Posts tagged ‘me’

In Pennsylvania, teachers are required to get their master’s degrees in five years or they get fired.  So, when the time came (almost immediately after I got my first teaching job), I had a choice.  Many teachers go for an education degree.  That didn’t appeal to me.  I was already an educator.  Locally, there were no master’s programs in English left (the University of Scranton got rid of theirs).  I luckily came across an MA in Creative Writing at Wilkes University.  I enrolled, and my life took a wonderful turn for the better.

An MA and MFA in Creative Writing later, I’ve made friendships and connections all over the country with writers and aspiring writers.  Many of the people I got close to were screenwriters and though my focus was both fiction and playwriting, I had and have an intense interest in screenplays and their composition.

A group of friends and I have all collaborated on a television series called Magnolia.  This is based on the life experiences of writer/collaborator/friend Bill Howe.  Also in the mix are James McCabe, a Wilkes-Barrian producer and Joe Bomba, who wrote an awesome and hilarious film about an inept wanna-be serial killer.

Bill was a quarterback for the Chargers very briefly, having gotten injured before the season started.  He played well in college and happened to have been an ambidextrous quarterback.  Bill is white and went briefly to Mississippi Valley State University, a historically black college.  This is the well from which we draw the series.

I won’t belabor this anymore and will let the first two videos we put out speak for themselves.  The first is introductory, the second contains scenes we recently shot (there is a vulgarity, be careful).

As per the tagline of this website, Progressive, Liberal, and Partisan in NEPA, I’ve naturally demonstrated a predilection for disgust and ridicule leveled at the Republican Party.  Over the past few months, though, I’ve observed something I suspect may have always been present in American voters: a total disgust with both sides of the aisle.

This is but one of many realizations that have led me to reconsider my partisanship.

In Britain, for example, the Conservative Party formed a coalition government with the Liberals leaving out the Labor Party (considered center-left).  I could never see that happening in America, but it’s inspiring to see nonetheless.

Setting aside Obama the President, Obama the Campaigner routinely spoke about hope, change, and unity, which, though they are abstract, hard-to-define terms, resonate with people and are positives voters can latch onto.  As a result of his rhetoric, he won handily.

A libertarian friend of mine and I share a mutual distrust of government and corporations.  It turns out liberals and libertarians (who often vote or identify as conservatives) share quite a few ideological viewpoints.

Partisanship, for me, has always been a statement.  I’ve been a proud Democrat since the day I registered: we passed the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and on and on.  That’s worthy of pride.  In addition, ever since I was young, and I imagine it’s the product of being half Mediterranean (Italian and Lebanese), I’ve always believed that passion and forthrightness in any situation is necessary.  Standing idly by and remaining quiet are not an option, as readers of this site, I’m sure, have guessed.  If people don’t ask questions, they won’t get answers.  If people don’t speak up, they won’t be heard.

I like to think of myself as an unapologetic liberal and I probably always will.  Where I have begun to, let’s say, evolve, is that I’m starting to think that being unapologetically liberal doesn’t mean I have to be unabashedly anti-conservative.  Believe it or not, this is an important revelation for me.

Take my lack of trust in corporations and their influence over government, for example.  This influence leads me to distrust government, as well.  Most voters, regardless of political persuasion, do not enjoy the level of influence that businesses and the wealthy have over government.  The solution I often hear from conservatives is, “Less government!” and my typical reaction is to say, “Then renounce your Social Security benefits.”  But I realize that many believe less government will mean less corruption, less horror visited upon our lives.  I mean, what chance to we have when the government decides to do much of anything that benefits business over the individual?  Not much.

Last night, I couldn’t sleep and picked up a book of George Orwell essays that’s been sitting on my night stand for some time.  I always find it fascinating that both liberals and conservatives throw accusations of “Orwellian” at their ideological opposites.  We see the worst people can be in each other, but both groups use the same terminology.  How is that even possible?  It got me thinking.

So, I read Politics and the English Language, the ideas of which appear in 1984 in the form of Newspeak.

The essay opens thus:

“Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it.”

