Pics of New York

Vacation to Manhattan

Vacations are never as long as you wish them to be. I just visited Manhattan for the first time. The city was wonderful and I already can't wait to go back, but for the most part my week seems to be a vacation planning gone bad. Not that the vacation was bad, but lets say it was not what we had expected. It was a good pay period as we took off. We both work by commission and lets say it was a better than average to start off a vacation. One thing after another, by the time we made it to New York we were already broke. I'm not sure why, but that meant we spent the vacation walking. I took the vacation with my family, they asked me what I wanted to do. Considering the condition of finances I could only honestly say that I wanted to see the city. So that is what I spent my time doing for the past week, walking through Manhattan. Lets say I have blisters upon blisters, and I was not in the best conditioned going in. I have no reason walking at all on a normal basis. Recruiting is not the most energetic of jobs. So it was quite an experience to walk so much in such a short time period.

I've been back since Tuesday and I've really felt wonder lust once again. I have to admit that is one reason I was taken by Arthur in the first place, and that is why I am in South Florida. Now, I feel like the city. Maybe New York is too expensive, but I just want to move to a good city. I liked the convenience of the city and the people going back in forth in suits and other business attire. I liked the atmosphere of the New York. I would also like seasons. I'm not meant for the tropics. My allergies and my skin can only take so much of this sun and whatever else there is in the air I am allergic to.

I remember having long conversations about just leaving and going somewhere else. No matter where it was I lived. The problem now is I have a job, which I have recently been promoted at. My husband has a job and is trying to get his business going. All are reasons for me to stay and to be happy staying.

All I need is to be patient. Maybe it will pass as everything else does. How does one remain content with such drives? Arthur says that if I get placements (commission) that I will be happy again. We will see.

I will see if I can load some pics.

1 Peter 3:13-22

13Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear[b]; do not be frightened."[c] 15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[d] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[e] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

I need to move further north...

The South Florida summer has definitly set in. Humid and hot, but much better than Texas. I understand why people still escape this place during the summer. It's not just the threat of hurricanes. Right now I wish I was further north. I don't really care where, just as long as it is colder than here.

Most South Floridians are out at the beach baking out in the sun. I'm not going out there again till I get a big umbrella. My skin won't take it otherwise. That is what I think I am doing tomorrow. But so far going to the movie was a relief yesterday. We went to see Evan Almighty. Great movie! Very funny! I was really suprised to see bad reviews of it. I would say you definitly should ignore the reviews and go and see it.

Now I think we are about to go see another movie. Till later!

On with summer

The rainy season has started in South Florida... Oh how I miss regular seasons. Though I know that I, as I've heard all do quite quickly down here, have completely adapted to this subtropical climate. I can't take even the slightest bit of cold weather. Now we are back to the season where there is not the unbearable Texas heat, but there is the feeling that I am constantly in a sauna. The most pleasant part of this time of the year is that all snow birds have flown north for the winter. Everything is now quiet and the traffic has let up. I'll be surprised if there are any news developments down here till about November or December.

Talking about the news, how about all these new presidential candidates? I really don't know myself. Don't care much about the Democrats side. Clinton or Obama? Not in a great situation one way or another. I haven't landed yet on a republican candidate I support. Too many of them so far. Maybe a few will be weeded out soon enough. One I do know, Giuliani isn't my top pick. I don't see him as one to win the hearts of the Christian Right anyway. Support of abortion will definitely kill that no matter what else he supports. Though to touch more on that I definitely need to read more into the news.

My job has recently won out over school. I guess working about fifty hours at a full time job and trying to be a full time online student does not work. I truly did not know that my job would be that much of a work load when I first took it. Though being a physician recruiter is good enough for me right now. I guess being a grad student will wait for now. That does mean though that I have time on my hands in the late afternoons again.

Maybe I'll blog more. I guess we will see.

Pelicans

Quiz

Create your own Friend Quiz here

Okay, I created this for my myspace, so the last question should be quite obvious:)

Pics from home

I love my new camera. Now I can start taking pictures again. Here are a couple from around home. I've had a good little vacation in Orlando. Now back to work and school. Not much else. Later!

Vacation

Went on a little vacation to Universal Studios. Nothing much to write about it write about it now, but I did enjoy my birthday. Here are a few photos from my new camara. Yeah! I'm excited! Its much better than my old one. I'm about to pass of out right now... So I'll write when I have time next...









The unfortunate part about going on vacation with just the two of us, no pics of us together. Later!

News bias

This was in the news section, Conservatives can't explain Ann Coulter away

I started off with interest in the news field, print journalism. The reason I started putting up the Ben Sergent cartoons when I posted earlier is because the college paper I worked for he also started off there. I wanted to work for the news because I actually thought it was a good cause to give people the facts. I lost interest once I realized that was never the intention of those in the media. I should have realized that when studying the history of journalism....

We have reverted to Yellow Journalism with all news sources today. It is the time of posting opinion instead of the facts, and since all are getting the same opinion in the news they assume they are the facts. One example is above link about Ann Coulter. This was the top story for US news section on Google. It is a link to a BLOG first off. Second, it is opinion. It is very misleading to put it on the news section of Google.

There are certain things that I think that the media portray as fact that are simply opinion. The President of the United States is portrayed as stupid. It is thought as fact that he lied to the country about weapons of mass destruction. It is said that he violated international law with going to war with Iraq. It is said that it is scientific fact that global warming is caused by humans and can be controlled by humans. Like it or not, all of these are opinion.

I would go further to explain, but as usual my time is limited for posting. I have an ongoing frustration with the news and all of the trash that is given to our public. Political Correctness has taken over and it has effectively silenced the majority opinion of Americans. This new direction is against Christianity and religion in general. It is against standing up for standards of morality. This is the only opinion as shown by the news. Any thing else is portrayed as bigoted or ignorance. I seriously worry about the direction that we are going in and fill there is no way of correcting it. Does anybody else think that it is wrong where the country's media is for the downfall of its own leaders and is against the military actions taken by the country. I know it is not just the media, it is the left. I was just reminded of the Left's agenda through looking at the Google News. I think that history will not look well on this period, not because of the president but because of it appears to be a new period of Yellow Journalism.

Happy Birthday to El!

