Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Kentucky Notoriety, Judicial Pride
Something remarkable happened in my
native state today.
In Louisville, the largest and arguably
most liberal city in the state, a Republican
-appointed federal judge ruled that the
Commonwealth must recognize marriages
of same-sex couples that were performed
in other states and countries.
I am still in shock.
Originally beginning this blog by stating
that I am proud of Kentucky, I sobered up
and recognized that most of its citizens
don't agree with what happened in Louisville
today. And while I, as a Gay man, am ecstatic
over the ruling, I am also saddened because
the ruling hits home in a deep way. It forces
me to think of those in Kentucky who
disagree with legal/social equality for LGBT
people. And when thinking of them, they have
faces instead of representation from a right-
winged think tank or a religious group. Those
who disagree with my right to happiness have
names. They're some of my Facebook friends.
Old co-workers. High school classmates.
Family members and yes--my parents.
Part of me wants to be angry with them; to
defriend them both on and offline, to shake
them and say, "This isn't just some civil
disagreement--this is MY LIFE!" I want to
look at the friends whom I would like to think
care about me and my happiness and ask,
"How can you say you love me publicly then
go into a booth at the polls and vote against
me?!" I would want to say what Sara Barielles
said best: "Who died and made you king of
anything?!"
The other part of me recognizes that anger
in these situations is exercise in futility. I am
powerless to change anothers deeply-rooted
prejudices on my own. I trust in time and
increased awareness of the many challenges
that face Women who Love Women and men
who Love men. I let go of the anger and give
that to my Higher Power, knowing that Love
triumphs always.
Today, I am proud of the judicial system. Once
again, the Judicial Branch has risen to the task
of its original founding: to protect the rights of
the minority from the illegal desires of the
majority.
Kentucky is now yet another stepping stone on
this great, strengthening road to Equality.
Godspeed.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Joe Biden's 'Honey-Do' List
Okay, admit it: you know that's what Joe Biden is looking at when he periodically stops giving President Obama the Nancy Reaganesque gaze of admiration. Or maybe it's a love note from Jill. Am I the only one out there who thinks that the Bidens are a good-looking couple? Al and Tipper had it goin on' (that is, until they didn't) but for their age, the Veep and the Second Lady looked good out on that dance floor.
But enough about the Vice-President's love life.
Tonight, we're finding out the state of our Union. Don't we already know that there are fifty of them?!
BA-DUM-CHING! *Matt is available for weddings, bar mitzvahs, birthdays, funerals, etc...*
Based on last year's statistics, it is likely that less than twelve percent of our fellow citizens will watch this event. And while I really can't blame any non-politically-interested person for choosing ESPN or HGTV instead, the State of the Union can be everything from comical to dramatic; as revealing as a former New York congressman in a wanton cell phone pic and as subdued as Justice Ginsberg's nightie (I apologize for the unnecessary and unwanted visual.)
What will we learn from the 2013 State of the Union? Probably nothing substantial. Thanks to First Lady Michelle Obama's guest, we'll learn that mohawks have a place in government these days. Thanks to yet another Republican moron from Texas, we'll learn that even those who make idle threats against the President's life are able to sit in a coveted space reserved for guests and watch as said Leader gives his remarks. (Let's hope that no Secret Service agents call in sick tonight!) We'll probably see some interesting facial expressions from Republicans, when they aren't reading their newspapers, texting or balancing their re-election checkbooks. I'll be fair, though: Democrats were just as attentive from 2001 to 2009.
Still, I love a good State of the Union (and I mean that quite literally!) A political junkie's heart rate goes up when various cabinet members and officeholders enter the chamber and near-cardiac arrest ensues when that little short guy bellows, "Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States!!" And then there he is: the man I both voted into office and renewed his contract for another four years. While I'm a fan of Barackmyworld, I know that I'll be watching yet another glad-handing march to give a speech and then mountains and mountains of platitudes, applause, platitudes, applause and good ol' American rhetoric, followed by...yep, you guessed it...more applause. (With the exception of bitter Republicans.) Although nothing in the Constitution requires the President to appear before Congress to give this mandatory report, Woodrow "Jesus Christ Part Two" Wilson started the pomp--and I, for one, am glad that the tradition continues. If nothing, it's good theater.
