Charitable or Cheap?

So I was buying a new hoodie at a sporting goods chain the other day, and as I waited for my receipt, the cashier asked me if I wanted to donate to the American Red Cross. Noticing my indecision, the cashier politely said that donations could be as little as a dollar. After the immediate hesitation, I said that I would donate. And when asked how much, I quickly responded "a dollar."

Normally I wouldn't think twice about donating to a charity. Some pocket change, a dollar, or even more: I tend to give money to organizations when asked or on my own terms. However, this situation was weird for me. It seemed like I was bombarded by the question and really had no choice but to say yes. I was forced, or almost guilted, into donating-- not that that's necessarily a bad thing. It's probably a very good thing for the charities benefiting from such practices.

Then, once I made it clear that I was giving the minimum amount-- a dollar-- I couldn't help but feel like a cheapskate. There I was spending some forty bucks on a new hoodie, yet I couldn't shell out more than a dollar for the Red Cross? What's more is that I didn't even immediately decide to give anything. Was my early indecision just a result of the fact that I felt bombarded by the question?

Why do I feel so weird about this? I mean, I did make a donation. Was I charitable or was I just plain cheap?

Weekly Report Card

From the NFL to Capitol Hill, here's how the world the fared this week.

Last Sunday, my beloved Pittsburgh Steelers got a much-needed win, besting the New Olreans Saints 38-31. To this point in the NFL season, my Sundays, which were days of pure joy last season as the Steelers went on an improbable run to the Super Bowl, have been mired in the stench of defeat. It's been disgusting watching a battered Ben Roethlisberger, who was once hailed as the saviour of Pittsburgh football, look like a hapless, has-been type quarterback. And it's been even more disgusting watching the injury-ridden Steelers limp to a 2-6 record just a year removed from a Super Bowl Championship. Sunday's win, in which the Steelers didn't turn the ball over and reverted to a trusty, smashmouth, Steeler-esqe running game, was a much needed one for Roethisberger and the Steelers as well as for irate fans like me. Grade: B+


Tuesday, CNN's Glenn Beck put Representative-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, in a really akward situation, saying, "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."Not only is Beck a complete idiot, but I also think (and hope) that he's grossly misrepresenting the feelings of most Americans. Grades (for Beck and CNN for allowing such trash to be aired): F

Wednesday, Republican Senate leadership elected Trent Lott as the Senate's new Minority Whip. Lest we forget that Lott is just four years removed from these comments at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Great. You're proud that your state voted for a segregationist candidate in the 1948 election. What problems might Thurmond have cleared up? That terrible ruckus made over civil rights? Memo to Republican Senators: your party has enough problems, adding a racist to the ranks of your leadership cannot be a good thing. Grade: F

Thursday, MSNBC reported that Fox has agreed to an interview with O.J. Simpson about his new book, If I Did It. First, jeers to Simpsons, who is already creepy enough without writing a book about how he "would have" murdered his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Second, jeers to Fox and Judith Regan for giving O.J. airtime to plug the book, which was published . O.J. should be ashamed. More importantly, Fox should be ashamed. Oh, that's right, this is the same network that lets the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity act as newsmen. This is the same network that brought us quality TV with shows like "Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance". This network shows no shame. Grades: F

This Is Just Too Cool

Check out this computer interface of the future. I want one now!!! How cool is this thing?

A Touching Tribute and Other Post Election Ramblings

Last night, the Colbert Report put on a touching tribute (click the video called "Special Memories") to the Republican majority, reminiscing about some of the greatest leadership our country has ever seen. Ah, the good old days... nearly brought a tear to my eye.

Moving on, who else is happy that election season is over, if only for the fact that we don't have to be constantly bombarded with crappy TV ads for a few more years? If I had to watch Rick Santorum punch out a pro wrestler again, I think I'd lose it. It's great to see that Rick's attempts to get the pro wrestling fan vote weren't enough to save his Senate seat.

