Happy First Birthday! 02/05/2010
 thanks to http://sotirov.com/2006/09/02/ Happy Birthday Birds on a Wire Blog! Enjoy the cake and the festivities (with a little help from two of our grandchildren). Wow, it’s been a year since we started this conversation, and so much has happened. First of all, I envisioned this as a place for women to come to talk over their joys and concerns. How sexist of me! Thank goodness, men have joined us, adding their voices to the discussion. So, little by little, we’ve evolved into, into, into … what? When I finally decide what this blog is all about, I'll let you know. Almost 3,000 people came to this site during the past year, from every continent, from every corner of the globe. The Birds blog has been mentioned in at least one news story (well, I wrote it!). We’re blogrolled by some of the best in the business, included in three directories, and reffed by at least 10 other blogs. Who knows where this will lead?  I’m not sure where we’re going, but I do know where we’ve been. Over the past year, we’ve talked about relationships, families, things we love and things we hate. We’ve looked at what it means to be a survivor in a dangerous world. You and I have had a few laughs and shed a few tears together. Last fall, we recalled some of the most memorable events of our lives, including the assassination of a president, and the end of 20 years of Cold War, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Didn’t want to leave you out of our trips to California, New York City and all over New England, so I sent you postcards. I’ve told a few stories about amazing people I’ve met, and some great music I’ve heard. Life is full of joy, so we’ve shared some of its best moments. You came to my birthday, and we all went to Obama’s inauguration together. A number of us have talked a great deal about some big issues, especially health care reform. I’ve handed out a bit of advice (since no one else will listen to me!), including these evergreens: Enjoy yourself Be mindful Be proud of who you are  And you’ve shared your own through your comments and emails. Not surprisingly, Birds has evolved. It’s moved from being a text-based scroll to a multimedia publication. What’s next, Facebook? Twitter? Could be. Let me know how you feel about those platforms. All in all, it’s been a great year. Thank you, readers, for keeping me on my toes. Thanks for you suggestions and complaints. Most of all, thank you for all you’ve contributed to this little community of readers and thinkers and doers. En avant! Here's to another year of Birds on a Wire Blog! Paula Meet you on the top deck? 02/04/2010
Speaking of other blogs, here’s something from today’s Time Goes By. If you haven’t already found this blog, you should. It’s a gem, with a new, thought-provoking story or discussion every day of the week. No Nursing Home For Me! At dinner through the Mediterranean aboard a Princess cruise ship, an elderly lady sat alone along the rail of the grand stairway in the main dining room. The staff, ship's officers, waiters, busboys, etc., all seemed very familiar with her. When a waiter was asked who she was, he said he knew only that she had been on board for the last four cruises, back to back. Wanting to know more, a fellow passenger asked her one evening if this was true. “Yes,” she replied and without a pause added, “It’s cheaper than a nursing home.” The average cost for a nursing home, she explained, is $200 a day. With a long-term cruise discount and a senior discount, the price of a Princess Cruise is $135 per day. That leaves $65 a day for:
http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2010/02/lets-retire-on-a-princess-cruise.html Happy Blogroll Amnesty Day-After 02/04/2010
 Hey, I missed Blogroll Amnesty Day, whatever that is. Here's what the February 3 holiday's founder Jon Swift had to say about it, on his own blog: From the day I started this modest blog I have tried to follow one simple rule, the Golden Rule of Blogging: Blog unto others as you would have them blog unto you. I don't call people nasty names because I don't like being called nasty names. I don't try to out pseudonymous bloggers because I don't want to be outted. I don't attack bloggers' families because I don't want my family attacked. And when someone is kind enough to add me to their blogroll, I add them to mine as well. It seems to me that it is the polite thing to do. I remember how difficult it was to get people to notice my blog when I first started out. "Build it and they will come," apparently only works with magic baseball fields. The only way to get anyone to notice my blog was to get them to link to me and that was not always easy. I linked to other bloggers and clicked on those links hoping they would notice my link in Sitemeter. I sent emails to other bloggers asking them to take a look at my latest piece or to add me to their blogrolls. I instituted my "Liberal Blogrolling Policy" offering to exchange links with anyone who linked to me. As more blogs began to link to me and add me to their blogrolls, a curious thing began to happen. More people came to my blog from those