Some really great theater should come afterwards, from the RepubliTea Party. Expect to hear two topics in vast repetition from both Marco Rubio and Kentucky's very own Rand Paul: deficit, deficit, deficit, immigrants, immigrants, immigrants. When you watch this, know that you are witnessing the first public attempt by the Conservative faction in America to pick itself up and dust itself off from the electoral ass-kicking that it received just three months ago. They must look good and believable tonight.
So, if you're a Moderate or someone who could really care less about government, grab some chips and a beer and sit down to watch a good time. If you're like me, drink to the President, his accomplishments and his plans for the next four years...
And during the official responses, sit next to the nearest toilet.
But enough about the Vice-President's love life.
Tonight, we're finding out the state of our Union. Don't we already know that there are fifty of them?!
BA-DUM-CHING! *Matt is available for weddings, bar mitzvahs, birthdays, funerals, etc...*
Based on last year's statistics, it is likely that less than twelve percent of our fellow citizens will watch this event. And while I really can't blame any non-politically-interested person for choosing ESPN or HGTV instead, the State of the Union can be everything from comical to dramatic; as revealing as a former New York congressman in a wanton cell phone pic and as subdued as Justice Ginsberg's nightie (I apologize for the unnecessary and unwanted visual.)
What will we learn from the 2013 State of the Union? Probably nothing substantial. Thanks to First Lady Michelle Obama's guest, we'll learn that mohawks have a place in government these days. Thanks to yet another Republican moron from Texas, we'll learn that even those who make idle threats against the President's life are able to sit in a coveted space reserved for guests and watch as said Leader gives his remarks. (Let's hope that no Secret Service agents call in sick tonight!) We'll probably see some interesting facial expressions from Republicans, when they aren't reading their newspapers, texting or balancing their re-election checkbooks. I'll be fair, though: Democrats were just as attentive from 2001 to 2009.
Still, I love a good State of the Union (and I mean that quite literally!) A political junkie's heart rate goes up when various cabinet members and officeholders enter the chamber and near-cardiac arrest ensues when that little short guy bellows, "Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States!!" And then there he is: the man I both voted into office and renewed his contract for another four years. While I'm a fan of Barackmyworld, I know that I'll be watching yet another glad-handing march to give a speech and then mountains and mountains of platitudes, applause, platitudes, applause and good ol' American rhetoric, followed by...yep, you guessed it...more applause. (With the exception of bitter Republicans.) Although nothing in the Constitution requires the President to appear before Congress to give this mandatory report, Woodrow "Jesus Christ Part Two" Wilson started the pomp--and I, for one, am glad that the tradition continues. If nothing, it's good theater.
Some really great theater should come afterwards, from the RepubliTea Party. Expect to hear two topics in vast repetition from both Marco Rubio and Kentucky's very own Rand Paul: deficit, deficit, deficit, immigrants, immigrants, immigrants. When you watch this, know that you are witnessing the first public attempt by the Conservative faction in America to pick itself up and dust itself off from the electoral ass-kicking that it received just three months ago. They must look good and believable tonight.
So, if you're a Moderate or someone who could really care less about government, grab some chips and a beer and sit down to watch a good time. If you're like me, drink to the President, his accomplishments and his plans for the next four years...
And during the official responses, sit next to the nearest toilet.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
The Responsibility to Judge the Judd
I have a shameful confession to make. Although my offense hasn't kept me awake at night, it is still very much a deep, dark sting from my past. *Takes deep breath* Alright. Here goes:
In 2002, I, Matt Spencer...voted for Mitch McConnell.
