Scene 1:
i was in a very brightly lit bar. the bar itself, the floor, the walls, everything seemed to be made of blonde wood. there were the usual polished brass trimmings everywhere. i was speaking to someone who was making derogatory comments about a middle-aged woman with long, stringy, auburn hair. she was walking away from the two of us, wearing a pair of faded blue-jean shorts with the hem rolled up, pushing a baby carriage. while i didn't join in the "fun" at the expense of this woman, i have to admit she had one of the largest butts i've ever seen. she didn't seem to notice us.
approaching the bar (alone), i noticed a small group of people approaching from backstage- the entertainment for the evening. there were perhaps four or five of them. in the center of the group walked a woman dressed in standard-issue black rock-n-roll performer's attire. when the band took the stage my view was partially obscured. the woman was to my left and mostly obscured; one of the men walked to the center-stage mic and warmed up the audience with a little banter. the man resembled the actor who's played Shaggy in the two live-action theatrical releases of Scooby Doo. the woman somewhat resembled the singer from Garbage (but wasn't), and she had bright pink eye shadow painted on almost new-wave style.
sitting on my bar stool at the corner of the L-shaped bar, holding a drink, i fixed my attention on a large-screen TV that offered a full view of the stage. my attention was drawn away from the screen momentarily, and i looked over my left shoulder to see MiddleAgedWoman joining a companion, taking a seat at a booth in the corner. i saw no baby carriage. she looked directly at me, fixing me for a moment with a stare before acknowledging her companion and joining her in conversation. turning away, i noticed the stools and booths of the entire place were upholstered in white leather or vinyl. as i refocused my gaze on the video screen, my attention was again drawn away, by an extremely tall blonde man, somewhat resembling football coach Bill Parcells, trying to take a seat at the bar. most of the bar stools were mounted by brass pipe to another brass pipe running along the bottom of the bar, and were built like high-backed chairs with no arms. the man was too large to fit in the space allotted, so he looked around for another seat, and found a (similarly-upholstered) free-standing stool, which he brought to the bar and sat down on.
Scene 2:
i was standing in a very large, nearly empty room, performing some kind of job, while talking to a couple co-workers. one man seemed to be speaking about the history of commerce in the United States, specifically of the historical significance of Cleveland as a center of that. when the man finished, i joined in the conversation, briefly giving a speech that might be labelled "How Cleveland's Early Significance In Commerce And Industry Was Overshadowed By The Establishment Of Waterways As Interstate Trade Routes, Leading To New York City's Rise In Prominence As A Commercial And Residential Center." it's factual merit notwithstanding, the others in the room listened intently, and were either enlightened by or in agreement with my position.
2004-03-30
2004-03-27
more REM cycle ramblings
Scene 1:
i was in a very dimly lit room in an apartment or hotel. i was talking to Christina Ricci while she changed clothes. she mentioned she would be moving to a beautiful new house soon. wish i could remember more of this conversation, it was fairly involved. we seemed well acquainted, as if we'd known each other a long time.
i found myself wandering from room to room in the new house, looking for Christina. wallpaper covered the lower part of the light brown walls like wainscotting. it was intricately patterned like an earth-tone Persian rug, bordered at the top by a yellow paisley pattern. the walls were covered with large paintings in gaudy frames, and an occasional wall-mounted aquarium. the whole place was very artfully lit.
eventually i found Christina. she was dressed very formally in a black dress. this storyline continued but it all gets fuzzy after that.
