![Function [F(x)]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DWbW3mDlzWc/SXVI30gmC2I/AAAAAAAAADo/rl-_jtqmMjs/S1600-R/BANNER+V2.JPG)
"All great ideas are dangerous."
-Oscar Wilde
3.31.2009
3.27.2009
Parking
'Only an asshole would park like this.'
That is a bumper sticker attached to my friend's refrigerator. I like to think it's waiting to be met with that special car out there--somewhere. Maybe you've seen it. Jutting awkwardly into the lane at your local co-op. Occupying two spaces like a corpulent airline passenger. Several feet over the line into the spot in front of it. Oh, if only people had to pay for the entire area they consume.
In the order of shameful parking practices none is more heinous than the infamous 'sports car parked diagonally across several spaces so as to prevent anyone else parking near it'. Cousin to the over-sized sport utility vehicle to whom the lines are invisible, they both favor personal satisfaction over social responsibility. The flasher exhibits selfishness and the tank exhibits laziness. It must be terribly embarrassing to drive a car you can't park.
My favorites are the more subtle botch jobs. The ones where they barely made it somewhat into the space. "Close enough." I used to think people who can't park between the stripes were the same who couldn't color inside the lines as children. Now I think they're people who are still children in that they live life completely oblivious to the world around them.
What I'm saying is I see a direct relationship between social capital and the quality of public parking in a society. This is important, so we will define it:
social capital : An economic idea that refers to the connections between individuals and entities that can be economically valuable. Social networks that include people who trust and assist each other can be a powerful asset. These relationships between individuals and firms can lead to a state in which each will think of the other when something needs to be done.
Or as I think of it: the social health of a society. Do people trust each other? Are relationships between citizens and government mutually beneficial? Furthermore, how interactive are communities? Do people pledge their support? You know, it's viewers like you...
Of course, with any intuitive idea, social capital--or more specifically the need for it to be good--makes perfect sense. Of course a healthy person is a better person, so would a healthy society be a more productive one. When you're not sick you get a lot of work done.
It also makes sense that the less people care in general the less they care about their parking job. What goes through the mind of a person walking away from poor parking?:
1.) Nothing (unfortunately).
2.) "I'll just- be right back."
"There's plenty of other parking."
"It's not so bad."
"I don't have time."
"Screw these guys."
It's a sprawled society that produces this sort of citizen. Suddenly everything that is important-- what you value--is not in your neighborhood any more. Your resources are flung across the globe and your families are spread across continents. You are the law of diminishing returns. The more disconnected every individual is, the less they care. My money and my daughter go to New York.
It's harder for a human to care if it can't see the impact of its actions. Not feeling confident in one's community certainly compounds the matter. To the detriment of social capital we have public trust scandals, disdain of government, xenophobia and less civic engagement. To bolster we have volunteer organizations, block parties/barbecues, religion when it behaves and the parks department. Among other things.
We are social beings and organize ourselves as such, even if in a perverted manner. In such a product-oriented world the ends are the only concern. Cheap produce. The Dollar Value menu. Outsourced technical support hotlines. We offer these services as a value to our customers.
Forgotten is the notion that the means are what produce good social capital. How we get our food or support or services. Playing a relay race across the country with invoices as the baton and the grocery shelf as the finish line disconnects everyone involved. This is a far cry from two small businesses down the street coordinating an effort to offer more comprehensive services to their customers and unify everyone involved. One size does not fit all, just as one chain does not meet well with every community. The future is customization.
Remember the old phrase, "Getting there is half the fun." Hold it close to your heart. It's through the daily interaction of neighbors and regulars that a wealth of social capital is built. It's knowing who lives next to you. It's contributing to the local economy. It's stopping to give someone your spare tube. It's empathy in practice. It's good parking.
In the order of shameful parking practices none is more heinous than the infamous 'sports car parked diagonally across several spaces so as to prevent anyone else parking near it'. Cousin to the over-sized sport utility vehicle to whom the lines are invisible, they both favor personal satisfaction over social responsibility. The flasher exhibits selfishness and the tank exhibits laziness. It must be terribly embarrassing to drive a car you can't park.
My favorites are the more subtle botch jobs. The ones where they barely made it somewhat into the space. "Close enough." I used to think people who can't park between the stripes were the same who couldn't color inside the lines as children. Now I think they're people who are still children in that they live life completely oblivious to the world around them.
