To The Newly-Minted Graduates of 2011

This weekend, I'll videotape a graduation ceremony, and I'll listen to another series of graduation speeches. As many as I've heard, I've never given one. I don't know why I've never been asked; after all, I'm smart, witty, and I can actually pronounce some pretty big words. That's more than some of these clowns can do.But that notwithstanding, I was once again passed over as a graduation speaker. So here's the speech that I'd give if I were asked (which, once again, I wasn't).

------

Dear Graduating Class of 2011:

Welcome to the real world.

When you leave here today, you'll step out of the sheltered halls of academia into that mystical place you've heard about for so many years called "The Real World". Some of you may have already experienced it on one level or another, and others among you may think it's a TV show on MTV, and still others are wondering what the old codger up behind the lectern is rambling about when he uses phrases like "MTV" and "TV show". But that's not important right now.

The fact is, when you wake up tomorrow, you're going to find yourself in the position you've worked so hard for all these years: Hung over, unemployed, and in debt up to your mortarboard.

Welcome to the real world.

It's customary for graduation speakers to offer some brilliant bit of wisdom to help carry you out into this brave new place, but I'm afraid I don't have anything particularly insightful to offer. I can't even draw from my own graduation ceremonies, because I don't remember a thing they said, except for the speaker at my college commencement, who said, "Just as there was when I was graduating, there's a whole wide world waiting for you. Only it's waiting for you with a 2x4 to knock you upside the head."

That explains why I stayed in school for an extra two years for an advanced degree. The man scared the hell out of me.

And so here you are in the glorious year of 2011. Unemployment is at the highest it's been in your lifetime. The world is facing increasing pressures from natural disasters, global wars, technology run rampant, and environmental uncertainty.

Lucky you.

Welcome to the real world.

Now don't get me wrong; I'm an eternal optimist. It takes a certain kind of crazy person to open a business in the middle of a recession providing a service that no one really needs in a town that seems to have as many vacant buildings as it does occupied ones. My business offers a premium service in a city where the per capita income is $14,495, and where the population has declined for the seventh year in a row. Where historic buildings were literally crumbling into the street. It's the kind of place that's a great place to be FROM, but people like you—newly-minted graduates—would barely consider a hotbed of opportunity.

But that's where you would be wrong. In the midst of what has been called "the worst economy since the great depression", I've found a small but thriving business community, fantastic people that are engaging, fun and polite, and a small-town atmosphere that I find refreshing, in an area surrounded by some of the most natural beauty I've ever seen. I've witnessed a small renaissance in the downtown business district, and I'm now hearing complaints that the biggest problem we have downtown is a lack of parking spaces. Go figure.

So that brings me to my point (which I think I had, but I almost forgot). The world is what you make of it. You can look at the ugliness around you and get discouraged and depressed, or you can face that approaching 2x4 as it heads for your head and DUCK. Then punch that sucker that's swinging it right in the face.

Some of you were just toddlers when a band called "Crowded House" performed a song called "Weather With You" in the 80's. The chorus includes the line, "Everywhere you go, you always take the weather with you". It's a simple but profound verse; a more sophisticated version of the one-liner, "No matter where you go, you'll always be there." In short, the world is what you make of it. If you walk around carrying a storm cloud above your head, all you'll see is rain. That doesn't mean that you put blinders on to the very real problems that surround you, but life is about making choices. You can choose sunshine or rain. It really is that simple.

One more thing for those of you who haven't fallen asleep or who aren't posting disparaging remarks about this speech on twitter before I'm even done:

I encourage you to be kind. We live in an age of increased polarization, rancor, anger and bitterness. We label each other: Conservative, Liberal, Radical, Warmonger, Racist...you name it, there's a label for it. Folks, labels are for jars, not people. The sooner we stop trying to fit each other into convenient little boxes where we can shove each other on a shelf and say, "There, that's a good little [insert label here]" the better off we'll all be. As we all enter the real world, we're going to need each other more than ever. Yes, we can disagree. Yes, we can have differences of opinion. But in the end, we all have to work together.

So as you head out into that mythical new frontier before you, and as you consider the advice I've so wisely dished out, please ponder the words of author P.J. O'Rourke who wrote: "Everybody knows how to raise children, except the people who have them." Then realize that I really don't know a damn thing, and I've made it all up. Congratulations on your graduation, and again...welcome to the real world.

On New York's Marriage Equality Bill

The New York State Legislature is poised to vote on the issue of "marriage equality" soon. The House has already passed a bill, and its future in the Senate is unclear. Below is the text of an open letter to my State Senator that I posted to my facebook page; I'm reprinting it here to give it maximum exposure.

