Waxing Poetically: News and Lifestyle with a Twist of Poetry

I was talking to my girlfriend the other night and I had an epiphany: Though I know where he stands on national policies, I don’t know Barack Obama. Who is this man? What does he think about before he goes to bed. What’s his favorite movie, book, work of art? I know all this trivial, but I want to know these things.

You see, it’s really elementary. The measure of a man is often who he is when nobody is looking. As Jesus says, God knows the secret deeds. Who is Barack Obama to his family, friends and the to people who bag his groceries? is he truly for the people on his day off? what are his hobbies beyond just playing basketball? Lastly, what does his non-oratory, regular speaking voice sound like? No one knows.

Oddly, I feel as though I know George W. Bush. He’s the guy who loves to vacation on his ranch. He loves to watch baseball and hates to read newspapers. He’s optimistic to a fault. He truly believes the world will be okay and that the high fuel prices in the country will help people drive less and the recession will take care of itself. Isn’t that cute? Frankly I imagine, “Dubbya” might have a barbecue after as he would call it a “nuc-u-ler” explosion. I also get the immediate impression he’s never had to work for anything. He’s just so happy all the time. Who else could be dealing with a civil war that he started, a terrible economy that has been stagnant for at least a year and multiple in-house scandals and still act as if everyone else is crazy. I’m truly boggled by it more and more.

So, I’m sincerely hoping against hope that Barack will show he’s as upstanding in private as in public, that “Yes we can!” is a personal affirmation and not simply a public placation. I pray this Thursday night at the DNC he will show who he is in full. If he does, he may be unbeatable.

Keep waxin’!

Back in the Fall of 2000, America was a very different place than it is today. Britney Spears was a vibrant star on the teen pop horizon. With the booming economy Bill Clinton had enough free time to receive oral sex and ponder the definition of “is,” before federal prosecutors, and a prodigious college dropout named Shawn Fanning had just shocked the music biz by creating a way to download all the music fans wanted for free by creating a little thing called Napster, and lastly George W. Bush’s admission into the White House was still pending review by the American public.

Just eight year later, the once glowing teen Britney has rebounded and rehabilitated and reinvented herself more times than a less than shimmering Dennis Rodman at and Alcoholics Anonymous drag show. A formerly fumbling President Clinton now stands at his wife’s side proudly as she claims the runner-up spot for the presidency while Shawn Fanning’s seemly slacker-like ingenuity has sparked a multitude of copycat Media sharing sites including itunes, Youtube, Limewire and stumbleUpon…. And, yes, “Dubbya” after winning two dubiously contested elections, stands poised to become the most disliked American leader in recent history.

Yet, beyond the circus side show that is America, there has been no greater progression in popular culture than that of the Internet. While in 2000 instant messaging, chatrooms, webcams and online video were just growing into their trendy, personal uses, today, prolific media such as online forums blogs, and video diaries have matured into fully cultivated tools able to move millions of voices where ever they wish to go.

In a documentary this past Thursday, BBC News offered a glimpse into the Internet’s remarkable effect on this year’s presidential campaign. It focuses primarily on the Net’s ability to reach millions of people who might not have been heard and raise millions of dollars that might not have been raised in previous years. Most notably, it details Senator Obama’s raising of 200 million dollars via just two million supporters over the Net and Senator McCain’s ability to appeal to youth in as man in his seventies using the very same medium.

Please watch the report and comment as you see fit. You’ll note that the report does have a slightly left-leaning bias. But, whatever you do…keep waxful!

Watch the BBC report).