Scene 2:
i was walking the darkened hallways of a starship with 7 of 9, looking for our companions. turning a corner, we discovered about a dozen of them held captive, bound and sitting on the floor of a room that was lit by an indirect blue light. a "Captain" figure i didn't recognize seemed to be the leader of the group, and 7 referred to him as Cisco. when she began releasing him, i began seeing thru her eyes. as she leaned over his sitting form, visible only in shadow and backlit in bright blue, a squirrel-like creature (also visible only in shadow) appeared from behind his head, pausing momentarily before climbing up her arm and burrowing into her face through her left eye.
that's all.
i was in a very dimly lit room in an apartment or hotel. i was talking to Christina Ricci while she changed clothes. she mentioned she would be moving to a beautiful new house soon. wish i could remember more of this conversation, it was fairly involved. we seemed well acquainted, as if we'd known each other a long time.
i found myself wandering from room to room in the new house, looking for Christina. wallpaper covered the lower part of the light brown walls like wainscotting. it was intricately patterned like an earth-tone Persian rug, bordered at the top by a yellow paisley pattern. the walls were covered with large paintings in gaudy frames, and an occasional wall-mounted aquarium. the whole place was very artfully lit.
eventually i found Christina. she was dressed very formally in a black dress. this storyline continued but it all gets fuzzy after that.
Scene 2:
i was walking the darkened hallways of a starship with 7 of 9, looking for our companions. turning a corner, we discovered about a dozen of them held captive, bound and sitting on the floor of a room that was lit by an indirect blue light. a "Captain" figure i didn't recognize seemed to be the leader of the group, and 7 referred to him as Cisco. when she began releasing him, i began seeing thru her eyes. as she leaned over his sitting form, visible only in shadow and backlit in bright blue, a squirrel-like creature (also visible only in shadow) appeared from behind his head, pausing momentarily before climbing up her arm and burrowing into her face through her left eye.
that's all.
2004-03-24
recent browsing
anyone interested in a little history might want to check out this collection of photographs and essay on the Great Seattle Fire of June 6, 1889. damned interesting stuff.
one nation redefined
Regardless of the future outcome of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624, I'm smiling. For more than 20 years I've been waiting for someone to bring suit against a school district concerning the phrase "one Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Supreme Court is finally going to consider the matter.
I write "consider" rather than "decide" because it's entirely possible they'll decide nothing. At the request of Michael Newdow, the man who originated this suit on behalf of himself and his 9 yr. old daughter, Justice Antonin Scalia, regarded as one of the court's more conservative members, has recused himself in light of his criticism of an earlier ruling favoring Newdow during a religious rally last year.
The Christian majority in this country, overwhelmingly supports the inclusion of the phrase "under God", arguing that this inclusion does not violate separation of church and state. Nonsense! It does just that, for the following reasons.
Codes on both individual school and district levels mandate the daily recital of the Pledge. Children are required to stand (signifying their approval and respect), place their hands on their hearts (signifying the conviction with which they speak), and "parrot" a text of propaganda, most recently codified during the height of the Cold War. Despite a Supreme Court decision supporting individual students' right to opt out of this exercise, excusing my son from participating in this activity has caused numerous arguments with numerous teachers from most schools my son has attended, as well as various members of school and district administrations. In the end the district always balked before suspending my son from school over refusal to recite the Pledge, but not before threatening just that, and exerting their authority in their official capacity as representatives of these institutions in an attempt to coerce his (and my) conformity. Obviously the school systems are not adequately informed of or do not respect the Supreme Court's decision in this matter.
I agree with Mr. Newdow's position that putting young children in the position of opting out of an exercise led by the authority figure in the room unfairly transfers the responsibility to the child, and unnecessarily singles them out from the group based on their beliefs. The authority of school districts to enforce behavior standards on children in their care is granted them directly by the government. Since these institutions are established with and supported by public funds and operated entirely within the public sector, and are directly superceded in authority by (in turn) state & federal government agencies, the authority for individual schools to codify mandatory recitation of the Pledge comes from the highest levels of government.
While the Pledge of Allegiance was initiated informally in the late 19th century, it was originally codified on June 22, 1942, as "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." On June 14, 1954 it was recodified by Congress to add the phrase "under God" after the word "Nation". The fact that Congress literally recodified the Pledge to specifically insert this phrase into what had previously been a secular patriotic statement shows a clear lack of separation between church and state agendas. Following the recodification, President Eisenhower signed the new Pledge into law, writing "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." His language speaks for itself.
