We've all heard the news over the last few days. If you've been living at the bottom of the ocean or under a rock you might have missed it, otherwise not.
Donald Trump is gasp! not participating in tonight's debate.
Since the moment of his announcement about this, the newsies have been running in circles, waving their hands, and crying about the fact that Trump won't be there because he objects to Megyn Kelly being a moderator. Having gone back to read their exchange there, and the exchanges between them since, I don't blame him. She's not professional in her interviews with him. She doesn't like him and it shows.
If you didn't see the first debate, here's the start of this whole thing between Kelly and Trump:
Her first question out of the gate at that debate was qualified by some as a tough question and by others as an unserious "gotcha":
"Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your
mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not
without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You’ve
called women you don’t like, ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ slobs,' and 'disgusting
animals.'"
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/26/10835994/trump-megyn-kelly-debate-boycott
C'mon, little girl. Pull up those grup panties and get over it. People say ugly things about other people all the time.
What is fascinating is that when I went back in time to find similar nasty remarks made by the Left's Golden Girl I came across a fascinating 2008 article in Scientific American - and this excerpt strikes directly at the heart of this discussion about Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump and will he / won't he / should he, etc.:
Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate
which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should
consider. Ask yourself: How relevant is a political candidate’s
character or action to his or her ability to perform in office? How
pertinent is any person’s past or group affiliation to the claims that
person makes or to that individual’s expertise in a specific domain? If
the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues,
then they are best ignored. Instead we should attend to what is really
important: What is a person asserting? Why does he or she offer a
particular view, and is the view defensible?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/
Looks like this isn't a new 'controversy'.
Trump has made ugly remarks about women, many times. Yes, he does stoop down into the gutter, not stopping at generalizations but getting highly personal in his remarks. But! That proves he has a mile-wide character flaw and nothing more.
Kelly, by raising this at a political debate (not an etiquette debate), shows that she took this personally.
Now, because he's refusing to meet this dame across a debate stage and deal with her silliness, there's a big hoorah across the networks. Trump has been called 'childish', 'petulant', 'unprofessional' and just about everything else you can think of for days. Talking heads and pundits, commentators and pinheads all are weighing in.
After digesting this, watching and listening and thinking about it, I think I know what's behind the excitement.
It's so simple I had to take all the verbiage off and... It's because, by refusing to participate, Trump is marginalizing the organizations that have worked so hard for months to marginalize his candidacy.
Let's go back to the beginning: Kelly asked Trump a question about personality. It has zero to do with policy or what he would do as president. Why? Why, of all the questions she could ask, did she ask that?
This unrelated-to-the-presidency nonsense continued through the first half in a most unprofessional manner. I've gone back and looked down into the transcript.
http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-text/
The moderators tried hard to start a food fight between the candidates, attempting to pit one against the other in one-on-one challenges, like this one, almost immediately after the debate started:
WALLACE: Senator Rubio, when Jeb Bush announced his
candidacy for presidency, he said this: “There’s no passing off
responsibility when you’re a governor, no blending into the legislative
crowd.”
Could you please address Governor Bush across the stage
here, and explain to him why you, someone who has never held executive
office, are better prepared to be president than he is, a man who you
say did a great job running your state of Florida for eight years.
Now, this, at least, does have relation to the presidency and qualification for the office, but really? Asking one candidate to address another (and no doubt hoping for sparks if not fireworks as the result). Unprofessional in my view because it does nothing to allow Rubio to advance himself. It just invites him to disparage Bush and damage himself in the process if he speaks badly.
And here is the entire exchange between Trump and Kelly that night:
KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is
you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However,
that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to
women.
You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.”
(LAUGHTER)
Your Twitter account…
TRUMP: Only Rosie O’Donnell.
(LAUGHTER)
KELLY: No, it wasn’t.
(APPLAUSE)
Your Twitter account…
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Thank you.
KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.
TRUMP: Yes, I’m sure it was.
KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments
about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice
it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound
to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and
how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to
be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?
TRUMP: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.
(APPLAUSE)
I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t frankly
have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you,
this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble.
We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade
and at the border. We lose to everybody.
And frankly, what I say, and oftentimes it’s fun, it’s
kidding. We have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly
Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you,
although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have
treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.
(APPLAUSE)
Looking at that, and I grant that I don't have all of the background - what he's said - I really think she was out of line. What has that question got to do with anything?