I just realized as I looked quickly at my archives that my blog is two years old.... Well, it is starting it's third year tomorrow. That is one reason why I can't abandon this thing. I started the blog right after my second semester as a grad student at Texas State. Thus the reason for the address: "blogfromsanmarcos". That doesn't quite fit anymore. I was single at that point. I drank at that point and I will be suprised if I ever have a job that easy again. I started this primarily for pictures and art. It still has that purpose at times. When I look back though I realize there is much more to it. The comments between my friends and I that give away our lives, the random facts of my crazey life and then when I finally met Arthur. I admit that I didn't keep up with this as much once I was at the point of getting married. There are things in your life that are just not for everyone. One thing I was somewhat vocal about was changing from democrat to republican. Though I have to admit once I did changed over I don't bother much with political argument. You find that most are do certain they are right that they won't listen to reason. What reason is there to really try? Oh, I still will everyonce and awhile.

Here are some pics through the years:

First pic on my blog.


Me over three years ago.

Perfect timing on trip to Miami, just in time for Katrina.


Then the wedding.

No pictures for now past the wedding.

This is it for now. Till next time!

West Coasters, East Coasters... They're the same.

Texas owes the United States for just about everything. Ever since American emigres helped to foment a rebellion against the Mexican government of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, other American citizens have regularly come to the aid of Texas without so much as a demand for a quid pro quo. During this 1836 rebellion, American volunteers, many from Tennessee (including former US Congressman Davy Crockett) went to Texas to aid the Texian rebels with little more than the expectation that they would get to fight a little bit. Their efforts helped to create the Republic of Texas, not that they get much of the credit compared to 'real' Texans.

- the left coaster



Crockett monument

I would put more, but as showing from my lack of posts I don't have much time. I'm still keeping this up though I really don't have the time right now. I have a twenty page paper due by the end of the week and I have been doing well at keeping up with class. I don't wish to change anything. Business is good and life is good. I just get disturbed by stupidity as usual, which the quote article above shows... the whole article does. I was trying to think of the best title for the post, what do you think?

Hey, maybe I'll add more in a week or so. Hope all are doing well!

Christmas 06'

Groupthink

Hello Everyone,

Here is an article I thought people would think is interesting. Usually I would just put a link, but this one I really think is worth seeing.


http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php? id=56a4b06e77oshwaiq5psszuc2gti5neb

From the issue dated November 12, 2004
Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual

 
By MARK BAUERLEIN

Conservatives on college campuses scored a tactical hit when the American Enterprise Institute's magazine published a survey of voter registration among humanities and social-science faculty members several years ago. More than nine out of 10 professors belonged to the Democratic or Green party, an imbalance that contradicted many liberal academics' protestations that diversity and pluralism abound in higher education. Further investigations by people like David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, coupled with well-publicized cases of discrimination against conservative professors, reinforced the findings and set "intellectual diversity" on the agenda of state legislators and members of Congress.

The public has now picked up the message that "campuses are havens for left-leaning activists," according to a Chronicle poll of 1,000 adult Americans this year. Half of those surveyed -- 68 percent who call themselves "conservative" and even 30 percent who say they are "liberal" -- agreed that colleges improperly introduce a liberal bias into what they teach. The matter, however, is clearly not just one of perception. Indeed, in another recent survey, this one conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute of the University of California at Los Angeles, faculty members themselves chose as their commitment "far left" or "liberal" more than two and a half times as often as "far right" or "conservative." As a Chronicle article last month put it: "On left-leaning campuses around the country, professors on the right feel disenfranchised."

Yet while the lack of conservative minds on college campuses is increasingly indisputable, the question remains: Why?

The obvious answer, at least in the humanities and social sciences, is that academics shun conservative values and traditions, so their curricula and hiring practices discourage non-leftists from pursuing academic careers. What allows them to do that, while at the same time they deny it, is that the bias takes a subtle form. Although I've met several conservative intellectuals in the last year who would love an academic post but have given up after years of trying, outright blackballing is rare. The disparate outcome emerges through an indirect filtering process that runs from graduate school to tenure and beyond.

Some fields' very constitutions rest on progressive politics and make it clear from the start that conservative outlooks will not do. Schools of education, for instance, take constructivist theories of learning as definitive, excluding realists (in matters of knowledge) on principle, while the quasi-Marxist outlook of cultural studies rules out those who espouse capitalism. If you disapprove of affirmative action, forget pursuing a degree in African-American studies. If you think that the nuclear family proves the best unit of social well-being, stay away from women's studies.

Other fields allow the possibility of studying conservative authors and ideas, but narrow the avenues of advancement. Mentors are disinclined to support your topic, conference announcements rarely appeal to your work, and few job descriptions match your profile. A fledgling literary scholar who studies anti-communist writing and concludes that its worth surpasses that of counterculture discourse in terms of the cogency of its ideas and morality of its implications won't go far in the application process.

No active or noisy elimination need occur, and no explicit queries about political orientation need be posed. Political orientation has been embedded into the disciplines, and so what is indeed a political judgment may be expressed in disciplinary terms. As an Americanist said in a committee meeting that I attended, "We can't hire anyone who doesn't do race," an assertion that had all the force of a scholastic dictum. Stanley Fish, professor and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, advises, "The question you should ask professors is whether your work has influence or relevance" -- and while he raised it to argue that no liberal conspiracy in higher education exists, the question is bound to keep conservatives off the short list. For while studies of scholars like Michel Foucault, Michael Hardt, and Antonio Negri seem central in the graduate seminar, studies of Friedrich A. von Hayek and Francis Fukuyama, whose names rarely appear on cultural-studies syllabi despite their influence on world affairs, seem irrelevant.

Academics may quibble over the hiring process, but voter registration shows that liberal orthodoxy now has a professional import. Conservatives and liberals square off in public, but on campuses, conservative opinion doesn't qualify as respectable inquiry. You won't often find vouchers discussed in education schools or patriotism argued in American studies. Historically, the boundaries of scholarly fields were created by the objects studied and by norms of research and peer review. Today, a political variable has been added, whereby conservative assumptions expel their holders from the academic market. A wall insulates the academic left from ideas and writings on the right.

One can see that phenomenon in how insiders, reacting to Horowitz's polls, displayed little evidence that they had ever read conservative texts or met a conservative thinker. Weblogs had entries conjecturing why conservatives avoid academe -- while never actually bothering to find one and ask -- as if they were some exotic breed whose absence lay rooted in an inscrutable mind-set. Professors offered caricatures of the conservative intelligentsia, selecting Ann H. Coulter and Rush Limbaugh as representatives, not von Hayek, Russell Kirk, Leo Strauss, Thomas Sowell, Robert Nozick, or Gertrude Himmelfarb. One of them wrote that "conservatives of Horowitz's ilk want to unleash the most ignorant forces of the right in hounding liberal academics to death."

