Blame, Shame and The Same

One of the heated arguments that has come out of the Tuscon, AZ tragedy is what caused the shooter to take action.  Lots of fingers being pointed at all sorts of people and areas.  The former governor of Alaska is taking a large amount of the brunt from a poster that was drafted up almost a year ago.

It depicts cross hairs on certain parts of the country where tea party candidates for congress were expected to take over.  As we learned in November's election, 18 of the 20 House seats were won by the Tea Party.  Since the Rep. Giffords shooting on Saturday, this map has been a hot bed of fervor.  People blaming Palin for placing a target that represents a gun sights on various candidates, Gabrielle Giffords included.

As it turns out, a lot of politicians, political groups and organizations have used these symbols before.  Click the following link to see a well researched post (by an ultra conservative blogger) that was done in March 2010:

Gun Symbols and Verbiage on Maps and Posters

So blame cannot be placed onto one individual, even if you don't like that person or what they stand for - even if the connection hits too close to home - it's been done by others on all sides of the political collective.

Over on my main blog, I talked about needing to reduce that negative and dividing rhetoric that is part of our society today.  While I still hold to that and really want to see people tone it the fuck down and be civil and work together, I don't think the blame rests with these posters that use firearm symbols and terminology. Do I detest their use in their rant against politicians?  I most certainly do.  Do we need to pass a law that says not to use them?  Hell no. I simply want reasonable people to think clearly with their words, actions and campaign posters before making their message public.

Because even though the shooter may not have been fueled by such messages and terminology, it can sometimes be all too real in the the here and now.

All Is Quiet On New Year's Day

Well, that really wasn't true for me.  You see, I was at a party with about 20 others, having many adult beverages.  But sometime around 2am, it became quiet once my head hit the pillow.

Seems the proper way to ring in the new year is to cheer, shout and clap - putting the drink down for that brief moment of celebration - and then say your thanks and goodbyes to the host of the party.

As we get older, we tend to shorten our celebrations.  Once a year is fine.  A birthday is another occasion, but is almost always a quieter affair than the stroke of midnight on Jan 1st.

But cheer and joy and laughter, regardless of the time of the year, should never be silenced.  There should always be something to smile about in your life.

And that's the general idea of what I want to make happen in 2011.  So when the clock hits 11:59pm on Dec. 31, 2011, I want to have more cheers and not so many tears.

Leader of the Banned

It seems there will always be something that someone wants banned.  Be it a book or a food product or an alcoholic beverage.


I'm not sure how I feel about all of this.  While I can understand someone's outrage, it seems there are other solutions that are more logical and sound.


Like not buying the book.  Or not purchasing that Happy Meal for your kid.  Or not drinking that caffeine-induced malt beverage.


It's official.  We've replaced personal responsibility with letting others make the decision for you.


Congratulations whiners, complainers, protestors and boycotters.  You got your wish.


Welcome to the 21st Century.  It's much different than I expected it would be.

I Am A Minority

I'm white, but not Christian

I'm a Utah resident, but not Rebulican

I dispose of my trash, but also recycle

I stand in long lines at the store, but don't become irate over it

I go out shopping, but hold the door open for others behind me

I respect all religions, but I am not religious

I work on Windows systems all day, but use a Mac for personal use

I am amazed at all that children offer, but I am the proud father of just one

I love a good bowl of ice cream, but don't eat the entire half gallon in one sitting

I appreciate all that this world has to offer, but don't believe there was a single creator

I enjoyed the movie Titanic, but didn't think it was all that great

I love lots of TV shows, just not those that are labeled "reality"

I enjoy a nice candy treat, but it's rarely chocolate

I'm a straight male, but support rights for all without bias of sexual gender

Protecting Choice

This last week's news of a federal judge overturning Proposition 8 in California, brought out both supporters of, and those against, same-sex marriage.  Most of these people are against same-sex marriage for pretty much three reasons: it's morally wrong, God says no and it's a choice.


While the first two are normally positions that are taken by ultra religious people, the last excuse is easily debatable.  Supported positions against gay marriage normally echo such statements like "it's their choice" and "they are welcome to marry a person of the opposite sex."


Yet, when thinking about other forms of choice that are protected under law, religion seems to come up as a large and glaring omission in their arguments.