So he's not going to tonight's debate in Iowa. So what. If Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Ben Carson or Chris Christie bowed out would there be this huge kerfuffle? No. There would be questions and perhaps some commentary if it was Rubio who walked away and the same with raised eyebrows if it was Cruz, but no one would be throwing the kinds of firebombs at those candidates that they're throwing at Trump.
And it's that which makes me believe that Fox is worried about their ratings and the after-effect of Trump's walk. After all, if Trump doesn't go, and I don't think he's going to since he's already made a commitment to attend a fund-raiser for military veterans, Fox's ratings for this 'do' tonight may spike at the outset due to curiosity, but will probably drop like a rock after the first commercial break.
We'll see, but I am glad that Trump has principles and is willing to stand on them. That is a good character component and one I can admire.
Think about it and have a lovely day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Showing posts with label controversy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label controversy. Show all posts
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
The Scraping Sound You Hear Is...
My soapbox being dragged from the closet.
Ironic, isn't it? Just yesterday I said that I will write and post about things that interest me, but I'm not a torch carrying standard bearer. Aside from that being too dangerous - after all, if the torch you're waving ignites the standard you're carrying, where are you? - the interweb is full of people proselytizing.
Then, just yesterday, I came across something someone posted over on Authonomy (we have torch carrying standard bearers there, too) that just dropped my jaw. I'm still scratching my head over it this morning.
Straight-up, dead honest, I am a gun owner. I grew up in a house with .22 caliber rifles. For almost thirty years, on virtually every Saturday morning, my dad taught hunter safety for the California Department of Fish and Game. Through his classroom passed, literally, thousands of people who learned the fundamentals of safe gun handling. Including me. I took the course when I turned thirteen - the earliest age at which I was eligible to participate. I learned certain fundamentals:
It's all very basic commonsense kind of stuff.
Dad died of cancer when he was eighty-six. He never shot himself or anyone else. He taught my brother and me gun safety, too. When I was little, I knew that if I touched one of those guns without his permission, it was not safe. If I did and he found out I would be 'toast' as the saying is. So I never did unless he let me and stood right there to make sure I didn't do anything stupid. Like dig out the ammo, load the thing and 'play'.
So, I'm a safe gun owner. I know the rules, I understand the ramifications and responsibilities of having guns in the house. Mine are and remain locked up until I perceive that I might need them. Then they are there to be used if necessary.
I bought the shotgun not for its looks, but for the distinctive and loud snap-snap of the forestock when you chamber a round.
If someone breaks into my house, because my guns are locked up and not loaded, I'm not going to make the mistake of holding my index finger in the air while pleasantly saying, 'Can you hold on just a sec? I need to get out my gun and ammo and load it, 'k?' I am going to grab the unloaded shotgun, take it into the upstairs hallway (for the acoustics) and slide that forestock, letting it snap-snap as loudly as possible. Stealth will not be my goal. My fervent prayer in that instance is that whoever is coming through the ground floor window or door will hear it. I genuinely hope they wet themselves and flee (or flea, as Woody Allen would have it in 'Love and Death').
If not, I'll end up using it as a club when they come up the stairs because, at that point, I won't have time to dig out the shells and load it.
What got me going on this, though, is the incredible stupidity of lawmakers. Alcohol and firearms do not mix. Ever. Period. But the legislature in the Great State of Texas has decided that letting college kids carry concealed weapons on campus is a good idea.
Now, before I throw the Texas legislature under the bus, let's get something clear: Other states already allow this. Including Colorado, where marijuana is now legal - and that's a very bad mix, and Oregon (along with Kansas, Mississippi, Wisconsin...)
In Texas, the limitations are that students have to be twenty-one or older. As if that's going to carry any weight. No eighteen year old ever drinks the liquor that isn't legal for them until they're twenty-one.
Apparently, the idea behind this is campus safety. The argument being that if other students are armed and some idiot gets the idea that shooting up the campus is a brilliant idea, they can stop the whack-job before it gets very far. Virginia Tech had an on-campus shooting in 2007 in which thirty-two people died because a mentally ill student wasn't flagged as such in any record repository that a gun seller could check. Patient-doctor privilege, no doubt. In Austin, Texas there was the clock tower shooting in which a student holed up in the campus clock tower and shot sixteen people dead. That was in 1966. We all know there have been others.
The problem is that college kids drink. How many college kids end up in the ER or die because of alcohol poisoning every year? Lots. And when you have college kids drinking, and there are guns lying around (because none of these carrying students is also going to have a gun safe to hand), that is a very bad, a very bad mix.
