Do what you love.
Do what you love.
Do what you love.
Do what you love.
Do what you love?
What do you love?
What do you love?
What do you love?
What do you love?
Do what you love.
Do what you love.
Do what you love.
Do what you love.
Do what you love?
What do you love?
What do you love?
What do you love?
What do you love?
My car is covered in snow and ice. As I drink this cup I am trying to get motivated to go outside and scrape.
“We’re all just trash, waiting to be thrown away.” That may be the most tragic quote ever spoken by a toy.
When composing the title of this blog post, I accidentally typed “Home” instead of “Work.” That’s a bad sign.
Snow days are special days. Everything that you would have to do if the weather were clear suddenly seems less critical. I wish we treated all days like that.
Poor Sarah Palin. She has been accused of contributing to a culture of violence against politicians, and her staff seems unable to craft a convincing statement distancing her “crosshairs” map from Giffords’ assassination attempt.
Lots of folks on the left are eager to find her complicit in the shooting, which is unfortunate. She is no more at fault for the shooting as Marilyn Manson was at fault for Columbine.
But she cannot categorically deny that she did not use violent, vigilante rhetoric during the midterm election. It’s effective rhetoric that gets the constituents fired up, regardless of whether or not folks understand it as a metaphorical call to arms or as a literal call. It helped get many of her endorsed candidates elected; it also helped “target” her opponents. We can appreciate why she used it. We can also appreciate the PR dilemma she’s in now.
So how do you acknowledge the use of violent rhetoric while denying it was a factor in the shooting, all while not looking like the bad guy? Like this:
“During the midterm election SarahPAC used a lot of hunting rhetoric in our support for our endorsed candidates. In light of the assassination attempt on Representative Giffords, many media outlets have recalled that rhetoric in an attempt to make sense of this tragedy.
Our midterm campaign centered around motivating our constituents to support candidates through voting and contributions. To be sure, our campaign materials were always bundled with an appeal to vote and to contribute to our endorsed candidates. We “targeted” races where we wanted people to fight for our shared principles with their votes and money, not with violence.
Although we reject the implication that the campaign contributed to the attack, whether intentionally or otherwise, we regret that the campaign has been interpreted by a call for violent action. We categorically condemn ANY act of violence against our political leaders, regardless of their political persuasions. SarahPAC does not endorse violence. We endorse political action through voting, canvassing, supporting, and serving our country like informed engaged, law-abiding citizens. That has been our goal since SarahPAC was founded, and it will continue to be our goal in the future.”
You’re welcome, Sarah.
This Starbucks is playing classical music this afternoon. It’s a nice change from the Norah Jones that seems to be playing every other time I’m here. I don’t know the name of the piece that was playing when I came in, but it was a piece I associate with my mother. Mom had a multiple-album collection of classical music she played a lot in the house when I was a little boy, and one of those pieces was playing when I sat down in one of the comfy chairs in the corner.
The scuttlebutt around the church coffee urn is whether it will snow tomorrow.
I don’t know what it is like to be the Dalai Lama, but I reckon he doesn’t spend a lot of time online. That’s probably what makes him so peaceful.
From Tucson Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s press conference on the Giffords shooting:
Dupnik: Let me say one thing, because people tend to poo-poo this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off doing that. That may be free speech. But it’s not without consequences.
Reporter: How do you know that that’s what caused it?
Dupnik: You don’t.