My son Jackson hit the big time Monday. He is now a kindergartner.
I dreaded this day all summer. I really don't know why either. It's a big step in my son's life, but letting go was difficult for me.
Maybe it's a control issue. For the first time in his life, he's really in the hands of others. Perhaps that's the reason.
Then again, it may be the fact that he's taking a large step in his young life. It's not every day you start school for the first time.
Jack has been through a lot in his young life. Could it be that I feel helpless or powerless now? I guess that's another control issue.
As my wife and I were leaving his classroom this morning, I paused and looked back at Jackson. He sat their calmly, facing forward and not saying a word.
"Come on Jack, just give me one quick glance," I said to myself. "Please Jack, look over that left shoulder and give me a thumbs up!"
Nothing. He remained still. His little toe-head fixed on what was in front of him. "I know you're scared son ... just give me a look and I'll make you feel at ease."
Nothing still. "I finally joined my wife and younger son and we started the long walk out of the school. Jackson was on his own and I had to deal with it.
In retrospect, it was probably a good thing that he didn't look back. I'm not so sure I could have kept it together.
Sometimes I'm not so sure about our society. Part of me feels like taking the wife and kids and hiding out in the mountains for a couple of decades. That way I can keep them safe and sound and out of harms way. I can shelter them from the influences of others.
But that's neither wise nor practical. Job number one is preparing them for the challenges they will face in their lives. It's a job I take seriously and one I think I'm pretty good at.
It is comforting knowing I left my son in good hands today. The teachers in that school are incredible and we're fortunate to have such a place.
I told Jackson of my difficulty when I picked him up this afternoon. I told him it was hard on Daddy to let go.
"I know Dad, I was a little bit scared too," he told me as we walked to the car. "You don't need to worry though. No matter how many time I go to kindergarten, I'll always love you and I know you'll always love me too."
I guess the students do become the teachers on occasion. All-in-all, he handled his first day of school better than I did. And, he even earned some extra recess.
Copyright 2009 by Christopher Blackburn
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Un-American?
Something has disgusted me over the past several weeks.
It is hard to believe that the voices of so many were dismissed as "un-American" by elected officials, particularly the Speaker of the House.
What is more un-American, protesting a war you feel is the wrong decision or protesting a health care reform bill?
What is more patriotic, protesting a war you feel is the wrong decision or protesting a health care reform bill?
The reality is, you are not un-American nor patriotic in either instance. That is the beauty of our freedom of speech. It guarantees you the right to say and express how you feel about a given topic or situation.
Freedom os speech can be hard to swallow at times. If you feel strongly about a topic, then naturally, the opposite view will upset you. But elected officials should be above name-calling. It makes them look petty and sad.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and one of the biggest hypocrites walking the globe, called those protesting at recent town hall meetings "un-American," "Nazis" and "right-wing extremists."
Oh yes Madam Speaker, those grandmothers sure did look like "right-wing extremists." How terrifying!
Wouldn't it have sounded more professional if she would have said, "We welcome differences of opinion in this country. It leads to constructive dialogue which enables us to have the pulse of our respective constituents, thus, making us a better country."
Of course, if she were to say those words, would you believe them?
Here are some words Pelosi spoke following the presidential election:
“Last week, in a stunning display of democracy, the American people voted for change,” said Pelosi. “Today, House Democrats have elected the leaders who will help take our nation in a New Direction. We will work together to lead the House of Representatives with a commitment to integrity, to civility, and to fiscal responsibility. This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”
How wonderful it would have been had she really meant what she was saying back in November.
At times during the war formerly known as the war on terror, it pained me to see so much hate in the streets of our country. In fact, many of the things said during that time made me sick.
However, I can appreciate the fact that people can assemble and voice their opinions and that right should be, and is, protected.
I remember growing up and seeing and hearing both pro life and pro choice groups going at it in front of clinics around the country. Both groups had one thing in common: freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is a human right. Without it, we are oppressed.