-----------

Dear Mr. O'Mara:

If everything works out as expected, there will be a vote in the Senate any moment now that, if passed, will allow same-sex marriage to be legal in New York. You, of course, know this already. You have also indicated your intent to vote against this bill.

Despite my well-known political bent as a left-leaning moderate, I did vote for you, so I feel like I have a voice here...you are MY representative, even more so than if I had voted for your opponent. You have indicated that this issue deserves a debate, and that you're open to hearing opinions from both sides (despite your stated opposition to the proposed law), so I hope you'll read this and at least give it thoughtful consideration.

First, some background: I grew up in a very small Midwestern town, the son of very conservative parents in a rural area where the only buildings were a barbershop, a general store, a gas station, a post office, and a church. My family attended a conservative Lutheran church where I was baptized and confirmed, and I grew up with—you guessed it—very conservative values, which I still hold close to this day. When I was growing up, I didn't know anyone who was gay (although we had some suspicions about the school librarian), and the concept of "gay rights" was not only foreign to me, but to be honest, somewhat repugnant. I'm not particularly proud of that attitude looking back, but that was the world I was raised in.

In fact, that world was a cruel and harsh one. In my time, the worst insult you could hurl at another guy was to call him "gay". As a shy, reserved, artistic young man, you can imagine that this invective was directed my way more than once. In fact, I was once nearly run down on a back country road by a car full of my classmates who shouted "Queer LaVere" as they drove their speeding car about a foot from me. I grew to resent not only the implication, but the larger gay community for even existing.

Two things changed this for me. One was the horrific case of Matthew Shepard, a young man who was tortured and murdered in 1998 simply because of his sexual orientation. This disturbing incident made me face my own bigotry, and I realized that this was the ultimate end result of the hatred that I was harboring. My attitude turned around almost overnight. I started seeing homosexuality in a whole new light. Clearly, this was a population that was mistreated for no other reason than pure bigotry and hatred.

The second thing that changed was my interaction with gay people. That might sound odd, but remember my background—I didn't know anyone who was gay, so my entire view of the gay community was based on a caricature. I found that the gay people I knew were really no different from anyone else, good or bad. Despite all the chatter about the "gay lifestyle", I found their morality, behavior, and decency to be no more egregious or better than my other contemporaries.

In short, my experiences overcame my biases.

Flash forward to today, and the "gay marriage" issue is on the front burner. I'll admit that my religious convictions and my personal experiences have often clashed. But a wise preacher once told me, "Religion is about rules. God is about love." God doesn't hate his creation. I've watched good friends reject their church, religion, and God in general because they hear messages of hate coming from pulpits across the world, and think (incorrectly, I believe) that they are not welcome in the fellowship of faith. It disturbs me to see this happening, and I don't find any justification for cherry-picking scripture to target a specific group of people simply because their private behaviour is foreign to some.

Likewise, I firmly believe the time has come for government to get out of the way and allow gay people to marry whomever they choose. In the eyes of the state, marriage is a legal contract. In the eyes of the state, it has nothing to do with morality, nothing to do with "God's holy word" and absolutely nothing to do with social engineering. I'm baffled at the reluctance of "small government" conservatives to understand this and allow this bill to pass.

As for its effect on churches, I would point out that my brother is a minister in a very conservative denomination. He is not allowed by his denomination to preside at a marriage where one of the two is divorced. The state has yet to come in and force him to do so. A state-sanctioned marriage has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with a church-sanctioned marriage. The argument that one affects the other is specious.

My gay friends want the title of "marriage" not only for legal reasons (to protect property rights, inheritances, hospital visitations, power of attorney, protecting end-of-life decisions, etc.), but because in their eyes, their lifetime commitment to another person is an important one, and the ritual and rite (not "right") of marriage MEANS something to them. These are good people. They are not the enemy. They do not want to destroy society. They basically want what the larger straight community wants, and entering into a long-term committed marriage is something they should not be denied. Several states already recognize this, and the last time I checked, the Republic was still standing, there wasn't anarchy in the streets, and life just goes on.

If you're still reading this far, I would ask you to seriously consider just one more thing. New York State is losing population. People are fleeing this state in record numbers due in part to high taxes, an oppressive government that sticks its nose in private concerns more every single day, and often refuses to tackle the big issues in favor of minor ones. Do we really want to push away a young, vibrant population that can make great contributions to the future of this state simply because of whom they choose to love? Seriously?