Such parochialism and alarm are the outcome of a course of socialization that aligns liberalism with disciplinary standards and collegial mores. Liberal orthodoxy is not just a political outlook; it's a professional one. Rarely is its content discussed. The ordinary evolution of opinion -- expounding your beliefs in conversation, testing them in debate, reading books that confirm or refute them -- is lacking, and what should remain arguable settles into surety. With so many in harmony, and with those who agree joined also in a guild membership, liberal beliefs become academic manners. It's social life in a professional world, and its patterns are worth describing.

The first protocol of academic society might be called the Common Assumption. The assumption is that all the strangers in the room at professional gatherings are liberals. Liberalism at humanities meetings serves the same purpose that scientific method does at science assemblies. It provides a base of accord. The Assumption proves correct often enough for it to join other forms of trust that enable collegial events. A fellowship is intimated, and members may speak their minds without worrying about justifying basic beliefs or curbing emotions.

The Common Assumption usually pans out and passes unnoticed -- except for those who don't share it, to whom it is an overt fact of professional life. Yet usually even they remain quiet in the face of the Common Assumption. There is no joy in breaking up fellow feeling, and the awkward pause that accompanies the moment when someone comes out of the conservative closet marks a quarantine that only the institutionally secure are willing to endure.

Sometimes, however, the Assumption steps over the line into arrogance, as when at a dinner a job candidate volunteered her description of a certain "racist, sexist, and homophobic" organization, and I admitted that I belonged to it. Or when two postdocs from Germany at a nearby university stopped by my office to talk about American literature. As they sat down and I commented on how quiet things were on the day before Thanksgiving, one muttered, "Yes, we call it American Genocide Day."

Such episodes reveal the argumentative hazards of the Assumption. Apart from the ill-mannered righteousness, academics with too much confidence in their audience utter debatable propositions as received wisdom. An assertion of the genocidal motives of early English settlers is put forward not for discussion but for approval. If the audience shares the belief, all is well and good. But a lone dissenter disrupts the process and, merely by posing a question, can show just how cheap such a pat consensus actually is.

After Nixon crushed McGovern in the 1972 election, the film critic Pauline Kael made a remark that has become a touchstone among conservatives. "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won," she marveled. "I don't know anybody who voted for him." While the second sentence indicates the sheltered habitat of the Manhattan intellectual, the first signifies what social scientists call the False Consensus Effect. That effect occurs when people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. If the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.

The tendency applies to professors, especially in humanities departments, but with a twist. Although a liberal consensus reigns within, academics have an acute sense of how much their views clash with the majority of Americans. Some take pride in a posture of dissent and find noble precursors in civil rights, Students for a Democratic Society, and other such movements. But dissent from the mainstream has limited charms, especially after 24 years of center-right rule in Washington. Liberal professors want to be adversarial, but are tired of seclusion. Thus, many academics find a solution in a limited version of the False Consensus that says liberal belief reigns among intellectuals everywhere.

Such a consensus applies only to the thinking classes, union supporters, minority-group activists, and environmentalists against corporate powers. Professors cannot conceive that any person trained in critical thinking could listen to George W. Bush speak and still vote Republican. They do acknowledge one setting in which right-wing intellectual work happensnamely, the think tanksbut add that the labor there is patently corrupt. The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute, and the Hoover Institution all have corporate sponsors, they note, and fellows in residence do their bidding. Hence, references to "right-wing think tanks" are always accompanied by the qualifier "well-funded."

The dangers of aligning liberalism with higher thought are obvious. When a Duke University philosophy professor implied last February that conservatives tend toward stupidity, he confirmed the public opinion of academics as a self-regarding elite -- regardless of whether or not he was joking, as he later said that he was. When laymen scan course syllabi or search the shelves of college bookstores and find only a few volumes of traditionalist argument amid the thickets of leftist critique, they wonder whether students ever enjoy a fruitful encounter with conservative thought. When a conference panel is convened or a collection is published on a controversial subject, and all the participants and contributors stand on one side of the issue, the tendentiousness is striking to everyone except those involved. The False Consensus does its work, but has an opposite effect. Instead of uniting academics with a broader public, it isolates them as a ritualized club.

The final social pattern is the Law of Group Polarization. That lawas Cass R. Sunstein, a professor of political science and of jurisprudence at the University of Chicago, has describedpredicts that when like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs. In a product-liability trial, for example, if nine jurors believe the manufacturer is somewhat guilty and three believe it is entirely guilty, the latter will draw the former toward a larger award than the nine would allow on their own. If people who object in varying degrees to the war in Iraq convene to debate methods of protest, all will emerge from the discussion more resolved against the war.

Group Polarization happens so smoothly on campuses that those involved lose all sense of the range of legitimate opinion. A librarian at Ohio State University who announces, "White Americans pay too little attention to the benefits their skin color gives them, and opening their eyes to their privileged status is a valid part of a college education" (The Chronicle, August 6) seems to have no idea how extreme his vision sounds to many ears. Deliberations among groups are just as prone to tone deafness. The annual resolutions of the Modern Language Association's Delegate Assembly, for example, ring with indignation over practices that enjoy popular acceptance. Last year, charging that in wartime, governments use language to "misrepresent policies" and "stigmatize dissent," one resolution urged faculty members to conduct "critical analysis of war talk ... as appropriate, in classrooms." However high-minded the delegates felt as they tallied the vote, which passed 122 to 8 without discussion, to outsiders the resolution seemed merely a license for more proselytizing.

The problem is that the simple trappings of deliberation make academics think that they've reached an opinion through reasoned debate -- instead of, in part, through an irrational social dynamic. The opinion takes on the status of a norm. Extreme views appear to be logical extensions of principles that everyone more or less shares, and extremists gain a larger influence than their numbers merit. If participants left the enclave, their beliefs would moderate, and they would be more open to the beliefs of others. But with the conferences, quarterlies, and committee meetings suffused with extreme positions, they're stuck with abiding by the convictions of their most passionate brethren.

As things stand, such behaviors shift in a left direction, but they could just as well move right if conservatives had the extent of control that liberals do now. The phenomenon that I have described is not so much a political matter as a social dynamic; any political position that dominates an institution without dissent deterioriates into smugness, complacency, and blindness. The solution is an intellectual climate in which the worst tendencies of group psychology are neutralized.