As an English teacher, I can agree with this statement on many levels, but this opening is actually a set-up to discuss political discourse.  Orwell points out that politicians in particular speak in general terms that tend to be very ambiguous, abstract, and hard to define, since people will then supply their own definitions and see the politicians as they see themselves, rather than uniquely or as individuals.  Take for example phrases like patriot, freedom, justice, and fascism.  As Orwell states, “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”  How often does political rhetoric devolve into generic name calling?  As for patriot, how does one define that?  Patriotism differs for everybody.  So does freedom.  So does justice.  So if a politician employs these terms, we can all say patriotism, freedom, and justice are good, while fascism is bad, sure, but what has actually been said?  In effect, nothing.

This abuse of political terminology is easy, because it avoids being, in effect, substansive.  Expediency is important for politicians, as the more forthright and descriptive they tend to be, the less accessible to the masses they become.  We can all connect to words like “patriot” but when we get into the minutia of a policy discussion in a speech, all of a sudden, the politician is elitist or out of touch or the latest I’ve heard, not emotive enough.  Each of these words and phrases serve as yet another example of words without substantive meaning it today’s political discourse.

I’m not immune to this.  Words like progressive and liberal are just as superfluous as any.  Progressive is a word that sounds great, who doesn’t want to be progressive?  But what it means, even to self-identified “progressives” is illusory.

All of these considerations have led me to a conclusion I’d reached some time ago, but for different reasons: that politics is the realm of superficiality.

As I said, abstract rhetoric and catch-phrases are endearing.  The success of Sarah Palin with gotcha journalism, drill, baby, drill, and her use of freedom and phrases like true patriot (as opposed to a false patriot?) or real Americans (as opposed to fake Americans?) are all amorphous enough that anybody who feels ostracized by government (which most of us do) can get on board with.  Real American?  I’m one of those!

That’s not to say Sarah Palin’s popularity is universal, it’s more to say that, where it exists, it’s understandable.

On the opposite end, Obama’s rhetoric is very, very generic, but the terminology, as opposed to Palin’s or the GOP’s, tends to be framed positively.  Instead of attacking institutions, Obama talks of bringing everybody together.  While disgruntled voters may respond well to attacking, negativity tends not to resonate with most people.

The partisan responses to political figures of various ideological stripes is addressed by Orwell, “Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style.  The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestos… and the speeches of under-secretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, home-made turn of speech.” That is, they are generic.  Orwell continues, “[a politician] may almost be unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church.  And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensible, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.”

Another on my list of recent realizations came when I got into a debate on a Tea Partier’s Facebook Page about the length of a bill.  Commenters were upset about the length of the upcoming Banking Bill, which stands at roughly 2,000 pages.  My response, sarcastically, was to ask how many pages would be acceptable.  Many like to point out the brevity of the Constitution, in contrast.  I realized quickly, though, that criticism of the length isn’t really about the length at all and that my response was unfair.  The criticism is rooted in a distrust of government and thereby the contents of the bill itself.  Inevitably, corporate and special interests will have gotten their little tidbits in the bill, which makes it worth of suspicion.  That’s something I can get behind.  That’s something everybody can get behind.

I have my idea of a solution, but that digression is unnecessary at this point.  The ultimate point is that my partisanship, and any partisanship, is unhelpful.  We draw battle-lines and remain mutually suspicious of people because we group them generically by ideology.  This isn’t me saying that both liberals and conservatives have great ideas that we all need to listen to – that would be similar generic political rhetoric.  Instead, what I’m saying is that the generic definitions in and of themselves are unhelpful.

What is a Democrat?  A Liberal?  A Republican?  A Conservative?

We are all individuals, ultimately, who, on our own, defy labels by the very fact that we are individuals.  As such, my realization about partisanship is that, for me, it will be more important in the future to focus on root cause for disagreement, rather than generic assumption.

It seems to me now, in retrospect, that this should be a given and maybe, cognitively, it is.  But it isn’t a practice because, as Orwell points out, it’s far too easy to slip into the vocabulary of broadness and presumptive labels.

I’ve been going back and forth with Steve Albert over at Not Cease From Exploration regarding the issue of State Stores.

