Open the book
Read what's on the page
But read it and weep
Because time won't stand still
Won't quit to play catch-up
We've got to run head long
Dive in
Crash through
There is only to tackle
No wasted breath
No room for error
How can drive be grown
In place of frustration/apathy/ignorance
What tools do I wield
To build the house
For a lasting home
Monday, September 29, 2008
Quiet
I know I have the best friend I could ever want,
But I ache with mortal emptiness.
It's a frightening void
Without shape or form;
I'm open to unwelcome influence.
I long to name it,
To embrace it until it's owned.
When I can wrap my arms around the nothing,
I can get it to talk.
I can lay down some rules.
We can agree or duel.
My soul can soothe and lighten
The damp, inky blackness of fear.
I don't need to be afraid,
But in being afraid
I shouldn't feel shame.
The two are mighty conspirators
Determined to silence the boldest heart.
But we cannot be silent.
Our bodies would be mere bystanders
In the massacre of our spirits, souls, and selves.
Silence is the bludgeon
Time uses to break our knees,
To hobble us into crippling inaction,
To press us into the service of those who hate us, at best,
And those callowed with indifference, in the most dire cases.
We will not be victims.
We will speak,
Though we may tremble.
We will speak
Over our fear and shame
Knowing that they are a miserable pain
Waiting to be drowned.
We will cover them,
And when we rise up from those waters,
We will know that strength,
Grace,
Hope, and
Wisdom
Are the fruits of our struggle.
And we will know
That fear and shame must be put to rest each day,
Each moment.
There is solace when we feel weak.
There is mercy and rest
For the timid heart.
But the refuge is not of bricks.
It is a lean-to
For brief respite in the storm.
The battle continues
And lest it worsen,
Or more seriously,
Pass over, leaving ruin,
We must leave comfort behind
And wade the deeps,
Walk in to seek those lost,
Dragged under,
More alone than ourselves.
When the ephemeral calm
Lays us to rest
We will have saved and been saved.
And we will know
It can be done again.
But I ache with mortal emptiness.
It's a frightening void
Without shape or form;
I'm open to unwelcome influence.
I long to name it,
To embrace it until it's owned.
When I can wrap my arms around the nothing,
I can get it to talk.
I can lay down some rules.
We can agree or duel.
My soul can soothe and lighten
The damp, inky blackness of fear.
I don't need to be afraid,
But in being afraid
I shouldn't feel shame.
The two are mighty conspirators
Determined to silence the boldest heart.
But we cannot be silent.
Our bodies would be mere bystanders
In the massacre of our spirits, souls, and selves.
Silence is the bludgeon
Time uses to break our knees,
To hobble us into crippling inaction,
To press us into the service of those who hate us, at best,
And those callowed with indifference, in the most dire cases.
We will not be victims.
We will speak,
Though we may tremble.
We will speak
Over our fear and shame
Knowing that they are a miserable pain
Waiting to be drowned.
We will cover them,
And when we rise up from those waters,
We will know that strength,
Grace,
Hope, and
Wisdom
Are the fruits of our struggle.
And we will know
That fear and shame must be put to rest each day,
Each moment.
There is solace when we feel weak.
There is mercy and rest
For the timid heart.
But the refuge is not of bricks.
It is a lean-to
For brief respite in the storm.
The battle continues
And lest it worsen,
Or more seriously,
Pass over, leaving ruin,
We must leave comfort behind
And wade the deeps,
Walk in to seek those lost,
Dragged under,
More alone than ourselves.
When the ephemeral calm
Lays us to rest
We will have saved and been saved.
And we will know
It can be done again.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Clash of the titanic twits
Yes, one more Broadsheet article for the day. Anyone who knows me knows that I can not stand Bratz Dolls. They look like prostitutes. I'm also not fond of Barbie. So when I read about the Barbie v. Bratz lawsuit, my first thought was, let them fight to the death. Um, and how's that for trivia, Barbie has a middle and last name.