While we can argue about being forced into religion by family, it's still our individual choice to belong to an organized religion.  It's also our choice to believe in Jesus, God, Satan, Allah, Buddha, a golden calf or nothing at all.


Yet, religion and belief is a protected status in the eyes of our government.


So here's my question to those against same-sex marriage because they feel being gay is a choice: why should your choice of what religion you belong to be protected?


Of course, for me personally, I do not believe that being gay is a choice. People are born gay and science and other studies have pretty much concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice.  But for the sake of argument here, I'll let others believe it's a choice, hoping for some thought-provoking honesty in their hypercritical view of the rights of others.

Resistence Is Futile

Over on my other blog, I wrote a post talking about the upcoming Superbowl ad that was paid for by Focus on the Family, on behalf of Heisman Trophy winner, Tim Tebow.

Part of his conservative allure is that he is a virgin, waiting to have sex until marriage. Now there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I was a virgin when I married, so I can't be throwing stones around at others. But for me it was easy. I wasn't famous and well known. For Tim, this is bit harder. He's in the press, he's a sports jock, he attracts all sorts of people, including some very attractive females, as evidenced below:


Image from the following article on The Big Lead

I need to clarify myself here. I'm not implying that just because you have a pretty young female that you are spending time with that it's expected to bed her. But from a public persona, being seen with such an attractive woman, the implied notion that you are bed partners will run through most people's minds, mine included.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let me make my point here. He's a virile young man, attractive himself and he's talented. While saving himself for marriage is admirable [and most likely marketable for him as far as the press is concerned], the theory of it is completely out the window. At best, he's going home and rubbing one out after each date with someone like her. Again, if it were me in that position and holding onto this abstinence pledge of his, Some kind of sex is going to happen.

So my point is this: Mr. Heisman can say whatever will satisfy his belief system. He doesn't have to be Slutmaster Jack on the town. He can still be a gentleman and able to wake up with a smile on his face. But if these women he's with are not satisfied [or being satisfied, as the case may be], he's going to look like he's a player off the field. And having that image along with wearing the chastity belt, he's going to come off [and get off, privately] as looking like last year's model.

C'mon Tim. There's some of us that will support you if you decide to do more than dance.

Trust or Fear

Today was an odd day at work. Well, most days are filled some sort of oddness, but there was an odd thing that happened today. And it's happened before, but more about that later.

I work in a formal IT department. There are three of us that are considered system or network administrators. My official title is Network Admin.

My responsibilities include the management of our company-wide email system, main FTP server and helping with maintaining our server farm. I've been there almost seven years and have been working in IT almost 25 years.

Today, a call came in where one of my co-workers was asked to take care of a computer issue in one of our east coast offices. This co-worker then recruited the help of the other admin.

While trying various options, they asked for my help. I immediately offered and asked what the situation was. I was told that they needed to get some data off of a computer. I then asked what computer this was.

This is where the odd part comes in.

I was told by the first co-worker that they were told to keep it confidential and not tell anyone else.

Huh?

Puzzled, but recalling a similar situation happening several times before with the "keep it confidential", I tested a solution on another computer and offered it up to my other co-workers.

Confused

Now I understand certain topics and subjects that need to remain confidential. I've not spent the amount of time I have managing people's data and sensitive needs over the years without knowing how to be professional and ethical in all of my dealings at any company I've worked at.

But when you are in a close knit group of people - a team - you learn to trust each other when dealing with sensitive subjects.

All of us are admins. We all have identical rights on the entire network to manage, disable, grant rights and take care of needs from our upper management when asked.
But for some reason, my co-worker seems to think that when there is a general user that they are told to keep confident about, that means not to share that information with your other co-workers, especially when you are asking that person for specific help.

Granted, this co-worker did share the information with the other co-worker, mostly due to the fact that this co-worker needed additional help. But when my additional help was needed, lips were sealed on any details.

Why does this bother me so much?

Mostly it's due to the fact that we are a team. We all work together in the same area. When a bit of company-related information of a sensitive nature (ie. layoffs, terminations) needs to be completed, I would hope that all of us could trust each other and be confident that we are all professionals and will keep this information to ourselves. I've shared such information before when told to keep it confidential. Why? Because I trust that my other co-workers are just as ethical and professional as I am.