You have no idea how difficult it was to type such an admission. But now that the word is out, I can breathe a little easier. That self-imposed burden of guilt no longer rests on my shoulders.
The only reason--definitely the only reason--why I voted to re-elect McConnell in 2002 is hard to admit as well. Most Liberal and Progressive Kentuckians don't like admitting it, either: and that's the fact that Mitch McConnell has done a lot for the Commonwealth of Kentucky since he took office in 1985.
Here is a lesson for you political novices: it is risky for a relatively poor state to lose its senior senator. "Senior Senator" isn't just an honorary title indicating age or number of years served. Being any state's longest-serving senator gives seniority, which is a huge advantage in obtaining much-needed federal funding--or, "pork"--for a particular state.
Unfortunately for Mitch, he has been more preoccupied with obstructionism federal in the last four-plus years instead of attending to the Commonwealth's needs. Between that and his 2009 ranking as "one of the fifteen most corrupt members of Congress", Senator McConnell will not receive my vote in his 2014 campaign. True, Kentucky has benefitted from McConnell's 'bacon'...but with the way that the pig is being slaughtered these days, the taste just isn't worth it.
My voters of like mind have turned their attention to politically-interested, Kentucky-rooted Ashley Judd. While Ms. Judd has shown that she isn't as mentally shallow as some of her Hollywood counterparts, I am not allowing myself to become too excited about her potential candicacy, simply based on the merit that she isn't Mitch McConnell. "Why?", you may ask?
The voters must judge her on the strength of her political knowledge and that of this state.
Kentuckians rely heavily on name recognition to elect their officials. In the last few decades, that voting methodology has proved disastrous. Richie Farmer, the University of Kentucky's "Mr. Basketball" of 1988, was elected Agriculture Commissioner based on his celebrity. After a scandal involving a mistress and her high-paying state job, he's now selling cars. Jim Bunning, elected to the U.S. House and Senate from Kentucky, had a background as an investment broker--but not before his acclaimed, seventeen-year run in Major League Baseball. After being named by Time magazine as "one of America's five worst Senators" and making a series of bizarre statements (one predicting the death of Justice Ginsberg), Bunning was essentially abandoned by the Kentucky's GOP. A majority of Kentucky voters elected Rand Paul to the Senate not because of his political experience--but because he's the son of perennial Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Had Coach Rick Pitino ran for governor prior to his scandalous affair and his legendary switch from UK to UofL, he would've been a shoo-in. Even if he ran today with all of that baggage, he'd still garner an impressive number of votes.
It speaks negatively of our state that we elect politicians based on their celebrity status. We should not be surprised when such celebrity ultimately harms the Commonwealth's interests--but we should learn from our mistakes.
While I wholeheartedly support the growing interest to "Ditch Mitch", I also think that we, as voters, owe it to ourselves (and our state) to give a more discerning eye to those who vie to represent us. I look forward to hearing more about Ashley Judd's vision for Kentucky. I look forward to a potential substantive debate between her and this power-driven smarm that we've kept in office for most of my life. Still, while remembering the ghosts of Kentucky's celebrities-turned-politicians, I will encourage every voter to ask themselves:
Will they be as effective on C-SPAN--as they were on ESPN or HBO?
In 2002, I, Matt Spencer...voted for Mitch McConnell.
You have no idea how difficult it was to type such an admission. But now that the word is out, I can breathe a little easier. That self-imposed burden of guilt no longer rests on my shoulders.
The only reason--definitely the only reason--why I voted to re-elect McConnell in 2002 is hard to admit as well. Most Liberal and Progressive Kentuckians don't like admitting it, either: and that's the fact that Mitch McConnell has done a lot for the Commonwealth of Kentucky since he took office in 1985.