Read the words of others:
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
"The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions." - Adlai E. Stevenson
Speaker Pelosi can't have it both ways. Elected officials condemning Americans for exercising a basic right is both unprofessional and childish. I was going to say it was un-American, but we proved here that would be a mistake on my part.
Copyright 2009 by Christopher Blackburn
It is hard to believe that the voices of so many were dismissed as "un-American" by elected officials, particularly the Speaker of the House.
What is more un-American, protesting a war you feel is the wrong decision or protesting a health care reform bill?
What is more patriotic, protesting a war you feel is the wrong decision or protesting a health care reform bill?
The reality is, you are not un-American nor patriotic in either instance. That is the beauty of our freedom of speech. It guarantees you the right to say and express how you feel about a given topic or situation.
Freedom os speech can be hard to swallow at times. If you feel strongly about a topic, then naturally, the opposite view will upset you. But elected officials should be above name-calling. It makes them look petty and sad.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and one of the biggest hypocrites walking the globe, called those protesting at recent town hall meetings "un-American," "Nazis" and "right-wing extremists."
Oh yes Madam Speaker, those grandmothers sure did look like "right-wing extremists." How terrifying!
Wouldn't it have sounded more professional if she would have said, "We welcome differences of opinion in this country. It leads to constructive dialogue which enables us to have the pulse of our respective constituents, thus, making us a better country."
Of course, if she were to say those words, would you believe them?
Here are some words Pelosi spoke following the presidential election:
“Last week, in a stunning display of democracy, the American people voted for change,” said Pelosi. “Today, House Democrats have elected the leaders who will help take our nation in a New Direction. We will work together to lead the House of Representatives with a commitment to integrity, to civility, and to fiscal responsibility. This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”
How wonderful it would have been had she really meant what she was saying back in November.
At times during the war formerly known as the war on terror, it pained me to see so much hate in the streets of our country. In fact, many of the things said during that time made me sick.
However, I can appreciate the fact that people can assemble and voice their opinions and that right should be, and is, protected.
I remember growing up and seeing and hearing both pro life and pro choice groups going at it in front of clinics around the country. Both groups had one thing in common: freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is a human right. Without it, we are oppressed.
Read the words of others:
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
"The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions." - Adlai E. Stevenson
Speaker Pelosi can't have it both ways. Elected officials condemning Americans for exercising a basic right is both unprofessional and childish. I was going to say it was un-American, but we proved here that would be a mistake on my part.
Copyright 2009 by Christopher Blackburn
UG2BK
Do you send text messages on your cellular phone? If not, surely you've been around people who are texting.
In the world of texting, abbreviations (a type of shorthand) are commonly used. So much so, it is almost like another language.
To be honest, I'm not very good at texting. I'm slow and I really don't enjoy it that much. However, it does come in handy at times. One of the most useful aspects of texting for me is the fact you can send the same message to several people at the same time. Example: "Baseball practice tonight is canceled."
As text-messaging shorthand becomes more and more widespread in emails, text messages and Tweets, people have a need to decode the ever-evolving shorthand.
Parents want to keep up with or police their teens. Bosses want to know what employees are saying on company equipment.
One reason for the growing number of texting abbreviations - now over 2,000 according to NetLingo.com - is the boom in social-media sites like Twitter, where messages are limited to 140 characters. Text messages, too, are limited in length, so users have developed the shorthand abbreviations.
The trend will most likely continue. In 2008, over one trillion texts were sent in the U.S.
The confusion over the explosion of abbreviations is fueling a greater number of resources that provide English translations. They include independent Web sites like NetLingo.com and UrbanDictionary.com and corporate ones like LG Mobile Phones’ DTXTR.com. Textapedia, a pocket guide to texting terms released last year, is now sold in over 4,000 stores nationwide. NetLingo reports a 391% increase in the number of unique visitors over the past five years, while UrbanDictionary says it saw a 40% jump in its unique visitors in the past year.