What I'm saying is I see a direct relationship between social capital and the quality of public parking in a society. This is important, so we will define it:
social capital : An economic idea that refers to the connections between individuals and entities that can be economically valuable. Social networks that include people who trust and assist each other can be a powerful asset. These relationships between individuals and firms can lead to a state in which each will think of the other when something needs to be done.
Or as I think of it: the social health of a society. Do people trust each other? Are relationships between citizens and government mutually beneficial? Furthermore, how interactive are communities? Do people pledge their support? You know, it's viewers like you...
Of course, with any intuitive idea, social capital--or more specifically the need for it to be good--makes perfect sense. Of course a healthy person is a better person, so would a healthy society be a more productive one. When you're not sick you get a lot of work done.
It also makes sense that the less people care in general the less they care about their parking job. What goes through the mind of a person walking away from poor parking?:
1.) Nothing (unfortunately).
2.) "I'll just- be right back."
"There's plenty of other parking."
"It's not so bad."
"I don't have time."
"Screw these guys."
It's a sprawled society that produces this sort of citizen. Suddenly everything that is important-- what you value--is not in your neighborhood any more. Your resources are flung across the globe and your families are spread across continents. You are the law of diminishing returns. The more disconnected every individual is, the less they care. My money and my daughter go to New York.
It's harder for a human to care if it can't see the impact of its actions. Not feeling confident in one's community certainly compounds the matter. To the detriment of social capital we have public trust scandals, disdain of government, xenophobia and less civic engagement. To bolster we have volunteer organizations, block parties/barbecues, religion when it behaves and the parks department. Among other things.
We are social beings and organize ourselves as such, even if in a perverted manner. In such a product-oriented world the ends are the only concern. Cheap produce. The Dollar Value menu. Outsourced technical support hotlines. We offer these services as a value to our customers.
Forgotten is the notion that the means are what produce good social capital. How we get our food or support or services. Playing a relay race across the country with invoices as the baton and the grocery shelf as the finish line disconnects everyone involved. This is a far cry from two small businesses down the street coordinating an effort to offer more comprehensive services to their customers and unify everyone involved. One size does not fit all, just as one chain does not meet well with every community. The future is customization.
Remember the old phrase, "Getting there is half the fun." Hold it close to your heart. It's through the daily interaction of neighbors and regulars that a wealth of social capital is built. It's knowing who lives next to you. It's contributing to the local economy. It's stopping to give someone your spare tube. It's empathy in practice. It's good parking.
3.18.2009
Consequence
I want to begin with the preface that the post you are about to read concerns volatile topics in our world. I have taken great care in approaching these issues and expressing myself objectively where possible. While this certainly won't prevent any reader from feeling strongly about the material I humbly beseech you to read and evaluate my thoughts--and your own--carefully.
The aim of this blog is to discuss matters in ways that are not commonly discussed; the goal is to stimulate thought in both the writer and the visitor. As always, comments--even anonymous--are open and encouraged. You may have concluded by now that in these discussions there are few rules outside of responsible conduct.
Penn (and Teller) made a great, thoughtful statement on their television show several years ago1. The topic was PETA--People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--and the point was made regarding how strange it is to include the word 'ethical' in your organization's name.
"Ethical means moral or proper which differs for every person, it's something to discuss. It's not an absolute, it just sounds nice. It's like pro-choice and pro-life, I mean come on! Everyone is pro choice and pro life. It's for or against abortion that your group is about."
If I tell you [my socio-political views] I still haven't told you anything about me. I support the concepts of death as consequence and zygote termination but I do not support all their contemporary manifestations. It's very difficult but necessary when considering these ideas to separate what we know them as in practice and what the bare abstractions are. An in-depth discussion of the topics is certainly scandalous for just about any audience. Suffice it to say I prefer sound logic over conflicting reason.
Conservatives and liberals--in a general sense--both have it "wrong" in this regard; they are inverses of the other. One argues you can end a life that is not manifest, the other states you can end a life that has bore bad fruit. Both attitudes end human life and both are adopted by people across the entire social spectrum. You can't logically support the death penalty and stand against abortion, or vice versa. The point is, if someone tells you they are a democrat or a republican you still don't know anything about them. You'll need to have a conversation.