Scroll down to see the original post.  As for this post, Steve’s comments are in Bold, mine are Italicized.

Service: Since I don’t drink, I don’t go into State Stores very often, but the once or twice a year when I do I don’t find the service to be anywhere near great. In fact, it’s no better than some of the worst private sector stores. The last time I was at a State Store I -

a) Couldn’t find the wine I was looking for (a brand I found before at that store)
b) Couldn’t find someone to help me find the wine
c) Stood waiting at the checkout until a clerk finally decided to come out from the back to help me.

While I can’t speak to a single experience, I’ve never had a problem like this.  I can also say that the big state stores employ wine experts and I’ve talked to these people and had great success.  I can guarantee the number of “wine experts” in a privatized world will decline immensely.

Profit: The stores do generate a profit. That aside, why run a business that sells a product if it isn’t to make a profit? Since the State is abysmal at managing most things, how do we know that the profit being generated really represents the potential of the business? What’s more, since the State Stores run as a monopoly, what’s to stop them from over-pricing their goods?

The state stores aren’t running to make a profit, they are running to provide a service.  They provide that service at a profit, thankfully.  They aren’t there to exploit consumers for the benefit of select individuals.  Any benefit belongs to the state, aka the people.  And if we are going to compare state government to the business world, need I remind you that business has handled its responsibility to the global economy pretty abysmally?  They have a worse track record and more ability to screw up and/or take advantage than government.  At least there are checks and balances in the latter (businesses can skirt regulation and regulators through lobbying or blatant scams like credit default swaps, for example).  There is nothing to stop them from overpricing, except that they don’t exist to make money.  They routinely negotiate with winesellers, for example, to buy in bulk for the entire state, thereby reducing prices.

Big People/Big Money: By my estimation, the state absolutely represents big money. The state has readily available capital, can borrow at very good rates and has the ability to exclude competitors from the market. That’s the kind of stuff that is rightfully called into question when it’s done by the private sector. Why give the State a pass?

A pass on being able to run the state stores successfully?  I don’t like giving anybody a pass, but the state being able to use its resources to run the state stores doesn’t seem like a problem to me.

Shutting Out The Little Guy: Wait, since the State dictates that only the State can sell booze, isn’t the State the one who is shutting out the little guy? What about all those small convenience stores that now sell beer…many aren’t run by big money interests. Why should they be allowed to sell beer but not wine or spirits?

Point taken, the state is shutting out competitors.  I argue, though, that it’s for the better.  That said, if the state stores get sold, you’ll see them sold in bulk to chains.  Big business would have more resources, and interest, to purchase a huge, newly available market, will they not?  Most definitely, compared to those little convenience stores.

Who Owns The Stores: The people own the stores? When was the last time that you were given the opportunity to vote on the leadership of the State Stores? When was the last time you were asked to approve the auditors for the State Stores? I just voted for board members for my employer, where I own some stock. How come I don’t have a similar opportunity for the State Stores? Want to know who actually owns the State Stores? It’s not the taxpayers, it’s the bureaucrats in state government who do…individuals who are accountable to no one. Hell, be honest…do you even know who the head State Store person is in Pennsylvania? In the absence of Googling it, I have no clue myself.

This is representative democracy meets socialism.  The government, which we elect, administers the state stores.  I wouldn’t actually compare stock in a company to voting for a government, as your income influences the amount of influence you can buy.  While that’s sadly the case with America in practice, it’s not legally on the books, as it is with corporations.   While I don’t know the name of the head of the LCB off the top of my head, do you know the name of the 9 school board members representing you?  Do you know the name of every CEO and CFO of every company you have stock in?  Or every company each mutual fund you own invests in?  Doubtful. And if you do, you’re a rarity.  Not knowing the name of the of the guy in charge isn’t an argument against its existence.  Hell, if that were the case, I wish I never knew George Bush was president for most of the last decade.

I submit that the State Stores aren’t a good example of socialism at work. If you want an example of something like that which actually works, review the Japanese Postal Service, which is also one of the largest insurance companies on the planet. No, the State Stores are just a monopoly, plain an simple. Making matters worse, they are a silly monopoly governed by silly rules. Why do I say “silly”? Simple: Maybe someone can explain to me why it’s okay to buy Bud Light at Convenient on Pittston Avenue, but Thunderbird can only be bought from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. When last I checked, both can get you plastered, although Thunderbird can also be used to power a gas leaf blower in a pinch as well.