Both the AP Stylebook and Merriam-Webster Dictionary recognized texting shorthand for the first time in their 2009 editions. The AP Stylebook now includes IMO (“In my opinion”), ROFL (“Rolling on the floor laughing”) and BFF (“Best friends forever”), among others. Merriam-Webster defines LOL (“Laugh out loud”) and OMG (“Oh my God”).
Some parents have created their own cheat sheets in an effort to keep up with their teens. Rightfully so given these abbreviations: GNOC (“Get naked on camera”); POS (“Parent over shoulder”); LMIRL (“Let’s meet in real life”); and IWSN (“I want sex now”).
Here are some more examples of some common shorthand abbreviations:
* UG2BK - You got to be kidding
* GBTW - Get back to work
* NMP - Not my problem
* PIR - Parent in room
* GFTD - Gone for the day
* FYEO - For your eyes only
* BI5 - Back in five minutes
* DEGT - Don’t even go there
* BIL - Boss is listening
* PAW - Parents are watching
* 99 - Parents are no longer watching
* PCM - Please call me
* IMS - I am sorry
* TOY - Thinking of you
* KUTGW - Keep up the good work
* CID - Consider it done
* FWIW - For what it’s worth
* HAND - Have a nice day
* IAT - I am tired
* NRN - No response necessary
* 4COL - For crying out loud
* WRUD - What are you doing
* ^5 - High five
For what it's worth, I'll throw an original of mine in there: IHNIWAIS!
Know what it means. Hint: It's what I'm thinking when I get texts.
I Have No Idea What Anyone Is Saying. Of course, people are really not "saying" anything when they text, so I should probably change that to IHNIWAIT.
And you thought spelling and grammar suffered as a result of spellcheck...
Copyright 2009 by Christopher Blackburn
In the world of texting, abbreviations (a type of shorthand) are commonly used. So much so, it is almost like another language.
To be honest, I'm not very good at texting. I'm slow and I really don't enjoy it that much. However, it does come in handy at times. One of the most useful aspects of texting for me is the fact you can send the same message to several people at the same time. Example: "Baseball practice tonight is canceled."
As text-messaging shorthand becomes more and more widespread in emails, text messages and Tweets, people have a need to decode the ever-evolving shorthand.
Parents want to keep up with or police their teens. Bosses want to know what employees are saying on company equipment.
One reason for the growing number of texting abbreviations - now over 2,000 according to NetLingo.com - is the boom in social-media sites like Twitter, where messages are limited to 140 characters. Text messages, too, are limited in length, so users have developed the shorthand abbreviations.
The trend will most likely continue. In 2008, over one trillion texts were sent in the U.S.
The confusion over the explosion of abbreviations is fueling a greater number of resources that provide English translations. They include independent Web sites like NetLingo.com and UrbanDictionary.com and corporate ones like LG Mobile Phones’ DTXTR.com. Textapedia, a pocket guide to texting terms released last year, is now sold in over 4,000 stores nationwide. NetLingo reports a 391% increase in the number of unique visitors over the past five years, while UrbanDictionary says it saw a 40% jump in its unique visitors in the past year.
Both the AP Stylebook and Merriam-Webster Dictionary recognized texting shorthand for the first time in their 2009 editions. The AP Stylebook now includes IMO (“In my opinion”), ROFL (“Rolling on the floor laughing”) and BFF (“Best friends forever”), among others. Merriam-Webster defines LOL (“Laugh out loud”) and OMG (“Oh my God”).
Some parents have created their own cheat sheets in an effort to keep up with their teens. Rightfully so given these abbreviations: GNOC (“Get naked on camera”); POS (“Parent over shoulder”); LMIRL (“Let’s meet in real life”); and IWSN (“I want sex now”).