The thing about the "death penalty" is that some of its critics view the application as a mode of cruelty*. Other people--especially those personally affected by the condemned--take satisfaction in the decision as vengeance in response to a perpetrator's actions. There are more ways to look at it.
The consequence of death is usually applied as a result of being convicted of murder!. Given that we all have the same opportunity to make decisions in our lives, this leaves no measure to excuse such an act. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Consequentialism is a reality and we are judged on the results of what we do. People don't refrain from speeding because it puts them and others in danger, they do so because they can't get another ticket. Their insurance would go up.
The threat of capital punishment is there to discourage people. It establishes consequences for killing someone. Every living being possesses the natural impulse to protect itself, this is what gives these punishments power and value. You want to "get away" with killing someone because you don't want to imperil your own life. Some states that do not exercise capital punishment offer a permanent prison sentence. Either way it is the loss of control over one's life that a person fears losing.
Many times suspects on trial for murder plead guilty to achieve a "life" sentence in place of more immediate death. People tend to be aware of potential consequences before they act, even if in a passive manner, and usually prefer to stay alive even if that means a loss of liberty. We all fear death because we do not know it and I hope to never see it robbed of that mystery.
An unfortunate reality is the disconnect between the death penalty and life sentences. Not all life sentences are terminal. Parole is often granted. I think this is part of the reason people try for this fate; they know if they wait long enough the chances become greater and greater that their liberty will be returned. If there were consistency in maintaining the consequences there would be no need for capital punishment. People are relieved of these sentences for two reasons: rehabilitation and money.
Rehabilitation is offered to public opinion as a replacement for continued imprisonment. In fact,
The aim of this blog is to discuss matters in ways that are not commonly discussed; the goal is to stimulate thought in both the writer and the visitor. As always, comments--even anonymous--are open and encouraged. You may have concluded by now that in these discussions there are few rules outside of responsible conduct.
Penn (and Teller) made a great, thoughtful statement on their television show several years ago1. The topic was PETA--People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--and the point was made regarding how strange it is to include the word 'ethical' in your organization's name.
-Penn Jillette
Conservatives and liberals--in a general sense--both have it "wrong" in this regard; they are inverses of the other. One argues you can end a life that is not manifest, the other states you can end a life that has bore bad fruit. Both attitudes end human life and both are adopted by people across the entire social spectrum. You can't logically support the death penalty and stand against abortion, or vice versa. The point is, if someone tells you they are a democrat or a republican you still don't know anything about them. You'll need to have a conversation.
The thing about the "death penalty" is that some of its critics view the application as a mode of cruelty*. Other people--especially those personally affected by the condemned--take satisfaction in the decision as vengeance in response to a perpetrator's actions. There are more ways to look at it.
The consequence of death is usually applied as a result of being convicted of murder!. Given that we all have the same opportunity to make decisions in our lives, this leaves no measure to excuse such an act. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Consequentialism is a reality and we are judged on the results of what we do. People don't refrain from speeding because it puts them and others in danger, they do so because they can't get another ticket. Their insurance would go up.
The threat of capital punishment is there to discourage people. It establishes consequences for killing someone. Every living being possesses the natural impulse to protect itself, this is what gives these punishments power and value. You want to "get away" with killing someone because you don't want to imperil your own life. Some states that do not exercise capital punishment offer a permanent prison sentence. Either way it is the loss of control over one's life that a person fears losing.
Many times suspects on trial for murder plead guilty to achieve a "life" sentence in place of more immediate death. People tend to be aware of potential consequences before they act, even if in a passive manner, and usually prefer to stay alive even if that means a loss of liberty. We all fear death because we do not know it and I hope to never see it robbed of that mystery.
An unfortunate reality is the disconnect between the death penalty and life sentences. Not all life sentences are terminal. Parole is often granted. I think this is part of the reason people try for this fate; they know if they wait long enough the chances become greater and greater that their liberty will be returned. If there were consistency in maintaining the consequences there would be no need for capital punishment. People are relieved of these sentences for two reasons: rehabilitation and money.
