Ending Well

To be overly dramatic: I've been 27 for a day! My life is over!

Not.

No Sweat



Place Ad Here



Brian said 'Loose'

Happy Birthday to Moi!

I'm 27 on the 27th. It doesn't get that much more special, but all the big plans got washed up by the weather.

So, I'll celebrating my special day throughout the summer at randomly selected dates, times and places.

Word games are confusing the truth

My bi-monthly column for The Times Herald, June 24

Living language. It’s used to describe languages, such as English, French and German, that are still spoken. These languages tend to grow, change, etc. etc.
Latin is a dead language.
You’ve heard of, been part of or been perplexed by some the changes happening in the English language.
Gay once meant happy, but now refers to homosexuals. Sick used to only mean ailing or not feeling well, but now also means twisted, in a good way, or just really, really cool — for lack of a good synonym off the top of my head.
There’s really no harm in some of these changes, but recently, and some not, a good many of these have taken on a negative connotation, and quite incorrectly so.
One that comes to mind is “critic.” You see and hear it all the time in the media, most frequently with stories surrounding politics. The first meaning of critic is: “One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter,” but you’ll find the last definition: “One who tends to make harsh or carping judgments; a faultfinder,” too.
As an architecture major, I regularly had “crits,” where my work, and the works of others, faced the critics. Crits helped to improve on a project, by pointing out and building on the positive aspects of the design and pointing out and giving ideas to fix the bad.
A critic can be very helpful in bringing in a perspective not considered by the person/people with the idea or plan. A critic can do something quite good and in fact, a critic is also a supporter.
This brings me to my second word, “compromise.” Anyone who went through civics class has heard of the “Connecticut Compromise,” and how it saved the Constitutional Convention and thereby the United States of America.
Lately, compromise seems more connected to the word “concede” and is viewed as a weakness.
A compromise finds the middle ground between two extremes in hopes of benefiting the greatest number of people. In a climate of such partisanship, government officials should remember the “Connecticut Compromise” has benefited the hundreds of millions of people who have lived in the United States since its creation. They should also remember they have a job because of it.
It’s appropriate to concede that point.
Following this progression, we have the word “conservative” on one side of the aisle and “liberal” on the other. The world liberal has been so vilified by those labeled conservative that some with “liberal” views are opting instead for the word “progressive.” I’d rather that be associated with another party entirely, but I’ve delved into that previously, so I’ll save the ink.
Liberal, by definition, is: “Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.”
Doesn’t sound so bad, and actually sounds like the ideals that created this country. I don’t see the word biased or unfair in that definition at all.
To that end, it should be noted that liberal also means: “Generous in amount; ample,” which could be used to describe the budget and spending by the U.S. government, which has turned a trillion-dollar surplus into a debt of that amount and is controlled by people claiming to be conservative.
This liberal spending, referred to as pork, took off with Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. During his reign, it was the Democratic president who helped achieve a balanced budget.
When it comes to “conservative” and “liberal,” I think a quote by Ambrose Bierce, a noted critic, writer and journalist from another era, says it all: “Radicalism is the conservatism of tomorrow injected into the politics of today.”
Words have started losing some of their meaning thanks to PR spin machines, and it’s starting to twist the truth of some situations and hindering government from serving the people.
I can’t think of a better ending, so here’s another quote to sum my point:
“Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that sometimes he has to eat them.”
— Adlai E. Stevenson Jr., quoted by Human Behavior, May 1978 U.S. diplomat & Democratic politician (1900 - 1965)
All definitions taken from Dictionary.com.

2 Degrees to George W. Bush

We're in the 90s here. It ain't so bad. We went on an early bike ride to beat the heat. The bike ride has become Sunday tradition, and so far only travel has stopped us. It's been good weather every time.

I spent some time putting up pics of my trip to Toronto on the Travels page.

So where does the title of this post come from?

Friday afternoon, Sen. Arlen Specter, a likeable Republican from Pennsylvania, stopped by The Times Herald to field some questions from the "editorial board." It was really just a hodge podge of people who wanted to ask a question as our "editorial board." With the incorrect heading above our editorials "In Our View," it's really just the editor's view.

So Specter answered some questions ranging from the veterans cemetery coming to southeastern Pennsylvania, the war in Iraq, and government surveillance. On the local level, stumping for candidates, the when-is-it-going-to-happen Schuylkill Valley Metro and immigration were big topics.

I got to shake his hand afterwards. He asked how old I was - I shaved that day, so away went a few years. He was glad to to see someone my age active, or perhaps just an editor, in the newspaper industry.

It was flattery. He was good at it.

I've always been a fan of Specter.

No Democratic contender could sway my vote away. I can see how he's lasted this far.

I might not agree with everything, but I agree with enough, and without jinxing the man, he seems to be one of the scandal-less politicians.

Perhaps some day I'll enter politics and the legend and lore will be that it all started when I shook Specter's hand.

Scared-y Cat

I went as far as up as a person can go in/on a man-made object while I was in Toronto. It's called the CN Tower, and it was quite a journey. I'm not really afraid of heights, but walking on glass and looking down 113 stories below my feet creeped me out!

It took me 3 tries before I crawled onto the glass. And somehow I'm supposed to jump from a plane on June 27! (I was assured by co-worker and jumper that it's not that scary).













See why!

What's the Difference

Canada or the U.S.? Guess which is which along Lake Ontario.

Back in the United States

Back from a long weekend in Toronto.

It was my first trip to the land of north. There's plenty to gush about Toronto, but nothing really sticks out specifically like Philadelphia, Chicago or Amsterdam. Besides that CN Tower, anyway, which is certainly to note.

