I Hate You

That's right. I hate you.

Okay, maybe not. But with the way the word 'hate' is being slung around these days, I might as well hate you.

I've noted a disturbing trend amongst politicians to 'hate'. Tom DeLay currently 'hates' Democrats for the supposed character assassination they're foisting upon him related to dubious behavior. One of our neighbors 'hates' another woman on the block because she "has to have a nanny two days a week to get to Ann Taylor". We have 'hate' groups who probably, for all intents and purposes, really deserve that tag. I heard a woman on NPR the other day say she doesn't 'hate' Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh for the OKC bombing, but she sure wishes McVeigh would have "rotted in jail instead of being executed." Hmm, isn't that pretty close to hate?

Hate is such a strong word. Think for a moment on how many times in your life you use it. Then think about it again. Do you 'hate' broccoli or some other vegetable? Do you 'hate' the New York Yankees because they've won so many World Series? Do you 'hate' a neighbor?

Most of the time, don't you really just dislike something? If you hated, wouldn't you want to have some physical response to the feeling? Doesn't the word make you want to do? To do something? Hate connotes a visceral reaction, one typical of violence. And sometimes, violence might be necessary. Say if you're being mugged or physically assaulted. Your fight or flight mechanism might just respond with, "Right cross, kick to the groin."

Hate is thrown around so casually today. Al-qaeda hates us. At least that's what our government says. And lots of people believe. We seem to hate dictators and ex-dictators we've overthrown like Saddam Hussein. And with good reason, probably. But hate seems to infer a physical reaction, as though revenge is associated with it. Hate is an emotional response that seems to require a powerful emotional and physical response, sometimes one that's out of control. Hate can be an excuse.

Is this what we're becoming as a country? We're the reactionists everybody loves to hate? There it is again. It's no wonder we have such silly reactionary things like Freedom Fries instead of French Fries. We are reducing our emotions to blind attacks and knee jerk reactions to things that have absolutely no bearing on the events in our world today. And yet we feel the need to have some control, and control can sometimes be associated with emotion, and emotion can have a physical or visceral associated element. And that element can be tied to hating.

When we hate we respond, emotionally or physically. You might really dislike seeing the word in print, even. It might make you feel horrible. I know it's been difficult to write it this many times. But it's also not a word that I think we should become so attached to. Hate is not something we should become numb to because we've heard it so many times like violence in movies, television, or video games. And before you jump down my throat about violence, I don't subscribe to the belief that the violence in that medium is directly attributable to real-life violence. Some people are naturally unbalanced, and when exposed to those stimuli, go over the edge. That's not going to change. Here's another side of that same issue: Why didn't more people in the 19th century get murdered when men were walking around with sidearms supposedly killing each other dueling in the streets? Weren't children and teens there to see it? Shouldn't we all be carrying guns? Would mutually assured destruction be enough to reduce gun violence? If so, why is it that in countries like Japan and the UK where violent video games are more popular than they are here is there so much less violent crime, including murder? What? They're too dull to realize they could just blame the video game industry for their troubles?

But I digress. Don't you just hate that?

Boogedy

That's right. Boogedy.

Pronounced "boo-gah-dee". Every rock and roll song, or for that matter just every song, should have a boogedy in it. At least that's what The Cult seemed to be saying this morning during my drive into work.

Now, "Love Removal Machine" was, in the early 90s, a pretty big hit for this band. But as I listened to it over the car stereo through my iPod, I realized how creative it truly was. There it sat, right at the tail end of the guitar solo. Boogedy.

The rhythm of LRM is that of heavy high hat, snare, and bass drum with a great deal of repetitive chord guitar and a subtle, yet strong, bass line. (Gee, did I just write that?) What's more important, though, is why the word boogedy got into this song, at this particular spot. Next, just what does boogedy mean? And finally, let's discuss why boogedies should be in every song.

First, Ian what's-his-name (a long-haired guy from England, as one of my favorite bands The Cereal Killers perfectly summarized in a song of the same name) was just really jazzed during the recording session and wanted to add a bit of emphasis to show how he felt about LRM. Perfectly normal and natural. I'll give him that. Of course, I'm not sure why boogedy is any better than "yeah" or "uh-huh" or "oh" as is wont to be used during periods of, um, emphasis, but there it is. Boogedy.

Second possibility is that the band was listening to the playback and noticed a funny, uncomfortable hole at the tail end of the solo. Maybe the band looked at each other and the following exchange played out in a Cockney-type accent: "Did you 'ear that? That freakin' 'ole at th' end of me solo?" To which Ian might have replied, "Boogedy if you're not bleedin' right." To which the producer, Robert "Mutt" Lange of AC/DC fame, said, "That's bloody it! Boogedy! We'll splice that righ' in 'ere!" Sorry Mr. Lange, I know you're not British, but I couldn't resist continuing to try and write Cockney dialogue.