Rehabilitation is offered to public opinion as a replacement for continued imprisonment. In fact,
death=life in prison=rehabilitation
in that they all offer a remedy to the problem. All are equal in that they pledge to have stopped the trespass from happening again. The public is concerned with repeat offenses. You go to prison because you killed someone, we kill you because we think the danger is great that you will do it again, or you get out because you promise you won't. I think a certain measure of this dynamic is predicated on religious teachings of forgiveness. The rest:What is the answer to 99 out of 100 questions?
Money.
By now many have heard that we are seeing a reduction in the number of states and cases applying capital punishment. For all the emotion and discussion that has gone into the debate, it has come down to the simple fact that it costs more to kill someone than it does to keep them alive in prison until natural causes claim them. Some states can't even afford to house violent offenders for their full sentence. We are approaching the point where even our lackluster remedies no longer achieve a proper purpose.
I am saddened to realize that such legislation does achieve an implied purpose. It satisfies public concern. People feel safer "knowing" that if they are killed by a man, the state will kill him back. Other people focusing on different aspects of this topic have illustrated that a death penalty provision does not decrease the instance of murder. We have a general problem with no general solution. What is the difference between killing someone and killing a person who has committed murder? I have worked on this post for ten days and no matter how I approach things I keep returning to the same aggravating issue: [The Sprawl]
Money.
By now many have heard that we are seeing a reduction in the number of states and cases applying capital punishment. For all the emotion and discussion that has gone into the debate, it has come down to the simple fact that it costs more to kill someone than it does to keep them alive in prison until natural causes claim them. Some states can't even afford to house violent offenders for their full sentence. We are approaching the point where even our lackluster remedies no longer achieve a proper purpose.
I am saddened to realize that such legislation does achieve an implied purpose. It satisfies public concern. People feel safer "knowing" that if they are killed by a man, the state will kill him back. Other people focusing on different aspects of this topic have illustrated that a death penalty provision does not decrease the instance of murder. We have a general problem with no general solution. What is the difference between killing someone and killing a person who has committed murder? I have worked on this post for ten days and no matter how I approach things I keep returning to the same aggravating issue: [The Sprawl]
* I want to acknowledge that there are several attitudes of criticism against the death penalty. One of the most prominent and rational in my opinion is the regard that, in practice, it is illegitimate use of force. There are factual accounts of people who have suffered capital punishment only to have evidence exonerate them after the fact. This is horribly tragic and an indelible mar on the face of "justice" as most know it. It is for this reason that I do not support the "death penalty." However, many of those who do protest its continued application often misspeak and adopt incendiary platforms by saying "the death penalty is racist" when it is in fact people who are racist. They are foolish and would do better to address the real problem instead of its vestige.
! murder -n 1: Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0exLa6saV9o ← 1:54 into this video
3.13.2009
Supper
"Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative."
-Kurt Vonnegut
-Kurt Vonnegut
3.09.2009
Education
A society could be judged on the merit of its average individual.
Primary and secondary school administer lessons on a few basic subjects to varying degrees: language comprehension, mathematics, science and social studies (I'm tossing history, geography and government in 'social studies'). It is also common for foreign language and art to be offered but we will consider these extraneous for now. By the time students graduate high school they should be generally equipped to operate as capable members of their society. They have some sense of national identity and in the course of their jobs can communicate with other people, execute basic arithmetic and understand their position training and implications.
The idea is that K through 12 yields productive citizens. In reality, college is a luxury for the elite. All the knowledge you need to live a productive life in the United States is gained by the time you leave high school. The government claims an inherent stake in the education of its people. Every state by law requires children to attend school until they are at least 161, some until 17 or 18. Given that government is the people and people are the government it's in the best interest of both to maintain a knowledge standard.
Public education is funded by the government which, like a business, does things in a manner that it can benefit from. Before you jump to conclusions, let me reiterate that--ideally--the best interest of the people is in the best interest of the government. Better people make a better nation. It would make no sense to argue against that. So government facilitates the aggregation of resources for schools and requires that citizens learn certain basic skills so they can contribute.