But for now, I'm settling back in to Philadelphia and heading to bed for a morning of yoga. If I can wake up.

The Maze That is the Gay Marriage Ban

My bi-monthly column for The Times Herald, June 10

I dropped a line in my last column about how everything is becoming so political. I complain because not everything needs to be political.
From moral issues to judges, it seems like the United States is quickly becoming more of a theocracy rather than the democracy we claim to be. (We’re really representational federalism. Ask your civics teacher.)
Can you name another theocracy? Iran should have come first to your mind.
A theocracy establishes moral and religious beliefs as government law, and from assisted suicide — an ethical debate for the medical professional to decide — to Terri Schiavo — for families to decide — our government has been getting way too involved in the lives of Americans.
The latest moral issue that has become political: Gay marriage, again, specifically a constitutional ban on the concept.
Is anyone suspicious that the last time this came around was before the 2004 election, and the topic helped push Bush win a very tight race? And now again in 2006, before an election that many expect will see the GOP stumble?
It failed in the U.S. Senate, and yet it’s being put to the House of Representatives anyway. The constitutional ban here in Pennsylvania won overwhelming support in the House, and now moves to the state Senate.
Something else disturbing about this: It’s only become a political issue as poll after poll after poll, year after year after year, shows weakening support for a constitutional ban. The latest figures put it at less than half.
In the meantime, support for legal recognition of homosexual partnerships and all that comes with it continues to grow.
It’s a perfect example of a minority position making a power grab, giving it undo influence over the majority.
Sort of like the situation that was Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Democrat after Democrat says leave the decision to the states. Even some Republicans say it. That’s where the power has already been placed. It was put there by the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton. It got to his desk after receiving overwhelming support from the Republican-controlled House and Senate.
Leaving the states to decide on gay marriage was the position of presidential candidate George W. Bush in his 2000 campaign.
In a move fitting of the phrase “flip-flop,” Bush now supports a constitutional ban, usurping power from the states.
Marriage is something that belongs to religion. This should be a non-issue on the political level.
In fact, the entire situation could be diffused if marriage was left out of the debate and government, businesses and whatever else simply provided benefits to anybody in a recognized union, with alternative unions included.
It’s a growing movement often overlooked except when some extremist group decides to boycott a business or institution that is providing access to health care to people who may not have access to it. I’m specifically talking about homosexual couples where the one is employed at a job that offers benefits to his or her partner who is without benefits.
If the health care benefits are being paid for, why does it matter how the beneficiary is related to the worker?
As I’ve always truly felt, marriage belongs to religion. Should a religion decide to marry gay people — and despite the word to the contrary, some churches and some pastors have — so be it.
Just as religion should have limited influence — through voters choosing their representation — over government, government should have limited influence over religion.
If you feel otherwise on the whole thing, then perhaps China or Saudi Arabia is more the sort of government you’d prefer ruling over your life.
lll
Perhaps you read the Opinion page in Thursday’s Times Herald. Being an environmentalist, I was rather appalled. One columnist, no science extraordinaire, supports a new chemical that would do for hurricanes what diapers can do for the not-toilet-trained baby.
The columnist doesn’t quite get the science: that hurricanes serve a purpose — to cool the earth. His support for junk science is scary.
A second columnist apparently didn’t read any of the reports that took the brunt of the attack, or “The Inconvenient Truth,” a rather not-as-boring-as-you’d-think science film. The movie and Time magazine did in fact talk greatly about China, its effects and how the country is trying to clean up.
You might not know it, but China’s fuel economy requirement for sold vehicles is higher now than the much-stricter-than-Washington, D.C. requirement put forth by California will be in 2011.
And without going into all the science of it, if the science isn’t right, are we really any worse off by doing something positive for the environment?
We could ignore the signs scientists say mean something, but in the end it could be more difficult and more costly to recover from.

Toronto, Here I Come

I'm jumping the gun, I know. I don't actually leave Philadelphia until Friday evening, but I'll be packed with things to do up until I get on the plane.

The trip, planned long ago, took an interesting twist with the recent news of an al-Qaida-style attack planned, and thankfully thwarted.

Toronto, all of Canada, seems like the most unlikely place for such things. I suppose I have something to learn about Canada, seeing as how this is my first time in the neighbor to the north...

Looks a Little Different, Eh?

The site where I "round myself out" has been updated. I've cleaned up coding from 2 HTML editors ago, so it all makes a little more sense to me. Plus, I've added some stuff.

The picture of me above, the one with me sitting on an XXX bench in Amsterdam in Dam Square; that'll take you to more about moi.

It's a little something I do, should I someday become famous and want to retain the rights to "The Official Web Site of Brian Swope."

Change is Coming

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 ...

Convenience

Back from viewing The Inconvenient Truth, which I found oddly easy to digest and enjoy even though it had a science class feel, which isn't knocking the film at all. Now, I am a science geek, but I've seen some pretty bad science class movies, and this isnt' one of them.

Of note are the tidbits of Al Gore as a human being, though they felt awkward at times. By awkward, I mean in the context of a movie about global warming.

The movie is clearly Gore testing the waters for 2008, and by God, he'd better do it!

After coming home, I think we signed up for wind energy at the house. I'm not sure because that's not in my control, but the 3 of us discussed it. I've already started up recycling at this house; so this sort of thing is kind of like my print on something that isn't mine.

Chris and Michael will yell at me for that, but they'll deal.

So I'm doing my part to spread the word to everyone else:

Climate Crisis.

Check it out. Check out the movie. Be a part of the change.