“Attacking or Embracing” by Abigael Escobal

Readers, it is a presidential election year in United States and for a citizen like me that usually signals my need to brace myself for the quixotic banter and pre-packaged idealism that lay ahead in every major debate until the final hand is shaken and one more innocent tot is baptized by the kiss of a politician. Over the past two years, I’ve heard arguments for change and tax hikes for the wealthy from Senator Obama and calls from Senator McCain to reduce wasteful spending by such a regal and superfluous declaration as to say that radical Islamic extremism is the transcendent or even “transcendental” threat of the 21st century. (I wonder if McCain is looking forward to a mystical terror experience anytime before his would-be term is up). With all this there lingers something even more prominent on the lips of many in Washington: The idea as expressed by John McCain and implied by journalist Ann Coulter that the United States is a “Christian” nation.

The Christian nation premise is nothing new. Many of America’s founders and law makers knew quite a bit about the Bible and Christianity as is contained and expressed in works such as Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Bible which argues for a moral mimicking of the teachings and ways of Jesus Christ. However, many argue that while many Biblical principles correlate well with those of the nation’s justice system, the idea of the United States being a Christian nation may be a bit misguided at best. Writer and journalist Cenk Uygur explains why when he says, “My name is Cenk Uygur. And I am proud of it. It might sound a little different to your ear, but it doesn’t make it any less American. That’s the whole point of the country. If I wanted to live in a place where your race, ethnicity or religion mattered, there were plenty of other countries to choose from. I chose to be an American because I believed we were all equals in the eyes of the law.”

Uygur speaks to the intrinsic independence required for a free nation as stated in the First Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In light of such realities, Uygur has written a piece originally published in The Huffington Post pointing to the fact that in October of 2007 42 congressmen voted “present” (not “yea”) concerning a resolution passed by the House of Representatives that would allow the Islamic holy month of Ramadan to be recognized within Congress. Uygur identifies himself as agnostic and it is unclear from the language of his piece what his cultural religion is. However he indeed makes an effort to defend religious freedom fully, as I equally as a person of faith, uphold his right not to practice a religion. Separation of powers is explicit in American law and in such a regard, I do not support any legislative action or inaction that infringes upon that boundary. If the government wants to claim America to be an exclusively Christian nation in the name of its collective right to free expression of faith, that’s fine. But I’d be surprised if their legal council were not comprised of at least some, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics etcetera. Furthermore, are these not the same individuals who always reference theocratic governments as extreme and radical? I guess they don’t include Christians in that bunch. Alas, it seems the “transcendent threat” to which John McCain refers is being welcomed by Congress’ somewhat inhibited and non-transcendent understanding of democracy.

In sum, it may be the separation of church and state which allows each body to flourish on its own merits. Moreover, it is likely the freedom to choose one’s faith that makes each believer’s faith that much stronger. Thirdly, it may be that if we as autonomous beings were not free to choose what we believe that we would never truely believe in anything for the fact it would inevitably be taken for granted. You see, this is not a Christian nation. It is rather, a nation whose citizen are free to choose to practice Christianity. Never lose sight of that difference!

So until we meet again, I hope you will feel free to express your faith whatever it may be and may you as always… wax poetically!

Footnote:

The term transcendental has several meanings:

1. Philosophy
a. Concerned with the a priori or intuitive basis of knowledge as independent of experience.
b. Asserting a fundamental irrationality or supernatural element in experience.
2. Surpassing all others; superior.
3. Beyond common thought or experience; mystical or supernatural.
4. Mathematics Of or relating to a real or complex number that is not the root of any polynomial that has positive degree and rational coefficients (thefreedictionary.com).

Ladies and Gentlemen, when I check my Google account I expect many things, not the least of which are emails, useful tidbits, news and important alerts detailing the latest flesh-eating disease to strike within 20 miles of my home. Still, there are those scant and fleeting occasions when I wonder how a particular piece of information makes its way through the atmosphere, let alone to my desktop. Yesterday was one of those occasions.