Third possibility is, during the recording of the vocal track, Ian what's-his-name simply dropped the can of pop he was holding at the time on his foot, thus throwing off the vocal track, which the band, upon listening to the final press, felt was clearly superior to the original track without the boogedy.

Hmm, I'm going to have to think on those choices.

What does boogedy mean? Well, in a literal sense, it could have something to do with your nose. And picking it. Or what's up inside it. That's gross. It might mean nothing, be purely nonsensical. It could also have a deeper meaning known only to the Brits themselves, much like they seem to know what "telly" or "bloody" means, but we Americans are too dense to use the same language and stick with acronyms like TV. On the fantastical side, maybe boogedy is a magical word, like a reference to early Harry Potter magic. Maybe that's why, once I heard the song on the radio, I bought the album. Wow, that's scary.

I'm going to go with the last definition.

Why does every song need a boogedy? Because they give people with blogs something to write about once they notice them.

Maybe not.

Your Employer is Trying to Kill You

That's right. Your employer is trying to kill you. Here's how:

I am currently working at a large regional bank in the Midwest. The people working around me, the employees, are hard workers. They seem dedicated and interested in their work. They're mostly IT people. (But there's no accounting for taste.)

Anyway, I was in the break room a week ago getting some water when one of the fine employees, holding a plastic bottle of costly water, says to me, "You trust that water? I don't know how often they clean that machine. And the one time I did see somebody cleaning it, well..." Well, the big stand-alone size-of-a-refrigerator machine had just dispensed a large amount of crushed ice and was in the midst of filling my 20 oz. plastic cup with said water. I looked at him and said with as much straight-faced honesty as possible, "Sure. The company provides it, don't they? And it's free." To which he looked somewhat puzzled, but said, "Yeah, I guess you're right."

So I'm here to tell you that your company is trying to kill you. They want you to use the public water system, filled with chlorine and fluoride and who knows what else, through a giant water machine that is purposefully not cleaned. And, by not cleaning the filter system of this mammoth machine, the company can guarantee that thirsty, healthy employees will become rabid, unhealthy employees who don't come to work for weeks due to some water-borne illness. This is what your company wants.

Now, I'm not knocking this gentleman's choice of paying for his water. I don't do this, but I know that everyone in this country has the right to do so. And I respect that. But I do challenge the validity of the argument that you should buy your water specifically because the company you work for, who provides a number of things to make your work life more comfortable, including an ice and water machine, would intentionally or unintentionally try to poison you. There are a few reasons why you might feel this way: You believe that the bottled, costly water is better. This is possible. I also know it's possible that a number of these bottled waters are no more healthy or clean than the water pumped through the machine in the break room. You believe the company is trying to poison you intentionally: This is a conspiracy theory. I believe that conspiracy theories are becoming more and more popular because of our lack of education and unwillingness to ask questions or learn more about our situation. Things like this become black or white issues. (See a previous post to go over my feelings on black and white issues.) You believe the company is unintentionally trying to poison you. Thus, you buy water. But, you probably are not going to say anything to anyone about this issue. You're just going to stare at the people who continue to get their water out of this machine, wondering if some form of cancer is aggressively attacking their lymph nodes due to this poison. Again, this is a black and white issue, one that you're not going to take any extra time to figure out.

Here's why the company is not trying to kill you. They can't afford to. First, it costs too much to replace employees who've been around at least a year, even in IT (just had to drop that one in there). Even in the companies who love turn and burn the folks, they can't afford for you to spend weeks at home with diphtheria or some other water-borne disease. Second, health care coverage is already sky high. For them and for you. Do you honestly think your boss wants you to be sick? Third, there is no way on Earth that any company purposefully or maliciously wishes harm upon their employees. Do you honestly believe that your employer is out to screw you each and every day? If so, why did they hire you? To take advantage of you? If you're getting paid, you're not an indentured servant, though you might complain that you are. If you do complain, you're probably a whiner more than an underpaid, under appreciated work powerhouse. Get over it.

So, to wrap: If you use a company-provided water machine that dispenses ice and cold water and you suspect it to not be cleaned enough, tell somebody. Anybody. Wait, not anybody. If you're just telling another coworker who won't or can't do anything about it, don't say a thing. Especially if they don't use that water machine, either. Tell your boss. Say something like, "Hey, I saw that the water machine has a sign that says the filter should be changed every two weeks. Is it? Who could I ask about this?" If you're concerned, ask. Don't start down the sump pump of conspiracy theory. Please.

Well, I'm done. And I'm thirsty, too. Of course, I can't seem to get this metallic taste out of my mouth. I wonder if the water machine's been cleaned recently?

Conservative or Liberal?