I’ll tell you what, how about this… why not legalize the ownership and operation of alternate liquor stores.  Keep the state stores state-owned and just allow competitors.  Obviously they would be subject to liquor law and such.  Would you accept state stores under those conditions?

This game of politics – and it is in many ways a game – has rules.  Many are spoken, many unspoken.  One of the unspoken rules, because it is a simple matter of honor, integrity, and sense, is that you never go after somebody’s livelihood.

Funny, how things have turned out in the race in the 112^th legislative district.

Allow me, now, to tell you a little story.

I am a teacher.  I’ve mentioned this before.  Well, recently, I was confronted about potentially using my work time and resources at work for my website.  For the record, I post only during lunch and from my iPhone.  I’m not an idiot.  And besides, I’m busy, you know, doing my job.  So, somebody has tried to go after my job and threaten my livelihood.  The unspoken rule is broken.

I’ve very consciously chosen never to mention where I work.  Whoever did this had to know.  I’ve only made one enemy recently.  I’ll leave readers to guess who decided to go this low.

Allow me, now, to tell you another little story.

Bob Lesh recently had to deal with some issues at work.  Somebody claimed that he had been handing out his campaign materials while he was on the job.  Then somebody claimed his fellow bus drivers were doing it, too.  This accuser even had a place and time where Bob supposedly did this.  Guess what?  Bob was nowhere near that place at that time, so the claim was bullshit.  Not only that, but Bob has been an elected official for 12 years.  He knows better.  Oh, and he has integrity.  But somebody went ahead and had a meeting with Bob’s superiors and brought with him a little old lady to back up his story.

Guess who this piece of filth is?  Ken Smith.  He didn’t even have somebody do it anonymously.  He proudly strode into the office (probably wearing his camelhair coat, despite the relative warmth) and complained directly about something that blatantly didn’t happen.  And he took advantage of an elderly woman.

For the record, Bob’s job is alright.  So is mine.

But let me be clear, and I’m only speaking for me here:  The gloves are off.

I held off on reporting Haggerty’s harassment of me.  Why?  I thought it was between me and him.  That’s all and that’s my policy for everybody.  But then Corbett blew up an issue with Haggerty on the radio and Haggerty and his campaign routinely display a lack of responsibility, so I went public with why I think he shouldn’t serve.  I realized recently that I really should just be honest and open about what happens to me, especially when it will give insight into the character of those seeking higher office.

So now I won’t hesitate.

Oh, and you know how I mentioned it was the Haggerty campaign that harassed me and descended into name-calling and made fun of Bob Lesh’s education?  To get specific (since I’ve gotten e-mails and posts basically claiming I’m making this up), it was a member of Haggerty’s family.  Stay classy, Haggerty clan.  Just FYI, Bob left high school to join the Marines and serve his country.  Again, stay classy.

But anyway, that’s just one example of how I plan to be totally open about people in the future.  So please, think twice before you or your family decides it’s cool to harass or insult me (and here’s the big one) FOR SUPPORTING SOMEBODY ELSE.  That’s my right as an American citizen.  Grow up.  Fight fair.

You know, mentioning the truth is fair, wouldn’t you say?  Here’s this for truth and fairness:  Smith wants to be re-elected as a State Rep.  He took out a taxpayer loan for his business and when he got elected, stopped paying it back.  He doesn’t pay his taxes but expects actual taxpayers to vote for him.  Here’s this for truth and fairness: Haggerty has not one, but two DUIs, has an ARREST RECORD and DID TIME, and wrote bad checks all over town.  He wants the people who have to pay their bills on time and live responsibly to vote for him.

How are these two even in the running?

Allow me, for a moment, to rant purely from the standpoint of emotional enragement:  Going after somebody’s job is the lowest, inappropriate descriptor not nice-est thing anybody could do.  So some ersatz, expletive-deleted meanyface who wants to be our legislator, somebody who represents us in a body laden with corruption and inefficiency, is going to hear from me every time there is a problem.