Here are some more examples of some common shorthand abbreviations:
* UG2BK - You got to be kidding
* GBTW - Get back to work
* NMP - Not my problem
* PIR - Parent in room
* GFTD - Gone for the day
* FYEO - For your eyes only
* BI5 - Back in five minutes
* DEGT - Don’t even go there
* BIL - Boss is listening
* PAW - Parents are watching
* 99 - Parents are no longer watching
* PCM - Please call me
* IMS - I am sorry
* TOY - Thinking of you
* KUTGW - Keep up the good work
* CID - Consider it done
* FWIW - For what it’s worth
* HAND - Have a nice day
* IAT - I am tired
* NRN - No response necessary
* 4COL - For crying out loud
* WRUD - What are you doing
* ^5 - High five
For what it's worth, I'll throw an original of mine in there: IHNIWAIS!
Know what it means. Hint: It's what I'm thinking when I get texts.
I Have No Idea What Anyone Is Saying. Of course, people are really not "saying" anything when they text, so I should probably change that to IHNIWAIT.
And you thought spelling and grammar suffered as a result of spellcheck...
Copyright 2009 by Christopher Blackburn
Governing From The Center
I've noticed some things about presidents and the Americans they govern. Former President George W. Bush ran from the center, but governed from the right. For millions of Americans, it was too far to the right and cost the Republican Party the majority in both the House and the Senate.
Former President Bill Clinton began his first term governing from the left which led to the Republican Revolution as they took over Congress. Clinton then governed more from the center and was able to make more of a difference.
President Obama, who ran on the left, may be learning that he too needs to govern more from the center or his numbers will continue to drop as more and more Americans are turned off by an agenda they deem too liberal.
The United States is a center-right country. When you take the 330 million residents, what you get are 79 percent who do not consider themselves liberal. That is a telling number.
According to a June Gallup Poll, 40 percent of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, 35 percent as moderate, and 21 percent as liberal. The numbers represent a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21 percent calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
Basically, that tells me the American people don't want a liberal agenda despite the fact we elected a liberal to the White House.
Now here's the question, will President Obama shift to the center in order to get things done, or will he continue to try and move the country left and run into a brick wall.
I been listening to pundits, from both the right and the left, predicting Obama's demise should health care reform fail. I don't believe that. Similar predictions were made about Clinton during his first term. He easily won re-election.
President Obama is, or should be learning that mainstream Americans, Democrat and Republican, are not liberal. Most Americans don't think like those in the liberal hotbeds of San Francisco, Seattle or Chicago. In other words, most Americans don't think government is the answer for everything. Far from it. Most are weary of big government and expensive government programs.
Obama must also realize that the quickest way to get your message lost is to burn yourself out. The president is on television more than Regis Philbin. After awhile, it all sounds the same. Overexposure is no way to get an agenda across. Bush learned that lesson in 2004 when his popularity vanished as a result of trying to get Social Security privatized.
Obama's popularity has plummeted in recent weeks as more and more Americans are coming out against a massive health care overhaul which would render us with few choices. Many are now paying attention to Cap and Trade and other issues which are rapidly losing ground.
As history has shown us, when a party gains too much power and gets out of line with the mainstream, like the GOP did in 2004 and 2005, it leads to a shift in the balance of power.
Democrats were feeling pretty good about their position in February. Now that they're home and hearing it loud and clear from their constituents (despite denial in some cases), they should realize they are in the fight for their political lives. What happened to the GOP in 2006 could sure happen to the Democrats in 2010.
Might happen anyhow. Most Americans would prefer to have both parties in power in some form or fashion.
Copyright 2009 by Christopher Blackburn
Former President Bill Clinton began his first term governing from the left which led to the Republican Revolution as they took over Congress. Clinton then governed more from the center and was able to make more of a difference.
President Obama, who ran on the left, may be learning that he too needs to govern more from the center or his numbers will continue to drop as more and more Americans are turned off by an agenda they deem too liberal.
The United States is a center-right country. When you take the 330 million residents, what you get are 79 percent who do not consider themselves liberal. That is a telling number.
