Taxes

Have you heard the new joke going around?

Why do Democrats always raise taxes?
......Because they never pay them

Who's Watching the Candy Store?

So here is something that worries me.

We hear everyday about massive layoffs in companies large and small (ok, the massive ones, by nature, are only in the large companies). We've been hearing for years about how newspapers are being forced to downsize because of the internet. This time last year the New York Times severely cut newsroom positions and this year we're hearing tales of NPR making cuts to staff and programs.

The loss of journalists may not seem like a serious problem to some--but the problem is that downsizing may result in high quality investigative journalists being forced to take mundane "local news" positions or to lose their jobs altogether.

Fewer investigative journalists is good for the new White House Administration...but very very bad for American Democracy.

More to come

Yesterday morning I read about a couple in California who both lost their jobs. Not able to handle the stress of raising 5 kids in these tough economic times, they allegedly shot all five children the themselves. They faxed a suicide note to the local TV station explaining their actions. Apparently they owed $15,000 to the U.S. government and were waiting for a $10,000 pay out from the insurance company from a recent car accident. When their bodies were found, the car was packed with belongings. Family and friends said they spoke of moving to Kansas to save money. They never made it.

Today I read of a family in Ohio. The father lost his job and shot his wife, himself and his two kids.

Today on NPR's "Day to Day," they discussed this phenomenon. They even have a name for it "familicide". Why must there be a name? Naming something is giving it power--making it possible to contemplate. This act is beyond my contemplation, beyond my comprehension. The expert on the show said it had nothing to do with the economy. I'm not sure that I buy that. I think we are going to see more and more drastic actions being taken by desperate people. Petty crime will likely go up as will suicide. How desperate (not to mention disturbed) must you be to take the lives of your own children?

I consider myself incredibly lucky that I still have a job and a family/friend support system. Hopefully we can be present physically and emotionally for our less fortunate citizens.

Candle Confusion

I've wanted to ask someone this for a long time. It may seem trivial--but that's what this blog is all about right?

So we have this candle at work in the bathroom (I work with two men and we share a bathroom). It is similar to the ones pictured above with the entire candle enclosed in glass. This is different from those glass candle holders in which you put a tea light--this candle comes with its own house like a turtle.

So everything is fine until the wick starts to burn down below the top of the surrounding wax. What the heck are you supposed to do to keep the melted wax from filling in around the wick and either putting the candle out or making it impossible to light? I've tried rolling the candle to get the wax to harden around the top--but that seems really stupid. Is this just a bad design or does the rest of the world have a secret that they are not sharing?

Conspiracy theory??

A little while ago, I made mention of a Republican IT specialist (Stephen Spoonamore) discussing how the republicans stole the 2004 election (http://ritasrants.blogspot.com/search/label/outrage). Well one of the main characters in that nasty play was Mike Connell. Who was he? Oh nobody really, just a chief IT specialist for Karl Rove and the IT person who set up the election website for Ohio in 2004--remember Ohio in 2004?? Convenient huh?

Anyway in October it was announced that Mike Connell was deposed regarding an investigation of the 2004 election and his access to Karl Rove's files and how they went "missing". Friends of Connell's said he stated afterwards that he was afraid that Rove and Cheney would "throw him under a bus." Who needs a bus, when you have a plane?

Connell was said to be an experienced pilot--that means nothing I realize. Apparently in December 2008, his plane crashed after running out of gas??? Oh yeah and bad weather (weather which had passed 2 hours earlier). I'm no conspiracy theorist but this seems to be awfully convenient for our friend Karl--watch out Stephen Spoonamore!

Resisting the current

In yoga this morning, our instructor was beside herself with emotion about the inauguration. I think the feeling was mutual among most in the class and most in the country. She talked about how part of yoga was finding the good streams and stepping into them. She invoked the image of this historic inauguration and the good stream of energy that people across the world are feeling and how we should step into and contribute to that positive energy.

I was thinking about this as I watched the inauguration. Stepping into the positive streams. It seemed to me that my chosen role is so often (perhaps too often) a riffle in that stream. I seem to always want to block the flow--to implore people to take some time to think about the energy rather than following along with that.

Anyone in stream restoration will tell you that riffles are healthy. They keep the water from moving too fast and incising the stream. Being a riffle is a position of constant unhappiness, though. Fighting the current is no fun. It occurred to me that perhaps I should make it a point to join the current more often. To revel in its force and power in order to fully appreciate it. Once I fully appreciate, perhaps I can more effectively place myself as a riffle.

But I also wonder about the current. I hope that, just as in yoga practice, the members of the current don't get lazy and just follow along. I hope that current-goers understand that the stream is working and every member must engage in propelling it along in the proper path. Don't just let the current carry you. The work is not done, America. It has but just begun.