The fact is that unless and until we get responsible as a society when it comes to guns and gun safety, this is a terrible idea.
What is interesting, though, highly interesting actually, is that other states have carry laws and I've not heard of wild campus shoot-em-ups in those places. That doesn't mean it won't happen, but it hasn't yet. Which is encouraging.
However, back to guns and gun safety. I am a radical when it comes to this because the process I see that's needed is not a three day or ten day or whatever day waiting period while the gun store checks with the Feds to see if you're okay. This is something that requires fundamental changes in the way we think of guns, safety, and privacy. Here are the rules in my perfect world:
First, and foremost, anyone who wants to buy a gun must submit to a thorough background check.
Alcoholism, drug use, psychiatric problems, anything that might be an issue when it comes to that individual being safe and reasonable knocks them out. I don't want some kid who had a run-in with the law and ended up in juvenile court when he was fourteen owning a gun when he's twenty-one. That is not a good mix because, to me, it shows that he's already shown that he's incapable of living within the bounds of acceptable behavior that society has established. I also don't want someone who's been seen by a pshrink and has been given drugs to control bi-polar or any other mental disorder owning a gun.
Second, if anyone is going to carry a firearm anywhere, they must attend and pass gun safety classes that are taught by professionals. Before they are allowed to own or carry, they must prove to the professionals teaching the class that they know how to safely handle the weapon. Tie this into applying for the purchase of a gun. If you want to buy a gun, you cannot take possession of it until the background check - psychiatric and criminal - is complete and you have taken the classes, taken the test, and proved to the satisfaction of the professionals who taught you the basics that you can be a safe gun owner.
Third, ammunition should not be a walk-up purchase. You should not be able to walk into any store that carries ammunition in this country and be able to buy it without some form of identification. Show your permit, complete a form, sign your name and pay. That simple. And that goes for re-loading supplies, too. You want to buy cartridges, bullets and gunpowder? Same deal - permit, form, pay.
As for the students carrying on campus, anyone who walks onto school grounds - be it K-12 or college, should immediately be subject to search. And this one bothers me - A LOT. It's too police state and far over the line when it comes to the Fourth Amendment (illegal search). However, if I'm sitting in class and I have a gun in my bag and if I know that my bag might be searched and the consequences will be hard, fast and blind, I'm going to make damned sure I'm in compliance.
Any student or visitor to that campus who is not a member of law enforcement there on business must be willing to submit to spot checks of their dorm room or person. If they have a gun in their possession, they had damned well better have the permit for it, too. If they don't, out. Done. Prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon, period. Fines, 'first time' excuses simply do not exist. It's jail time because this is far too serious and too dangerous for half-measures.
So, soapbox goes back into the closet and I'll let this one go. I just hope to heaven that these guys in Texas know what they're doing. Colorado and Oregon and Idaho, etc., seem to be okay. So far. I sincerely hope it stays that way but if you visit a college campus, be polite, don't piss anyone off, and watch your back.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Ironic, isn't it? Just yesterday I said that I will write and post about things that interest me, but I'm not a torch carrying standard bearer. Aside from that being too dangerous - after all, if the torch you're waving ignites the standard you're carrying, where are you? - the interweb is full of people proselytizing.
Then, just yesterday, I came across something someone posted over on Authonomy (we have torch carrying standard bearers there, too) that just dropped my jaw. I'm still scratching my head over it this morning.
Straight-up, dead honest, I am a gun owner. I grew up in a house with .22 caliber rifles. For almost thirty years, on virtually every Saturday morning, my dad taught hunter safety for the California Department of Fish and Game. Through his classroom passed, literally, thousands of people who learned the fundamentals of safe gun handling. Including me. I took the course when I turned thirteen - the earliest age at which I was eligible to participate. I learned certain fundamentals:
- Never point any gun, toy or real, at any human being.
- Be sure of your backstop. Be Sure of your target.
- A safe weapon is an unloaded weapon. Do not give or take a weapon on which the chamber is not open.
- Use the safety and make sure it's on if you are handling a gun.
- Never store a firearm with a round loaded in the chamber.
- Keep ammunition stored separately from the firearm.
- Guns and alcohol do not mix.
It's all very basic commonsense kind of stuff.
Dad died of cancer when he was eighty-six. He never shot himself or anyone else. He taught my brother and me gun safety, too. When I was little, I knew that if I touched one of those guns without his permission, it was not safe. If I did and he found out I would be 'toast' as the saying is. So I never did unless he let me and stood right there to make sure I didn't do anything stupid. Like dig out the ammo, load the thing and 'play'.