According to a June Gallup Poll, 40 percent of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, 35 percent as moderate, and 21 percent as liberal. The numbers represent a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21 percent calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
Basically, that tells me the American people don't want a liberal agenda despite the fact we elected a liberal to the White House.
Now here's the question, will President Obama shift to the center in order to get things done, or will he continue to try and move the country left and run into a brick wall.
I been listening to pundits, from both the right and the left, predicting Obama's demise should health care reform fail. I don't believe that. Similar predictions were made about Clinton during his first term. He easily won re-election.
President Obama is, or should be learning that mainstream Americans, Democrat and Republican, are not liberal. Most Americans don't think like those in the liberal hotbeds of San Francisco, Seattle or Chicago. In other words, most Americans don't think government is the answer for everything. Far from it. Most are weary of big government and expensive government programs.
Obama must also realize that the quickest way to get your message lost is to burn yourself out. The president is on television more than Regis Philbin. After awhile, it all sounds the same. Overexposure is no way to get an agenda across. Bush learned that lesson in 2004 when his popularity vanished as a result of trying to get Social Security privatized.
Obama's popularity has plummeted in recent weeks as more and more Americans are coming out against a massive health care overhaul which would render us with few choices. Many are now paying attention to Cap and Trade and other issues which are rapidly losing ground.
As history has shown us, when a party gains too much power and gets out of line with the mainstream, like the GOP did in 2004 and 2005, it leads to a shift in the balance of power.
Democrats were feeling pretty good about their position in February. Now that they're home and hearing it loud and clear from their constituents (despite denial in some cases), they should realize they are in the fight for their political lives. What happened to the GOP in 2006 could sure happen to the Democrats in 2010.
Might happen anyhow. Most Americans would prefer to have both parties in power in some form or fashion.
Copyright 2009 by Christopher Blackburn
How Stimulating
Our tax dollars are going toward pornography in Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's district.
Hard to believe?
According to news reports, the National Endowment for the Arts is spending some of the money it received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund nude simulated-sex dances, Saturday night "pervert" revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco.
The NEA was given $80 million of the government's $787 billion economic stimulus bill to spread around to needy artists nationwide. Most of the money is being spent to help preserve jobs in museums, orchestras, theaters and dance troupes which have been hit hard during the recession. I don't have a problem with that as cultural things are needed in our society.
But some NEA grants are being misused, in my opinion, for things which Americans should be up in arms against. One such matter is a $50,000 infusion for the Frameline film house, which recently screened "Thundercrack," "The world's only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla."
Makes you wonder what else has slipped through the cracks concerning the stimulus package. Guess that's what happens when Pelosi and her cohorts decide to pass bills without reading them first.
A few members of Congress raised questions as the stimulus bill was being drafted and approved, but President Obama, while admitting there were problems with the $787 billion legislation, stressed the need for immediate action.
Surely Obama didn't intend to have stimulus money help fund the weekly production of "Perverts Put Out" at San Francisco's CounterPULSE, whose "long-running pansexual performance series" invites guests to "join your fellow pervs for some explicit, twisted fun."
CounterPULSE received a $25,000 grant in the "Dance" category; a staffer there said they were pleased to receive the grant, "which over the next year will be used to preserve jobs at our small non-profit."
Wow. So basically, our tax dollars are going to porn stars in Pelosi's district.
Victoria Hutter, an NEA spokeswoman defended the agency's choices and said its grants would help "preserve jobs in danger of going away or that had gone away because of the economic downturn."
"Our review process is very comprehensive -- we take great care with applicants and with grantees," said Hutter. "It's a thorough, rigorous process that they all go through, and we're proud of the projects that we've been able to support."
Really?
"The Symmetry Project," which has received past NEA funding and stands to get an additional boost from a $25,000 stimulus grant, is a dance piece by choreographer Jess Curtis.