Here is a lesson for you political novices: it is risky for a relatively poor state to lose its senior senator. "Senior Senator" isn't just an honorary title indicating age or number of years served. Being any state's longest-serving senator gives seniority, which is a huge advantage in obtaining much-needed federal funding--or, "pork"--for a particular state.
Unfortunately for Mitch, he has been more preoccupied with obstructionism federal in the last four-plus years instead of attending to the Commonwealth's needs. Between that and his 2009 ranking as "one of the fifteen most corrupt members of Congress", Senator McConnell will not receive my vote in his 2014 campaign. True, Kentucky has benefitted from McConnell's 'bacon'...but with the way that the pig is being slaughtered these days, the taste just isn't worth it.
My voters of like mind have turned their attention to politically-interested, Kentucky-rooted Ashley Judd. While Ms. Judd has shown that she isn't as mentally shallow as some of her Hollywood counterparts, I am not allowing myself to become too excited about her potential candicacy, simply based on the merit that she isn't Mitch McConnell. "Why?", you may ask?
The voters must judge her on the strength of her political knowledge and that of this state.
Kentuckians rely heavily on name recognition to elect their officials. In the last few decades, that voting methodology has proved disastrous. Richie Farmer, the University of Kentucky's "Mr. Basketball" of 1988, was elected Agriculture Commissioner based on his celebrity. After a scandal involving a mistress and her high-paying state job, he's now selling cars. Jim Bunning, elected to the U.S. House and Senate from Kentucky, had a background as an investment broker--but not before his acclaimed, seventeen-year run in Major League Baseball. After being named by Time magazine as "one of America's five worst Senators" and making a series of bizarre statements (one predicting the death of Justice Ginsberg), Bunning was essentially abandoned by the Kentucky's GOP. A majority of Kentucky voters elected Rand Paul to the Senate not because of his political experience--but because he's the son of perennial Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Had Coach Rick Pitino ran for governor prior to his scandalous affair and his legendary switch from UK to UofL, he would've been a shoo-in. Even if he ran today with all of that baggage, he'd still garner an impressive number of votes.
It speaks negatively of our state that we elect politicians based on their celebrity status. We should not be surprised when such celebrity ultimately harms the Commonwealth's interests--but we should learn from our mistakes.
While I wholeheartedly support the growing interest to "Ditch Mitch", I also think that we, as voters, owe it to ourselves (and our state) to give a more discerning eye to those who vie to represent us. I look forward to hearing more about Ashley Judd's vision for Kentucky. I look forward to a potential substantive debate between her and this power-driven smarm that we've kept in office for most of my life. Still, while remembering the ghosts of Kentucky's celebrities-turned-politicians, I will encourage every voter to ask themselves:
Will they be as effective on C-SPAN--as they were on ESPN or HBO?
Friday, December 14, 2012
December 1997. December 2012.
On December 1, 1997, a fourteen-year old named Michael Carneal walked inside his high school near Paducah, Kentucky and killed three students.
The brutal incident hit close to home, not just because it was in my home state, but because I knew someone who went to Heath High School at that time. My friend's life was spared, but the trauma--holding her best friend while she was dying--severely injured her emotional state. I don't know that she has ever recovered. As the nineties drew to a close and we added Jonesboro, Springfield and Columbine to the list, the "will my school be next?" question pervaded the minds of many students. Parents, educators, concerned citizens, national leaders, pastors and talk show hosts all tried to soothe the traumatized student psyche with an impassioned cry, "This has got to stop!"
The Paducah shootings happened fifteen years ago, folks.
Tonight, I noticed some Facebook feeds from friends who didn't find it quite appropriate to discuss how to remedy these incidents so soon after this tragedy. Unfortunately, we Americans are prone to a short attention span and long-term memory loss. So I will reiterate:
The shootings in Western Kentucky took place fifteen years ago. Since then, hundreds, if not thousands of students have been mentally, emotionally and physically wounded and nearly 200 students/teachers have died in the United States from school-related shootings.
