I just said that to one of my co-workers after she said, "Looks like it's clearing up out there." Although this was definitely one of those lame office conversations that usually don't require much thought or provide much meaning to my day, I was intrigued by this quote.
I think it's kind of the quote to live by in the parameters of my life. Given that I have chemical imbalances in my brain that cause me to get obsessive about the "bad" things in my life. I like a quote that doesn't make me feel abnormal for not being able to live by it like, "look at the bright side" and "think of life with a glass half full."
Sometimes those sayings just piss me off..which is not the purpose obviously. I usually just end up feeling guilty that I can't be more of a "bright side" or "glass half full" kind of person.
So, I like my saying..."the sky's not blue, but it's sunny."
It makes me feel ok for recognizing the , "not so great" things about what's going on around me....but it gives me that hint of optimism that I suppose is necessary in life.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
For those not in the Parker Family e-mail group
Deepak Chopra on Palin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra
An interesting perspective:
Friday, September 5th, 2008
Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.
She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.)
I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.
Look at what she stands for:
--Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
--Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.
--Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded.
--Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
--Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war.
--"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.
Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.
Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
An interesting perspective:
Friday, September 5th, 2008
Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.
She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.)
I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.
Look at what she stands for:
--Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
--Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.
--Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded.
--Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
--Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war.
--"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.
Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.
Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
Explode me Brain
So, last night in class I had to decide on a "vision" for a social program I will hypothetically set up during the semester. Well, this ended up stressing out my brain more than it maybe should have.
I knew that I wanted to set up a program to address community health in low socioeconomic communities. I knew that I wanted my program to introduce fitness and nutrition education and practices in these communities.
My professor then said, think bigger, think...what would a perfect world look like to you in terms of community health. So then I said, well, individuals in these communities living healthier lifestyles. He said, how about, All individuals living healthier lifestyles. Then I thought, how about that...why limit these ideas to one population of people?
This got me thinking about the whole American population and how many times we segregate without trying at all. By wanting to help low socioeconomic communities with their health, I was placing them in the category of "unhealthy" while leaving middle and high class communities in the category of "healthy."
Dang! Obviously I didn't mean to, but I was being the benevolent researcher. The girl who wants to come into a community I know hardly anything about and change how they do things because I say it will be better for them.
At this point, I started thinking about politicians. How these people stand in front of a crowd and shout out how they will change things to be "better" for the American people.
One candidate may be talking to one group of people, another candidate to another group of people. And then these two groups of people sit and argue about what is best for the American people. All the while...who are these American people we are arguing for? Are they us? Are they the low socioeconomic community that "needs us to help?"
One thing I know for sure is that I don't want government, or anyone else to decide what is best for me without thoroughly consulting me first. So, why is it ok for government to do that to whole communities of people? Well, because that looks like "social service" and sounds good and makes people feel good about themselves for doing it.
What should it look like? I don't know yet, I need to let these thoughts simmer for a while since they just recently boiled over. Obviously I don't think it is wrong to care about another community, seemingly, less privileged and in need of help. I think people just need to go one step further in giving the decisions about "what kind of help" to the people experiencing the problem. Which, is the whole purpose of a community organizer....so maybe this brings me all the way back to my vote for Obama.
That's all for now.
I knew that I wanted to set up a program to address community health in low socioeconomic communities. I knew that I wanted my program to introduce fitness and nutrition education and practices in these communities.
My professor then said, think bigger, think...what would a perfect world look like to you in terms of community health. So then I said, well, individuals in these communities living healthier lifestyles. He said, how about, All individuals living healthier lifestyles. Then I thought, how about that...why limit these ideas to one population of people?
This got me thinking about the whole American population and how many times we segregate without trying at all. By wanting to help low socioeconomic communities with their health, I was placing them in the category of "unhealthy" while leaving middle and high class communities in the category of "healthy."
Dang! Obviously I didn't mean to, but I was being the benevolent researcher. The girl who wants to come into a community I know hardly anything about and change how they do things because I say it will be better for them.
At this point, I started thinking about politicians. How these people stand in front of a crowd and shout out how they will change things to be "better" for the American people.
One candidate may be talking to one group of people, another candidate to another group of people. And then these two groups of people sit and argue about what is best for the American people. All the while...who are these American people we are arguing for? Are they us? Are they the low socioeconomic community that "needs us to help?"
One thing I know for sure is that I don't want government, or anyone else to decide what is best for me without thoroughly consulting me first. So, why is it ok for government to do that to whole communities of people? Well, because that looks like "social service" and sounds good and makes people feel good about themselves for doing it.