____________________________________________________________________
Barbie vs. Bratz XVII: The Reckoning
Brace yourself, America: The enduring struggle between the forces of Barbie and the forces of Bratz is gearing up for a final, epic battle -- albeit not fought on the blood-stained field of Golgotha but on the more traditional terrain of the courtroom.
Mattel, which first introduced the world to the miracle of structural engineering known as Barbie Millicent Roberts in 1959, is suing the living daylights out of Bratz creator Carter Bryant, a former Mattel employee, on the grounds of copyright infringement. Looks like there's only room for one lushly proportioned polyurethane poppet in town.
And in no uncertain terms! Wait till you see the frantic internal Mattel memos released as part of the court documents, describing the success of the Bratz brand as "a rival-led Barbie genocide." Yes, the G-word, conjuring horrible images of shaven-headed Skippers corralled in Barbie prison-of-war camps being terrorized by machete-wielding Bratz dolls (or maybe that was just my sister and me). Not content to let Barbie have the last word, MGA memos counter that Mattel planned to "litigate to the death" (italics mine) and that "this is a war, and sides must be taken."
It's interesting to note the context of these memos -- written in 2003, as the nation geared up for war and the militaristic language of "you're either with us or against us" was at its peak. But in 2008, with all of us sadder and wiser, all parties would do well to remember that most little girls have the sense not to view inanimate objects as role models, and instead think of the fate that eventually befalls the vast majority of these toys, Barbie and Bratz alike: They wind up bald, naked and covered in dog slobber in a pile beneath the bed, condemned forever to a dollie Gitmo of their owner's creation.
I think Barbie herself said it best: "Pizza party, anyone?"
-- Rachel Shukert
____________________________________________________________________
Barbie vs. Bratz XVII: The Reckoning
Brace yourself, America: The enduring struggle between the forces of Barbie and the forces of Bratz is gearing up for a final, epic battle -- albeit not fought on the blood-stained field of Golgotha but on the more traditional terrain of the courtroom.
Mattel, which first introduced the world to the miracle of structural engineering known as Barbie Millicent Roberts in 1959, is suing the living daylights out of Bratz creator Carter Bryant, a former Mattel employee, on the grounds of copyright infringement. Looks like there's only room for one lushly proportioned polyurethane poppet in town.
And in no uncertain terms! Wait till you see the frantic internal Mattel memos released as part of the court documents, describing the success of the Bratz brand as "a rival-led Barbie genocide." Yes, the G-word, conjuring horrible images of shaven-headed Skippers corralled in Barbie prison-of-war camps being terrorized by machete-wielding Bratz dolls (or maybe that was just my sister and me). Not content to let Barbie have the last word, MGA memos counter that Mattel planned to "litigate to the death" (italics mine) and that "this is a war, and sides must be taken."
It's interesting to note the context of these memos -- written in 2003, as the nation geared up for war and the militaristic language of "you're either with us or against us" was at its peak. But in 2008, with all of us sadder and wiser, all parties would do well to remember that most little girls have the sense not to view inanimate objects as role models, and instead think of the fate that eventually befalls the vast majority of these toys, Barbie and Bratz alike: They wind up bald, naked and covered in dog slobber in a pile beneath the bed, condemned forever to a dollie Gitmo of their owner's creation.
I think Barbie herself said it best: "Pizza party, anyone?"
-- Rachel Shukert
The revolutionary idea of the day is. . .
people should be able to marry whomever they choose! I'm a blogging fool today, but couldn't resist posting this article from Broadsheet:
__________________________________________________________________
Quote of the day: Mildred Loving
"We loved each other and got married. We are not marrying the state. The law should allow a person to marry anyone he wants."
-- Mildred Loving on her court challenge to Virginia's anti-interracial-marriage law, as quoted by the Washington Evening Star in 1965. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that Mildred, an African-American, and her husband, Richard, who was white, had the right to marry, legalizing interracial marriage throughout the country.
Loving died on Monday at age 68, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. She was predeceased by her husband, who died in a car accident in 1975, in which Mildred was also injured. Before their successful court battle, the couple was arrested and forced to move out of the state of Virginia to avoid jail time for the crime of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth."