Just when should we have this conversation?
The brutal incident hit close to home, not just because it was in my home state, but because I knew someone who went to Heath High School at that time. My friend's life was spared, but the trauma--holding her best friend while she was dying--severely injured her emotional state. I don't know that she has ever recovered. As the nineties drew to a close and we added Jonesboro, Springfield and Columbine to the list, the "will my school be next?" question pervaded the minds of many students. Parents, educators, concerned citizens, national leaders, pastors and talk show hosts all tried to soothe the traumatized student psyche with an impassioned cry, "This has got to stop!"
The Paducah shootings happened fifteen years ago, folks.
Tonight, I noticed some Facebook feeds from friends who didn't find it quite appropriate to discuss how to remedy these incidents so soon after this tragedy. Unfortunately, we Americans are prone to a short attention span and long-term memory loss. So I will reiterate:
The shootings in Western Kentucky took place fifteen years ago. Since then, hundreds, if not thousands of students have been mentally, emotionally and physically wounded and nearly 200 students/teachers have died in the United States from school-related shootings.
Just when should we have this conversation?
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Two Cities, One Honor and a Big Ol' Rant.
The other day, a friend inquired about my general well-being and after my affirmative reply, he asked, "Did you read that Louisville is the new Portland?"
Had I been eating, I would have choked. Had I been drinking, I might have become violent.
"Matthew, you've being melodramatic", you say. And while that is a historical trend, my friend's question stirred passions within, requiring me to rise to the defense of the city with which I fell in love over six years ago.
In the past week, no fewer than half a dozen people have mentioned this lousy article to me, suggesting that "the new Portland is in Kentucky". Before addressing the 894 things that are wrong with that statement, I decided to investigate the article's author, Robert Reid.
According to his Lonely Planet biography, Reid works and lives in NYC and has written "two dozen Lonely Planet guidebooks." From what I read, Reid's experience is Worldly and his body of work is impressive.
Yet, at the risk of being sued for libel and slander (I don't have any money, Mr. Reid), I believe that the author was either a) completely wasted on our fine bourbon during his entire time in Louisville, b) making preposterous claims on his website to attract visitors, or c) so distracted by the recent hurricane in his city that his first draft was published in error. I don't know what went wrong, but something had to have gone wrong.
Geographically speaking, Portland sits among conifer trees, facing an 11,000-foot high mountain. A 620-foot high waterfall is less than twenty miles from the city limits. The Pacific Ocean is 80 miles away. Comparatively, Louisville isn't near any mountains or oceans, making it very flat. "Louisville looks so beautiful from the sky!", said no arriving/departing flight passenger, ever.
Mr. Clean has no reason to visit Portland because it has consistently ranked among the U.S.' top five cleanest cities. Louisville isn't on any 'dirtiest cities' lists--but it has never been featured on a 'clean list', either.
City planners are to thank for Portland's regular top-ten ranking among best public transportation in the U.S. Louisville is nowhere near that list, either, and is one of the largest cities lacking Amtrak service. In a 2010 survey, 12% of Portlanders used public transit, compared to 2% of Louisvillians.
Mr. Reid's article didn't mention any of that, though. Here's what he did say:
"New Louisville, also known as the East Market District or NuLu, features converted warehouses used as local breweries, antique shops and the city’s coolest restaurants..."
Folks, "New Louisville" is a street. Calling it a 'district' is a stretch, and it certainly isn't a neighborhood. People don't walk around Market Street after dark--and for good reason: this area is one of the city's least-safest. To be fair, Market Street is cool. It has definitely come a long way from what it once was and features some yummy restaurants and interesting shops. But Louisville is a top travel destination due to one gentrified street?! C'mon.
"On Bardstown Rd in the Highlands you’ll find a hipster strip of shops and bars, not to mention many ‘Keep Louisville Weird’ stickers."