On a more serious not, I just read that George Allen is set to concede the Virgina senate race today, avoiding what could have been a really messy, ugly re-count. I'm pretty shocked by this, as I really thought that leading Republicans would go to great lengths to re-count those votes and somehow make up for the some 7,ooo votes Allen is currently trailing by. It's very unlike Republicans (hell, it's very unlike Democrats, as well) to simply give up a race that's as close as this one wihtout any sort of fight, dirty or not. Could this be a sign that these guys are more down and out than we thought? Did the Democratic defeat drain most of the energy out of the Republican party on a national level?

That's all for now, just thought I'd weigh in on some stuff that hasn't yet been hashed to death.

Rummy's STEPPING DOWN!!!

Post here and headline here, but not much news on it yet. Supposedly, Shrub will announce a replacement at 1 pm press conference. More thoughts later.

UPDATE: Bush nominating Robert Gates, former Director of the CIA and current Texas A&M President to the post.

From the Horse's Mouth: Bush said, "I thought we were going to do fine yesterday. Shows what i know!" during today's press conference...our fearless and well-informed leader.

PA Election News

Courtesy of reader onmyway: http://www.keystonepolitics.com/Article4758.html.

It appears that Slick Rick has got a pollster in his corner now. Now I have no empirical evidence to back these thoughts (though I'm sure someone out there knows of some studies done), but it seems to me that polling data could effect voters in a number of ways:

1. Data that shows a closing gap in a heated election such as this should increase voter turnout for both sides. Those who oppose Santorum should be moved to the polls to bolster the opposition, those who favor should be energized and excited about the opportunity for a win. Will this be a null effect or will there be a greater effect for one side or the other? I don't know.

2. The bandwagon effect. Some people just want to be on the winning side. Will undecided voters jump the Democratic ship as they see the incumbant gaining momentum? You see it in sports as the playoffs dwindle to a few teams...all the sudden everyone's a Cowboy's fan. Does this effect exist in politics as well? I'm sure it does to some degree.

3. Disenfranchised Democrats. Will Casey backers lose steam as at the sight of poll numbers showing the gap closing? This is in opposition to the first point, but both are plausible reactions within different groups of voters. Will some begin to think that a chance at ousting Rick was a pipedream?

I'm sure there are other possibilities I'm not hitting on, but these are some thoughts. Polls seem like prophecies that can be self-fulfilling. Bad poll numbers, as this article insinuates these may be, could plausibly have a real effect in the election.

Hypocrisy

If this story is true...pure hypocrisy. A self proclaimed male prostitute claimed on a local Denver radio station this morning that he has been accepting money for sex from Rev. Ted Haggard. Haggard, the President of the National Association of Evangelicals and pastor of New Life church in Colorado Springs has stepped down from both positions while an investigation is undertaken. Haggard also has the ear of the President as he participates in weekly conference calls with White House staffers. Oh, and did I mention, he's a vocal proponent of a Colorado ballot initiative to ban gay marriage. If this allegation is true, it's simply serves as another glaring example of the hypocrisy of the Christian right. If it's not, it should at least make for good theater.

UPDATE: Pastor Ted has admitted to calling Mike Jones "for a massage" and purchasing meth from him, though he never used it. B/c, you know, we all buy meth from our masseuse...and it's something we all like to keep lying around the house just in case.

"Apologize, Mr. Bush"

(Part 2)

I've been waiting to comment on the much debated John Kerry remark/botched joke/Republican talking point, holding back as the backlash continues to reveal itself. Keith Olbermann, however, provides a much more nuanced response than I could ever conceive of, so I point you in his direction, care of last night's Special Comment.

"There is tonight no political division in this country that he and his party will not exploit, nor have not exploited; no anxiety that he and his party will not inflame."