And that's what bothers me the most. It's the lack of any logical or reciprocal thought when a situation comes up like this.

And when it happens again, I fear that I may be just as jilted and just as silent.
Trust and fear. Two bed fellows that often accompany work-related issues.

Monday's Question

With all of the discussion and debate over the proposed universal health care, a question came up that I would like to pose.

Question

How many of the people that are protesting at these town hall meetings are currently not covered by any health care plan?

And not just the ones lacking insurance coverage, but also how many of them that are needing some sort of care - covered or not - and are not able to get the care they need.

There are millions of people that live each day without any kind of health care coverage. There are millions of others that are covered but have lackluster care or get denied based on some insurance companies definition of what is considered a pre-existing condition. Young, healthy, elderly, sick, diseased... people of all stages in life need to maintain their health. Sometimes it can be as simple as eating right and exercising often. For others, it's a constant string of visits to the doctor. But regardless, just about every man, woman and child visits a doctor at least once in their lifetime - even if that single time is when they are born. The health care of our citizens shouldn't be taken for granted.

I found this video of a recent protest at a town hall meeting. The footage was great, but I was shocked at what I heard. View for yourself:



I watch a video like that and it makes me wonder how informed these people are. Are they getting their news from a limited few like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh? Or have they been so fear driven into thinking that Obama is channeling Hitler and going to send them all into the gas chambers?

Not a single one of them mentioned a valid option for caring for the uninsured or those denied needed care. Each and every one of them were more concerned about the fear of what this country would turn into if national health care were to become available.
And they talk about waiting for weeks for health care under a government run plan. We wait now. Look at the list of people that wait for weeks for a procedure while combating insurance companies to cover something that is so obviously needed. Having another option would be a benefit.

But yet I see two major "socialist" government programs that have been in place for many years and I haven't seen a socialist takeover from their implementation. They are Social Security and Medicare. Both are tax-payer funded. Both offer care to those that are retired or unable to work. Both have been able to extend the lives of millions of Americans for many years.

And I can't help but think how many of these vocal individuals are proclaiming this takeover have benefited from Social Security or Medicare. I'm willing to bet a good amount of them have. Yet, this most recent "universal health care" proposal is "socialism" and "will be the downfall of this country." Um, Ok.

My Position

So what's my position on this? I'll go out on a comfortable limb and say that most, if not all of the people at these protests are already covered by some form of health care plan. Or Medicare. Or they don't get sick and are one of the rare group of humans that don't need pills or regular doctor visits to remain healthy.

So let's hear how you feel about this question. How many people protesting are without proper or any health care coverage? If there are some there and they are just as vocal, why do you think they are protesting?

Losing Someone You've Never Met

Everyday people pass on. Hundreds, if not thousands in the world die on a regular basis. This isn't some sort of war or plague or flu. It's the process of life. It starts and it ends.

This last weekend, an online acquaintance passed away, which was a shock to many of us. I had never met this person, although I had many conversations with her on film and other aspects of life that were discussed on a regular basis on the film forum we both belonged to. It's a tightly knit community that has been going on for many years now. I've been a member for more than five years now.

One of the other forum members lives close to this person and has regular communication with her. His grief was expected since he had actually known her in person. But to those of us that had never met her, the grief and shock was different. Much different. But yet, we all still feel a sense of loss.

My thoughts immediately went to a place of questioning. How well did we know this person? We saw her online persona come out and I'm sure a lot of her personality shone through those posts on movies, TV shows, politics and various life topics. But people are known for hiding their real self behind an avatar, a nickname or a quirky username. And with that veil, they can be a different person for their online communicating.

I seriously doubt someone like Nancy would be that much different. She was in her mid 50's and was very honest in her replies. Not that should be the end all to judge someone that you've never met before, but for those of us that's all we have to go on. We've never had the chance to read the other person's body language, their facial expressions and hear their actual voice. So we take that person at face value, however that translates to a post of words on a web site.

But after hearing the news she had died, I wondered how different I would feel if I had actually met her. I've met online people before and there is a different kind of rapport that gets communicated that you don't feel online. You know the person, but now that you've met in person, you can actually say you know this person.

