Republicans like to pretend that they’re the party of “small government.” While they often blame the growth and inefficiency of government on “tax and spend” democrats: republican “borrow and spend” policies only produced a different version of big government. For the last 50 years: the size and influence of the federal government has grown steadily, regardless of which party was in power. Depite all of the rhetoric on both sides, the only real difference between the two parties is their beneficiaries.
Whether government spends money on welfare for the poor or welfare for business and financial markets, it’s still welfare. Whether government spends money on public education or vouchers for religion-based schools, it’s still education spending. Whether government spends money on regulating guns or regulating relationships, it’s still regulation. At the end of the day, each party’s politicians spend or forsake money in ways that benefit the patrons who ultimately control them.
Most of our laws are written by special interest groups who donate millions of dollars to a particular party or “representative.” The existence of a large and powerful federal government primarily benefits special interest groups, especially when “their party” is in power. When republicans are in power: it’s a great time to be a business owner, Christian proselytizer, defense contractor, or energy company. When democrats are in power: it’s a great time to be a public employee, union member, environmentalist, or A.C.L.U. lawyer. Some special interest groups donate heavily to both parties: so it’s always a great time to be involved with multi-national corporations, agri-business, or Wall Street, but I digress…
Both political parties also get to select or promote their own “activist judges,” who will interpret constitutions and laws in ways that benefit the party and its patrons. Giving corporations the same rights as individuals and defining campaign spending as a first amendment right goes a long way to ensure that there will be no meaningful challenge to our corrupt two party system. It should be no surprise that judges beholden to a party tend to interpret constitutions and laws based on the "needs" of the party or its donors. Unfortunately for the parties: when they pick the "wrong" judge, they're stuck with them for life
As a social liberal and fiscal conservative, neither major party works for me. Without meaningful campaign reform: politicians from both parties will continue to represent their donors first, and the taxpayers second. Both parties will continue to infringe on individual rights through a mixture of government entitlements, tax breaks, and “incentives” which reward certain behaviors while punishing others. Every election seems to come down to voting for the lesser of two evils: would I rather eat shit or drink piss?
Thoreau once said “the government which governs best is the one that governs least or not at all; and when people are ready for it, that will be the kind of government they will have.” I’m ready now...
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
It's hard to rock the boat when you're the one rowing it
It’s been my experience that most people like to go with the flow, keep on keeping on, go along get along, follow the leader, etc. Rocking the boat can cause waves of fear, jealousy, and resentment, so maintaining the status quo is often the safer option. Change may be the only constant in our lives, but people seem to spend a lot of time avoiding it...
It seems to be human nature to take the easy way out, and what can be easier than sticking with the familiar? If I had a nickel for every time someone told me "that’s the way we’ve always done it.” Every time I hear that refrain I wonder if the person had ever thought about ways to do "it" better, faster, cheaper, etc. Were they too busy rowing the boat? Were they lacking in confidence? Did they give up after their previous ideas got shot down? Did they really just not give a damn?
People living their own version of the movie "Groundhog Day" bother me less than people who TALK about doing things, but then never actually DO them. There's always some excuse: they didn't have the time, they didn’t have the money, they forgot, they'll do it next week, they thought that someone else would do it, so-and-so prevented them from doing it, it’s not their job, etc. Promising change and not delivering just sucks the life out of people...
Those of us who are willing to upset the apple cart in order to make the world a better place (at least in our own minds) always seem to face an uphill battle. We deal with authority figures who either try to stand in the way or take the credit, we deal with saboteurs who undermine us in an attempt to make themselves look good, we deal with passive aggressive sticks-in-the-mud who resist change out of principle, we deal with naysayers who won’t open their minds to anything new unless it involves going back to something old...
Of course change isn’t always a good thing: rocking the boat can make things worse. Some people like to make changes for the sake of “shaking things up,” but different isn’t always better. Perhaps the key to success is knowing when to rock the boat, and when to row it...
It seems to be human nature to take the easy way out, and what can be easier than sticking with the familiar? If I had a nickel for every time someone told me "that’s the way we’ve always done it.” Every time I hear that refrain I wonder if the person had ever thought about ways to do "it" better, faster, cheaper, etc. Were they too busy rowing the boat? Were they lacking in confidence? Did they give up after their previous ideas got shot down? Did they really just not give a damn?