Again, the quality of our society could be judged by evaluating the worth of an average member; id est, what we're taught in grade school. Suddenly things like benchmarks and standardized tests come to mind. Graduation rate. TAAS and TAKS. Grade point average. Legislation sets forth standards for academic achievement to establish the level of merit that every citizen should obtain. Given contemporary attitudes toward education, I'm left with a few questions:
1: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112617.html
mer•it -n: 1. claim to respect and praise; excellence; worth
We've acknowledged the commonalities of people in general. Assuming good health all can perform some degree of manual labor at their base level. Every individual can lift and carry an object from point A to point B or dig a hole from here to there. In a simple agricultural society there is little else that need be carried out to sustain human life. Ours, of course, requires much more to continue functioning.Primary and secondary school administer lessons on a few basic subjects to varying degrees: language comprehension, mathematics, science and social studies (I'm tossing history, geography and government in 'social studies'). It is also common for foreign language and art to be offered but we will consider these extraneous for now. By the time students graduate high school they should be generally equipped to operate as capable members of their society. They have some sense of national identity and in the course of their jobs can communicate with other people, execute basic arithmetic and understand their position training and implications.
The idea is that K through 12 yields productive citizens. In reality, college is a luxury for the elite. All the knowledge you need to live a productive life in the United States is gained by the time you leave high school. The government claims an inherent stake in the education of its people. Every state by law requires children to attend school until they are at least 161, some until 17 or 18. Given that government is the people and people are the government it's in the best interest of both to maintain a knowledge standard.
Public education is funded by the government which, like a business, does things in a manner that it can benefit from. Before you jump to conclusions, let me reiterate that--ideally--the best interest of the people is in the best interest of the government. Better people make a better nation. It would make no sense to argue against that. So government facilitates the aggregation of resources for schools and requires that citizens learn certain basic skills so they can contribute.
Again, the quality of our society could be judged by evaluating the worth of an average member; id est, what we're taught in grade school. Suddenly things like benchmarks and standardized tests come to mind. Graduation rate. TAAS and TAKS. Grade point average. Legislation sets forth standards for academic achievement to establish the level of merit that every citizen should obtain. Given contemporary attitudes toward education, I'm left with a few questions:
•Why would any government want to reduce funding for public education?
•How could that possibly benefit those involved?
•When was education, if ever, more of a priority than it is now?
•Who would want to be a teacher, knowing the likely fate that awaits them?
•What would be the result of raising standards for achievement?
•Where does public money go if not to education?
It vexes me terribly when congress--state or national--goes looking for ways to reduce spending and quickly starts crossing "Funding for public education" off the list. That DOES NOT COMPUTE. What could they possibly be thinking? "Man, times are tough and we need more money available. Oh, here, let's hamstring our public schools and hope they still work it out." What if they don't? Can they not appreciate the notion that children are our future? Who would comfortably leave the fate of human capital and national resilience to chance? These are the days when people are taking a second look at past policies and evaluating their effectiveness to date. Wherever your political allegiances lie, the general consensus is "something's gotta change."•How could that possibly benefit those involved?
•When was education, if ever, more of a priority than it is now?
•Who would want to be a teacher, knowing the likely fate that awaits them?
•What would be the result of raising standards for achievement?
•Where does public money go if not to education?
It's also widely known that teachers are paid very poorly on top of coping with un-parented children and heaps of bureacratic nonsense. I wouldn't want to work at a single school district that I've ever attended. It's this reality that makes the great teachers superb and the poor ones at least understandable. The quality of education follows the quality of our instructors. Their fate also is tied to funding which I understand exhibits a directly proportional relationship:
Less money → less [from] teachers = worse children → worse nation
More money → more [from] teachers = better children → better nation
More money → more [from] teachers = better children → better nation
I cast my vote for the latter.
1: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112617.html
3.07.2009
The Paradigm
Think about it. "I am an American" generally says I live somewhere in the western hemisphere not Greenland, Iceland or Africa. South Americans take some grievance with our claiming and parading of the title. After the '90s it seems our social impulse is to re-define everything.
I wouldn't brag about being a U.S. citizen for the same reason I disassociated myself from Christianity when I was a young teenager: people have given it a bad name. My beloved home state of Texas has suffered a similar fate. Many people in the U.S. look poorly on natives of the Lone Star just as many people in the world look poorly on citizens of the red white and blue. Despite these social realities I maintain my heritage with a decided sense of pride and steadfast purpose.
I believe in liberty for ALL; I believe in [following your bliss/pursuing your happiness/achieving virtue/the path to Nirvana]; I believe in treating your fellows as you would have them treat you; I believe one should not trespass against their neighbor; I believe in taking care of your own; I believe in truth and optimism.