That doesn't mean establishing affirmative action for conservative scholars or encouraging greater market forces in education -- which violate conservative values as much as they do liberal values. Rather, it calls for academics to recognize that a one-party campus is bad for the intellectual health of everyone. Groupthink is an anti-intellectual condition, ironically seductive in that the more one feels at ease with compatriots, the more one's mind narrows. The great liberal John Stuart Mill identified its insulating effect as a failure of imagination: "They have never thrown themselves into the mental condition of those who think differently from them." With adversaries so few and opposing ideas so disposable, a reverse advantage sets in. The majority expands its power throughout the institution, but its thinking grows routine and parochial. The minority is excluded, but its thinking is tested and toughened. Being the lone dissenter in a colloquy, one learns to acquire sure facts, crisp arguments, and a thick skin.

But we can't open the university to conservative ideas and persons by outside command. That would poison the atmosphere and jeopardize the ideals of free inquiry. Leftist bias evolved within the protocols of academic practice (though not without intimidation), and conservative challenges should evolve in the same way. There are no administrative or professional reasons to bring conservatism into academe, to be sure, but there are good intellectual and social reasons for doing so.

Those reasons are, in brief: One, a wider spectrum of opinion accords with the claims of diversity. Two, facing real antagonists strengthens one's own position. Three, to earn a public role in American society, professors must engage the full range of public opinion.

Finally, to create a livelier climate on the campus, professors must end the routine setups that pass for dialogue. Panels on issues like Iraq, racism, imperialism, and terrorism that stack the dais provide lots of passion, but little excitement. Syllabi that include the same roster of voices make learning ever more desultory. Add a few rightists, and the debate picks up. Perhaps that is the most persuasive internal case for infusing conservatism into academic discourse and activities. Without genuine dissent in the classroom and the committee room, academic life is simply boring.

Mark Bauerlein is a professor of English at Emory University and director of research at the National Endowment for the Arts.

Just watched Brokeback

Weekends never seem to last long enough. There will be very few breaks for me for the next two years because of my new Masters program. So I never seem to choose the right movies to watch. Now I am watching Harold and Kumar go to White Castle. I already know it is funny, nothing to worry about. Before this we were watching Brokeback Mountain. I didn't know that it would be that bad of a love story. The movie wasn't unbarable or anything. It was just that a few times you sit back and think, "What the hell happened here?"

Okay, the first sex/rape scene, I did not see that coming. There was no romantic build up. There was nothing. Just a couple of sheep hearders going about thier buisness. It looks like one of them accidently grabs the other in his sleep. I thought that the Heath Ledger character was going to kick his ass, but instead he does something else with it. That seems to be consistant. Heath Ledger just looks like he's pissed off through the whole movie. There is a definite look of disgust on his face that makes the movie kind of amusing.

I think the only reason this movie would ever get any awards is because of the agenda it has. You don't have to see the movie to really figure that out though. Most people I know have not seen it regardless of how much hype it created. It really didn't show at that many movie theaters either when it came out. Anyway, the hype it created was the only reason I bothered to see it in the first place . It just isn't a very good love story, or more of not a very convincing one. Its the second movie I've seen with a gay love story. I kind of knew from the first that I wouldn't really be thrilled about it. Maybe its part of being a conservative Catholic. Oh well, I won't worry too much about it. I'm tired.

You have to see this!

Okay, I posted about Miami before...

You have to read this article!

One example of the craziness that is Miami. It will make you laugh:)

Happy Thanksgiving

Late Happy Thanksgiving to everyone! I am down in Texas for the time being. My parents moved to a new small East Texas town that I must see and do other such things. It is good to have this small break. It is about to be quite busy. I will be starting graduate school at the first of December and working fulltime. For some reason I think I will be much more successful with this schedule though. So, not much to write about at this point. I am alive and well. I just had a cancer scare, but found out that it isn't cancer at this point at least. Just found that out the day before yesterday. It gives me something to be thankful for at least. Well, I shouldn't keep myself on the computer for too long. I never see my parents. Till next time....

A message from the soldiers in Iraq

Happy Halloween

Piercings

Did you know that there is an infection that can occur from a naval piercing that can cause heart failure? Look it up. I've had a few piercings and have taken them out before I got married. I went to the doctor the other day and he noticed a couple of my healed piercing scars and had to tell me all about the dangers of piercings. I have to admit I have no urge towards it anymore. I don't even wear earings anymore. Another story he told me was about a girl who had a nipple piercing and two weeks later removed it. She had an abscest grow in her breast that had to be removed. He relized while removing it that the abscest ended up replacing her entire breast and she really only had the outer skin left. She had to have it rebuilt. People should know that they can be extremely dangerous sometimes. I just read a short article(it is somewhere on that page) about a girl who had to have heart surgery from having a piercing. Luckily I have had no such problems. I just notice when you look up piercings there are mostly positive articles about it. People should be warned that there are major risks for something that is mostly just a fashion accesory.

Thoughts on upcoming election

Elections are on my mind, and it is interesting the amount of political advertising you see in our area. I guess that is the plus of living in a swing state. I have to say that on the side of political advertising, the democrats are winning. I see so much on the democrats it makes me sick. I think I'm going to vote straight ticket republican ticket just because how sick of them I am. Well, I was going to anyway.

Of course, I do worry about how republicans will fare in our area. I live in the congressional district of Mark Foley.... Yes, the same guy that was caught in this gay sex scandal of sorts. I had no clue who would be there to replace him till I looked it up online. Joe Negron is the man if anyone is interested. I think that most people that come to this blog are no where near where I live though. I wonder if those in other parts of the country are noticing the lack of republican advertising. Is it just because I am moving from a dominant Republican state to a swing state? I do not know.

Watching a few commercials have proved to me that it appears that the popularity of the Iraq war is waning. I was just wondering, how many Americans think it would be a good idea to pull out right now? Now I was not a big fan of the war at first, but from studying history you would have to be an idiot to think that it is a good idea to pull out now. We aren't loosing anything. We knew that it would be a long term thing. Also pulling out would create problems like there were in Afghanistan before. We have already trained them, they would start hating us for leaving and then the terrorism would grow much more popular in the area. Does that sound about right to you?

I listen to the news and to the adds and I think the country has about lost their minds. The news are writing opinion articles for news and the political adds are all saying PULL OUT NOW, PULL OUT NOW! Or there is also the case that the news prints opinion as news on Iraq. War is not a pleasant thing, but it is necessary for security. It is as simple as that, and do we really want to have the appearance of being so fickle? This seems to be the key issue that all are focusing on for this election and it is retarded to do so.