People living their own version of the movie "Groundhog Day" bother me less than people who TALK about doing things, but then never actually DO them. There's always some excuse: they didn't have the time, they didn’t have the money, they forgot, they'll do it next week, they thought that someone else would do it, so-and-so prevented them from doing it, it’s not their job, etc. Promising change and not delivering just sucks the life out of people...
Those of us who are willing to upset the apple cart in order to make the world a better place (at least in our own minds) always seem to face an uphill battle. We deal with authority figures who either try to stand in the way or take the credit, we deal with saboteurs who undermine us in an attempt to make themselves look good, we deal with passive aggressive sticks-in-the-mud who resist change out of principle, we deal with naysayers who won’t open their minds to anything new unless it involves going back to something old...
Of course change isn’t always a good thing: rocking the boat can make things worse. Some people like to make changes for the sake of “shaking things up,” but different isn’t always better. Perhaps the key to success is knowing when to rock the boat, and when to row it...
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Live for tomorrow today
“Imagine there’s no Heaven, it’s easy if you try. No Hell below us, above us only sky. Imagine all the people, living for today...” The song “Imagine” has been linked to John Lennon much like “I have a dream” has been linked to Martin Luther King, Jr. Every year on the anniversary of their births and deaths, the media pulls out the same tired references to the "dreams” that they publicly reflected on as if one song or speech defined them both. Such soundbites do a tremendous disservice to the legacies of both men; especially Dr. King (John Lennon, after all, was just an artist), but I digress...
The song “Imagine” seems to ponder a utopian fantasy: but a world with no religion, no countries, and no posessions would probably lead to a wasteland where billions of people live like animals. If not for the constructs of God, Heaven, or Hell: how many people would become hedonistic nihilists? If there were no governments to enforce order and rules: how many people would end up being afraid to leave their houses, afraid to stay in their houses? If people had to share everything, what motivation would they have to value or take care of anything? Some may say that John Lennon was a dreamer, but perhaps he should have stuck with the tangerine trees and marmalade skies...
The decline of traditional values and beliefs over the last century or two has been a mixed bag at best. The average person has more freedom and access to information; and is more likely to “live for today,” but there has been a price. As our societies have “advanced,” so have our rates of murder, crime, incarceration, divorce, broken families, addictions, obesity, preventable illnesses, etc. The structures that used to bind people together as human beings (family, religion, neighborhoods, civic duty, national pride, etc.) have been replaced by what: television, the internet? In many ways, mankind seems to be experiencing de-evolution...
On the global stage: we have become increasingly efficient at raping the world of its natural resources so that more and more people can have lots of posessions. Multi-national corporations and corrupted governments are well on their way to destroying the “first world,” and the "third world" isn't far behind. Food is genetically re-engineered and mass-produced, with little attention paid to environmental or human impact. Free Trade has become the new world's religion, and it is causing more death and destruction than the old world’s religions ever did (with far fewer benefits). What kind of world are we leaving to our children while we're "living for today?"
The "dream" of everyone living for today is far more attainable than the "dream" of everyone judging others by the content of their character. The explanation for both realities may be related to the likelihood that human beings aren't as evolved as we'd like to think we are...
The song “Imagine” seems to ponder a utopian fantasy: but a world with no religion, no countries, and no posessions would probably lead to a wasteland where billions of people live like animals. If not for the constructs of God, Heaven, or Hell: how many people would become hedonistic nihilists? If there were no governments to enforce order and rules: how many people would end up being afraid to leave their houses, afraid to stay in their houses? If people had to share everything, what motivation would they have to value or take care of anything? Some may say that John Lennon was a dreamer, but perhaps he should have stuck with the tangerine trees and marmalade skies...
The decline of traditional values and beliefs over the last century or two has been a mixed bag at best. The average person has more freedom and access to information; and is more likely to “live for today,” but there has been a price. As our societies have “advanced,” so have our rates of murder, crime, incarceration, divorce, broken families, addictions, obesity, preventable illnesses, etc. The structures that used to bind people together as human beings (family, religion, neighborhoods, civic duty, national pride, etc.) have been replaced by what: television, the internet? In many ways, mankind seems to be experiencing de-evolution...