The Christian majority in this country would fight to the death before allowing the Pledge to be rewritten "one Nation under Allah" or even "one Nation under Jehovah"- further proof that the god of the Pledge is the god of some (Christians) and not others. Think of the outcry if it was suggested that the Pledge be rewritten "one Nation tolerant of Homosexual Marriage". Insert whatever philosophy you wish to associate with our nation, it doesn't belong there. But regardless of which god is in question here, government's wrongful imposition, mandating my son recite a pledge referencing any god constitutes a violation of his rights, before he even understands what those rights are. Having had my own rights violated in this same manner daily, for my entire school career, I understand what's at stake. Furthermore, I submit that we have progressed as a society past the need to brainwash our youth. Our nation is capable of earning the respect of its citizens without resorting to state-sponsored propaganda.
Schools should spend their time first respecting and then teaching my son and his classmates the meaning of those rights rather than subjecting them to the tyranny of the (Christian) majority, as codified with the authority of the Legislative & Executive branches. Here's hoping the third check in our system of checks & balances undoes the actions of the other two, on behalf of myself and my son and millions like us. That would be something to include in a lesson plan in his classroom.
I write "consider" rather than "decide" because it's entirely possible they'll decide nothing. At the request of Michael Newdow, the man who originated this suit on behalf of himself and his 9 yr. old daughter, Justice Antonin Scalia, regarded as one of the court's more conservative members, has recused himself in light of his criticism of an earlier ruling favoring Newdow during a religious rally last year.
The Christian majority in this country, overwhelmingly supports the inclusion of the phrase "under God", arguing that this inclusion does not violate separation of church and state. Nonsense! It does just that, for the following reasons.
Codes on both individual school and district levels mandate the daily recital of the Pledge. Children are required to stand (signifying their approval and respect), place their hands on their hearts (signifying the conviction with which they speak), and "parrot" a text of propaganda, most recently codified during the height of the Cold War. Despite a Supreme Court decision supporting individual students' right to opt out of this exercise, excusing my son from participating in this activity has caused numerous arguments with numerous teachers from most schools my son has attended, as well as various members of school and district administrations. In the end the district always balked before suspending my son from school over refusal to recite the Pledge, but not before threatening just that, and exerting their authority in their official capacity as representatives of these institutions in an attempt to coerce his (and my) conformity. Obviously the school systems are not adequately informed of or do not respect the Supreme Court's decision in this matter.
I agree with Mr. Newdow's position that putting young children in the position of opting out of an exercise led by the authority figure in the room unfairly transfers the responsibility to the child, and unnecessarily singles them out from the group based on their beliefs. The authority of school districts to enforce behavior standards on children in their care is granted them directly by the government. Since these institutions are established with and supported by public funds and operated entirely within the public sector, and are directly superceded in authority by (in turn) state & federal government agencies, the authority for individual schools to codify mandatory recitation of the Pledge comes from the highest levels of government.
While the Pledge of Allegiance was initiated informally in the late 19th century, it was originally codified on June 22, 1942, as "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." On June 14, 1954 it was recodified by Congress to add the phrase "under God" after the word "Nation". The fact that Congress literally recodified the Pledge to specifically insert this phrase into what had previously been a secular patriotic statement shows a clear lack of separation between church and state agendas. Following the recodification, President Eisenhower signed the new Pledge into law, writing "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." His language speaks for itself.
The Christian majority in this country would fight to the death before allowing the Pledge to be rewritten "one Nation under Allah" or even "one Nation under Jehovah"- further proof that the god of the Pledge is the god of some (Christians) and not others. Think of the outcry if it was suggested that the Pledge be rewritten "one Nation tolerant of Homosexual Marriage". Insert whatever philosophy you wish to associate with our nation, it doesn't belong there. But regardless of which god is in question here, government's wrongful imposition, mandating my son recite a pledge referencing any god constitutes a violation of his rights, before he even understands what those rights are. Having had my own rights violated in this same manner daily, for my entire school career, I understand what's at stake. Furthermore, I submit that we have progressed as a society past the need to brainwash our youth. Our nation is capable of earning the respect of its citizens without resorting to state-sponsored propaganda.