Apparently, one blogger at Wikihow has taken it upon himself to be the beacon of hope for every well-read, credible and serious journalist and PR guru on the beat today by teaching a skill no reporter should ever be without: the ability to deceive the public. And why not? Bad things inevitably happen, and the news is so depressing as it is! People can’t possibly expect in the “Really Real World” that truth to be told all the time, Can they? Of course they can’t. Take for example our world leaders. They need to look and sound their very best, in control and and authoritative. Come on! America has George W. Bush! If the world knew every detail about that guy the compound fractures of the collective breastplates over the hearts of the world’s children would be just too much even if Chris Brown were to write a really, really amazing song about it. But don’t fear! As the Wikihow article says, “It’s not really lying, it’s not ‘disinformation’ but it’s not a straight-forward presentation either. In many ways, it’s the essence of politics. ” So, it’s really fine. Everybody does it.

In this spirit, here are that article’s guidelines for effective and expeditious spinning of any negative story. My comments are in italics:

1. Research the event: You need to know, to the last detail, what happened. If you don’t have this knowledge, you will do better to gloss over the event until you do know. Note dates and times, things that led up to the event, people involved and most significantly, the immediate results. You must gather have all the facts first in order to create a believable fictional story. But of course, it’s not outright lying so yo don’t need to work too hard.

2. Create a timeline: This is not just for the past but for the future too. Use your research to build this, then project as many repercussions as you can into the future. If, for example, a retail corporation had a very poor fourth quarter, will you need to close stores; lay off people; borrow money? Identify all the bad things that are likely to come of this. Basically, you’ll need to plan for the absolute worst and draw up a verbal escape route. Try asking the definition of “is” ala Bill Clinton… Then again, don’t.

3. Create alternate event descriptions: This is where you will build the “spin” for the public. You can’t do anything about things that happened - they happened - but you can present them differently. Think of happy, euphemistic, musical language. If it sounds poetic that’s even better! People love a good poem!

* People didn’t buy from lower-priced competitors; they delayed premium buying decisions.
* You didn’t have ineffective marketing; you delayed premium advertising to coincide with the delayed buying decisions.
* You aren’t going to close stores; you’re repositioning for market acquisition.
* You aren’t laying off sales employees; you’re elevating the consumer’s experience through added independence.

4. Roleplay and improve: To do this properly, it takes a group of people dedicated to the result. You will need several “devil’s advocate” types to listen to the presentation and slice it to pieces. You want to know every possible argument ahead of time. Use small focus groups and make the presentation, then tweak it, then do it again. Each time the backlash is reduced, you’ve made an effective improvement. Eventually (after 4 or 5 sessions) you should get to a stable point. In lay terms, every actor must study his craft, get into his character, memorize every line or sometimes improvise. If you can do this, no one will outspin you!

5. Prepare your audience: You’re not going to just jump in and make your presentation. You want the audience to be receptive to your information. Start leaking information that is favorable to your position and negative to any alternate position. You will neither confirm nor deny this information, but you will caution people that any information about your corporation will come from official sources, only. Like a rockstar, you’ll need to leak out some “songs” to the public before you release the full album.

6. Pause: Don’t release your information immediately following the leaks. Let the audience have time to absorb and process the information - they need time to reach equilibrium. Again like the rockstar, delay the album. Keep the audience hungry

7. Go Public: Release your information. Publicly and loudly. A surprise press conference (that was rumored to be in the works) is an effective and time-tested method. Whether you have a Q&A session after will really depend on how good your spin is and, to a large extent, how prepared you are. It’s also a matter of personal taste. Your bottom line is dependent marketing and promotion. Never forget that!

8. See Step 1: Spin only lasts just so long. Eventually, the future catches up to your timeline, and you’ll need to make new announcements. Start planning for how you’ll do that, now. This is really an endless cycle and there is strong job security for somebody that’s good at it. When it’s over create something new for the public to consume. If you really want to be a rockstar of spin you have write exceptional new material.

Tips

* A positive attitude is a must. You absolutely may not allow yourself to exhibit even the tiniest bit of indecisiveness. If you don’t believe it, they won’t. Believe in your bull****! If you don’t, no one else will.