I doubt my words will change your mind. I fully expect you to vote your conscience, and while I respect that on one level, I'm disheartened by it on another. I would only ask that you give serious consideration to these words and the words of those who speak much more eloquently than I ever could on this subject. If and when the vote comes up, I hope you'll do the right thing and allow my friends the same privilege I've enjoyed for the past two decades.

Thank you for your consideration.

Memo to Corporate Management

Dear Corporate Management:

It has come to my attention that your firm may be experiencing some temporal displacement issues; to wit, you may not be aware that the rest of the world has "moved on" and we are no longer experiencing life in 1954. I realize that this revelation may bring with it some serious cognitive dissonance, therefore I would like to assist you in whatever way possible with forging forward into the brave new world you will encounter when you remove the blinders from your eyes and update your aging calendars.

First, the year is now 2011, and America now has a President of African descent. I mention this at the beginning, because when you see that dark face staring back at you from the White House, it's important that you know you are not looking at the housekeeping staff. This realization may come as a shock to you, but getting the "big news" out of the way first will help you cope with the rest of this memo. You may notice many "dark" faces in your company, and some of them may even work in areas outside the janitorial realm (although none are probably on your management team).

Second, women are now fully-functioning members in all areas of society. As you look around your workplace, you will now see females of all varieties performing tasks on every level. Some of them even have the title "Manager" in your organization (it's true...check the org chart). Instead of asking yourself how they managed to "sneak in", you are encouraged to take advantage of their unique skill sets, and may even want to consider moving them into positions beyond those of marketing and accounting. In many businesses, women now serve as Directors, Vice-Presidents and even CEOs. I realize this may shock your 1950's sensibilities, but rest assured, women are now seen as not only capable, but—brace yourself—competent.

In 2011, it is permitted for corporate management to seek the advice and counsel of those people outside the management team. Further, you are encouraged to foster an environment of camaraderie and collaboration whereby company team members (you probably know them as "employees" or "bodies") actually suggest ideas and help implement them outside of the management structure. This will take some getting used to, but you will find that many of them actually have good ideas based on their years of experience with your company and its operations.

You will find that many of your team members (there's that pesky phrase again!) work in three-sided boxes known as "cubicles". These are a fairly recent corporate development, designed to encourage ownership of one's own "space" while allowing for collaboration with other team members through what is commonly known as "walking around". Rest assured that if your team members are seen exiting their cubicle and engaging in conversation with another team member, it does not necessarily mean that they are not contributing to the bottom line of the corporation.

A few other brief things to remember (these are also known as "bullet items", to use the popular vernacular):

• Women now wear pants. Blouses are also lower-cut than you remember, and staring is highly discouraged.
• Do not refer to female team members as "honey", "baby", "sweetheart", "cookie" or "darling". In most cases, referring to them by their name is preferred.
• Those hard things that look like donuts are called "bagels", and are basically inedible after about 2PM
• "facebook" is not really a book, "The Net" is not really a net, and mail is now delivered instantly through a "computer". You will receive separate guidance on these issues.

I hope this will help you in your transition to this exciting new era.

Sincerely,

William Shatner
Director of Temporal Placement Services

One of my favorite rants

...from author Michael Chrichton:

"You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity.

"Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years.

"Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again.

"It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out.

"Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself.

"In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us."

So rest easy, you arrogant bastards. "Destroy the Planet"? You couldn't do it if you tried.

Good Guy/Bad Guy

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Thoughts on Theology

Why should I bother to repeat what's been written before, and written better than I ever could?

From Robert Short, theologian and author of "The Gospel According to Peanuts" (the entire sermon is here):

I've had the privilege and pleasure of knowing Charles Schulz very closely now for a long time. And I know for a fact that the one type of "Christianity" that Schulz has absolutely no use for is the so-called "Christianity" that's finally based on fear and wrath and judgment and hell and belief in a punishment in some future existence. And on this point at least, I couldn't agree with Schulz more. From a theological point of view this is why his entire life's work is set within the context of humor. "Humor," Schulz says, "is a proof of faith, proof that everything is going to be all right with God, nevertheless those who find no humor in faith are probably those who find the church a refuge for their own black way of looking at life." There is punishment for sin, but sin carries its own punishment with it—right here and now, inside us, right here and now. But for Charles Schulz and for me as well, the very last word that God has for all of us is yes, and not no.

Amen.