Schools should spend their time first respecting and then teaching my son and his classmates the meaning of those rights rather than subjecting them to the tyranny of the (Christian) majority, as codified with the authority of the Legislative & Executive branches. Here's hoping the third check in our system of checks & balances undoes the actions of the other two, on behalf of myself and my son and millions like us. That would be something to include in a lesson plan in his classroom.
2004-03-22
and let peace-loving people across the world REJOICE
if i was a religious man i might say "hallelujah"- but since i'm not, i'll just give an emphatic HELL YES at the Israeli asassination of Hamas founder and leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin. there's one more fanatical hatemonger excised from the world. Hamas and other terrorist organizations are threatening swift retaliation against Israel and the United States- let them come. let the butchers show themselves, i'm sure we have enough missiles to go around.
another two deaths in Gaza were reported, one evidently on the part of a Palestinian mishandling his explosives. talk about poetic justice!
U.S. State Dept. spokesman Lou Fintor said, "The United States urges all sides to remain calm and exercise restraint." like that's gonna happen. the Israelis were WELL within their rights to off the guy, and telling the Palestinians not to retaliate is like telling a shark not to bite at a bleeding fish. of course they'll retaliate- it's what they DO.
Hamas issued a statement that "The Zionists didn't carry out their operation without getting the consent of the terrorist American Administration, and it must take responsibility for this crime." terrorist administration? that's a laugh! Americans aren't in the habit of bribing our young men to strap bombs to themselves and go kill people in the street...that's what separates US from YOU. and this latest development is proof positive that Israel doesn't desire our approval or need our assistance. Yassin got what was coming to him. may all bloodthirsty bastards the world over get the same.
i have no problem with the idea that the Palestinian people have a right to exist, peacefully, and deserve a patch of ground as much as any people do. i'm certainly not alone among Americans in this opinion; and i suspect many (if not most) of the "Zionists" agree. but you relinquish the right to claim the moral high ground the minute you start killing women and children at random in the name of your independence. lay down your arms and the world might take you seriously; or even confine your use of force to military targets! the court of world opinion condemns you as long as you treat unarmed civilians as enemy combatants. until you realize this, you're just a bunch of thugs with guns.
i lay heavy odds on a redoubled effort on the part of the still-breathing terrorists. they don't really want an independent state. they don't want to negotiate from a position of mutual respect and tolerance; what they really want is all the "Zionists" to die under their knives.
another two deaths in Gaza were reported, one evidently on the part of a Palestinian mishandling his explosives. talk about poetic justice!
U.S. State Dept. spokesman Lou Fintor said, "The United States urges all sides to remain calm and exercise restraint." like that's gonna happen. the Israelis were WELL within their rights to off the guy, and telling the Palestinians not to retaliate is like telling a shark not to bite at a bleeding fish. of course they'll retaliate- it's what they DO.
Hamas issued a statement that "The Zionists didn't carry out their operation without getting the consent of the terrorist American Administration, and it must take responsibility for this crime." terrorist administration? that's a laugh! Americans aren't in the habit of bribing our young men to strap bombs to themselves and go kill people in the street...that's what separates US from YOU. and this latest development is proof positive that Israel doesn't desire our approval or need our assistance. Yassin got what was coming to him. may all bloodthirsty bastards the world over get the same.
i have no problem with the idea that the Palestinian people have a right to exist, peacefully, and deserve a patch of ground as much as any people do. i'm certainly not alone among Americans in this opinion; and i suspect many (if not most) of the "Zionists" agree. but you relinquish the right to claim the moral high ground the minute you start killing women and children at random in the name of your independence. lay down your arms and the world might take you seriously; or even confine your use of force to military targets! the court of world opinion condemns you as long as you treat unarmed civilians as enemy combatants. until you realize this, you're just a bunch of thugs with guns.
i lay heavy odds on a redoubled effort on the part of the still-breathing terrorists. they don't really want an independent state. they don't want to negotiate from a position of mutual respect and tolerance; what they really want is all the "Zionists" to die under their knives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)