nader because you think he would be better on environmental issues. The hopes of environmentalists lie with the democrats, not a third party. Greens voted for Nader in 2000 in order to send a wake-up call to the democrats to not take the environmental vote for granted. Instead, it sent a wake-up call to the left in general, we can't go it alone and must make common cause with the center.
Are you in the military or a veteran? Why not put a man in office who knows what it is like to serve in the military, who knows what it is like to face the enemy. While George Bush might have served in the Air National Guard in Texas (or Alabama or wherever he was), it does not compare to active combat. A man who has faced combat will be far less eager to send troops into harm's way unless he is sure of his facts and has no other choice. War is an important enough endeavor that we should not trust it to a man who rarely reads even the headlines, let alone policy briefs given to him. It should be trusted to a man who understands the complexity of international relations and is willing to read the fine print on a document on which rests the fate of nations. I have heard that re-enlistment rates in the military are the lowest they have been since the end of the Vietnam War. Many military observers fear for a hollowing-out of our mid-level officer corps that will jeopardize our military strength for years to come. The military is overstretched like it never has been since the end of World War II. How will we be able to defend ourselves against our enemies in the War on Terror under such conditions?
Are you a democrat or a republican? Wouldn't you rather that politics dealt with issues rather than divided us vs. them? America was united after September 11. Leftists and liberals rediscovered their patriotism. I flew the flag on July 4 this year. I have never before in my life done that. We want to reclaim the symbols of patriotism. We want this nation to be one nation, not divided between red states and blue states, between rich and poor, between left and right, gays and straights, black and white. Politics in Washington has become more personal and vindictive over the past four years. We are one nation and we want to be led as one nation. George Bush claimed he was a uniter not a divider, that he would practice compassionate conservatism. In 2000, he did not seem so dangerous. My only conclusion four years later is that he lied. As soon as he was sworn into office, without a mandate from the people he immediately pandered to the extreme right. He did not notice that the majority in the country voted against him and he promptly rewarded his political core supporters rather than trying to appeal to the majority. I won't be fooled again.
America can be stronger and respected in the world. God is not on any one side, we must pray that we are on God's side. America can do better and help is on the way. We are not red states and blue states, but one America, red, white and blue.
Send John Kerry.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
There are some new polling updates at Dave Leip's Atlas of Presidential Elections. Florida has a new polls that show Kerry ahead, some that show Bush ahead, and some that show a dead heat. Florida is still very much in play. The map shows Pennsylvania and Michigan leaning slightly to Kerry. I believe that these states will eventually vote for Kerry in November.
Wisconsin is much more of a battleground than I originally expected. If Bush wins in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida, he can win the whole shebang. This is a likely possible scenario. Conversely, if he doesn't win in Ohio or Florida, it will be very difficult for him to win. Without Ohio, Bush would need to pick up Wisconsin, Washington and a host of smaller states. According to most polls, it will be difficult for Bush to win in Washington. Washington shows as a toss-up, but that is only because of one poll in late June that showed a dead heat in that state. All other polls in Washington show Kerry winning by four to five points.
In order for Kerry to win he needs to win in:
A. Washington, Ohio, Maine, New Mexico, and New Hampshire
B. Washington and Florida and one of either Maine, New Mexico, or New Hampshire
On interesting scenario I noticed among the various predictions that get posted to the site is an even split in the Electoral College. This scenario is a real possibility. Take a look at the battleground states and one small state with 5 electoral votes.
A. Kerry wins in Wisconsin as well as Washington, New Mexico, New England, Pennsylvania and Michigan where he is running strong
B. Bush wins Florida and Ohio as well as West Virginia and Arkansas, where he is running strong
C. Nevada votes for Kerry instead of Bush.
An even split in the electoral college is a real possibility, given the meager polling data available. Also, Nevada voted for Clinton in 1996 and 1992. Many pundits call it a battleground state as well. If this happens, Bush is likely to win, because the election then moves out of the electoral college and into Congress, where Republicans have a majority.