Main Entry: 1 con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4 : of or relating to Conservative Judaism
- con·ser·va·tive·ly adverb
- con·ser·va·tive·ness noun

Main Entry: 1 lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

Today I'd like to postulate just what in the world is wrong in this country by dissecting the hijacking of the two Merriam-Webster dictionary words above. I'm going to go through them and figure out just where the big deal is and why people are so worried about the religious right (conservatives) versus the Hollywood cognoscenti (liberals). Somewhere in here I fall, as I said in my very first post. Here goes.

The perception of the words conservative and liberal have taken a beating in the last few years. You're either a Bible-beating right-winger or a free-love tree hugger. That is one wild swing. So, let's take a look at the definitions. Conservative has a few definitions, but the one that stands out for me is the TRADITIONAL one, which states, "marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners ". This is the definition that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Note the difference between conservative and conservatism in the political sense. This fine line is where a lot of the wrangling seems to fall down, in my opinion. Religious organizations looking to focus on the "moral" issues of this country are actually not conservatives as much as they are spouting an agenda of conservatism. But hey, you say potato...

Liberal. There seems to be no TRADITIONAL definition. In general, a liberal is one who is generous. If we look at the past, the term also meant lacking moral restraint. Wow. That seems to be exactly what those espousing conservatism seem to think. And again, this is where the issue over the two words has become a national debate. We're all using the wrong terms to label each other.

Herein lies the real issue. We're all labeling each other. And by doing so, we're creating a national schism that is, as one of my rather brusque friends put it, making us look like a bunch of hypocritical war-mongers as we attempt to stamp out one set of religious zealots in the Middle East while letting another set run our country. Of course, were the liberals in charge, this would be a moot point. Or would it? Wouldn't we be just as hypocritical? Yup.

This post isn't about war. But I think a lot of where we are in the world has a lot to do with our internal battles, our wars fought on a public battlefield between those who don't want to change (conservatives) and those who want to evolve (liberals). And I don't mean evolve in the Darwinistic way, either. Everybody knows tomorrow is coming. But some of us fear it more than others. And if you support keeping the things the way they've always been more power to you. Just realize that there others who don't feel the way you do. And, some of those folks think you want to take us back to some past era, a grand and glorious one where all of us were white, men ran everything, and June Cleaver had the kids washed with a drink in hand for Dad when he arrives home from a hard day of work. Some folks think that this return to "moral values" is more like a return to "sweeping our troubles under a Ten Commandments red carpet". I tend to agree.

On the other hand, liberal folks sometimes come across as radically disassociated from the rest of the world. I read some disturbing quotes regarding the "harvesting" of human organs from those who were deemed "insentient". The general tone of the quotes was very university-like. It seems that when folks who are buried in academia begin to speak of the benefits of science or otherwise, they tend to forget that some topics make people very uncomfortable, and that most standard educated folks don't think of people or anything else as sentient or insentient, nor do they ponder the definitions. Liberals have lost the American public because they've taken on this academic tone. They talk too much and in too complicated a fashion. Americans in general want to hear their science or fact in soundbites or USA Today-like length or language. The American public does not make or have time for lengthy explanations as to the benefits of stem cell research, for example. Because as soon as they see more than one paragraph that includes more than one three-syllable word, you've lost them.

And who's there to clean up? You got it. Conservative folk. Now, here's what they want: Control. They don't really understand anything more than the liberals, but they can tell you one thing quickly: This or that new idea threatens my world view and it must be stopped. Stem cell research? Babies will have to die or someone will be harmed; bad idea. And on and on.

Is there a solution? Will we ever, as Americans, get past this dichotomy? Yes, but only if we agree that there is a middle ground where solutions that make a majority of us on both sides happy. Sound like a copout? It's not. There is not always a black and white solution to every question. Those who say that is not true are proving another of my postulates: Those who see all things as black and white are just too lazy to look for a middle ground. Hard work is hard for a reason. It's really easy to simply take a polar stand on an issue. We as Americans are hurting ourselves because we are so focused on the immediate. "Hey, I've got too much on my plate to understand this issue. It's just (right/wrong)." Our society has become drive-thru knowledgeable. Which means we ain't learnin' much anymore unless I can get it in under 60 seconds.

Ever heard of the slow food movement? Been to a high school debate lately? Put together a model airplane with over 200 pieces in the last ten years? Heard anybody say in the last five years, "You should take some time to stop and smell the flowers"? The answer to all of these questions is probably no. Because you and I don't have time. And, because none of these things really impacts me, we don't particularly care. That's a shame. Slow food? Who's got time? High school debate? Doesn't that take research (time) to put together? Models? Who's got the time?

It's spring. The flowers are in bloom. The roses smell wonderful. I know. I bent down and took a quick whiff just this last weekend. But I'll be darned if I didn't get everything done around the house. Maybe I should be less liberal with my time and learn to be more conservative.