Publicity shy, Loving gave few interviews late in life. Yet she did make a statement last year on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling to voice her support for gays' and lesbians' right to marry, according to the New York Times. Every June 12, the anniversary of the ruling, events mark Loving Day to celebrate the legalization of marriage by interracial couples.
-- Katharine Mieszkowski
__________________________________________________________________
Quote of the day: Mildred Loving
"We loved each other and got married. We are not marrying the state. The law should allow a person to marry anyone he wants."
-- Mildred Loving on her court challenge to Virginia's anti-interracial-marriage law, as quoted by the Washington Evening Star in 1965. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that Mildred, an African-American, and her husband, Richard, who was white, had the right to marry, legalizing interracial marriage throughout the country.
Loving died on Monday at age 68, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. She was predeceased by her husband, who died in a car accident in 1975, in which Mildred was also injured. Before their successful court battle, the couple was arrested and forced to move out of the state of Virginia to avoid jail time for the crime of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth."
Publicity shy, Loving gave few interviews late in life. Yet she did make a statement last year on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling to voice her support for gays' and lesbians' right to marry, according to the New York Times. Every June 12, the anniversary of the ruling, events mark Loving Day to celebrate the legalization of marriage by interracial couples.
-- Katharine Mieszkowski
Birth control nightmare. . .
This is a quote I read in the Planned Parenthood e-newsletter:
"To talk of condoms as 'safe sex' is a form of Russian roulette ... The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom." — Colombian Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for the Family, who unscientifically argued against condom use in the developing world. He died on April 20 at age 72.
For the love of God. Like it's not bad enough just to tell people to respect the sanctity of sperm, this guy took it on himself to spread blatant misinformation about condoms. : (
"To talk of condoms as 'safe sex' is a form of Russian roulette ... The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom." — Colombian Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for the Family, who unscientifically argued against condom use in the developing world. He died on April 20 at age 72.
For the love of God. Like it's not bad enough just to tell people to respect the sanctity of sperm, this guy took it on himself to spread blatant misinformation about condoms. : (
Sex ed: forbidden?
So, I understand that my employer expects all computer use to be work related. I get that certain social networking sites are blocked simply because they offer the option of "chat/messaging" even though some actual "chat/messaging" programs are not blocked. I even get that some random sites I've attempted to access in the context of research are blocked because of perceived content (pornography etc.). But, why, specifically is "Sex Education" listed as a reason to block a site? If the forbidden topic were "You're at Work So You Don't Need to Be Looking this Up Here", I could understand. But to click on an article about Planned Parenthood's philanthropic work in Peru and be blocked because I might learn something about the birds and the bees (of which we have both here at my esteemed place of employ) seems ridiculous.
Of course, I also feel that it is ludicrous that certain sites are blocked because of "Gay/Lesbian Issues". What kind of crazed conservative developed this firewall? I can access the hateful, bigoted "Family Research Council", but heaven forbid I try to check out who's on the mainstage at St. Louis' Pridefest.
I just don't get it.
Of course, I also feel that it is ludicrous that certain sites are blocked because of "Gay/Lesbian Issues". What kind of crazed conservative developed this firewall? I can access the hateful, bigoted "Family Research Council", but heaven forbid I try to check out who's on the mainstage at St. Louis' Pridefest.
I just don't get it.
Crime Update
I was feeling crazed about the upsurge of crime, shootings in particular, in close proximity to my home. And, to add to this aggravation, I can find NO information about the latest incident which occured early in the morning on Sunday, April 27th.
The information I can gather is that 3 men left a local bar and in the process of walking home were held-up. Two of the men were shot with one of them critically injured. The incident occured about two blocks from my house. I am going to e-mail a staffer in the public relations department for further details, but I am amazed that I can not find ANY information from a single news outlet.
I will try to update this post when I find out the story.
The information I can gather is that 3 men left a local bar and in the process of walking home were held-up. Two of the men were shot with one of them critically injured. The incident occured about two blocks from my house. I am going to e-mail a staffer in the public relations department for further details, but I am amazed that I can not find ANY information from a single news outlet.
I will try to update this post when I find out the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