Okay, Bardstown Road and the Highlands have been the coolest staple of the city for years. Almost every large-sized U.S. city has something like it. Old news. And "Keep Portland Weird" is just as common there as "Keep Louisville Weird" is here. The 'keep (city) weird" concept is actually original to Austin, Texas.
Bourbon reigns in Louisville. This is the traditional jump-off for the Bourbon Trail; with bourbon’s current wave of popularity, new upstart microdistilleries, including some in and around Louisville like the small-batch Angel’s Envy, are giving the old names in bourbon a run for their money.
I'm not going to disagree with much here, except for the fact that this article was the first time I've ever heard of Angel's Envy. I am not much of a bourbon drinker, though, which segues into my point: what if you're visiting Louisville and you aren't a bourbon drinker? The author has a ready-made suggestion:
Try for the first Saturday in May to witness the ‘greatest two minutes in sports,’ the Kentucky Derby.
Q: Um, alright, but that's just one weekend out of the year. What do I do during the others?
A: *crickets chirping*
The coolest hotel in town is 21c Museum Hotel, an edgy contemporary hotel with scissor chandeliers and loft-like rooms.
Yeah, and that 'edgy contemporary' trendy spot is also the most expensive hotel in the city, averaging well over $200 per night. That's a standard room rate in NYC--and you're urging travelers to spend that in Louisville?
If you know me, you'll know that my love for the Oregon and the Pacific Northwest has gone unabated--even though I moved away from the region more than three years ago. Additionally, my friends will know that I'm the first to admit that I'm a sixth-generation Kentuckian--and that I've covered more of the state than most people who have lived here fifty years.
Still, while part of me hates to slander my native state and current home, Louisville, Kentucky just isn't a top-destination city. The metropolis is well on its way to great things--but those great things always seem to be 'just around the corner'. Portland, on the other hand, shows years of innovation and nationally-recognized efforts that have enhanced the city's beauty while protecting its charm and resources--and, as a result--its travel-worthiness.
This is about two cities being worthy of a 'top-destination' honor--and one of them hasn't put forth the effort required to win. Portland will never have Louisville's bourbon, semi-Southern hospitality and border-state-quirkiness, much like Louisville will never have Portland's beauty, innovation or commitment to its environment. It doesn't sound like fair competition, but it doesn't have to be fair when it's accurate.
Had I been eating, I would have choked. Had I been drinking, I might have become violent.
"Matthew, you've being melodramatic", you say. And while that is a historical trend, my friend's question stirred passions within, requiring me to rise to the defense of the city with which I fell in love over six years ago.
In the past week, no fewer than half a dozen people have mentioned this lousy article to me, suggesting that "the new Portland is in Kentucky". Before addressing the 894 things that are wrong with that statement, I decided to investigate the article's author, Robert Reid.
According to his Lonely Planet biography, Reid works and lives in NYC and has written "two dozen Lonely Planet guidebooks." From what I read, Reid's experience is Worldly and his body of work is impressive.
Yet, at the risk of being sued for libel and slander (I don't have any money, Mr. Reid), I believe that the author was either a) completely wasted on our fine bourbon during his entire time in Louisville, b) making preposterous claims on his website to attract visitors, or c) so distracted by the recent hurricane in his city that his first draft was published in error. I don't know what went wrong, but something had to have gone wrong.
Geographically speaking, Portland sits among conifer trees, facing an 11,000-foot high mountain. A 620-foot high waterfall is less than twenty miles from the city limits. The Pacific Ocean is 80 miles away. Comparatively, Louisville isn't near any mountains or oceans, making it very flat. "Louisville looks so beautiful from the sky!", said no arriving/departing flight passenger, ever.
Mr. Clean has no reason to visit Portland because it has consistently ranked among the U.S.' top five cleanest cities. Louisville isn't on any 'dirtiest cities' lists--but it has never been featured on a 'clean list', either.
