I was surprised and pleased at the result of this quiz, though, if you think about it, it kind of fits in with me being Spider Man and all:
Found this over on Paul's blog. fb
Friday, September 24, 2004
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Bush's Ownership Society
No, he's not advocating slave ownership. So, save it.
I am reminded however that the founding fathers originally required that a person own land in order to vote. The idea being that if you had something vested in the process, you were more likely to vote responsibly. There is a certain compelling logic to that.
This seems to be an approach to 'making society better' that taps into that concept. After all, usually, you don't riot and burn down your own house when filled with outrage about some or other issue.
I've not really seen or heard any feedback, aside from the article below. It has the sound of a good idea; not sure how the proposal works. Some interesting thoughts in the link below.
Bush's ownership society: great idea, if low-income families benefit | csmonitor.com
and a followup link is here:
more info
This is one of those things that I think actually matters far more than whether Bush flew all his hours, or Kerry earned his purple hearts. Sadly, such ideas do little to enrage or scandalize the populace, thereby driving up ratings; therefore these concepts are not considered 'news worthy'. Ψ
I am reminded however that the founding fathers originally required that a person own land in order to vote. The idea being that if you had something vested in the process, you were more likely to vote responsibly. There is a certain compelling logic to that.
This seems to be an approach to 'making society better' that taps into that concept. After all, usually, you don't riot and burn down your own house when filled with outrage about some or other issue.
I've not really seen or heard any feedback, aside from the article below. It has the sound of a good idea; not sure how the proposal works. Some interesting thoughts in the link below.
Bush's ownership society: great idea, if low-income families benefit | csmonitor.com
and a followup link is here:
more info
This is one of those things that I think actually matters far more than whether Bush flew all his hours, or Kerry earned his purple hearts. Sadly, such ideas do little to enrage or scandalize the populace, thereby driving up ratings; therefore these concepts are not considered 'news worthy'. Ψ
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
I think, therefore I feel, I think
There once was a Senator named Kerry,
A ketchup queen he did marry.
His aspirations were high,
many thoughts he did try,
as his opinions continued to vary.
He continued to preach “I’m for real,
and a vote for me is ideal.
Though my flip-flops may stink,
I care not what you think,
but I truly care how you feel.”
While the limericks above were written in jest, they illustrate a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative attitudes. This difference became crystal clear to me several weeks ago as I sat in church on Sunday morning. For those of you who are offended by the church reference, I am sorry, but there is no separation of church and blog here!
Anyway, the pastor was explaining the different personality types used in the Myers-Briggs personality profile. One of the many things that Myers-Briggs does is to identify you as a thinker or a feeler. He went on to explain that thinkers attempt to analyze issues and make a decision based upon the facts, without necessarily taking emotion into account. Feelers, on the other hand, generally make decisions “because it is the right thing to do.” Neither the thinkers nor the feelers are right all the time, and the world needs a good dose of each type.
Herein lies the fundamental difference in our society. Liberals are feelers and conservatives are thinkers. Just take a listen to talk radio every now and then. It doesn’t matter who you listen to, any conversation between a conservative and a liberal will always disintegrate into one of them quoting facts and the other getting all emotional over everything.
How about prominent liberals and prominent conservatives? Prominent conservatives make their money by making sound business decisions based on thinking the possible scenarios through and making the best business decision, regardless of whether it “feels” like the right thing to do (think big stereotypical white businessman millionaire.) Prominent liberals make their living by making music, television shows, or movies that play on people’s emotions, regardless of if it makes any sense at all (think Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore.)
I could go on and on and on, but finally, the presidential campaign. George Bush is making his case that the world is a safer place because of his administration’s actions in the war on terror. His strategy is to present the facts and let you think about your choices. John Kerry is playing on emotions in trying to make you think that Bush is a lying, incompetent moron. Bush doesn’t rely on your feelings and Kerry doesn’t rely on your thoughts.
Overly simplistic? Maybe so, but just stop and look at the differences between the candidates and the parties and you will see enough examples to fill up a book.