On the global stage: we have become increasingly efficient at raping the world of its natural resources so that more and more people can have lots of posessions. Multi-national corporations and corrupted governments are well on their way to destroying the “first world,” and the "third world" isn't far behind. Food is genetically re-engineered and mass-produced, with little attention paid to environmental or human impact. Free Trade has become the new world's religion, and it is causing more death and destruction than the old world’s religions ever did (with far fewer benefits). What kind of world are we leaving to our children while we're "living for today?"
The "dream" of everyone living for today is far more attainable than the "dream" of everyone judging others by the content of their character. The explanation for both realities may be related to the likelihood that human beings aren't as evolved as we'd like to think we are...
Sunday, October 4, 2009
AM radio done been bum-Rushed
Every day on A.M. radio, propaganda masquerades as fair and balanced news coverage. Thanks to media consolidation and savvy marketing, the republican party ultimately controls a growing portion of the public airwaves. Over 20 years ago, Rush Limbaugh wrote the blueprint for how to spin news, statistics, and listener phone calls into a powerful recruiting tool for the republican party. Today, A.M. radio is filled with Rush wanna-be’s and mini-me’s. Some would argue that government regulations are needed in order to reverse this trend, but I believe that non-conservatives need to find and promote their own Rush Limbaughs.
When Rush became a national figure back in the 1980’s, I thought that his radio/TV shows were a bad comedy routine. It was always the same old banter: republicans good, democrats evil, conservatives good, liberals evil, big business good, government evil, listen only to Rush or people with the same views, ignore or shout down everyone else. In Rush’s world: republicans and their patrons were paragons of virtue being victimized by some vast left wing conspiracy in media, government, courtrooms, universities, union halls, etc. Rush claimed that he was just an average “silent majority” guy who wanted to even the "liberal media" playing field.
Rush proceeded to redefine the media playing field. He made an art form out of cherry picking current/historical events, news stories, and callers in order to create story lines that would support his one-sided view of the world. He would pontificate for hours on end about how republicans/conservatives were always right, and democrats/liberals were always wrong. Callers were screened into two groups: right wing disciples who praised Rush and agreed with his every opinion, and left wing lunatics who were shouted down, ridiculed, and labeled as wackos/communists/America-haters/feminazis/etc.
At times Rush comes across as a socio-political shock jock who will say anything in order to spark controversy and increase ratings. But Rush is much more than a shock jock, he is a propaganda jock. What makes his schtick propaganda is that everything he says and does promotes one political party and its patrons, while demonizing and scapegoating "others." At times Rush’s rants sound like something out of a neo-nazi handbook, except that he scapegoats “liberals” instead of Jews. While I have many views which would be considered "conservative," I always found Rush to be an intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, and self-serving megalomaniac.
Although I have no respect for the method to Rush's madness, I must admit that he has become one of the most influential media personalities in America. I recently read that he owns 38 cars, so his schtick has obviously paid off handsomely. Millions of listeners appear to identify with Rush’s blind love of Ronald Reagan and 1950’s America, his blind faith in unfettered capitalism, and his blind rage against the types of people who made him feel insecure growing up. Judging from their phone calls, few of his listeners seem to expose themselves to opposing viewpoints.
Thanks to Rush Limbaugh's success, there are hundreds of A.M. radio talkshow hosts who utilize the same tactics and sing from the same hymnal. While they pretend to be the sole arbiters of truth, patriotism, and virtue, their shows mainly function to provide the republican party with free advertising and recruiting. As fellow republican Don King would say: “only in America.”
When Rush became a national figure back in the 1980’s, I thought that his radio/TV shows were a bad comedy routine. It was always the same old banter: republicans good, democrats evil, conservatives good, liberals evil, big business good, government evil, listen only to Rush or people with the same views, ignore or shout down everyone else. In Rush’s world: republicans and their patrons were paragons of virtue being victimized by some vast left wing conspiracy in media, government, courtrooms, universities, union halls, etc. Rush claimed that he was just an average “silent majority” guy who wanted to even the "liberal media" playing field.
Rush proceeded to redefine the media playing field. He made an art form out of cherry picking current/historical events, news stories, and callers in order to create story lines that would support his one-sided view of the world. He would pontificate for hours on end about how republicans/conservatives were always right, and democrats/liberals were always wrong. Callers were screened into two groups: right wing disciples who praised Rush and agreed with his every opinion, and left wing lunatics who were shouted down, ridiculed, and labeled as wackos/communists/America-haters/feminazis/etc.