* Credibility is critical. Your audience must believe you without any question. You are appealing largely to their emotions. Always look great, and sound greater!
* Have diversity in your focus groups. You want the members to be as varied as possible so they will have different views on your presentation. People an like Skittles, the more flavors you have to choose from, the better everything can look, and with so many options the possibility for a good outcome is so much greater!

Warnings

* This can have a serious backlash if there are holes in your presentation. Be as critical as possible. Otherwise the public will destroy you!
* Be sure about the loyalties of the people that help you. Select your focus groups carefully.
* Don’t fall for your own spin. It sounds good, makes sense… but seriously, you know better. You built the twist - don’t let it go to your head. I mean, who the hell in his right mind would believe this crap, right?

Right. That’s the moral of this story. Don’t fall for it! I may wax poetically, but I’ll never wax fictitiously!

(Read How to Spin Bad News).

Photo: George Obama, Telegraph UK

The Italian edition of Vanity Fair has an exclusive from Barack Obama’s youngest Kenyan, half-brother George. George, who is just 26, is is now living on just a dollar a day in Nairobi but is hoping his enrollment in technical college will change that fact. He has only met his would-be prez brother twice, once at age five and again in 2006 when Barack was visiting Nairobi.

According to Little Brother, they barely talked and the meeting was very awkward. “It was very brief, we spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger,” said George. I wanted to comment on this before people just jumped on Senator Obama’s back like rabid spider monkeys because the way I see it, this type of situation can happen to most people who are out of contact with family. I happen to have a new step-family I’m just getting to know and it honestly is quite strange to be asked about my step-family and not know all that much. So, in a similar respect, I understand why George Obama would not publicly admit his relation to Barack. The press would eat the Senator alive if his dollar-a-day half-brother was all over the media. George says he tells people he and Barack aren’t related because he [George] is ashamed of being so poor. Somehow I understand. The whole scenario is just very awkward in general.

So in light of all this, until I have more details on the situation, I’m withholding my judgment. However, I do wonder if the possible President Obama will be getting to know his Kenyan blood further or even wiring some cash his way. What do you think?

“Brothers don’t shake hands…. Brothers gotta wax poetically!”

“Atomic Holiday Self-portrait”

As some of you know, last week I posted my views on the general absurdity of human free will when juxtaposed with the instincts found in animals. So today I follow that piece with a comment on a study published in Scientific American today that points to evidence that many philosophers and scientists don’t believe in free will and believe instead that all decisions are arrived at solely because they are influenced by previous actions or events or experiences.

The article summed up a scandalous little study by psychologists Kathleen Vohs at the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler at the University of California at Santa Barbara wherein two groups of subjects were given two passages to read from the popular scientific analysis book The Astonishing Hypothesis by biochemist and Nobel laureate Francis Crick, (he discovered the double helix composition of DNA with James Watson). One group read a passage saying, “‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. Who you are is nothing but a pack of neurons.” On neurological influence it continues,“…although we appear to have free will, in fact, our choices have already been predetermined for us and we cannot change that.” The second group was ask to read a passage about the nature of consciousness that lacked any mention of free will. The participants then filled out a survey on their beliefs about free will.

Next both groups were given 20 arithmetic problems to answer on a computer but due to a “glich” were also told that they must press the space bar in order that the answer not be shown for them to be able to cheat. Still, no one would be able to tell if they did. The results were that those who read the anti-free will passage cheated considerably more than those who read the consciousness-centered section and the amount of cheating by each person directly correlated to the to the responses on each corresponding survey. Therefore the readings proved influential, but why? The researchers believe that the doom and gloom of the anti-free will rationale may have driven Group One simply not to care, or at least to be less inclined to do so.

Yet beyond the study, there was no conclusive evidence to tell how the results pan out over any longer term. Also, the general moral habits or beliefs of the participants prior to the study are unknown. However after preforming cross-cultural studies, research shows people overall desire to want to think they are free moral agents. Further the study illustrates more people believe in free will than in determinism. But what does this really suggest?