That line is so utterly true. As always, Republican spin doctors seized this flubbed joke, which if you read within the context of the entire speech it clearly was, (off topic, but, who else is shocked that John Kerry screwed up the timing of a joke?) as an opportunity to paint the Democrats as elitist, unpatriotic ass-holes. A week before election day, Republicans, with their backs against the wall, focus on some made-up idea that Vietnam vet John Kerry and other leading Democrats don't support our troops rather than pointing to their own accomplishments. (Oh, that's right, they haven't accomplished anything.) These guys play on something, real or not, that tugs at the heartstrings of Americans instead of pointing to substantive issues, about which their views are clearly out of touch with the way this country feels. Uggh, the pattern of deceit continues.

Sex is the Devil

Ok, so Bitch beat me to the punch, but I still gotta say something about this (I know, I know, it’s USA Today, but that’s where I saw it while waiting in line at the deli for lunch. Sorry). Shrub's folks have decided that targeting abstinence only education at middle and high schoolers just wasn’t getting the job done. No sir, no way, no how…we’ve gotta aim for the ones that are having all of these babies out of wedlock, after all, and it’s not the high school crowd. Federal grant guidelines for 2007 are aimed to funnel millions of dollars to the states for abstinence only programs for 19-29 year olds!!!! You can buy cigs, drink booze to your hearts content, pick up a Playboy, and even die for your country…but for God’s sake, DON’T HAVE SEX!

Give me an effin’ break! Come back to reality folks. What’s the first thought you have when I say don’t eat candy? Damn, I could go for a Snickers…that’s what it is. High schoolers are gonna have sex. College kids are gonna have more sex. Post college…well…it could be better, but we’re still trying. The point is, teach them how to do it safely. Teach them how to avoid disease. Teach them how to not end up with little bundles of joy that they’re not ready to care for. Teach them to use a condom. Teach them about birth control. And, for crying out loud, come to terms with the fact that they’re gonna have sex no matter what you say.

Happy Halloween

What better way to scare yourself on this All Hallow's Eve than by watching this Rick Santorum attack ad that equates Rick's Democratic challenger Bob Casey with Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while implying that Casey supports terrorism. Ghouls, goblins, terrorists, and Bob Casey. Scary, huh?

Not So Liberal Democrats

Heath Shuler is a former star football player at the University of Tennessee. After a brief and unimpressive stint in the NFL, Shuler went back to college, finished his degree, and became a real estate mogul in Knoxville. The 34 year old Shuler is also an evangelical Christian who opposes abortion rights and gun control. And why am I writing about a has-been quarterback with socially conservative tendencies? As you might know, Shuler is the Democratic candidate for congress in North Carolina's 11th district.

The Times has pretty good read about Shuler and other moderate to conservative Democrats running for congressional seats across the country. The Democratic leadership is turning to these types of candidates in hopes of winning seats in socially conservative, often evangelical, rural areas that have been ransacked by Republicans in recent years. While these so-called New Democrats, or Blue Dog Democrats, might more closely fit the profiles of their districts, is it really worth supporting them since many of their views are so far removed from those of the party's base?

To be honest, I don't know. These candidates have the best shot at winning in conservative districts, but what's the point of winning an election if you're going to, in effect, maintain the status quo. A conservative under the guise of a Democrat, a candidate who will not support abortion rights, who will not be a true progressive on other social issues, and who will side with the Bush administration on hugely important debates, is not much better than a conservative Republican. Is it?

A Contradiction

I want to talk about a contradiction in reaction to reader Evan’s comments a couple of weeks ago and to a post by Spaz about the neo-con hijacking of feminist arguments (followed up by some great comments by humbition and SteveR). Liberalism entails a certain allowance for a difference of opinion over many subjects. We don’t have to agree to get along. We should be able to debate and find a middle ground in which we can both work. The certain contradiction that’s bothering me lately, and I haven’t yet come to terms with, is the disparate beliefs that we should at the same time allow, by our belief in religious freedom, the practices, beliefs, myths, and experiences of other religions, whatever they may be, and yet morally condemn certain of those practices, beliefs, etc.