Haggerty: I know about your $10,000 consulting gig with the school district where you were supposed to secure grants, but secured nothing.  You want the public trust?  Wait until those documents go public and prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you took advantage of the people who you so righteously claim you want to represent.  Hypocrite.

Smith: I can’t wait to find out whether or not you paid your taxes this year.  If past precedent means anything, I’m sure the answer is no.  And you know what else?  I hear you didn’t pay Social Security tax on your employees.  I’m going to dig into that rumor.  If it gets confirmed, expect to get a face full from me.

Keeler: I forgot you were running.  You get a pass for now.

Deep breath.

As HST would say, mahalo.

Editor’s Note: Fine, I toned down my vulgar rhetoric, which became a distraction from my main point that people who pull these stunts are scumbags not-nicefaces.  I hope everybody’s palate can handle such a vulgar, inappropriate description like “not-nicesfaces” as I know it’s over the line for the average, god-fearing Amuricun.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure to sit down with Senator Arlen Specter and ask him a few questions.

Okay, I wrote that line nonchalantly, but in reality, and I know this is going to come as a surprise, when I finally sat down, I was both nervous and intimidated.  I’m just a blogger, after all!  Stop judging me!

So, normally I’m pretty relaxed, no matter my situation.  I roll through life, take things as they come.  Sure, I get fired up, but rarely nervous.  I thought I had time for just one question, so I rehearsed it a few times in my mind – I wanted to get it right – but when I had my chance to sit next to Specter, I learned I could ask a few questions, and, additionally, it hit me: I am not press.  I’m not with a newspaper, or a news station, or even a radio station.  I’m a guy who had a website to write about politics, and now, boom, I’m with a Senator.

Needless to say, I fumbled my first question – talked too fast, spoke too generally, and all of that.  But I asked.  Then recovered, got some great answers and insights, and had a great experience.

Here’s my report:

One of my concerns, which I’m sure I’ll expound upon in coming posts, is about Obama’s education plan, as it relates to the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.  Obama never went to public school, and his plan disproportionately blames teachers.  It ignores socio-economic factors, cultural issues, and the role of parents.  It plays up how great charter schools are, but ignores that they can choose which students attend, whereas public schools cannot pick and choose.  With the ridiculous emphasis on standardize testing, and the fact that special ed students are tested and factored in the same way regular ed students are, public schools look like disaster areas when they often are either a) not or be b) are disasters, but for far more complicated reasons than “teachers”.

By now you can see why I fumbled my first question.  Not very succinct of me!

I basically asked two questions: How do you feel about Obama’s education proposal, and how do you feel about the undue blame placed on teachers, as evidenced by the Rhode Island incident?

In Rhode Island, EVERY SINGLE TEACHER in one school was fired – seriously, what the hell?  Obviously, teachers, myself included, are very concerned – besides, we’ve been totally left out of the equation – we want to be part of the solution, we are the front line after all.

Specter said that he finds the modification of NCLB to be essential.  This is something every teacher agrees with, as NCLB is a disaster.  Some of Obama’s modifications are good, sure, but many are ignorant of the facts on the ground.

Specter believes that we need measured progress, not necessarily uniform standardized testing.  The difference is that we can measure how much a special education student has progressed in school instead of testing them the same way as a regular education student.  Doing so is inherently discriminatory, because uniform testing sets up students with disabilities for failure.  Their needs are different, and measuring progress, as Specter suggests, is far fairer.

Specter went on to say that he disagrees with the firing of the RI teachers.  I nearly leapt for joy, as, aside from selfish job security, it’s important to recognize that student achievement is a HUGELY complex issue that has been totally ignored by Obama.

Next up, I asked about Health Care, since it’s the topic of the day.  Most of his thoughts are out there, so I instead asked what he would rather have seen in the bill, as the bill isn’t perfect.  His first response: “a public option.”  Again, an exciting answer.  It’s nice to know there are people representing us who actually want to offer people something that will help people for the sake of helping them.  Insurance companies, ever driven by the pursuit of profit, could care less about helping people.  That’s why a public option is essential.