First, there is the argument that all decisions are determine by previous actions, events, experiences and so forth. This seem only logical. A person must be influenced by all he encounters in some way, as in “It’s raining, so I won’t go swimming today,” or “I was bitten by a shark last time, so this time I’ll be more careful.” This is nothing new… is it? The more pertinent question is “What is the nature of consciousness?” or “Why are people aware at all?” People definitely have choices they can make as far as they are aware of them but that does not mean objectively that they choose those choices, but it definitely means they think they do.

Ultimately, this seems like a circular debate. From where I sit, it’s very similar to arguing whether reality is the same for all people or if the individual is just dreaming it. It is in fact, all based on perception and anyone with half a brain knows that only testable principles such as gravity, social norms and cause/effect relationships can ever be debated. Free will is defined as the ability to make choices. Humans clearly do make choices. The subjects in the study made a clear and conscious choice whether to cheat on the tests they were given. The question scientists seem to be posing is whether people’s perception of their autonomy is somehow fated by something outside of their knowledge such as nature or even God.

Any further debate just seems pointless. Even if people don’t understand the true nature of their wills, as long as they are conscious of the choices they make and believe they are free and autonomous, maybe that’s all that matters. Rather it could just mean there is a debate regarding what the concept of free will means. Basically it comes down to what causes people’s will and has nothing to with the process itself…. Your brain will still function regardless of any of this. I wouldn’t lose any sleep.

Wax. Don’t dryclean.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting today that a federal judge has ruled from a 2005 suit filed by several Christian high schools that the University of California is fully permitted to disallow credits from any high school courses whose texts propagate the infallibility of religious arguments in place of empirical or historical evidence and do not allow critical thinking.

According to District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles, he does not begrudge any school the right to teach religion, but draws a clear line when arguments of Biblical infallibility are stated as facts in the text. Examples include Biology for Christian Schools which unabashedly opines on the first page that “if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong” and Christianity’s Influence on America which according to one UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, “instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events.” UC standards deny credit from any courses which include religious doctrine as fact and exclude current scientific theory.

Christian schools claim that UC’s code infringes on religious freedom. “It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools,” said attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom. Yet, UC does allow texts which advocate religious views when used in a companion or supplemental capacity for analytical purposes. Judge Otero also made it clear that he felt that after review, the plaintiff presented no evidence and Christian school students were being denied admission into UC based on their religious orientations or personal beliefs.

It appears as if this kind of thing is happening - where religious beliefs creep into text books and squash, pummel, mutilate rational thought all too often. I was personally unaware that this was major issue. Even as a believer in Biblical teachings, I’ve always appoached the Bible from the context in which it was written and have very quickly and easily found that while it contains brilliant philosophy in my view, it has absolutely NO science in it whatsoever and any historical data therein must be verifiable outside of Biblical texts in order to carry any weight at all. As for the Bible’s infallibility, a consensus as has yet to be settled - and while as a practicing Catholic I fully believe the Truth of God is infallible, I still find interpretations of what that Truth is to be varied at best.

With that said, I have taken Courses in which religious text were to be read as literary works, such as The Inferno, Fear and Trembling and even the Bible itself. I can only tell you that reading the books this way allowed me to have a clearer understanding of what I believe and any restriction on free thought would have probably crippled my faith rather than uplifted and sustained it. Any such prohibition, to me, turns God into some kind of magical, Orwellian Big Brother clone. The very idea makes me want to vomit a bit. Faith by indoctrination is no different than slavery and mind control. Christian’s: If you really want to teach people the Gospel say, “This is what I believe” and leave the rest to your students… PERIOD!