Spaz points out in her piece that the neo-cons are pimping feminist arguments to bolster support for imperialist actions in Muslim nations. This is a legitimate criticism, and, as humbition pointed out, a move that has often been a part of imperialist arguments. But shouldn’t someone be trying to change the way women are treated (or better, work toward equality for women) in these traditional Muslim nations? Humbition believes it to be the right/duty (I’m not sure exactly) of the women in these countries to take up this battle themselves. However, is it always that case that the oppressed know that they are oppressed and that there is a way out? And do they always have the means to fight their own oppression? We have a moral obligation; it seems, to intervene when we see a wrong being done; to offer our assistance. Now, this does not mean that I in any way condone imperialist moves in this type of situation. I am simply pointing out here what I see as an obligation.

But why do we allow ourselves this contradiction. I can say that I believe that all religions should have equal right to carry out their practices, rituals, etc. In the next breath, I can say that I despise the Muslim practice of forcing women to wear the burqa or some other practice that puts women in the place of another class of citizen. But because of the first, do I prevent myself action on the second? It doesn’t seem to be the case domestically. We all, as liberals, seem to be willing to fight for equality for women, gays, races in spite of religious beliefs held by other groups within our borders. We will openly condemn the Catholic church for not allowing gay marriages or women priests. We will point out all their hypocrisies. It seems, though, that when we try to transplant those same beliefs into another cultural realm, somewhere outside our borders, we fail to be able to act. We prevent ourselves from fighting for the rights of the individuals, the basic human rights.

It occurs to me that this is a case of affording cultural relativism too much power. When the rights of the culture (or the nation, or the religion) trample the basic rights of the individual as a human being, we are required to intervene. Not through force, not by military action, but with argument, with dialogue, and maybe with economic pressure. Freedom is not realized by exporting democracy; by transplanting a one-in-a-million-shot political system to the rest of the world, but by working for the rights and freedoms of the individuals; and by placing those basic rights above cultural, social, and religious customs.

I’d really like to hear some other thoughts on this…as it’s something I’m working through continually in my head. Anyone got anything for me…maybe even some direction toward some good reading?

Betting on Global Warming

This piece came on while I was driving home this evening, and I wasn’t quite sure how to react. Now that’s it’s had some time to sink in, I’m pretty flabbergasted by it.

KAI RYSSDAL: We begin more than a thousand miles straight north of Minneapolis-St. Paul, on the western shore of Canada's Hudson Bay. Marketplace's Stephen Beard set out from the Sustainability Desk for Churchill, Manitoba.
STEPHEN BEARD: Darren Ottaway is in his element — tramping through the snow around Churchill, the tiny, frozen outpost that he used to administer in Northern Canada. In the 10 years he was the town council's chief executive, Darren learned to listen to the snow:

DARREN OTTAWAY: You can tell the temperature by the sound of the snow. So this is sort of a . . . You know, when you're walking and you hear a bass sound, it's because the snow is wet and it's starting to melt, so it has a different sound. When it's minus 40 out, it's a sharp, crisp sound that you can hear under your feet. It makes a completely different noise.

He doesn't hear that sharp, crisp sound as often as he used to. The snow melts earlier in the year. The ice that once covered Hudson Bay until August now melts a full month earlier. The signs and sounds of global warming are everywhere. But Darren Ottaway is not complaining:

OTTAWAY: You know, nature's going to respond to global warming. It'll adapt on its own. What global warming really represents is an economic issue. That's really what it is. How do we adapt to changing weather and climate? And how do we capitalize on that economic opportunity? And this is really, I think, where we're going to come ahead of the game because we're not looking at it as being a negative impact. It has a lot of positive impacts.