At times Rush comes across as a socio-political shock jock who will say anything in order to spark controversy and increase ratings. But Rush is much more than a shock jock, he is a propaganda jock. What makes his schtick propaganda is that everything he says and does promotes one political party and its patrons, while demonizing and scapegoating "others." At times Rush’s rants sound like something out of a neo-nazi handbook, except that he scapegoats “liberals” instead of Jews. While I have many views which would be considered "conservative," I always found Rush to be an intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, and self-serving megalomaniac.
Although I have no respect for the method to Rush's madness, I must admit that he has become one of the most influential media personalities in America. I recently read that he owns 38 cars, so his schtick has obviously paid off handsomely. Millions of listeners appear to identify with Rush’s blind love of Ronald Reagan and 1950’s America, his blind faith in unfettered capitalism, and his blind rage against the types of people who made him feel insecure growing up. Judging from their phone calls, few of his listeners seem to expose themselves to opposing viewpoints.
Thanks to Rush Limbaugh's success, there are hundreds of A.M. radio talkshow hosts who utilize the same tactics and sing from the same hymnal. While they pretend to be the sole arbiters of truth, patriotism, and virtue, their shows mainly function to provide the republican party with free advertising and recruiting. As fellow republican Don King would say: “only in America.”
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Don't Quit Before the Miracle Happens
I think that this quote is an old AA saying, along with "Time Takes Time" and "Let Go, Let God." There must be a million sayings that are intended to motivate people to hang in there and not give up. Why is it that people need this type of encouragement so often?
It seems to be a law of nature to take the easy way out. Tree roots typically grow around sidewalks, not through them. Animals on the hunt seek out the weakest prey. Even the king of the jungle would prefer to chase down an old gazelle. Human beings are more complicated than plants or animals, yet we are also drawn to follow the path of least resistance. Unfortunately, the road to success or fulfillment usually requires dedication, sacrifice, and hard work.
I suppose that for some people, being able to stay sober truly is a miracle. Once a person learns to enjoy a bad habit, it takes a significant amount of dedication, sacrifice, and hard work to break that habit - even if it is ruining their life and/or the lives of the people around them.
Good habits are easier to break because they can require significant effort to maintain. Study for a test or go out with friends? Go to school at night or stay in a dead-end career? Exercise for 30 minutes or watch TV? Get the side order of fries, or substitute broccoli instead? People who continually choose the easier path rarely transcend their circumstances, and they experience fewer miracles as a result.
Whether we acknowledge it or not, miracles occur all around us. Many of these miracles required little effort on our part; and as a result, we take them for granted. The miracles that we create; the ones that we make possible, those are the ones that we enjoy and appreciate the most...
It seems to be a law of nature to take the easy way out. Tree roots typically grow around sidewalks, not through them. Animals on the hunt seek out the weakest prey. Even the king of the jungle would prefer to chase down an old gazelle. Human beings are more complicated than plants or animals, yet we are also drawn to follow the path of least resistance. Unfortunately, the road to success or fulfillment usually requires dedication, sacrifice, and hard work.
I suppose that for some people, being able to stay sober truly is a miracle. Once a person learns to enjoy a bad habit, it takes a significant amount of dedication, sacrifice, and hard work to break that habit - even if it is ruining their life and/or the lives of the people around them.
Good habits are easier to break because they can require significant effort to maintain. Study for a test or go out with friends? Go to school at night or stay in a dead-end career? Exercise for 30 minutes or watch TV? Get the side order of fries, or substitute broccoli instead? People who continually choose the easier path rarely transcend their circumstances, and they experience fewer miracles as a result.
Whether we acknowledge it or not, miracles occur all around us. Many of these miracles required little effort on our part; and as a result, we take them for granted. The miracles that we create; the ones that we make possible, those are the ones that we enjoy and appreciate the most...
Did God create us, or did we create God?
Voltaire is credited with the following quote: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." There's no way to know whether humans invented God, but we certainly have spent a lot of time trying to define God. As a result, there are more religions than there are languages.
People have probably been asking the question "why am I here?" or "what happens after I die?" since the beginning of time. Answers like "who knows," or "your existence serves no purpose," were probably not very comforting. Telling people that they are part of a supernatural being's grand plan was undoubtedly a much easier sell, but the devil was in the details. Religions have been defining and re-defining the supernatural being and the grand plan ever since.