According to Curtis' Web site, "The Symmetry Project" features (hold on to your hat) "the sharing of a central axis, [as] spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience."
Basically, it's a live sex show.
Curtis said the NEA funding will help keep his art afloat.
"I think art is an incredibly important part of our culture and our life and ... that it's very much appropriate that our government should be supporting it," Curtis said.
Well, I think it's a complete waste of our tax dollars and San Francisco may be as out of touch with mainstream America as a remote village in Nepal.
"With these stimulus funds San Francisco arts organizations will be able to weather the storm and continue to provide jobs and to generate revenue while enriching people's lives through innovative, high quality programming," said Luis R. Cancel director of cultural affairs for the San Francisco Arts Council.
High quality? Doubtful.
No question, the stimulus bill needs oversight BEFORE money is handed out. Porn, questionable art, etc... - these things need to be funded by patrons and not the taxpayer. As for Nancy Pelosi, she's needs to be run out of office in the worst way.
Copyright 2009 by Christopher Blackburn
Hard to believe?
According to news reports, the National Endowment for the Arts is spending some of the money it received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund nude simulated-sex dances, Saturday night "pervert" revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco.
The NEA was given $80 million of the government's $787 billion economic stimulus bill to spread around to needy artists nationwide. Most of the money is being spent to help preserve jobs in museums, orchestras, theaters and dance troupes which have been hit hard during the recession. I don't have a problem with that as cultural things are needed in our society.
But some NEA grants are being misused, in my opinion, for things which Americans should be up in arms against. One such matter is a $50,000 infusion for the Frameline film house, which recently screened "Thundercrack," "The world's only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla."
Makes you wonder what else has slipped through the cracks concerning the stimulus package. Guess that's what happens when Pelosi and her cohorts decide to pass bills without reading them first.
A few members of Congress raised questions as the stimulus bill was being drafted and approved, but President Obama, while admitting there were problems with the $787 billion legislation, stressed the need for immediate action.
Surely Obama didn't intend to have stimulus money help fund the weekly production of "Perverts Put Out" at San Francisco's CounterPULSE, whose "long-running pansexual performance series" invites guests to "join your fellow pervs for some explicit, twisted fun."
CounterPULSE received a $25,000 grant in the "Dance" category; a staffer there said they were pleased to receive the grant, "which over the next year will be used to preserve jobs at our small non-profit."
Wow. So basically, our tax dollars are going to porn stars in Pelosi's district.
Victoria Hutter, an NEA spokeswoman defended the agency's choices and said its grants would help "preserve jobs in danger of going away or that had gone away because of the economic downturn."
"Our review process is very comprehensive -- we take great care with applicants and with grantees," said Hutter. "It's a thorough, rigorous process that they all go through, and we're proud of the projects that we've been able to support."
Really?
"The Symmetry Project," which has received past NEA funding and stands to get an additional boost from a $25,000 stimulus grant, is a dance piece by choreographer Jess Curtis.
According to Curtis' Web site, "The Symmetry Project" features (hold on to your hat) "the sharing of a central axis, [as] spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience."
Basically, it's a live sex show.
Curtis said the NEA funding will help keep his art afloat.
"I think art is an incredibly important part of our culture and our life and ... that it's very much appropriate that our government should be supporting it," Curtis said.
Well, I think it's a complete waste of our tax dollars and San Francisco may be as out of touch with mainstream America as a remote village in Nepal.
"With these stimulus funds San Francisco arts organizations will be able to weather the storm and continue to provide jobs and to generate revenue while enriching people's lives through innovative, high quality programming," said Luis R. Cancel director of cultural affairs for the San Francisco Arts Council.
High quality? Doubtful.
No question, the stimulus bill needs oversight BEFORE money is handed out. Porn, questionable art, etc... - these things need to be funded by patrons and not the taxpayer. As for Nancy Pelosi, she's needs to be run out of office in the worst way.
Copyright 2009 by Christopher Blackburn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