Specter also pointed out how unfortunate the constant misinformation ended up being, such as “death panels” which, of course, don’t actually exist.

Finally, he said more money needed to be spent on prevention, after all, what better way to save money than to stop a problem before it starts.  He also said he wished the NIH (National Institutes of Health) had gotten more funding in the bill.

For my last question, I asked about something region-specific.  I went with the rail connection to New York.  I said that it seems to locals that there has been no progress.  He corrected me to say that there has been money allocated.  However, my use of “no progress” was intentional, as it’s been more than a decade and we have no service.  Maybe “tangible progress” would’ve been a better phrase.  Still, he said it’s one of his priorities to get rail funding, and we’ve already made many advances on environmental issues related to its construction.

All in all, I was impressed with Senator Specter’s responses.  Very impressed. Some progressives who don’t like him have taken the low road and raised questions about his age.  Let me say this: the man is spot on and very sharp.  Not only that, he looks great and gets around very well.  Hopefully that puts some concerns to bed.  It probably won’t.

My thanks to the Senator for his time, and his thoughtful responses.  It was very eye-opening for me.

Yes, the title is silly, but it is inspired by the name of Congressman Carney’s fundraiser, Kiss the Blarney with Congressman Carney, I think it’s called.  Hey, the name is silly, but I guarantee people remember it.  That’s what matters.

So, I went to this fundraiser, where I met Gort, incidentally.  He said he likes to cross that Berlin Wall, aka the Luzerne-Lackawanna border, for Carney.  Good man, Carney is worth it.  Gort also informed me that a Blogger Council (which is actually semi-official, despite its silliness — we bloggers are a blend of serious and silly) will be meeting soon.  Maybe I’ll get to meet the Blogfather!  I always wanted to meet a conservative who uses the Internet-tubes!

Anyway, onto the matter at hand.  The fundraiser was well-attended, especially by political players.  Jim Wansacz (22nd State Sen Race) and John Moran (114th State Rep Race) were in attendance, and I had a chance to speak with them.  Both are plugging away at their respective races.  I asked Wansacz how he is dealing with all of this negative press, he said he’s going to work to get his message out there regardless. He knows how to wear out the soles of his shoes knocking on doors, so I’m sure he’ll make up for lost ground.

Carney spoke of the need to pass health care reform, as costs are out of control and will only get worse if nothing is done.  Ed Staback, who introduced Carney, highlighted his military service and pointed out that Carney has killed terrorists.  While that probably plays well with the 10th, I was eating some finger food at the time, and the thought of death and murder, however valiant and defensible, just isn’t dinner conversation (or luncheon in this case).  Plus I’m not much of a war guy.

Carney also gave the best defense of not having a term limit that I’ve ever heard.  He said that the Founding Fathers didn’t put them in, and instead gave voters the power to throw people out or keep them once every two years.  I like that vein of thinking.  Although people will inevitably gripe about the incumbency advantage, I think in a competitive district like Carney’s, this principle works just fine.

I suppose I could go on, and make this into a social column, but I won’t.  I will end by saying that even though there was a bagpiper at this luncheon, there was no Blarney Stone to kiss.

Forgive me in advance of my writing, as this post is personal in nature, rather than political.  As many readers can surmise, beyond my goal of hopefully sparking a thought or two in my readers, writing about politics is cathartic for me, as the problems of the world, of society and culture weigh on me routinely.

Now, I want to take a moment for a different kind of catharsis.

In my much younger days, my pre-teen years, my grandmother, Catherine, and grandfather, Ken (or Spike, as he was known), would watch me and my brothers on the weekends.  I always looked forward to it.

Taking time to reflect today, I realize how much I owe who I am to them, and particularly my grandmother, as my grandfather passed when I was only ten.  Right now, I consider myself a creative writer.  Yes, I am an English teacher, a profession that gives me the ability to share my passion for literature with a new generation, and hopefully instill an understanding and appreciation and passion for it.  And yes, I ardently comment on politics and write my thoughts on the goings-on of the day.  Both of those major facets of my life, though, I consider creative more than anything.  That creative side of teaching and of this blog is where I derive pleasure, and feel like I’m exercising a facet of myself.  But as I said, I feel more of a creative writer than anything.  I’ve written one novel, and am working on two others.  I’m working on a television show and have a web series scripted and ready to be filmed.  I’m always doing something that I, at least, consider creative.