What should it look like? I don't know yet, I need to let these thoughts simmer for a while since they just recently boiled over. Obviously I don't think it is wrong to care about another community, seemingly, less privileged and in need of help. I think people just need to go one step further in giving the decisions about "what kind of help" to the people experiencing the problem. Which, is the whole purpose of a community organizer....so maybe this brings me all the way back to my vote for Obama.
That's all for now.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
To break away from the politics for a minute....
I just wanted to highlight Nora's blog because it is so lovely to read and can be a beatiful break from all the banter about politics.
http://norasmittens.blogspot.com/
http://norasmittens.blogspot.com/
Family discussions around politics
With an obvious undertone of political strife in America currently, my family has begun to boast opinions of which candidate is the best choice.
It's obvious now that as this election moves closer, we're probably going to have a lot more to say.
So far there were opinions about Sarah Palin:
Well, I think what I found interesting was her willingness to reallyput herself out there as a mother and wife, and not try to but that bellow her position as vice presidential candidate. I think she kind of has to do that though, because otherwise she would be faulted forbeing a "bad mother" or neglecting her family values.
What made me angry was that she was putting down Obama as a "community organizer" and making reference to that being a very insignificant role in America. I think it depends on how you look at it. She kept on making shout outs to "the people" and how she works for the "American People" but I kept wondering, what American people? She would bash Obama for wanting to increase taxes and government spending....but his desire to do so is based on trying to increase social services and eliminate social injustices, not just to "spend YOUR money" as she put it. I did make a personal observation that there were only 2 people of color (at least who I could see in the camera shots) in the audience...and almost every person they showed cheering was a(seemingly) white middle-high class American.
She also talked about energy, during which she expressed a need to become more independent from foriegn oil..which is good...what was bad though, was that she bashed Obama for not being willing to drill in the Alaskan tundra...she never once mentioned the detrimental affects this would have on the environment and habitat in that area and basically said, that this would be a big part of becoming independent from foriegn oil, along with building more Nuclear Power Plants, and then she kind of rattled off some more energy efficient ways of doing things(but clearly did not put an emphasis on them). I guess I'm an idealist maybe, but I feel as though this is the lazy way of dealing with the problem, while the more affective and environmentally friendlything to do is become less dependant on oil all together as a society.
And finally, she kept on referencing McCain's statement that "He would rather see himself lose an election that see his country lose a war." Which she believes makes him a patriot and a true strong American. I guess I just feel like at this point, being so aggressive is going to continue to dig us into a hole with the middle east and anywhere else we come in conflict with. I feel like there should be a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy in order to solve some of the major problems that have been created. - Amy Parker
Humorous opinions about choosing a candidate:
well, I've not been as many things as Mary Beth, but I'm voting for Obama cause I think we need a Muslim in the white house who can speak Arabic and find Osama faster by just asking his friends where he's hiding. And his wife is super cool, and his kids are irresistibly cute. I actually respect McCain, and respect you for having a different opinion, Mary Beth. Sorry you have to suffer through the constant liberal banter on half drunk...
and LONG LIVE OBAMA! -Ben Garvin
And some strong opinions about opposing the two party system:
Amy wrote:
“I have been trying to learn as much as I can about these
(unfortunately only two) choices I have for the leaders of our country
for the next 4 years.”
And as long as we behave the way we do, we will always have two choices. The GOP and the Dems, I think, love the left vs. right dichotomy. It allows the two party system to stay relevant and they can always stay in power, leaving money and influence to run our government, rather than the voters.
Mary Beth will vote for a candidate she is not crazy about this year(lesser of two evils I think was the exact quote), and four years ago almost every democrat and many independents voted for John Kerry using the exact same logic. That is so backwards.
We do have more than two choices. You have to take a bullet sometimes and vote for a third party candidate if you find one you believe in. I’ve been burned in the past. I voted for Jesse Ventura. I flushed my vote away voting for Ken Pentel and Peter Hutchinson. I had a friend get pretty peeved at me at a party because of my Hutchinson vote. “Thanks to you, Pawlenty is our governor” was his logic. My response is, “No thanks to your dumbass Democrat party, you take my vote for granted. If Mike Hatch is the best you can do, I’m going to look elsewhere.”
Outside of Kerry, I have always wanted to vote FOR someone, not against someone else. And I really struggled with my Kerry vote four years ago.
Check out the Independence Party of Minnesota. Listen to DeanBarkley’s interviews on KFAN or MPR (they’re podcasted). The guy captures every single frustration we all have about our present two party system. Coleman will not get my vote. He has no dignity. Franken might win my vote over when it’s all said and done, but right now I’m leaning towards whoever comes out of the IP primary forsenator.