This small, rather ramshackle town of 1,100 people has been declining for years. But now it's putting its hopes in the revival of its port.
Vince Pirelli, the port's operations manager, is supervising a shipment of canola grain. At the moment the port is ice-free for only four months of the year, but that's one month more than a decade ago. Ships are making it through the Arctic waters earlier each year. The shipping season could get longer still, says Pirelli:

VINCE PIRELLI: There's global warming, they say, that's going to help Churchill.
BEARD: Do you think it will?
PIRELLI: I could see it one day happening. I could see it happening. If the global warming is really going to happen, I could see Churchill being open eight, nine months out of the year.

At the moment Churchill is still a small operation, shipping every year about half a million tons of Canadian grain, peas and canola to Europe and Africa. That's a small fraction of the cargo handled by the Atlantic ports — like Halifax or New York. But Churchill could have a big future:

ROB HUEBERT: Anyone who looks at a globe, and anyone who flies, knows that the shortest distance between North America and Europe is, of course, over the Pole rather than the long way across the Atlantic.

Dr. Rob Huebert, an expert on the Arctic. He says that the current owners of Churchill — a rather secretive American railway company called OmniTRAX — bought the port specifically in the hope that it would benefit from global warming.

HUEBERT: What OmniTRAX sees — and why OmniTRAX has been so attracted towards Churchill — is that what Churchill provides, if this ice diminishment continues, is a new Arctic shipping link that is going to join Northern Canada to Northern Europe.

Russia might use it to ship oil and minerals into North America. European exporters could be interested too as a way of avoiding the congested Atlantic ports of New York, Baltimore and Boston. Churchill could in time generate revenues of $100 million a year. Not bad, says Dr. Huebert, when you consider that OmniTRAX bought it as a derelict facility from the provincial government of Manitoba for just $10.

HUEBERT: The provinical government, I think, will look back at one point and go: Ooo, we made a dumb decision on that!

But the people of Churchill are not complaining. They are happy that OmniTRAX spotted the port's potential. And they welcome climate change for the higher standard of living it could bring. Even though, says Darren Ottaway, other places further south may suffer:

OTTAWAY: Since the port was built back in the 1920s-30s, we've been the underdog. So, I think that it's our . . . you know, it's our turn to take the opportunities that really are ours. And I don't think we need to apologize about doing that.

Churchill needs a boost. On the local radio station they're playing a well–worn, scratchy old 45. A local favorite: "The Churchill Blues."

"When I came here, I got off the train. It was the coldest day of the year. I picked up my bags, I stepped outside. I almost froze off my ear."

It's not the acute cold here that gets people down. It's the chill winds of economic decline. Global warming will mean floods and storms for much of the planet. But here it's considered benign.
In Churchill, Northern Canada, this is Stephen Beard for Marketplace.

"I got nothing to lose. I'm in Churchill with the Churchill blues. . . ."

From today’s Marketplace.

I think what strikes me the most about this segment is the “Churchill-centric” attitude of some of the interviewees. It’s one thing to observe that this small, northern-Canadian community may actually see economic benefit as an effect of global warming, but it’s wholly different to say “it’s our turn.” Saying it’s our turn implies that, the rest of the world be damned, we’re going to finally make a living up here. It ignores any semblance of a world community…of humanity, and places the well-being of this one tiny 1,100 person town above the good of the globe as a whole. Nations cavalierly go about business with this type of worldview, but it’s not what I’d expect of a frontier town. I would have expected naturalists, worries about the environment and how the melting snow and ice could negatively impact the land on which they live and the world in which they live. But economics changes all of that…corporations change all of that…capitalism changes all of that. The show-me-the-money attitude of this little town truly frightens me.

The other aspect that I find interesting here is that a shipping company has bet on global warming. Forget Kyoto, this is capitalism gone way awry. There’s no incentive to stop global warming, so we’ll make a bet that it’s going to happen and try to make some money off of it…again…all others be damned. Any thoughts?

Quote of the Day: Rush Limbaugh

It was only a matter of time until quite possibly the biggest creep of them all, Rush Limbaugh, crept his way into my little quote of the day segment. Alas, that time has come.