Other than that there is a focus on Bush's leadership skills. Do you really think our president is that dumb? I remember this guy on the news talking about the books that President Bush was reading at the time. He was reading Shakepeare at the time. The news guy commented on how our president discovered Shakespeare. Are you retarded? Do you seriously think that a Ivy league graduate would be just discovering Shakespeare in his 50s. I think he has thought to read it before in his life. My point is, if you are intelligent you can see how manipulative the news is. I guess I'm doing exactly what liberals usually do. They claim that only those with intelligence would vote democratic. It seems to be working for them so far. I think it is about time to turn it around on them. I personally think that if the regular person paid attention to the issues and voted the issues, that they would see themselves to be more conservative. I discovered that of myself, and I use to be a liberal. Republicans are not deceptive, they are not running the stupid and there is no reason to fear speaking out about something other than the popular opinion of the democratic party.

Like I said at the first of the post, elections are on my mind and I am sick of the democrats. I went from being a liberal democrat, to independent who was embarrassed of saying anything of my political opinions, to a definite conservative republican. I had help along the way, but I will say definitely that the democrats are brainwashed. I am not. Flame if you want, I won't pay attention to it unless you can actually post a comment to convince me of something. If you don't know who I am, I have done plenty of research to come to my current political beliefs. Right now, I'll be surprised if anyone comments though. I can't help but post my political thoughts every once and awhile. What else is there to write on at this time of the year?

Its morning and I'm tired

I hate waking up this early. It seems that it is my curse though. I'm not a morning person, so every job I've had demands that I get up before everyone else. I have to be at work at 7am. Its better than 4am. I had to get up at that time for United. I just simply do not understand the work schedule that I do. For one, I am doing 9 to 10 hours of work a day rather than the tpical 8 hours. What is the reason? I'm not paid outstandingly for it. The work amuses me. But why go past the typical work day?

I was talking with Arthur about it. He did a 7 to 3 work schedule before, and he enjoyed that schedule. I would enjoy that schedule too. Do you know that the typical work day was 9 to 5? I never knew that. I always thought it was 8 to 5. I guess some places just demand longer. Lunch counts for nothing. Nothing to quit your job over. What does it matter. The place does it to keep up with compatition. I just hope we don't end up like the Japanese and killing ourselves early from so much work. Ah... Oh well, it will happen anyway.

I've wasted enough time. Now I have to go. Just wanted to get something up. I noticed I only posted once last month. September went by in a flash. I expect the same of October. Well, that is it for now. I have to go to work. Can't be late.

At the beach close to home

I found something that lets me put up video finally. Art and I were at the beach right before sundown. There will more than likely be nothing up unless it is taken by the phone. The camera is still missing. Not much going on and I'm already tired. Maybe I'll have more up next time.

What I want to be when I grow up

When looking for a job in the past I had a tendency to look too much into what I wanted to be later on in life. It took me awhile to relize that I should just go for whatever the hell I can get... minus Job Coach. I don't want to do that again. I feel like I've been constantly looking for work for the past year. Its not that I've been unemployed that whole time either. I've been told I'm the expert in the family on looking for jobs. That is what I spend my spare time doing, filling out job applications and writing cover letters. I've been to about seven job interviews in the past few weeks as well. I do have a job set up to where I only have a week off from the one I just quit and then I start again at a new place. Of course, I did this again because I moved to a new area... I'm not close enoough to Miami to work there. I still have this part of me that wants to be somewhat involved with "what I want to be when I grow up" sort of thing. That was why I worked for United Airlines for awhile. Anyway, at the same time there hasn't been one area specifically that I wanted to go into when I grow up. I'll give you an example:

1. Professor/Teacher- This is what my parents do and this is what most people know what I want to do. I've always thought I was a natural at teaching. I do well at job interviews where the position requires something to do with teaching as well. There are a couple of things keeping me from any such position, an upper level degree or a teaching certificate. I'm still attempting to get into a Master's program. I'll see how that works.

2. FBI/ Federal Agent- Okay, this one is a little sillier because I first wanted to go into doing this from growing up watching X-Files. I was a little too obsessed with that show. Still, I have attempted to get federal jobs. I don't think it will work. Well, they require good credit and to be in some sort of shape... Yep, like I said, I don't think its going to work out.

3. Pilot- I think this is one of the most far fetched one of them all. That is why I went into working at United Airlines, at least I had the opportunity to fly alot. I think I would also need that surgery to correct my vision or something to be a pilot. I don't know. I really gave up on that one a long time ago.

4. Astronaunt- This is the most far fetched one of them all. But now you see why I wanted to be a pilot? I loved astronomy. I wanted to have some opportunity to go into space. Hey, it could happen. Millionares can do it now. So that is all I need, to become a multi-millionare.

5. Virologist- Once upon a time I was a biology major and this was why. I wanted to study viruses. I still think they are fasinating, but I discovered that chemistry is hard. So that dream has dies. I don't put this one as far fetched though. I keep thinking that if I try one more time that I could pass chemistry.... I just would just need to go back to college. Maybe later.

6. Political Cartoonist- Still a possibility, I think I just have the problem of not being original enough. I can draw, but no ideas. That is why I post others political cartoons. Granted that I think most political cartoonists are unoriginal and liberal assholes, but I couldn't follow that model. It just wouldn't be right.

I think that is enough for now. But I have a question, who actually thinks that they want to be a clerical worker or an HR assistant when they grow up? I personally am a little biased against HR at this point. I think HR is a nonsense position. I would think that most people would want more interesting positions. But more than likely, I will be an administrative assistant soon enough. Not HR, they actually have a degree for that. Have you ever heard of anything more bullsh*$t than an HR degree?

Dear Diary

I have kept diaries since I was in middle school. At least I have on and off. I have always enjoyed the act of journaling and I treat it like an old friend. I recently came across one of my oldest diaries. I let my husband read it. What did it really matter, it is the thoughts and actions of a 14 to 15 year old girl, or maybe I was 16. I don't really remember. He really gets into reading those things, like he loves studying me. Now I see one of consequences from doing such a thing. I picked up a new diary. A leather bound book of blank pages, I love them. I couldn't help it. I came home and started writing in it. My journaling had stopped with the blog and I need to start that again. I mean it's not like I can really do the same thing online. You can't really share your heart and your raw emotion to anyone who could possibly want to simply stop by your web page. After I finished writing he looked over and asked if I wrote how I was sorry for not writing to the diary before because I hadn't purchased it before now. Yes, that sounds about what I would usually do. Hey, like I said I write to them as an old friend. I've read diaries where the person writes simple and basic info of their day. That is so boring! I can't take that. One thing that I love more than anything else is letters. I love reading old letters and such. Sometimes I miss the fact the act of letter writing is more or less dead, taken out by email. I write the diary like a letter. I think it makes it so much more interesting when you look back. Maybe that is why Arthur was drawn in? I don't know. Hmm.... I just know I must sleep. Diary and then blog is a little much, but on the weekend I have time. What can I say? Laters.