Yet, there is always something there that not everyone sees, online or in person. Some say it's the soul. Others say it's just a case of common humanity that you see in someone else. I think most people have a general respect for one another and regardless if you've hung out for years or just have seen their name pop up online, you want to not only treat that person with the same respect you would want to be treated with, but part of their real self escapes outside their carbon footprint.

And that's the bond that you share. And the one that feels empty when someone expires. For some it may be stronger, others it may be a temporary sense of loss. But it is loss, none the less. And each time you see that person's name or avatar, you think back to the conversations you had and a small bit of reflecting takes hold and reminds you and that in person or online, humankind makes itself known to those that care to recognize it.

Drive-By Revelation

There are some things that you didn't expect that become the unexpected.

For me, it happened this week.

It wasn't some big event, but it was ego bruising.  And one that I wasn't ready for.

I'm a very social person.  I like to connect to people on different levels.  Even if that person I am trying to connect with doesn't have any instant connection, I try to find one.  Kind of like an accommodation, but mostly me trying to find a topic I can join in lively conversation with.

Well, it seems with some people, I have an annoying side.  Or at least that's what I was informed of.

Actually, I was informed there are TWO annoying things about me.  Here's the first one.

1. I don't know when to stop when discussing a topic of interest.  I like to continue the conversation past the point of the initial topical discussion.

It happened today, at least that's what I was made aware of by another party [my wife].

The conversation was talking about Simpsons episodes.  I wanted to participate, so I brought up part of the episode where Homer gets a helper monkey named Mojo.  It's a funny episode and I like to quote lines from it.  One of the people in the conversation had previously that same day showed me a clip of the episode where they do the Planet of the Apes theater recreation [another equally funny episode].

So I thought, "hey, I'm a big fan of the Simpsons" and threw my trivial intellect into the ring.

If only I would have stopped at "Pray for Mojo"

I continued with my ever-flowing dialogue of the episode.

There was the silence, which I completely missed, until my wife tapped me on the arm.

That was my cue to SHUT THE FUCK UP, which I did.

Tuck that one into the part of my brain that acts like a flash drive with reference points attached that will clue me in to future conversations with said persons.

And here's the other annoying revelation.

2. When I travel, I like to read signs.  If I'm by myself, I sometimes read them to myself.  If there are others in the car, I sometimes read them out loud.  It helps me take a mental reference to places and locations so that if I ever got lost in a city I've not been to before, I can find my way back to the hotel.  Plus, it's my social side wanting to share what I'm seeing.

I've recently been informed this is most annoying to some people.  And I can certainly see how this would come across as bothersome.  To some, it may say, "Hello... fuck tard, I know how to read a sign!"  To others, it may come out as just plain, "I really don't need to hear you narrate your every point of self-navigations."

Up until this point in time, none of the people this bothered had said a single word to me about this.  Maybe they are just being nice.  Maybe they are trying to not hurt my feelings.  Regardless, it was said to someone, who then informed another person [again, my wife], who then relayed this revelation to me.

Once again, I take this one to another spot in my physical flash drive and note another point of conversational reference.

So is this really what going through life is all about?  Remembering dumb shit that bothers other people, so when you are around these people that are bothered by what you do, you take extra efforts to reduce or go silent on the things they are bothered by?

I certainly hope not.  That's a lot to keep track of.  I have too many other important things in life to keep track of already.

But at the same time, I really don't want to blanket cover every social liberty to everyone I meet.  It's personalizing that social relationship with each person you know that helps create a bond.

Which brings up the bigger question: If there are things that someone else does that annoy me, how do I react?  Am I just as bothered as some are with me when another person does something that is bothersome?  How blunt and honest should one be?

All of these questions I ask myself in a self-evaluative sort of way when I find myself in said annoyed circumstances.

I believe I'm pretty tolerant with others.  And of course, I would like others to have the same self-tolerance with me.  If that means being honest and verbally discussing something direct to the other party, then that's the best "get it all out in the open" resolve to correcting one's self, even if it's not the most friendly mode of relay.

So am I off base here?  Am I reading more into this on the method of social corrections amongst responsible adults?  Or am I justified in how I feel, dejected feelings and all? 

And what about the other party?  What actions are they required to meet?  Do they "pass the buck," breaking the ego-deflating news to another member of the affected party?

These are all just answers in the game of trying to figure out another member of the human race.

Because I'd like know an easier solution if one exists.