Eric Alterman's blog at Media Matters pointed me in the direction of this incredibly insensitive and disturbing comment about actor Michael J. Fox from the king of conservative talk radio: "... he was either off the medication or he was acting. He is an actor, after all."

Of course, Rush is referring to those new ads for Senate hopeful Claire McCaskill that show Fox, swaying back and forth because of his Parkinsons, lending his support to McCaskill because of her support of stem cell research, unlike the Republican candidate running against her.

That quote is completely ridiculous. Why would Fox exaggerate his symptoms? Why would he not take his medication and allow himself to suffer even worse than he already does? In the words of funny man Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh really is a big, fat idiot.

Obama in '08?

Sunday morning, Senator Barack Obama told Tim Russert on Meet the Press that he has "thought about the possiblity" of making a bid for the White House in 2008, contradicting his previous statements about his lack of interest in the position. The Senator, however, said that he would wait until after the November 7th midterm elections. So, if Obama runs, is he the Democratic frontrunner?

I'll answer that question with a decisive "maybe."

This guy has been the Democratic posterboy since bursting on to the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention, where he delivered that rousing keynote address that sent the Boston crowd into a frenzy. Since then, his stock has sky-rocketed. The Senator's well-liked, incredibly charismatic and passionate. Not to mention the fact that he's never endured any sort of ethical scandal or had his character called into question — some pretty valuable attributes for a viable presidential candidate.

But is charisma, alone, enough for Obama to win the candidacy? Again, in this wide open race, I have to say maybe, although he has some major obstalces ahead of him. While some of his stands provide nice alternatives to those of fellow Democratic contenders, particularly Hillary Clinton, his experience is kind of limited; he's only been on the national scene since 2004, only a senator since January of '05. Additionally, I can't write a piece about the possibility of an Black presidential candidate without mentioning the fact that no major party has ever nomiated an African-American as its candidate. I know, I know, it's 2006 and it's terribly sad that skin color is still an issue, but it is.

In spite of those hurdles, that aforementioned charisma, that seemingly ubridled enthusiam and optimism, sort of sets Obama apart in a world filled with stonefaced politicians, who, at times, seem aloof and out of touch. Having endured Dubya' for eight years, that charisma, that message of hope that he set forth back at his address to the Democratic Convention, could be exactly what this country is looking for. I know it's something I'd love to see.

Funny... and true

I don't know if any of you have seen this new (I think) commercial from the September Fund, a 527 organization "established to communicate with the public on issues of national and local importance in the 2006 elections." Aside from being pretty damn funny, it's poignant and definitely worth a look if you haven't seen it yet.

That's all, just thought everyone could use a little laugh.

Quote(s) of the Day: Michael Savage

I normally don’t pay too much attention to conservative talking heads. Pundits like O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity are nothing more than stubborn, unyielding media bullies who knowingly blur the line between factual journalism and biased commentary. They really have nothing of value to say, and therefore don’t warrant my attention.

I did, however, stumble on these utterly disturbing quotes by Michael Savage, host of the hugely popular syndicated radio show The Savage Nation, thanks to Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

After a Eurocentric tirade about the inability of immigrants from non-European, non-Christian countries to assimilate into American culture, Savage says, “there's been no Middle Ages for the Muslims coming into America. It's insanity to be bringing in millions of people who have no Middle Ages yet, they haven't even gone through the Middle Ages. They're never going to be compatible with America.” No Middle Ages? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Not compatible with America? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. and has become the country's 2nd largest religion. Seems to me like Muslims, in large, are doing quite well here.

Savage didn't stop there. Oh no, he just kept running his mouth, making a claim so preposterous that it doesn't even warrant any sort of response: "It will happen overnight, and it could lead to the breakup of the United States of America, the way the Soviet Union broke up."