So, I'm a safe gun owner. I know the rules, I understand the ramifications and responsibilities of having guns in the house. Mine are and remain locked up until I perceive that I might need them. Then they are there to be used if necessary.
I bought the shotgun not for its looks, but for the distinctive and loud snap-snap of the forestock when you chamber a round.
If someone breaks into my house, because my guns are locked up and not loaded, I'm not going to make the mistake of holding my index finger in the air while pleasantly saying, 'Can you hold on just a sec? I need to get out my gun and ammo and load it, 'k?' I am going to grab the unloaded shotgun, take it into the upstairs hallway (for the acoustics) and slide that forestock, letting it snap-snap as loudly as possible. Stealth will not be my goal. My fervent prayer in that instance is that whoever is coming through the ground floor window or door will hear it. I genuinely hope they wet themselves and flee (or flea, as Woody Allen would have it in 'Love and Death').
If not, I'll end up using it as a club when they come up the stairs because, at that point, I won't have time to dig out the shells and load it.
What got me going on this, though, is the incredible stupidity of lawmakers. Alcohol and firearms do not mix. Ever. Period. But the legislature in the Great State of Texas has decided that letting college kids carry concealed weapons on campus is a good idea.
Now, before I throw the Texas legislature under the bus, let's get something clear: Other states already allow this. Including Colorado, where marijuana is now legal - and that's a very bad mix, and Oregon (along with Kansas, Mississippi, Wisconsin...)
In Texas, the limitations are that students have to be twenty-one or older. As if that's going to carry any weight. No eighteen year old ever drinks the liquor that isn't legal for them until they're twenty-one.
Apparently, the idea behind this is campus safety. The argument being that if other students are armed and some idiot gets the idea that shooting up the campus is a brilliant idea, they can stop the whack-job before it gets very far. Virginia Tech had an on-campus shooting in 2007 in which thirty-two people died because a mentally ill student wasn't flagged as such in any record repository that a gun seller could check. Patient-doctor privilege, no doubt. In Austin, Texas there was the clock tower shooting in which a student holed up in the campus clock tower and shot sixteen people dead. That was in 1966. We all know there have been others.
The problem is that college kids drink. How many college kids end up in the ER or die because of alcohol poisoning every year? Lots. And when you have college kids drinking, and there are guns lying around (because none of these carrying students is also going to have a gun safe to hand), that is a very bad, a very bad mix.
The fact is that unless and until we get responsible as a society when it comes to guns and gun safety, this is a terrible idea.
What is interesting, though, highly interesting actually, is that other states have carry laws and I've not heard of wild campus shoot-em-ups in those places. That doesn't mean it won't happen, but it hasn't yet. Which is encouraging.
However, back to guns and gun safety. I am a radical when it comes to this because the process I see that's needed is not a three day or ten day or whatever day waiting period while the gun store checks with the Feds to see if you're okay. This is something that requires fundamental changes in the way we think of guns, safety, and privacy. Here are the rules in my perfect world:
First, and foremost, anyone who wants to buy a gun must submit to a thorough background check.
Alcoholism, drug use, psychiatric problems, anything that might be an issue when it comes to that individual being safe and reasonable knocks them out. I don't want some kid who had a run-in with the law and ended up in juvenile court when he was fourteen owning a gun when he's twenty-one. That is not a good mix because, to me, it shows that he's already shown that he's incapable of living within the bounds of acceptable behavior that society has established. I also don't want someone who's been seen by a pshrink and has been given drugs to control bi-polar or any other mental disorder owning a gun.
Second, if anyone is going to carry a firearm anywhere, they must attend and pass gun safety classes that are taught by professionals. Before they are allowed to own or carry, they must prove to the professionals teaching the class that they know how to safely handle the weapon. Tie this into applying for the purchase of a gun. If you want to buy a gun, you cannot take possession of it until the background check - psychiatric and criminal - is complete and you have taken the classes, taken the test, and proved to the satisfaction of the professionals who taught you the basics that you can be a safe gun owner.
Third, ammunition should not be a walk-up purchase. You should not be able to walk into any store that carries ammunition in this country and be able to buy it without some form of identification. Show your permit, complete a form, sign your name and pay. That simple. And that goes for re-loading supplies, too. You want to buy cartridges, bullets and gunpowder? Same deal - permit, form, pay.