(Those of you inclined towards hellfire and brimstone, and a punishing, angry, vengeful God may now commence to call me whatever you will, pity me, or pray for me. I guarantee I'm right and you're wrong...and my guarantee is as good as yours. Frankly, my God is bigger than your limited God who has no choice but condemn people who walked with him their entire lives but stumbled towards the end. Or as the author says, "Anything less would make Christ only a second rate savior of some of the people, and God only a cruel, sadistic God who knowingly creates his own children for their own damnation. So don't be afraid, little flock, and don't forget to laugh.")

"Do religious conservatives share blame in Tiller's death?"

...no.

But those who engage in this sort of behavior should be labeled for what they are: Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists.

They do not represent the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christians, and it's time that the larger faith community separated themselves from these monsters.

What Can You Say?

Every now and then a story comes along that is so sickening, I truly wonder what's happening to the human race.

Witness:

Terrified residents at a Corpus Christi, Texas state school for the mentally disabled were forced to be part of a brutal "fight club" operated by night shift employees, who made videos of the sessions with their cell phones, the newly released videos show.

On the videos employees can be seen and heard laughing and prodding the residents to fight. One resident is seen on the video trying to run away from his attacker and a large group of employees and residents tracking him through the halls. When cornered, he wails and moans and tells the employees, "I will behave."

The videos were discovered by police in March when one of the school employees left his phone at a hospital and it was turned over to police. In an effort to find its owner, officers saw the disturbing videos.

I've said it before and I'll scream it from the rooftops until people listen: The continued dehumanization of people with mental disabilities has to stop NOW. It starts with the end of the use of words like "retard" and "retarded" as pejoratives. This is where it leads, people.

Throughout history, people with mental disabilities have been targets for the worst kind of abuse. The church saw them as demon-possessed or not worthy of approaching God's altar (although the application of science and reason has caused them to re-interpret "God's never-changing word" to soften their stance somewhat)*. Hitler's only written order for human extermination was for the "mentally defective" (although he also signed an order permitting doctors to exercise their discretion to exterminate the terminally ill). And kids today throw around words like "retard" and "retarded" like they mean nothing.

Think it doesn't matter? Think again. Does anyone believe this kind of garbage represents an isolated incident? It doesn't. It's time to change attitudes NOW, people. When you pick on someone with a mental disability, you are attacking a person who would never attack you back. They are the very definition of innocence. If you use those words, if you hold those attitudes,if you stand by and let an entire group of people be denigrated simply because by accident of nature or circumstance they happen to have a lower IQ than you, then you are among the lowest form of life on this planet.

There is no punishment in this world or the next strong enough to provide justice for such heinous acts as the ones performed by the people in the story above. But these attitudes start when you "jokingly" refer to something or someone as "retarded". There is simply no excuse.



* The application of science and reason has forced the church to reinterpret "God's never-changing word", and they've softened their stance somewhat. To be fair, the church has also been blamed for statements and acts that never happened, most notably Martin Luther, who has often been wrongly blamed for the Holocaust, when the blame belongs to Hitler and his willing executioners. Still, anyone who denies that there has been an evolution of church doctrine as it relates to people with disabilities is fooling him/herself. Hence my contention that God's "unchanging" word is anything but.

I Know It's Bad Out There

Yes. It's bad out there. Times are tough.

But it ain't that bad everywhere. I've been saying for a while now that some companies are using the rough economy as an excuse to purge workers. People thought I was nuts.

I'm not. I finally have at least a small measure of vindication:

"If a deepening recession weighs down and threatens businesses, some of those businesses are undoubtedly also making convenient use of the times to do things they might have wanted to do, but were unable to do in better conditions.

"In some cases, under the guise of "recession" pressure, they may be waging a secret war against their own workers, using even the most innocuous transgressions of workplace rules as the trigger for firings -- and so, of course, putting the fear of God into those who remain. In this way, company payrolls are not only being reduced by mass layoffs, but workers are being squeezed for ever greater productivity in return for lower wages, worse hours and fewer benefits. The weapon of choice is the specter of unemployment, a kind of death by a thousand (or a million) cuts.

"Companies stand to gain a lot these days from such small-scale but decisive actions. After all, they reap a double benefit. Not only do they pare down the size of their payroll, often without needing ... to consent to unemployment compensation, but they also contribute to a climate of intensifying fear. Workers who remain on the job are now not only on edge about layoffs or scaled-back hours, but also know that a late return from a bathroom or lunch break might mean being shown the door, becoming another member of the legions of unemployed -- now at 12.5 million and rising fast."

They point out Walmart as a prime example of a company that's doing well, but cutting jobs regardless:

"In fact, the world's largest retailer is one of the few American corporations doing well in dark times. While retail sales slid almost everywhere, the company's same-store sales went up 5.1 percent in February (when compared with February 2008 sales). Yet, in that same month, it announced a move to "realign its corporate structure and reduce costs." It cut 700 to 800 jobs at its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club home offices, in effect acting no differently than any of the companies being battered by the deepening recession."