Existential moments hit us less and less as we get older, I think.  I’m only twenty-seven, so I guess I can’t say that for certain.  That’s just been the case for me.  Now is one of those moments and I’m thinking about why I am the way I am, who I am.  There are so many factors, as with all of us, but I keep thinking of one specific series of events in my childhood.

When I would stay with my grandparents, they would indulge my strange whims without question and with a patience that, looking back, I envy.  As a kid, I would invent elaborate games on paper.  Draw maps of fake countries, convert the rooms of the house to specific domains with certain strictures to be followed, come up with rules, statistics, diagrams, and whatever else you could imagine in a complex child-minded game.  I was always a geek.  I always liked numbers and elaborate stories and I wove all of that into little creations when I was young.  No matter what I invented, or how little sense it could’ve made, my grandparents, Ken and Cathy, would always take the time to learn the rules, and then play.  They would indulge the game to the fullest and exhibited a patience I cannot possibly imagine replicating.

And as I’m thinking of that, I realize that they helped foster in me my creative side by encouraging me to keep using my imagination and by showing me that what I created had value to them.  This is one of those things you realize during those existential moments, the ones where you look back and wonder how today got to be today.

My grandmother, Catherine, passed away today.  I’ll miss her like hell and I’ll always owe her for helping forge the man I am today.

RIP, Gram.

I’m featured in the Up Close & Personal section of EC/DC this weekend, which is pretty exciting.

Check it out!  Hopefully I don’t sound too foolish.  I didn’t get to do any editing, like I do here.  It’s all raw me.  I’m scared.

While Lackawanna County was slightly devoid of interesting races, there were four that caught the eye of the mainstream media: Gubernatorial races in NJ and VA, a same-sex marriage fight in ME, and a bizarre House race in NY.

Republicans won the gubernatorial races, bigots and homophobes won in Maine, and the Democrat won a district not held by Democrats since the Civil War. All craziness.

It’s not a surprise that Rs won the governorships of these two states. Traditionally NJ and VA vote for the candidate of the party opposite the President. What is interesting, for me anyway, is that in Jersey, Chris Christie has a ridiculous set of allegations of improper conduct that, for some reason, didn’t hurt him at all. I guess that doesn’t matter across the Delaware. In the case of Virginia, McDonnell wrote a master’s thesis that basically says women need to get in the kitchen and make him a sandwich immediately, or else. Well, the South never liked women or minorities anyway. Ah, sweet status quo.

Maine disappoints me, even though it is the most conservative of the New England states. Gays deserve equal rights. The Constitution doesn’t discriminate against orientation or gender, so why would Maine? Probably some sort of religious garbage, like the Mormon’s funded in California a la Proposition 8. Last I checked, Jesus never said anything mean about gays. Oh well, most people who carry the Bible read only what they want (yeah, I’m talking to you guys who cut your hair: THAT IS SINFUL).

The race I cared for most was NY-23. It was insane. A conservative Dem vs. a liberal Republican vs. a super-duper-right-wing-crazy-Glenn-Beck-wannabe Conservative Party candidate. Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and other Republican glamour-hounds all endorsed Hoffman, the Conservative, against the Republican candidate!
I find this fun. A Republican Civil War between the dying moderate wing of the party and the conservatives! Fight on, brothers and sisters! Only Democrats will benefit.

The R dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. It got that bad.

Lastly, I find it necessary to mention the race for NYC mayor. Bloomberg won by 20 points last time he ran and only 5 points this time. He won, yeah, good for him. But he spent, as Dr. Evil might say, ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. That’s all of his own money, now. If only he used it to, you know, feed the homeless. He bought his victory, and it cost a lot. Elections that cost that kind of money are absurd. They need to be publicly financed, already. With what the Presidential cost last year, we could’ve bought a few small countries!