A ketchup queen he did marry.
His aspirations were high,
many thoughts he did try,
as his opinions continued to vary.
He continued to preach “I’m for real,
and a vote for me is ideal.
Though my flip-flops may stink,
I care not what you think,
but I truly care how you feel.”
While the limericks above were written in jest, they illustrate a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative attitudes. This difference became crystal clear to me several weeks ago as I sat in church on Sunday morning. For those of you who are offended by the church reference, I am sorry, but there is no separation of church and blog here!
Anyway, the pastor was explaining the different personality types used in the Myers-Briggs personality profile. One of the many things that Myers-Briggs does is to identify you as a thinker or a feeler. He went on to explain that thinkers attempt to analyze issues and make a decision based upon the facts, without necessarily taking emotion into account. Feelers, on the other hand, generally make decisions “because it is the right thing to do.” Neither the thinkers nor the feelers are right all the time, and the world needs a good dose of each type.
Herein lies the fundamental difference in our society. Liberals are feelers and conservatives are thinkers. Just take a listen to talk radio every now and then. It doesn’t matter who you listen to, any conversation between a conservative and a liberal will always disintegrate into one of them quoting facts and the other getting all emotional over everything.
How about prominent liberals and prominent conservatives? Prominent conservatives make their money by making sound business decisions based on thinking the possible scenarios through and making the best business decision, regardless of whether it “feels” like the right thing to do (think big stereotypical white businessman millionaire.) Prominent liberals make their living by making music, television shows, or movies that play on people’s emotions, regardless of if it makes any sense at all (think Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore.)
I could go on and on and on, but finally, the presidential campaign. George Bush is making his case that the world is a safer place because of his administration’s actions in the war on terror. His strategy is to present the facts and let you think about your choices. John Kerry is playing on emotions in trying to make you think that Bush is a lying, incompetent moron. Bush doesn’t rely on your feelings and Kerry doesn’t rely on your thoughts.
Overly simplistic? Maybe so, but just stop and look at the differences between the candidates and the parties and you will see enough examples to fill up a book.
Monday, September 20, 2004
Fundamental Extremism
Sing if You Have To
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
It has been said that in polite conversation one must never discuss religion or politics. This has been stated regarding family gatherings as well. Many probably have family anecdotes illustrating the wisdom of this advice.
But what if you are on the subway?
The subway, and similar environments such as elevators, are oddly impersonal arrangements wherein strangers, forced by circumstances to be in extreme proximity to each other, generally act as if they are the only ones in the conveyance.
However, even while maintaing the facade that there is no one else on board, most passengers don't act like they are home alone. Decorum requires, in general, no belching or farting. Generally, passengers have bathed.
Then there are the preachers.
St. Francis is reputed to have said "Preach the Gospel daily. Use words, if you have to." The subtlety of this concept is lost on most self styled Messengers of God.
The following link gives one lady's answer to this modern scourge. Kudos are in order for her unique method of dealing with this type of fundamental extremism. You will note in the attached that no cars were detonated.
Ladies Village Improvement Society
Ψ
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Akimota Kazuma
This is my Japanese Name. Actually, it is the translation of my actual name and it means Autumn Book One Reality. I kind of like it.
However, the translation of Frater Bovious means: Fujiwara Ren, or Wisteria Fields Lotus. Hmmm. I think I prefer Akimota Kazuma.
The Glob Blog is: Sakamoto Ibuki, which kind of sounds like a villain wrestler from WWF. The name means Book of the Hill Mighty Blow.
Anywho, if you wanna know your name, go here:
Your Japanese Name
However, the translation of Frater Bovious means: Fujiwara Ren, or Wisteria Fields Lotus. Hmmm. I think I prefer Akimota Kazuma.
The Glob Blog is: Sakamoto Ibuki, which kind of sounds like a villain wrestler from WWF. The name means Book of the Hill Mighty Blow.
Anywho, if you wanna know your name, go here:
Your Japanese Name
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