Fucking bastards.

I guess it was bound to happen. When unemployment hovers around 4%, that really IS the closest thing you can get to full employment. Companies don't have this kind of leverage when the labor pool is limited, and competition for employees is tough. But to lay people off when your sales are up and you're doing well? That's immoral. Sorry, but it's true.

It ain't braggin' if you can do it...but please stop bragging.

Over on another social networking site I frequent, someone is constantly updating the world as to his incredible achievements in the gym. We hear how healthy he feels, how much weight he's losing. It works its way into every. Single. Post.

And in conversation, he's quick to point out how great he feels, how he's as toned as he was when he was in the military, and how he considers this a competitive edge in his business (no, seriously...he's openly speculating how less-than-perfectly-fit people can possibly perform their job as well as he can). Oh, and by the way, he'll say, you should try it!

Give me a break.

I've often said there's nothing worse than a "reformed" person. People that lose weight, quit smoking, find religion, buy a Macintosh*, or become vegetarians are among the most annoying people on earth, because they just won't stop talking about how AWESOME! their particular decision is, and how everyone else is just missing out. For crying out loud, I've watched people get enthusiastic over having performed a colon cleanse.

No one is denying him his happiness. And I'm always happy for people when they improve themselves or their condition in life. Who wouldn't be? There's just something that reeks of utter insecurity when all a person can talk about is how wonderful their personal decisions are, and how YOUR life would only be better if YOU were more like THEM.

Here's the thing. I'm happy for my newly-fit acquaintance. Good for him. But quit sneering from your mountaintop, dude. The higher they are, the longer they have to fall, and I'll take silent joy in watching your inevitable tumble down the hill. That's just the way I roll.

* Guilty as charged. Having said that, the only thing worse than the computer platform wars is watching a Nikon-vs-Canon debate. Those people are insane. Especially the Nikon owners ;-)

Thoughts on the Arts

I posted this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating.

-----

In a recent editorial regarding the recently-passed stimulus package, our local newspaper intoned thusly:

"One version of the bill had about $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts to help cultural institutions. ... Shouldn't that act be about putting back to work the 2.6 million people that the Labor Department says lost their jobs last year? With so many other appropriations in this bill, it's hard to tell.

"For New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians, the $6.5 billion those states are estimated to receive needs to be spent so that people can go back to work or at least keep their jobs."

I don't like to wade into politics here, but I'm going to make an exception. I don't have a problem with discussing the distribution of government (i.e., "our") money and the appropriateness of various types of spending, particularly as it relates to something as large and important as the proposed stimulus package. What I do have a problem with is the perception that spending on "The Arts" is akin to throwing money down a bottomless pit, or that it somehow only benefits the elite .

An Op-Ed piece in the Indianapolis Star spewed this nonsense: "True to form, Congress has loaded the [bill] with hundreds of billions in wasteful spending. The bill includes ... $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. None of these proposals would create jobs or boost our economy. They're just old-fashioned waste"

Predictably, the National Review chimed in as well: "The National Endowment for the Arts, for example, is in line for $50 million, increasing its total budget by a third. The unemployed can fill their days attending abstract-film festivals and sitar concerts."

I own and operate a small business that makes a substantial portion of my income from this very kind of so-called "wasteful spending". I've produced a DVD and taken photographs that were part of a museum exhibit, I've videotaped interviews that document important parts of our county's history, and I've been hired by government agencies and artists alike to document other arts-related projects from parades to poetry readings.

The Arts are an important part of a vibrant community. My town just spent $17 million on a substantial renovation to a historic Center for the Performing Arts. That money went to contractors, painters, artists, and resulted in a premier theater, one of the finest of its kind in the region or, for that matter, the state. I'm there regularly to videotape performances and shows...all of which pump much-needed money into the local economy.

It's not about "the unemployed attending sitar concerts". That kind of derisive attitude reflects the worst kind of class warfare and arrogance. A culture is largely defined by its ties to its artist community. From cave paintings to Roman Grafitti to Shakespeare's Globe Theater to modern-day Broadway, the arts are an important and integral part of any thriving community.

Again, we can and should have a debate about where we spend precious taxpayer dollars. But let there be no doubt about it: Spending on the arts is not wasted spending. I can honestly say that my business would not exist if it weren't for continued interest in the arts, and I'm grateful that some at least recognize its importance in the larger economy.