City planners are to thank for Portland's regular top-ten ranking among best public transportation in the U.S. Louisville is nowhere near that list, either, and is one of the largest cities lacking Amtrak service. In a 2010 survey, 12% of Portlanders used public transit, compared to 2% of Louisvillians.
Mr. Reid's article didn't mention any of that, though. Here's what he did say:
"New Louisville, also known as the East Market District or NuLu, features converted warehouses used as local breweries, antique shops and the city’s coolest restaurants..."
Folks, "New Louisville" is a street. Calling it a 'district' is a stretch, and it certainly isn't a neighborhood. People don't walk around Market Street after dark--and for good reason: this area is one of the city's least-safest. To be fair, Market Street is cool. It has definitely come a long way from what it once was and features some yummy restaurants and interesting shops. But Louisville is a top travel destination due to one gentrified street?! C'mon.
"On Bardstown Rd in the Highlands you’ll find a hipster strip of shops and bars, not to mention many ‘Keep Louisville Weird’ stickers."
Okay, Bardstown Road and the Highlands have been the coolest staple of the city for years. Almost every large-sized U.S. city has something like it. Old news. And "Keep Portland Weird" is just as common there as "Keep Louisville Weird" is here. The 'keep (city) weird" concept is actually original to Austin, Texas.
Bourbon reigns in Louisville. This is the traditional jump-off for the Bourbon Trail; with bourbon’s current wave of popularity, new upstart microdistilleries, including some in and around Louisville like the small-batch Angel’s Envy, are giving the old names in bourbon a run for their money.
I'm not going to disagree with much here, except for the fact that this article was the first time I've ever heard of Angel's Envy. I am not much of a bourbon drinker, though, which segues into my point: what if you're visiting Louisville and you aren't a bourbon drinker? The author has a ready-made suggestion:
Try for the first Saturday in May to witness the ‘greatest two minutes in sports,’ the Kentucky Derby.
Q: Um, alright, but that's just one weekend out of the year. What do I do during the others?
A: *crickets chirping*
The coolest hotel in town is 21c Museum Hotel, an edgy contemporary hotel with scissor chandeliers and loft-like rooms.
Yeah, and that 'edgy contemporary' trendy spot is also the most expensive hotel in the city, averaging well over $200 per night. That's a standard room rate in NYC--and you're urging travelers to spend that in Louisville?
If you know me, you'll know that my love for the Oregon and the Pacific Northwest has gone unabated--even though I moved away from the region more than three years ago. Additionally, my friends will know that I'm the first to admit that I'm a sixth-generation Kentuckian--and that I've covered more of the state than most people who have lived here fifty years.
Still, while part of me hates to slander my native state and current home, Louisville, Kentucky just isn't a top-destination city. The metropolis is well on its way to great things--but those great things always seem to be 'just around the corner'. Portland, on the other hand, shows years of innovation and nationally-recognized efforts that have enhanced the city's beauty while protecting its charm and resources--and, as a result--its travel-worthiness.
This is about two cities being worthy of a 'top-destination' honor--and one of them hasn't put forth the effort required to win. Portland will never have Louisville's bourbon, semi-Southern hospitality and border-state-quirkiness, much like Louisville will never have Portland's beauty, innovation or commitment to its environment. It doesn't sound like fair competition, but it doesn't have to be fair when it's accurate.
Monday, November 5, 2012
No Endorsements Tonight.
There is a time for spreading your praises of a candidate--and there is a time for quiet reflection. There is a time for loudly rejoicing in your candidate's victory--and there is a time for silently wishing the opposing candidate well as she/he prepares for struggles, both well-known and impossible to foresee.
Those of you who read this blog know my political beliefs. I am outspoken (to a fault) and there is very little that has me 'sitting on the fence.' While the night leading up to an election might be the ideal time to make one last push for one's chosen candidate, I only have one thing on my civic-minded brain, and that is my hope that you will be voting tomorrow.