While there is much common ground regarding how different religions define God, each one seems to accentuate certain aspects and diminish others. Even religions that are based on the same text fight with eachother over which definition of God is "right." These fights can even occur within the same religion, thereby producing new religions. How many denominations of Christianity, for example, does the world really need?!
Even within specific "churches," individual believers may hold differing views on who God is, what God wants, and what believers should be doing. Then there are the millions of people who don't belong to any religion and have their own views on all of these subjects that don't mesh with any one religion.
While I believe in Creation followed by Evolution, I think that God and "God's purpose" is beyond our ability to understand. All of the world's different religions, denominations, faiths, and congregations and their different points of view only serve to reinforce my beliefs...
People have probably been asking the question "why am I here?" or "what happens after I die?" since the beginning of time. Answers like "who knows," or "your existence serves no purpose," were probably not very comforting. Telling people that they are part of a supernatural being's grand plan was undoubtedly a much easier sell, but the devil was in the details. Religions have been defining and re-defining the supernatural being and the grand plan ever since.
While there is much common ground regarding how different religions define God, each one seems to accentuate certain aspects and diminish others. Even religions that are based on the same text fight with eachother over which definition of God is "right." These fights can even occur within the same religion, thereby producing new religions. How many denominations of Christianity, for example, does the world really need?!
Even within specific "churches," individual believers may hold differing views on who God is, what God wants, and what believers should be doing. Then there are the millions of people who don't belong to any religion and have their own views on all of these subjects that don't mesh with any one religion.
While I believe in Creation followed by Evolution, I think that God and "God's purpose" is beyond our ability to understand. All of the world's different religions, denominations, faiths, and congregations and their different points of view only serve to reinforce my beliefs...
Everyone wants to go to Heaven, but no one wants to die
No one really knows what happens after we die. Many believe that there is some kind of afterlife, but there's only one way to find out for sure. How many devout believers who are diagnosed with cancer tell their doctors: "screw the treatment plan doc, I'll just go to the promised land a little bit early." If heaven is so great, and a person is so sure that he/she is going there, then why put it off a single day?
What motivates so many people to stay in this world for as long as they can? Is it the survival instinct, is it the fear of the unknown? Perhaps people think that they're not destined for a positive afterlife experience. Perhaps their religious faith is not as strong as they thought, and they start wondering: "what if there is no heaven, reincarnation, nirvana, etc.?"
Meanwhile, millions of people directly benefit from keeping us alive as long as possible. Medical providers, drug companies, government bureaucrats, insurance companies, nursing homes, etc. have everything to gain from prolonging our lives. We don't want to die, and they don't want us to die.
Perhaps governments don't allow euthanasia because dead people don't fuel economies or pay taxes. Perhaps religions teach that suicide is immoral because dead people don't tithe. Perhaps doctors perform hip replacements on insured 85 year olds because they'll get paid for it.
I don't want to suffer through invasive treatments when there is little or no chance of returning to a productive life. I don't want to sit around in a nursing home waiting to die. When that time comes, I want the option to choose the final frontier: death.
What motivates so many people to stay in this world for as long as they can? Is it the survival instinct, is it the fear of the unknown? Perhaps people think that they're not destined for a positive afterlife experience. Perhaps their religious faith is not as strong as they thought, and they start wondering: "what if there is no heaven, reincarnation, nirvana, etc.?"
Meanwhile, millions of people directly benefit from keeping us alive as long as possible. Medical providers, drug companies, government bureaucrats, insurance companies, nursing homes, etc. have everything to gain from prolonging our lives. We don't want to die, and they don't want us to die.
Perhaps governments don't allow euthanasia because dead people don't fuel economies or pay taxes. Perhaps religions teach that suicide is immoral because dead people don't tithe. Perhaps doctors perform hip replacements on insured 85 year olds because they'll get paid for it.
I don't want to suffer through invasive treatments when there is little or no chance of returning to a productive life. I don't want to sit around in a nursing home waiting to die. When that time comes, I want the option to choose the final frontier: death.
You Can't Pick Your Family's Nose
We didn't ask to be born. We "wake up" one day, and spend the rest of our lives trying to come to terms with the reality that surrounded us.
Our parents didn't ask for us to be born, either. Even if they wanted to have children at the time we were conceived, they couldn't pick who we would be.