Moving as a pack rat

When I finally get unpacked I will be extremely happy. Part of me wonders when the hell that could possibly happen at this point. We moved as I wrote in my last post. The movers were assholes and were not very good with my stuff. For instance, the grand piano... My most precious possession, is unplayable. I'm not sure when we will be able to get someone out here to make it playable again. It is painful seeing it like that. They put the thing together without me being in the room. So I was extremely pissed. I was getting ready for a job interview and my husband was the first one to notice there was something wrong with the keys. They won't go down. So it makes it difficult to play it. I yelled at the movers as I left to not touch another damned thing as I walked out the door, and that is what they did. The furniture is together, but everything else is in boxes.

This is not my first time to move. I've understood how painful it is for me to move from my previous moves within Texas: Terrill to Paris, moves within Paris, Paris to Amarillo, moves within Amarillo, Amarillo to San Marcos, San Marcos to Brenham, Brenham back to San Marcos, San Marcos to San Antonio and now finally down here to the treasure coast of Florida... I think that is what it is called. Most of those moves are from the point I started college to this point, and I think some of my boxes have not been unpacked since highschool. That is the main reason I say "painful" in describing moving, I am a pack rat. I keep everything, and I think I feel it more in this move than any other. I finally have decided, why do I need a full collection of RL Stine Fear Street books from when I was in elementary school? That is just one example. Then there are the ones that I keep questioning "what the hell do I do with them", but I can't get myself to thow them away. I have college newspapers from when I was an editor. I have trophies from playing soccer in elementary school (I threw them away because they were destroyed anyway). I start to argue with myself about these possessions. What if I want them in the future for some reason? Am I hurting myself by throwing them away? Yes, I start the process of putting them in give away boxes, and then question if they will ever leave my living room floor.... I get attached to possessions too much. It is a problem.

So we will see how long the place will remain in this state. Our main stuff is unpacked right now. I just wonder if there is room for all my junk. I may need Art's assistance in throwing things away. Yes, it can be painful to go through this process. Well, now I must get ready for work. I will write later.

Moving

We went to our new place to get ready to move. Here is another picture that I took of the beach. It was cloudy, but it is cloudy every day. Regardless, there were still people out playing at the beach. I can't wait till we are settled down in our new place.

This is a picture I found online of the lighthouse in the area. There will probably be plenty of drawings of this once I have enough time to draw. Anyway, wish me luck! Hopefully we will have everything ready in our place by the end of the next week:)

Corinthians 8: 7, 9, 13 - 15

Now as you excel in everything -- in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us -- see that you excel in this gracious work also.
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.
I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality.
As it is written, "He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack."

Close to home

Taken by Art

2nd Bluebonnet watercolor

Bluebonnets

My pet

Anne Rice's new book and other thoughts

I started to read Anne Rice when I was in middle school. Since then I have read most of her Vampire Chronicles and some of her Mayfair Witch books. As a result, I did have a slight obsession with vampires through high school. When I heard about her newest book Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt I had to read it. It took me awhile to get through it, though it is a short book. I think the main reason is because I read it during a time in my life of constant change. Art and I got married, moved out of Texas and then I went through the process of finding a new job while staying at my inlaws. But I was happy when I finally was able to spend an afternoon to read through it.

Like all of her work, it was easy and quick read. I get pulled into her work very easily. What I find amazing about this particular work is how she pulls you into the life of the Jewish community in Nazareth during the time of Jesus' childhood. You can tell she did her research. There are details of how the people reacted to each other in day to day life, how they practiced religious life and the political situations from the time of Herod's life. I found it all together amazing reading the details of how Jews lived at the time of Jesus. I know that it is fiction, but there appears to be truths to the everyday actions of those different characters in the book. In fact in the last of the book she wrote about how much research she did for the book.

The main part of the book which I found quite amazing is when his older brother goes to the temple goes to give a sacrifice. I'm sure that most of you have no idea of what I am talking about, but it was a description of this ceremony of the Jews where they went to Jerusalem to give sacrifice for their sins. The way she described it (I believe, I read it a couple of weeks ago and I don't have it in front of me) is that they brought two animals to be sacrificed. One was killed and the other was wet free into the woods. It was a way of God releasing one's sins. To me it seemed that there was a direct relation to this ceremony and the idea of the purpose of Jesus' life. Jesus was born of God to sacrifice his life for us all. He was born as a sacrifice. He was the one who released us from our sin. Not saying that he was born strictly for the sacrifice. He was also an example for us all. Jesus lived his life as a human and had the same feelings of a human. He was the human part of God.

Later on I talked with Art on a subject that made me think more of the book. He asked since Jesus received the Holy Spirit as all of us did, how is he really that different from us? Why is it that we do not have the same capability as him? When I was thinking about it I realized that there really was a stronger relation between us and Jesus than I had really thought of before. The main difference is that he was directly from God as His son. Though he was still born of Mary. Mary was human and was a good woman, but was a woman. She created the human part of Jesus. She is the reason that we have so much in common with Jesus. So in a sense we are not that different from him. We have the guidance of the Holy Spirit just as Jesus did. Am I wrong in this assumption? That is not something that came from Anne Rice's book, but just something on my mind as a result of reading her work.

I think of Jesus as the most important figure in history. From the religious position that he maintains it seems to escape most that he was still human. I really loved that Anne Rice decided to write a book on Jesus, and from what I read it seems that she is going to write an entire series of books on his life. I think that it is quite a character to take on to write about and she did it well. I'm also glad to see that she came back to the faith of her childhood and using her talent in such a way.

The Best Spiritual Book of the Year

Part 2: Nazis and Republicans do not mix

I was listening to the radio on the way home from work the other day. It is an hour drive so I either listen to comedy or the news so I don't start nodding off. I love satellite radio! Anyway, I heard something about how there was a group that was trying to pass through a fat tax. It would be a tax to encourage good health and to discourage the consumption of fatty foods. I don't remember what exactly they are wanting to tax, but the point is to enforce health standards for the community. To have the state in charge of the promotion of healthy living. This made me think of my last post on Nazis and Republicans. The point that I was getting at was that there are more comparisons between the Democratic party and the Nazis than the Republican party. The main reason is because that the Nazis were socialists. In that earlier post I put up some of the 25 points that Hitler went by. One of them reminded me of the fat tax....