For what I lack in conventional "belief" I maintain in unconventional faith yet this world might term me a heathen. Or it might question my motivations for right action as an irreligious person. Do I need piety to live the life of a good man? Must I embody "redneck" to be a Texas patriot? I could have been raised in many different countries under the ideals of numerous creeds and still taken the same aforementioned lessons to heart.
The most important factor has been that while growing up I took care to think about what people would have me learn. Bear in mind I was raised in central Texas very near folk who would use the phrase "nigger rig" to describe a makeshift application. It is in deliberative thought that one makes the distinction between nonsense and wisdom. Children grow up in the middle east taught to hate another ethnicity on principle alone. The Nationalsozialistische political party took German pride and turned it into a tool for abomination. People in Africa are being shot in the head right now because they are the wrong shade of dark skin. The most sinister histories are written when people are thinking the least.
In light of my observations I am eager to present myself as a Texan. I'm eager to be the example that might challenge someone's preconceptions of what such a person might be. I love the land, I love the strong spirit of the people. My mood sours when I hear some of them move to prevent the happiness of others while citing their religion of love and forgiveness. Just as I love the country of the United States and the opportunity it extends to those upon its shores, my tone darkens when I see people try to deny others "the right" while touting liberty and justice for all. I remind myself that both examples are from the same people who championed buffet religion--and all its insincerity.
The truth is I'm proud to be a Texan. My kind of Texan. The spirit of fortitude with the will to think. The courage to act without the burden of a status quo mindset. Southern hospitality. Manners. All the good things that are not lost. People like me could redeem the image of this nation-turned-state. Raise the standard for what is acceptable conduct. The best part is the lost ones won't see us coming. We say "yess'um" and "thank'y sir." We can talk with a genuine accent. We look exactly the same. And damn it, come hell or high water, we will be upon you.
I wouldn't brag about being a U.S. citizen for the same reason I disassociated myself from Christianity when I was a young teenager: people have given it a bad name. My beloved home state of Texas has suffered a similar fate. Many people in the U.S. look poorly on natives of the Lone Star just as many people in the world look poorly on citizens of the red white and blue. Despite these social realities I maintain my heritage with a decided sense of pride and steadfast purpose.
I believe in liberty for ALL; I believe in [following your bliss/pursuing your happiness/achieving virtue/the path to Nirvana]; I believe in treating your fellows as you would have them treat you; I believe one should not trespass against their neighbor; I believe in taking care of your own; I believe in truth and optimism.
For what I lack in conventional "belief" I maintain in unconventional faith yet this world might term me a heathen. Or it might question my motivations for right action as an irreligious person. Do I need piety to live the life of a good man? Must I embody "redneck" to be a Texas patriot? I could have been raised in many different countries under the ideals of numerous creeds and still taken the same aforementioned lessons to heart.
The most important factor has been that while growing up I took care to think about what people would have me learn. Bear in mind I was raised in central Texas very near folk who would use the phrase "nigger rig" to describe a makeshift application. It is in deliberative thought that one makes the distinction between nonsense and wisdom. Children grow up in the middle east taught to hate another ethnicity on principle alone. The Nationalsozialistische political party took German pride and turned it into a tool for abomination. People in Africa are being shot in the head right now because they are the wrong shade of dark skin. The most sinister histories are written when people are thinking the least.
In light of my observations I am eager to present myself as a Texan. I'm eager to be the example that might challenge someone's preconceptions of what such a person might be. I love the land, I love the strong spirit of the people. My mood sours when I hear some of them move to prevent the happiness of others while citing their religion of love and forgiveness. Just as I love the country of the United States and the opportunity it extends to those upon its shores, my tone darkens when I see people try to deny others "the right" while touting liberty and justice for all. I remind myself that both examples are from the same people who championed buffet religion--and all its insincerity.
The truth is I'm proud to be a Texan. My kind of Texan. The spirit of fortitude with the will to think. The courage to act without the burden of a status quo mindset. Southern hospitality. Manners. All the good things that are not lost. People like me could redeem the image of this nation-turned-state. Raise the standard for what is acceptable conduct. The best part is the lost ones won't see us coming. We say "yess'um" and "thank'y sir." We can talk with a genuine accent. We look exactly the same. And damn it, come hell or high water, we will be upon you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