Protecting our children....

...from bargain shoppers like me

Apparently, starting in February of 2009, it will be illegal for thrift stores to sell used children's clothing and toys without first getting them tested for lead. (Click here for full story). Many stores say the cost of testing will be so high--that they will just abandon the sale of these items in favor of sending them to the landfill.

Uggh.

The purpose of this legislation was really so that all new products be tested. But instead of wording it as all those produced after February 2009, they said all items sold after February 2009.

Now I'm all for protecting children--but really is this the best way to go about it? I would like to know if they did any scientific sampling of thrift store kids' collections and discovered just how much of the inventory contained lead. I'm not anti-regulation, but at some point, parent's will have to decide for themselves whether an item will hurt their child or not.

We have a store here in Flagstaff, Zen Baby (sadly, I found out recently that they are selling the business). Its an awesome store. Everything inside is organic and/or earth friendly (toys made from recycled plastics or bamboo). It's nice to go into a store and not have to scrutinize a label. BUT I do not have children. I can afford to shop there for the odd gift for a friend--shopping there all the time is certainly cost-prohibitive. And think about all those items. Maybe a kid wears an organic onesy a few times until he grows too big. Doesn't it make sense for that item to go to another child?

Never Get Enough

I will surely miss him!

Alignment (Warning Graphic Image is Included)

Lately, Isaac and I have been engaged in conversations about the situation in Gaza. I don't want to make this entry about this conflict (well, I do --but I'm trying to resist)--but I will summarize our discussions. Despite the fact that I have friends of Israeli origin that I love dearly (and I can't seem to resist those "Dead Sea" salespeople in the malls), I am not pro-Israeli government. I am not a fan of the "occupation" of the West Bank or of Gaza. I see Israel as a powerful bully picking on an eight-year old child (although I guess the metaphor is better described as a younger, stronger man picking on an elder). I feel the current attack on Gaza is a perfect example of Israeli bullying. I do not want to put words into the mouth of Isaac--but our conversations (read arguments) have included the fact that the only way to get Hamas to stop its attacks is to show it that it is powerless against the might of Israel. Sometimes you have to cut your losses and realize that you're engaged in a battle that you'll never win, and that it is Hamas who is at fault for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children. I generally follow with discussions of the civil or women's rights movements. They, too, were fighting a much more powerful force that did not just one day decide that racism or sexual discrimination was wrong--but it took a fight.

Anyway, Democracy Now! has been focused on the conflict in Gaza for the last week or so. Anyone who is familiar will know without me saying that Amy Goodman has feelings similar to my own. In the interest of discourse she generally invites people from opposite sides to come onto the show (read "duke it out"). What sparks my curiosity is the notion that some people are credible (to me) and others are not. What makes someone credible in our minds? It can't be just because they say something with which we agree. I must have gotten my opinion about Israel and Gaza from someone.

We heard a NPR piece this weekend discussing whether Hamas is getting weapons from Iran. There were two guests: one felt certain that there was some transfer of cash and potentially weapons and the other felt certain that there was not. Isaac found one of the guests completely believable and credible and I found the other one to be such. It wasn't just that I thought one was credible, but I thought the other one was completely lying. Both had credentials, both had experience in the region. Are we really so transparent that we only believe those who say what we want to hear??

Take the rest of politics. It has come out that some of Obama's nominees have some indisgressions in their pasts. We say that Timothy Geithner made an "honest mistake" in failing to pay over $40,000 in taxes. What would we have said if he was part of the Bush Administration?? Be honest. We have to recognize our own hypocrisy before we can rid ourselves of it. Why do I find Neve Gordon a more credible "expert" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than Lanny Davis? Neve Gordon is an Israeli professor at Ben Gurion University of the Negev and Lanny Davis was a former Clinton advisor and an advisor to the Israel Project. I can try to rationalize and say, "Well Neve Gordon lives in Israel and if he says that Israel is in the wrong, it must be true." Is that legit? Maybe Neve Gordon has other motives? Sometimes I tell myself that it's my instinct that tells me who's telling the truth. Am I just rationalizing my bias? Most likely.

Its frustrating to be confronted with my own hypocrisy. I know it's there--and I try to be honest about it--but sometimes it just jumps up and slaps me on the face!

For those interested, I highly recommend watching some of the discussions on the topic at Democracy Now! You can watch the videos on line for free. Here are some of the more poignant ones.
12 January
13 January
14 January

Stroll down memory lane

I'm not sure why I was thinking about this video the other day--but it did grace the empty chasm that is currently in control of my body.

This was one of the first things given to me by my sweetie. Its pretty random and I think it came along with a CD of "hair band" music. So romantic. Its one of those videos that you have to watch over and over in order to fully appreciate. (sound is VERY important)