links and from Google. And many of those readers then visited the blogs that I linked to. Though it cost nothing to link to someone, I realized that on the Internet links are capital. Every link has value. And when two bloggers link to each other, they both profit. See http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/02/blogroll-amnesty-day.html for more. In honor of this special occasion, I’ve added to my blogroll, and encourage everyone to expand their horizons by checking out the offerings (some big, most small) provided by some of our fellow bloggers and readers. Of course, I hope they add Birds on a Wire Blog to their list, too. Psst, tomorrow is a big day in Birdland. Can you guess what it is? Hint: It will take one candle. Stay tuned. In light of last night’s State of the Union message, this seems like a very good time to return to the lyrics of that Bob Dylan evergreen, The Times They Are a-Changin, written in 1963 (the same year JFK died). Some may find his lyrics trite, but, if you can get past the adolescent angst, I think there's still some wisdom to be gleaned, no matter what your political perspective: Come gather round people wherever you roam And admit that the waters around you have grown And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone If your time to you is worth saving Then you'd better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone For the times, they are a-changin Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pens And keep your eyes open, the chance won't come again And don't speak too soon, the wheel's still in spin And there's no telling who that it's naming Oh the loser will be later to win For the times, they are a-changin Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt will be he that has stalled The battle outside raging will soon shake your windows And rattle your hall For the times, they are a-changin Come mothers and fathers all over this land And don't criticize what you can't understand Your sons and your daughter are beyond your command Your old role is rapidly aging Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand For the times they are a-changin The line, it is drawn, the curse, it is cast The slow one now will later be fast And the present now will soon be the past The order is rapidly fading The first one now will later be last For the times, they are a-changin Eyes on the road 01/27/2010
What if a foreign agent came into this country to kill 6,000 and injure 500,000 people? Do you think the American people would be up in arms demanding the government do something to stop this carnage? Well, those are the casualty figures quoted by the US Department of Transportation, in support of a ban on text messaging by truck drivers. The law went into effect this week. Yet, there’s controversy. Apparently, it’s one thing if bad guys kill lots of people, and another if good ole boys in trucks do it. Here are a few comments I found related to an MSNBC.com story announcing the new law: Who does Obama think he is? Moses? "Thou shalt not text and drive" Even though I agree that texting and driving is an accident waiting to happen, this is not his business. Restrictions and regulations on operating a motor vehicle falls under States rights. Speed limits, seat belt laws, helmet laws, are all up to individual States. The Federal government has no right to impose laws such as this. It is time again for the American trucker to take action and tell the government to kiss off! So listen up, guys. While you’re pulling one, two or three trailers worth of Wal-Mart products across federal interstates, don’t knit, write letters to your mom, put on makeup, file your nails, practice guitar or perfect your knuckle ball. If you do, expect to pay the price, so someone else doesn’t have to. The revolution that wasn't 01/27/2010
 Mobilization Against the War, November 1969--photo by phc I lived, studied and worked in Washington DC throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s. Between 1968 and 1972, everyone I knew believed we were headed for revolution. There had already been bombings, and we knew (people who knew) people who were being investigated as possible radicals, etc. Several had their phones tapped; others saw men in white jumpsuits going through their trash. Thousands of mostly young people had been arrested in various demonstrations in the city, fueling the fires. Given the number of people under 30 who hated the government, a full-blown revolt was a given, not a guess. Just a matter of time until the crazies got their act together. To prepare for the inevitable, our neighborhood worked out telephone trees and contingency escape plans. We lived only a few blocks from the US Capitol building, a magnet for rebellion. Everyone figured our block could be torched, as happened in other parts of the city during the 1968 riots. I remember putting together a box of stuff I didn’t want to lose. It would be the last thing I grabbed when I left. Around 1974-75, something happened: Absolutely nothing! The war was over. Nixon was on his way out. Radicals traded in their fatigues for polyester pants suits, hippy anthems for disco, and quite a few gave up politics for cocaine. By then, I had moved to New York, and no one I met in NY had ever even heard of the revolution that almost took place. It was as if I had arrived from another planet. Go figure.  