Lazy. Ignorant. Apathetic.
Those are just a few of the many adjectives that enter my head when someone tells me that they do not vote--especially if they are able to do so. I cannot help but notice that these people usually seem proud while they're saying it. Taking pride in not voting absolutely mystifies me. It's like someone saying that they just got a great deal--only $38,000--for a Kia Rio. Being proud of refusing to vote is like driving forty miles out of ones way for gas--just to save a penny per gallon. Denying the responsibility to participate in democracy is like paying $250,000 for mobile home dating back to 1975--because it has a fantastic deck.
The United States is not like Australia or most of South America. Your citizenship in this country does not require you to vote for those who govern this land. Some might argue that compulsory voting is a good thing. But in my opinion, Americans--a vast majority who are very wealthy by the World's standards--should not feel coerced to vote: you should feel naturally compelled to do so.
Sure, no one is going to come to your door on Wednesday and haul you away to prison for not voting. But by not voting, you're doing the following:
--Spitting repeatedly on the Constitution of the United States.
--Pissing on those small, white monuments in Veterans Cemeteries.
--Enabling neighbors, co-workers, friends and family to find your opinions about as
relevant as those of a white-out pen.
I should probably mention that when you're not voting, you are symbolically looking into the faces of Susan B. Anthony and Eleanor Roosevelt and telling them that they wasted their lives. You're telling the African-American who had to pass a designed-to-fail poll test--that the exam was justifiable. You are giving the impression that you think that over one million soldiers died simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But they didn't die due to a logistical, circumstantial error. They died because they were fighting for your rights--and voting is one of those rights.
So, if you're one of the unbelievably massive segments of the population who doesn't vote, do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and don't brag about that. For as soon as you do, you're not looking cool and rebellious; you're simply putting a face on ignorance, arrogance and laziness.
Those of you who read this blog know my political beliefs. I am outspoken (to a fault) and there is very little that has me 'sitting on the fence.' While the night leading up to an election might be the ideal time to make one last push for one's chosen candidate, I only have one thing on my civic-minded brain, and that is my hope that you will be voting tomorrow.
Lazy. Ignorant. Apathetic.
Those are just a few of the many adjectives that enter my head when someone tells me that they do not vote--especially if they are able to do so. I cannot help but notice that these people usually seem proud while they're saying it. Taking pride in not voting absolutely mystifies me. It's like someone saying that they just got a great deal--only $38,000--for a Kia Rio. Being proud of refusing to vote is like driving forty miles out of ones way for gas--just to save a penny per gallon. Denying the responsibility to participate in democracy is like paying $250,000 for mobile home dating back to 1975--because it has a fantastic deck.
The United States is not like Australia or most of South America. Your citizenship in this country does not require you to vote for those who govern this land. Some might argue that compulsory voting is a good thing. But in my opinion, Americans--a vast majority who are very wealthy by the World's standards--should not feel coerced to vote: you should feel naturally compelled to do so.
Sure, no one is going to come to your door on Wednesday and haul you away to prison for not voting. But by not voting, you're doing the following:
--Spitting repeatedly on the Constitution of the United States.
--Pissing on those small, white monuments in Veterans Cemeteries.
--Enabling neighbors, co-workers, friends and family to find your opinions about as
relevant as those of a white-out pen.
I should probably mention that when you're not voting, you are symbolically looking into the faces of Susan B. Anthony and Eleanor Roosevelt and telling them that they wasted their lives. You're telling the African-American who had to pass a designed-to-fail poll test--that the exam was justifiable. You are giving the impression that you think that over one million soldiers died simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But they didn't die due to a logistical, circumstantial error. They died because they were fighting for your rights--and voting is one of those rights.
So, if you're one of the unbelievably massive segments of the population who doesn't vote, do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and don't brag about that. For as soon as you do, you're not looking cool and rebellious; you're simply putting a face on ignorance, arrogance and laziness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)