Photo: Most Holy Name of Jesus Parish, Pittsburg, PA

Apparently, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati has drawn up a list of inappropriate behaviors which its priests must avoid if they want to love and serve their Lord. The list includes kissing, hugging, tickling and even wrestling and makes only a few exceptions for friendly gestures such as handshakes, pats on the back and high fives. The list comes in response to a recent earnest and sorrowful apology by the Pope this past year for years unrecognized abuse the Church. Victim advocacy groups are generally in support of the measure.

Yet, my contention is this: With all respect to victim advocacy, is there something to be said about a society who tells its children that priests, police, doctors and parents are perfect people who can do wrong? While I understand that emotional trauma can easily silence a victim, (even for 30 years or more) shouldn’t children be told that bad behavior is bad behavior NO MATTER who the victimizer is? I think it was best said by the late George Carlin in his book When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops when he reminded Catholic children to speak up by kicking such priests in the groin and saying, “F*** you, Father! I don’t do that!” and then running away and TELLING EVERYBODY! It is that simple!

So I beg you, Catholics! For “the love of God,” tell your kids the truth and raise them with common sense and of course… wax poetically!

Okay, Folks, here we are. It’s a new month and new day to give our opinions about the U.S. presidential race, complain about high fuel prices and suddenly find out that apparently America’s AIDS infected population is 40% larger than expected.

Case One: AIDS Data

Yes, in fact the Center for Disease Control estimates that the previous count of approximately 40,000 new HIV/AIDS cases each year has been closer to 56,300 since the late 90’s. Additionally, the CDC says that it new about the findings in October but it’s move to fast track the data was halted. Oddly enough, the Bush Administration was praised last year for its HIV/AIDS relief work in Africa. Did the President miss the mark at home?

Case Two: Unemployment and Gasoline

It’s reported the despite America’s deepest hopes gas averages are creeping ever closer to 5.00 per Gallon and the U.S. unemployment rate has surpassed five percent to match. Meanwhile, John McCain chose to spend his hard-earned campaign cash on a silly attack ad that accuses Barack Obama of going to the gym in place of visiting troops in Germany while the uses actual footage of Obama “visiting troops” last year…. and of course congress still can’t figure out a compromise concerning off-shore drilling in Alaska.

Case Three: Congress on Vacation

With all this drama going on, economics, fuel and now AIDS, the Congress with a lower approval rating than O.J Simpson decides it’s time to take a break…. They’ll get to that whole energy bill thing later! Don’t get me wrong, all people need a break. I just find it to be morbidly hilarious that Congress should take a load off while all this stuff is being loaded on.

My point in all this is to show how sometimes the powers that be in this world can act like some kind of circus side show rather than elected officials. All it shows is that if ya want something to actually get done, DO IT YOURSELF!

Tune in next time… same wax time, same wax channel!

They (people and also the media and medical community) say that one out of every 60 families in the U.S. is affected by autism in some way. For me, I know at least five people who are affected, two in my semi-immediate family.

So when I found this story on the National Public Radio site about the Wallace-Bates family whose 16 year-old autistic daughter Tara requires full time care, I took notice. Here’s the catch, because they moved to Switzerland before Tara was born, Tara receives fully state funded special needs care including special schooling, disposable diapers and also a house keeper to clean the messes she tends to leave in her wake. The family considers it all a great blessing to live where they do. The Tara’s coverage is due to a 9 billion dollar disability insurance program that has put the Swiss into debt to the effect of several million dollars.

Meanwhile, an ocean away in the United States, in Gloucester, Mass., Nancy Legendre and her husband, Walter Herlihy, have two autistic daughters, 19 year-old Julia and 17 year-old Lily. Legendre worries that the facilities set up for the disabled will not be enough. She is worried that the horror stories she has heard about assisted living homes.

I worry a bit too about one person in my life in particular. Will he be protected? How will his needs be covered? Is there a Home care system in place anywhere? It’s quite a bit of work to care for him. I have faith that the autism situation can get better in this world, but I just hope we can cover the costs effectively. This is is Mike reminding you to think critically about our world and wax poetically whenever possible.

(Click here for more).