Mobe, 1969, photo by phc With this historical background in mind, I bring you an update on the new revolution, which seems to be having a tough time getting off the ground. ______________________ From The New York Times January 26, 2010 Tea Party Disputes Take Toll on Convention By Kate Zernike A Tea Party convention billed as the coming together of the grass-roots groups that began sprouting up around the country a year ago is unraveling as sponsors and participants pull out to protest its expense and express concerns about “profiteering.” The convention’s difficulties highlight the fractiousness of the Tea Party groups, and the considerable suspicions among their members of anything that suggests the establishment. The convention, to be held in Nashville in early February, made a splash by attracting big-name politicians. (Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska is scheduled to deliver the keynote speech.) But some groups have criticized the cost — $549 per ticket and a $9.95 fee, plus hotel and airfare — as out of reach for the average tea partier. And they have balked at Ms. Palin’s speaking fee, which news reports have put at $100,000, a figure that organizers will not confirm or deny. Tea Party events exploded last winter, as increasingly large gatherings protested the federal stimulus bill, government bailouts and proposed health care legislation. While they vary by name, specific tenets and relative embrace of anarchy, such groups tend to unite around fiscal conservatism and a belief that the federal government — whether led by Republicans or Democrats — has overstepped its constitutional powers. Tea Party Nation, the convention organizer, started as a social networking site for the groups last year, a kind of Facebook for conservatives to “form bonds, network and make plans for action.” But its founders, former sponsors and participants are now trading accusations. Philip Glass, the national director of the National Precinct Alliance, announced late Sunday that “amid growing controversy” around the convention, his organization would no longer participate. His group seeks to take over the Republican Party from the bottom by filling the ranks of local and state parties with grass-roots conservatives, and Mr. Glass had been scheduled to lead workshops on its strategy. “We are very concerned about the appearance of T.P.N. profiteering and exploitation of the grass-roots movement,” he said in a statement. “We were under the impression that T.P.N. was a nonprofit organization like N.P.A., interested only in uniting and educating Tea Party activists on how to make a real difference in the political arena.” To continue reading this story, click "Read More" in the lower right corner, below. Speaking of populism 01/26/2010
There are some real gems in this piece by David Brooks, pertinent to the understanding of the appeal of the Tea Party movement and other diversions. from The New York Times January 26, 2010 The Populist Addiction By David Brooks Politics, some believe, is the organization of hatreds. The people who try to divide society on the basis of ethnicity we call racists. The people who try to divide it on the basis of religion we call sectarians. The people who try to divide it on the basis of social class we call either populists or elitists. These two attitudes — populism and elitism — seem different, but they’re really mirror images of one another. They both assume a country fundamentally divided. They both describe politics as a class struggle between the enlightened and the corrupt, the pure and the betrayers. Both attitudes will always be with us, but these days populism is in vogue. The Republicans have their populists. Sarah Palin has been known to divide the country between the real Americans and the cultural elites. And the Democrats have their populists. Since the defeat in Massachusetts, many Democrats have apparently decided that their party has to mimic the rhetoric of John Edwards’s presidential campaign. They’ve taken to dividing the country into two supposedly separate groups — real Americans who live on Main Street and the insidious interests of Wall Street. It’s easy to see why politicians would be drawn to the populist pose. First, it makes everything so simple. The economic crisis was caused by a complex web of factors, including global imbalances caused by the rise of China. But with the populist narrative, you can just blame Goldman Sachs. Second, it absolves voters of responsibility for their problems. Over the past few years, many investment bankers behaved like idiots, but so did average Americans, racking up unprecedented levels of personal debt. With the populist narrative, you can accuse the former and absolve the latter. Third, populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power. So it’s easy to see the seductiveness of populism. Nonetheless, it nearly