The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

It is not exactly same thing as the fat tax, but the basis of the ideas are the same. Hitler believed greatly in the promotion of physical health. It is also a known fact that he was avidly against smoking. He made it the state's responsibility to keep people in physical health. The idea behind the fat tax is the same thing. The idea is to find a way to keep people on a national level from consuming fatty foods. I found an article that said the main reason that Bush was against this fat tax was because it went against personal responsibility. In this article it said that this was something that the WHO (World Health Organization) was promoting, for the state to regulate people's health in that way. The point is that this is a socialist idea, and not something that conservatives encourage.

I'll continue with another point that I put up....

We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

This one was the main one that I wished to discuss. I was reading about the Anglicans and their dispute with homosexuality. Art told me how there seemed to be so much contraversy over this that it seemed that there might be a split into a American Anglican Church. We were talking about how it seemed that there was a trend of churches splitting in American society. I know that there were problems in the American Catholic community with giving communion to politicians that are known to be pro-choice. There is a trend of people trying to force homosexuality and women priests on the Catholic Church, and I know it is happening with others as well. Positive Christianity has its similarities. It was a promotion of how Jesus as an "Aryan". Also, according to Wikipedia...

They attempted to separate Nazi officials from church affiliations, banning nativity plays and calling for an end to daily prayers in schools.

This was only after the Positive Christianity movement seemed to not catch on. It ended in 1945. Now how many times have you heard reference to Jesus being gay or think of how the ideas of women leadership in the Catholic Church are promoted with either Mary Magdalene or Mother Mary. The point is the distortion of the ideas of Christianity to the personal goals of the state. When they do not conform there is this eradication of the church. United States was referred to as a Christian Nation at one point, but it seems to be widely accepted today that we are secular. In a socialist country it is difficult to keep with the ideas of Chistianity because it promotes the importance of the individual within the community. It does not promote the supreme importance of the state. I was taught at one point about the points of government structure in the Old Testament. Even within that structure there were levels of checks and balances that made sure that God was being followed. I think it should be noticeable how the Democratic party goes along with this. There seems to be a movement in this country to both eradicate Christianity from public view and to change the church to go along with other's political agenda.

Well, I wouldn't say that the Democratic party is the same as the Nazis, but the point is that they are socialist. One thing that I was taught from my first political science class in high school is that the difference between the main two countries in our country is one believes in more control of the state and the later the control of the individual. It is known that the Republican party is for reducing taxes and not for promoting more and more social programs. The democrats are for the central power of the state. They inherently do not trust people to take responsibility for what they do. With that comes welfare programs and the regulation of the day to day things of society. The main difference is that the Democrats are anti-military. Is there a situation which the liberals would be for military action? That is good question that is for another post at another time.

Well, I'm just finishing up on what I started a week ago. I can't stand the remarks of conservatives being Nazis. Maybe you guys can give me a better idea of how the Republicans could be seen as Nazis. Of course that means proposing an argument, not calling me a dumbass... So let me know. I'll actually comment back this time.

Part 1: Nazis and Republicans do not mix

What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the Nazis? I'll give a few that come to my mind: Hitler, World War II, The Holocaust, The Third Reich, The SS, and ethnic cleansing. There are a couple that I read recently that are new to me: The Nationalist Socialist Program and Positive Christianity. The only reason that I have come across these sites is because of my curiosity in why there are constant references between the Republic Party and The Nazis. I'll give examples here and here:



If you look it up online or just go to various liberal political blogs you will find plenty of remarks of comparing Bush and other republicans to Nazis. The reasons I see for these comparisons so far are because republicans are accused of being fascists, racists (homophobes as well), militaristic and nationalists. The reasons for using the comparison between Hitler and Bush seems to be solely on the shear hatred that people on the left have for him and there are references to his grandfather being connected to Nazi Germany. That is also including the other reasons above that are associated with all republicans or conservatives. The only one I will not respond to is the referece to his family connection. Do you take on the burden of your grandfather or even your father's sins? Why should he?

So to start off. What are the Nazis? They were the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party. According to Wikipedia (which I love to use if you cannot already tell):

"The National Socialist program also contained a number of points that supported democracy and even called for wider democratic rights. These, like much of the program, lost their importance as the Party evolved, and were ignored by the Nazis after they rose to power".

I'll give an idea of what some of the 25 points were. All know that the party believed in the superiority of thier race and were not a fan of foriegners. Here are others...

"All citizens must have equal rights and obligations".

"Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery".

"In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits".

"We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries". "We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare".

"The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession".

"The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young".

"We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility".

Basically, you could take these points from any socialist platform. Germany was a democracy that optionally gave over to a socialist party. I like this explanation of the Nazis. Hitler was avidly against the use of tobacco and rose to power in support of the working class. He was for nationalization. In what way is this possibly conservative?

I'll split this one up into more than one post. I'm big on research and I couldn't in good conscience continue with any argument without some sort of backing. The next post I will continue on how some of the ideas of Nazi party are still alive today, but it is not with the conservative or religious right population. The reason... moral relativism. I'll update soon.

Watercolor from wedding photos

Its that time again....

Yes, I know that hurricane season started a few days ago and I don't know if the rest of the country is receiving the predictions like we are down here. I assume you are based on the cartoon, but we had a special program on it the other night on the weather. There is no doubt that it is time to prepare. I've decided from my last experience with Katrina that what I want more than anything else is a battery powered fan. I'm not sure where I can get one, but I believe that is essential to surviving the Miami heat when the electricity is out. It gets very very hot, and they take days to turn back on the electricity. I just think it is kind of funny that everyone thinks that this season will be devastating. I personally think things should be good if you take history as a guide. Before last season the last time there was a major hurricane to hit south Florida was Andrew. I'm not too worried... But I'm still getting the fan. We will also be as prepared as anyone else. I think. If you are interested at all in what will happen this hurricane season, even if you are not, then you should read this article. It is Carl Hiaasan and it is about a guy who does quite well in predicting hurricanes, but has a real unconventional way of doing it. And if you do live near the coast it is always good to be prepared for such events, but you know already that it is just part of the normal life of your home.