Bottom line: until we, as voters, make a third party relevant (dare I say even a fourth party?), the GOP and Dems will keep acting the way they do. -Mike Nawrocki
At this point, I would like this to be a place...with no holds barred...to just discuss the many points and counterpoints that can lead each of us to our best decision.
It's obvious now that as this election moves closer, we're probably going to have a lot more to say.
So far there were opinions about Sarah Palin:
Well, I think what I found interesting was her willingness to reallyput herself out there as a mother and wife, and not try to but that bellow her position as vice presidential candidate. I think she kind of has to do that though, because otherwise she would be faulted forbeing a "bad mother" or neglecting her family values.
What made me angry was that she was putting down Obama as a "community organizer" and making reference to that being a very insignificant role in America. I think it depends on how you look at it. She kept on making shout outs to "the people" and how she works for the "American People" but I kept wondering, what American people? She would bash Obama for wanting to increase taxes and government spending....but his desire to do so is based on trying to increase social services and eliminate social injustices, not just to "spend YOUR money" as she put it. I did make a personal observation that there were only 2 people of color (at least who I could see in the camera shots) in the audience...and almost every person they showed cheering was a(seemingly) white middle-high class American.
She also talked about energy, during which she expressed a need to become more independent from foriegn oil..which is good...what was bad though, was that she bashed Obama for not being willing to drill in the Alaskan tundra...she never once mentioned the detrimental affects this would have on the environment and habitat in that area and basically said, that this would be a big part of becoming independent from foriegn oil, along with building more Nuclear Power Plants, and then she kind of rattled off some more energy efficient ways of doing things(but clearly did not put an emphasis on them). I guess I'm an idealist maybe, but I feel as though this is the lazy way of dealing with the problem, while the more affective and environmentally friendlything to do is become less dependant on oil all together as a society.
And finally, she kept on referencing McCain's statement that "He would rather see himself lose an election that see his country lose a war." Which she believes makes him a patriot and a true strong American. I guess I just feel like at this point, being so aggressive is going to continue to dig us into a hole with the middle east and anywhere else we come in conflict with. I feel like there should be a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy in order to solve some of the major problems that have been created. - Amy Parker
Humorous opinions about choosing a candidate:
well, I've not been as many things as Mary Beth, but I'm voting for Obama cause I think we need a Muslim in the white house who can speak Arabic and find Osama faster by just asking his friends where he's hiding. And his wife is super cool, and his kids are irresistibly cute. I actually respect McCain, and respect you for having a different opinion, Mary Beth. Sorry you have to suffer through the constant liberal banter on half drunk...
and LONG LIVE OBAMA! -Ben Garvin
And some strong opinions about opposing the two party system:
Amy wrote:
“I have been trying to learn as much as I can about these
(unfortunately only two) choices I have for the leaders of our country
for the next 4 years.”
And as long as we behave the way we do, we will always have two choices. The GOP and the Dems, I think, love the left vs. right dichotomy. It allows the two party system to stay relevant and they can always stay in power, leaving money and influence to run our government, rather than the voters.
Mary Beth will vote for a candidate she is not crazy about this year(lesser of two evils I think was the exact quote), and four years ago almost every democrat and many independents voted for John Kerry using the exact same logic. That is so backwards.
We do have more than two choices. You have to take a bullet sometimes and vote for a third party candidate if you find one you believe in. I’ve been burned in the past. I voted for Jesse Ventura. I flushed my vote away voting for Ken Pentel and Peter Hutchinson. I had a friend get pretty peeved at me at a party because of my Hutchinson vote. “Thanks to you, Pawlenty is our governor” was his logic. My response is, “No thanks to your dumbass Democrat party, you take my vote for granted. If Mike Hatch is the best you can do, I’m going to look elsewhere.”
Outside of Kerry, I have always wanted to vote FOR someone, not against someone else. And I really struggled with my Kerry vote four years ago.
Check out the Independence Party of Minnesota. Listen to DeanBarkley’s interviews on KFAN or MPR (they’re podcasted). The guy captures every single frustration we all have about our present two party system. Coleman will not get my vote. He has no dignity. Franken might win my vote over when it’s all said and done, but right now I’m leaning towards whoever comes out of the IP primary forsenator.
Bottom line: until we, as voters, make a third party relevant (dare I say even a fourth party?), the GOP and Dems will keep acting the way they do. -Mike Nawrocki
At this point, I would like this to be a place...with no holds barred...to just discuss the many points and counterpoints that can lead each of us to our best decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