always fails. The history of populism, going back to William Jennings Bryan, is generally a history of defeat. That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems. Political populists never get that second point. They can’t seem to grasp that a politics based on punishing the elites won’t produce a better-educated work force, more investment, more innovation or any of the other things required for progress and growth. In fact, this country was built by anti-populists. It was built by people like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy — one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment. Hamilton championed capital markets and Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers. They did it because they knew a vibrant capitalist economy would maximize opportunity for poor boys like themselves. They were willing to tolerate the excesses of traders because they understood that no institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets. In their view, government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war. It was to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels. It was to enhance competition and make it fair — to make sure that no group, high or low, is able to erect barriers that would deprive Americans of an open field and a fair chance. Theirs was a philosophy that celebrated development, mobility and work, wherever those things might be generated. The populists have an Us versus Them mentality. If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth. They will end up discrediting good policies (the Obama bank reforms are quite sensible) because they will persuade the country that the government is in the hands of reckless Huey Longs. They will have traded dynamic optimism, which always wins, for combative divisiveness, which always loses. Spare me. 01/26/2010
Connecticut Republicans are so taken with the success of Scott Brown, they’ve asked Brown's brother Bruce, a security alarm salesman, to consider running for office in their state. In this television interview, Bruce says he’s looking forward to a Mitt Romney/Scott Brown ticket in 2012. If appearance is to be our gold standard for picking candidates to run for the presidency, make mine George Clooney/Brad Pitt. Actually, when you think about it, actors make the best puppet candidates because -- unlike unnamed rogues -- actors are accustomed to following direction and masters at convincing the audience that every word they utter is sincere. Square jaws and uncomplicated names 01/26/2010
I haven’t been able to write for a week, in part, because the election of Scott Brown took the wind out of me. Funny thing, Brown drew most of his votes from suburban Boston. Out here in the boons, where cows rule and people might think no one pays attention to issues, Coakely led 2 or 3 to 1. Brown's message---which, frankly, was hard for me to discern from the two debates I watched, as well as his advertising—certainly resonated with a lot of people. The only concrete issue I heard loud and clear was health care reform, which he vowed to quash. Brown promised he would place the 41st vote against it so the people of Massachusetts would not lose their relationships with their own doctors. Apparently, many of those who elected him do not read the newspapers (or blogs), otherwise they would know that health care reform is a non-issue in this state, since we already have mandatory insurance, our own form of public option, etc. Maybe they don't want the rest of the country to have what they already have? Whatever. If this election taught us anything, I think it’s this (in addition to what all the usual pundits have written): 1. Never underestimate the power of sex appeal in an election. 2. Assume all voters are ignorant, then educate them. 3. Underdogs have an unlimited advantage, no matter what the issue. You can always find something to combat. 4. Political parties don’t like to spend money on campaigns unless they must. The Democrats thought they were going to get away cheaply on this one. The Republicans never lent a hand until they smelled blood in the water, then the millions poured in to bring campaign workers from Texas, of all places. 5. Even in 2010 and even in Massachusetts, a woman---no matter how accomplished or respected---will fall beneath the wheels of a not-so accomplished guy in a flannel shirt if he plays the testosterone card, implying she’s (what?) not a “real woman", in some way. Pick-up truck, indeed! What a gimmick! The message we must take from the nationwide elation over the election of Scott Brown is a sizable population is still hungry for the George W. Bushes and other regular Joes --the ones with the square jaws, the straight talk and the uncomplicated names -- who say they are man enough to take the air out of those we elected a short year ago to get us out of the mess those same Joes left us in. Why is that? Speechless in Massachusetts 01/20/2010
| Blogger Profilereporter, writer, wife, mother, stepmother, grandmother, photographer, singer, knitter, swimmer -- not all at the same time click here for
Christmas Candy click here for
|