Seby

Napoleon

Nothing really happened

So we drove to Key Largo this afternoon. It is still amazing to me to live so close to the water. Of course, it is impossible to make it to the water. The beach is blocked off to public except for certain sections. We were driving just so I could see my new home. I haven't been to the beach since I've moved here. I went out to eat at South Beach once, but I really didn't feel like going down to the water. So I guess it just hasn't really hit me where I live. The keys are close. They are accessible. I remember going to the Keys when I was a little girl. I loved Florida and thought it was the coolest state ever. Of course I remember thinking that Miami was ugly.... That really hasn't changed much. Florida was also only the third or fourth state I had seen at that time.

So we are driving down and I'm hearing constant complaints from my husband about how ugly Florida is and how it there is nothing but green. This whole time I'm looking to the side of the car in amazement about how dense the trees were around us the whole way. I know its been years since I have lived in Amarillo, but my appreciation for trees hasn't died yet. I remember first moving to San Marcos, I thought it was paradise in comparison. I think I vowed to never underestimate how my surroundings effects my moods, and to never allow myself to move to a grassland/desert area again. The general dryness just sucks. Well, I'm definitely don't have to worry about being dry here. It certainly is not ugly, at least the vegetation. Art also points at the downtown area about the beauty of skyscrapers. I can't help but look at them blankly. I think historic sections of cities are pretty sometimes, but I don't really care for skyscrapers.

Oh well, it was a nice drive today none the less. I need to go to sleep:)

Postmodernism

I have a question for my small audience. Is there anyone who truly understands the meaning of postmodernism? I know no other term that within the definition it says that this is a hard word to define. But there it is hovering over all of us as a defining point of our way of thinking. More of a defining point of our generation. It seems impossible to get rid of because of it having no real position. And why do I feel there is a need of getting rid of it? That is simple, there is nothing positive about it. It shifts with all positions, because its position is that there is no "right" and "wrong"; there is only the moment, or only an opinion. At least that is what I understand of it. Knowing that it is hard to define, I will give in to the possibility that I might be mistaken. All I know is that it is something the sucks beauty from art and meaning from philosophy. What I find sacred, with postmodernism turns simply into a cultural querk or a "point of view". It really gives a hollowness to everything, because there can only be what you are thinking now. There is nothing else.

If I am going about this in the right way I will go further with my questioning. How can people stand for this? How can people fall into this trap? To me it seems that the political correctness of today is greatly related to postmodernism. No one can say to a group, "what you are doing is wrong." Political correctness has the stance that morals are relative and that we have no place to judge. Where else could this have come from other than postmodernism? There are so many people that simply go along with this. I have to admit that I am silent on issues most of the time simply from fear of being berated. I have also always wanted to see myself as "openminded". One thing I always have to keep in mind is that it is one thing to be openminded, but something entirely different to be moral relativist. You can hear all views, but what means do you have to judge by if you lack the belief in "right" and "wrong"?

But it is wrong to think that there is this objective morality to postmodernism. I would think that belief in objective morality, more of a belief in God could do away with this... this... philosophy. But maybe not. Would you consider this continuing division of faith and personalizing of faith to be part of postmodernism? There is the belief in God, but it is more of a belief of God "on my terms". I can't tell how many times I have heard someone say that they believe in God, but they do not believe in any organized religion. I know many Catholics that pick and choose at what beliefs they wish to go by. Maybe I'm not too far off from them myself since I did not get married in the Catholic church. But then, how far off is Catholicism from postmodernism since it has accepted marriages of other faiths as valid?

I feel myself writing into a disorienting series of of facts and questions. All I've been thinking of is how to define and categorize postmodernism. It seems like that is critical in moving past it. But then again, maybe postmodernism is simply a product of globalization that cannot be moved past until we continue on to the next stage of human development. It survives on the fact that all cultures believe that they are right, and that there is none superior over another. But maybe in the last sentence is the answer to the end of postmodernism. The idea that there is one group out there that has it right. There is a possibility that there are cultures inferior to others. Why is that so wrong?

God help me I'd continue on this if I weren't so tired and disoriented right now. This emerged from a conversation in the car. Now I need sleep and peace of mind.... Well, at least sleep. I am sorry for the spelling, grammer and other nonsense that might appear in the post. As I said, I need sleep. Good night, or good morning:)

Weird Miami

I have yet to feel any pride or enthusiasm in regards to my recent move from central Texas to south Florida. There is the fact that I have only lived in the place for two weeks, but think about it... The most important news event from my new home recently is the gator attacks. What can I say, maybe you should take a break from your daily jog next to the canals during the gator mating season. Yes, we live close to big dangerous reptiles. I imagine it couldn't be too hard to avoid them. But it is things like this that stand out in my mind when I think of my new home: it is a strange place. Now Texas has its weird places and such, but it does not have a city that was originally settled by Russian circus midgets or a famous retirement area for Latin American dictators ("dictator's row"... I may wrote more on it later). Yes, these are true facts and I'm surprised that they don't advertise more on their circus midget history. I no longer have to wonder how comedic writers such as Carl Hiaason and Dave Berry get their material. They could get a majority of it simply by driving down the Palmetto or picking up the Miami Herald. Hell, thinking of midgets, I have a short comedic story for you just from going the store the other day. We have been sick for the past week. I was blessed by getting an interview because of a hook up through one of Arthur's friends, but unfortunately that same person gave me a cold that I have yet to fully recovered from. I'll have to remember to thank her, but I digress. We were on one of many trips to the store when we both noticed two people suspiciously crawling out of a fence. Right when they made it to the side walk a midget came up quickly on a chopper/small motor bike and almost ran them over on the side walk. The only thing I could think to say is, "Was that a midget?" Arthur and I just looked at each other and laughed. Short, but it was amusing at the time. Oh yes, in regards to my previous post on Baskin Robins... I have discovered that this sort of thing is common in Miami. As in Art's comment, I agree we hadn't been to enough places yet to notice most people in Miami seem incapable of customer service. We went out to eat on South Beach for my birthday and it took them an hour to get out the food because they had put the order in, but it was somehow lost. There are two things you can expect from stores in Miami: no english and no service... There is the exception of some tourist areas. Well the one thing I can give the city is that it is unique, backwards... But unique. Maybe that is the positive part of the city, the fact that it is so damned weird. If nothing else it does make it an interesting place to visit. I am still rationalizing how it makes it a good place to live. I go back to what Arthur had me watch before I came down to Miami, Big Trouble. I could believe that this story is based off of truth. If you don't believe it still just look up the terrorist group Alpha 66 (as shown in picture... Pretty much the regulars of Miami). I drove past its headquarters the other day in Little Havana. Good night!