Wisconsin is much more of a battleground than I originally expected. If Bush wins in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida, he can win the whole shebang. This is a likely possible scenario. Conversely, if he doesn't win in Ohio or Florida, it will be very difficult for him to win. Without Ohio, Bush would need to pick up Wisconsin, Washington and a host of smaller states. According to most polls, it will be difficult for Bush to win in Washington. Washington shows as a toss-up, but that is only because of one poll in late June that showed a dead heat in that state. All other polls in Washington show Kerry winning by four to five points.
In order for Kerry to win he needs to win in:
A. Washington, Ohio, Maine, New Mexico, and New Hampshire
B. Washington and Florida and one of either Maine, New Mexico, or New Hampshire
On interesting scenario I noticed among the various predictions that get posted to the site is an even split in the Electoral College. This scenario is a real possibility. Take a look at the battleground states and one small state with 5 electoral votes.
A. Kerry wins in Wisconsin as well as Washington, New Mexico, New England, Pennsylvania and Michigan where he is running strong
B. Bush wins Florida and Ohio as well as West Virginia and Arkansas, where he is running strong
C. Nevada votes for Kerry instead of Bush.
An even split in the electoral college is a real possibility, given the meager polling data available. Also, Nevada voted for Clinton in 1996 and 1992. Many pundits call it a battleground state as well. If this happens, Bush is likely to win, because the election then moves out of the electoral college and into Congress, where Republicans have a majority.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
The September 11 report is out today. I picked it up at a local bookstore for only $10.00. I recommend everyone who is concerned about public policy to pick this up and read it. So far, I am not through a quarter of the book, but it is an easy read for a government report. The first chapter details the events of September 11 and is a gripping read. If you read nothing else in the report, read Chapter 1. It describes the coordination of the hijackers and the complete disorganization of the US government in minute-by-minute detail. It has conversations between passengers and their families, one of which is cut off while the passenger's father watches the plane crash on television.
The second chapter details the history of the rise of al Qaeda and the evolution of terrorism, while the third chapter describes the evolution of counterterrorism in the US, including the failures and shortcomings of everyone involved as well as some successes. No one is left unmentioned in this chapter, from Presidents as far back as Reagan to the FAA, the State Department, the CIA and FBI, Congress and by implication, the American Public.
If you read only one political book this year, read the 9/11 report.
The second chapter details the history of the rise of al Qaeda and the evolution of terrorism, while the third chapter describes the evolution of counterterrorism in the US, including the failures and shortcomings of everyone involved as well as some successes. No one is left unmentioned in this chapter, from Presidents as far back as Reagan to the FAA, the State Department, the CIA and FBI, Congress and by implication, the American Public.
If you read only one political book this year, read the 9/11 report.
For those of you following the polls in the upcoming Presidential elections, I point you to Dave Leip's Election Atlas. He collects and analyzes polling data from across the country on a state-by-state basis and posts it as a map. It is quite a site. The polling page shows which states are tossups. Currently, Washington, New Mexico, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Maine are tossups.
The most important recent development is that Florida is now leaning slightly to Kerry. This is not good news for Bush. Bush is likely to pick up Arkansas and West Virginia, but Washington, New Mexico and Maine are likely to fall to Kerry. Without Florida, Bush needs to win at least three large midwestern states. This is not likely, given the economic picture in those states for the past four years. The history of polls in Wisconsin shows it going back and forth. Bush has some potential here. Michigan has been going back and forth, with the most recent polls falling towards Kerry. Ohio went for Bush in 2000, but recent polls go back and forth. Pennsylvania has been trending towards Kerry, but there are a few polls that show Bush in the lead in that state. Pennsylvania voted for Gore in 2000.
The most important recent development is that Florida is now leaning slightly to Kerry. This is not good news for Bush. Bush is likely to pick up Arkansas and West Virginia, but Washington, New Mexico and Maine are likely to fall to Kerry. Without Florida, Bush needs to win at least three large midwestern states. This is not likely, given the economic picture in those states for the past four years. The history of polls in Wisconsin shows it going back and forth. Bush has some potential here. Michigan has been going back and forth, with the most recent polls falling towards Kerry. Ohio went for Bush in 2000, but recent polls go back and forth. Pennsylvania has been trending towards Kerry, but there are a few polls that show Bush in the lead in that state. Pennsylvania voted for Gore in 2000.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)