No matter where you stand on the nature vs. nurture debate, who will deny that people inherit traits and tendencies from their family? Even children who are given up for adoption carry on their birth family's legacy.
As we get older we can choose not to interact with certain members of our family; even our entire family, but we can never really disown them completely. They are us, and we are them. How many people who run away from their family are ultimately trying to run away from themselves?
Our inheritance is the clay that gets molded by our experiences. We can not change the clay, but we can choose to mold it into a mudpie or a beautiful vase. Your family may be responsible for your traits and tendencies, but the only person who is responsible for what you've become is you...
Our parents didn't ask for us to be born, either. Even if they wanted to have children at the time we were conceived, they couldn't pick who we would be.
No matter where you stand on the nature vs. nurture debate, who will deny that people inherit traits and tendencies from their family? Even children who are given up for adoption carry on their birth family's legacy.
As we get older we can choose not to interact with certain members of our family; even our entire family, but we can never really disown them completely. They are us, and we are them. How many people who run away from their family are ultimately trying to run away from themselves?
Our inheritance is the clay that gets molded by our experiences. We can not change the clay, but we can choose to mold it into a mudpie or a beautiful vase. Your family may be responsible for your traits and tendencies, but the only person who is responsible for what you've become is you...
Friday, September 25, 2009
Are bloggers just e-wankers?
For many years, I had a negative attitude about blogs and bloggers. If bloggers have such great stories, ideas, or knowledge to share with the world: then why don't they write books, magazine articles, movies, plays, whatever? Anybody can post anything in a blog: it doesn't take any great talent or insight, so who are bloggers blogging for other than themselves? Blogging just seemed like a new form of wanking to me...
Last year I joined MySpace, and had an awakening about the possibilities of blogging. I stumbled across the MySpace page of an old friend who had died a couple of years prior. We had fallen out of touch for a variety of reasons, and she had died in her 30's after an unsuccessful battle with life. As I looked through her pictures and read the postings on her page, so many memories came floating back. The pictures of her young, now motherless son left me with bittersweet emotions. Thanks to biology, my friend lives on through her son. Thanks to technology, my friend also lives on in cyberspace...
This all gave me the idea that in addition to posting pictures, statuses, etc. on MySpace, I would also post some blogs and share my thoughts, ideas, and opinions with people who linked to my page. Maybe they'd learn something, maybe they'd have a laugh, maybe they'd think "what an asshole!" I also had the thought that the MySpace page would be a nice place for people to go once I "shuffled off this mortal coil," especially for my daughter...
I eventually became bored with MySpace once Facebook came along. I stopped blogging and started spending much of my online time connecting and re-connecting with people. There doesn't seem to be any good way to blog on Facebook, so here I am...
I'm probably not going to be famous for anything, and no one's going to be writing my biography anytime soon (including me!). I see blogging as a way to share myself with whoever links to my page: friends, family, acquaintances, strangers, whatever. Hopefully my blogs will provoke thoughts and ideas while entertaining someone other than me! That's my goal...
Last year I joined MySpace, and had an awakening about the possibilities of blogging. I stumbled across the MySpace page of an old friend who had died a couple of years prior. We had fallen out of touch for a variety of reasons, and she had died in her 30's after an unsuccessful battle with life. As I looked through her pictures and read the postings on her page, so many memories came floating back. The pictures of her young, now motherless son left me with bittersweet emotions. Thanks to biology, my friend lives on through her son. Thanks to technology, my friend also lives on in cyberspace...
This all gave me the idea that in addition to posting pictures, statuses, etc. on MySpace, I would also post some blogs and share my thoughts, ideas, and opinions with people who linked to my page. Maybe they'd learn something, maybe they'd have a laugh, maybe they'd think "what an asshole!" I also had the thought that the MySpace page would be a nice place for people to go once I "shuffled off this mortal coil," especially for my daughter...
I eventually became bored with MySpace once Facebook came along. I stopped blogging and started spending much of my online time connecting and re-connecting with people. There doesn't seem to be any good way to blog on Facebook, so here I am...
I'm probably not going to be famous for anything, and no one's going to be writing my biography anytime soon (including me!). I see blogging as a way to share myself with whoever links to my page: friends, family, acquaintances, strangers, whatever. Hopefully my blogs will provoke thoughts and ideas while entertaining someone other than me! That's my goal...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