Was he done after that zinger? By no means as he finished his October 13th broadcast with the following terribly misguided comments about gays in California: "California, unfortunately, is in the hands of the far-left homosexual mafia. They unfortunately don't even understand what's good for them. They don't understand that voting on the left side of everything is actually in their disinterest, not in their interest -- that if they gay community ever understood what's in their interest they'd become conservatives, by and large. But they are also very confused, as anyone could figure out by their death-style." Please, Mike Savage, explain how it would be in the interest of the "homosexual mafia" to back conservatives? Simply look at the voting record of most conservatives on Capitol Hill and tell me how your statement is not utterly false.

It's remarks like those that remind me exactly why I dont pay much attention to Savage, O'Reilly, and the like. They really could care less about the content of their comments, as long as they grab some attention, build their egos, and climb the latter to being a made man in Godfather Bush's neo-con mafia.

Madonna, Adoption, and the Fight on Poverty

This article by Simon Hooper at CNN.com brings up some interesting issues in the debate over the value of celebrity adoptions of 3rd world children.

In the wake of Madonna's recent efforts to adopt a 13 month old boy from Malawi, one of the least developed and AIDS stricken countries in Africa and all of the world, I can't help but question the motives of celebrity adopters. I can't doubt that they love the adopted children and provide nourishment and care that far exceeds the type of treatment that the kids could've received in their homelands, but doesn't this growing trend seem more and more like an effort to get positive press, bolster a global image, and appear like a major player in the fight against global poverty? It seems to me like these children are taking on the role of glorified accessories, as sorts of living status symbols.

If celebrities were truly interested in fighting poverty, wouldn't it make more sense for them to donate large sums of money that could, if managed properly (which in and of itself is a tough task), possibly save thousands of impoverished, malnourished children instead of only 1?

Any thoughts?

Go Feminism!

Yesterday while picking up my daily cup of coffee at the chain that will one day rule the world I noticed the cutest little girl playing with her mom out front. She was probably about two with beautiful golden blonde curls. She an her mom weren't playing with barbies or baby dolls...no, this little girl was laughing and joyfully and excitedly playing with a Tonka truck! It warmed my heart :-)

Scrupulous Fun

Let’s chat a little bit about language today, specifically the chasm between the meaning and the intent or connotation of certain utterances. Veiled compliments… “You’re very astute,” does that mean I pick up on things quickly, am a keen observer, or did I just get called a dumbass? I suppose in that case context is everything. If a teacher tells me that I’m probably taking it as a compliment. If my old frat buddy tells me that after I make an obvious observation…not so much. The difference is pretty easy to see.

But what of this situation: a good friend today was told by her boss that she is “scrupulous.” The context was fairly mundane…they were discussing the work of some coworkers and my friend said she would have a talk with them about their performance. Her boss told her that’s a good idea “you’re very scrupulous.” Is this a compliment? The word by definition means adherent to a strong sense of right and wrong or being precise and accurate. Not bad things. One would definitely take it as an insult to be called “unscrupulous” or told that one “has no scruples.” But is the inverse necessarily true? It seems to me that the connotations associated with this word have dissociated it from this original meaning. In our game of common discourse to call someone scrupulous has become quite akin to calling them a tight-ass, a stickler for the rules, and one who is a slave to minute details. A scrupulous person probably wouldn’t be much fun to grab a beer with.

We collectively get to decide when the intent of the words we use change. They’re not static and a dictionary definition can never fully capture them. So is this a word that has? Or maybe it’s stuck somewhere in the middle. Maybe it hasn’t yet become its own antonym. After all, in this context it seems to be if not a compliment, at least a reinforcement of why my friend should have the talk. Her coworkers are missing the details, and her boss knows that she pays attention to them. However, the fact that she came away from the dialogue thinking about whether it was an insult or not implies some underlying shifts taking place in the game. The word, if not fully dissociated from its meaning, at the very least triggers a reaction that its original form did not intend. It’s interesting to think about these little anomalies…after all, language is fun!

Or maybe I should just get this stick outta my butt and stop being so scrupulous…