As for the students carrying on campus, anyone who walks onto school grounds - be it K-12 or college, should immediately be subject to search. And this one bothers me - A LOT. It's too police state and far over the line when it comes to the Fourth Amendment (illegal search). However, if I'm sitting in class and I have a gun in my bag and if I know that my bag might be searched and the consequences will be hard, fast and blind, I'm going to make damned sure I'm in compliance.
Any student or visitor to that campus who is not a member of law enforcement there on business must be willing to submit to spot checks of their dorm room or person. If they have a gun in their possession, they had damned well better have the permit for it, too. If they don't, out. Done. Prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon, period. Fines, 'first time' excuses simply do not exist. It's jail time because this is far too serious and too dangerous for half-measures.
So, soapbox goes back into the closet and I'll let this one go. I just hope to heaven that these guys in Texas know what they're doing. Colorado and Oregon and Idaho, etc., seem to be okay. So far. I sincerely hope it stays that way but if you visit a college campus, be polite, don't piss anyone off, and watch your back.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
And the Point Is...
I was chatting with a friend at work yesterday. He reads my blog and we were talking about the post I did on Sunday - about the transient nature of things and my little side trip to serendipitously visit the cows. We talked and laughed and were having a fine ol' time. Along the way, though, an interesting question crept in and took up residence.
It wasn't from anything said, implied or suggested. It was more from an insecure flutter in me, the little girl resident at my core who sometimes is afraid of things and of what people will think. Basically, the question was: what's the point of writing a blog?
There are thousands if not millions of people who blog. Some do it occasionally, as the mood strikes. Others have a more rigorous routine - like me they have a desire and determination to write regularly. Many who blog do so for personal reasons - a means of keeping friends and family up-to-date with what's happening in their world. Others do it because of ill health, a means of expressing themselves while they deal with dire consequence. Blogging is, in the modern day, a public diary.
Some people do it because they have a standard or a torch they want to advance. Social justice, inequality, politics, finances, all are blog fodder and all are valuable, if you happen to think and feel the same as the person doing the blogging.
The fact is, though, there are lots of people waving their banners about this or that or the other, but are they really changing minds?
Over on Authonomy I see it all the time. Someone will start a thread on Subject A. Someone else comes along and introduces Subject B. Eventually they will get to Subject C or D and it becomes controversial, or at least heated.
That devolves into a circular argument where two or three people are forcefully expressing their differing opinion and defending their polar positions, but no one is receiving a changed mind.
Person One isn't going to change because they expressed the thought or opinion that set the thing on its ear in the first place. Person Two, who picks the argument or fight with Person One isn't going to change. That's why they declared as they did, countering or disputing Person One's opinion or position. They'll grapple and kick and hiss like two kids on a playground while everyone else there stands around rooting for their favorite, or against the person they dislike most.
In the meantime, most of the other Persons who drop by to see what's happening are either going to side with One or Two, or they'll sit on the sidelines, chomp some popcorn, and watch the fur fly. Some will just shake their head in disgust and leave.
Enough already! I don't want to wave a standard or a torch. I don't want to stand on a soapbox and stridently expound upon my profound thoughts and beliefs. There are plenty of other places where that's happening, and that's fine. If it floats the boat of the person writing and the people reading, cool - go for it. Knock yourself out, but don't expect me to march alongside because I'm not interested in joining that parade.
In my daily living I have enough controversy and frustration and anger and irritation and all the rest of it. I don't need or want more.
This is a place where I can sit down, express myself quietly, and hope to bring a little pleasure to someone else's day.
Is it profound? No. It's not intended to be.
Is it controversial? Probably not, unless my knickers get twisted about something I deem interesting or important. Then I reserve the right to express my views and you, of course, have the right to think "Geez, what a moron!"
Is it a place where you can set yourself down for a couple of minutes, relax and just have a look in on the workings of someone else's mind and into their world? I hope so.
That's the point of it. Quiet and simple pleasure, a peaceful morning place, or an evening or afternoon place. A place where you can set aside your day, your situation and go somewhere else for a few moments. I hope that's how you find it, because that's all it's intended to be.
Have a lovely day!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
It wasn't from anything said, implied or suggested. It was more from an insecure flutter in me, the little girl resident at my core who sometimes is afraid of things and of what people will think. Basically, the question was: what's the point of writing a blog?
There are thousands if not millions of people who blog. Some do it occasionally, as the mood strikes. Others have a more rigorous routine - like me they have a desire and determination to write regularly. Many who blog do so for personal reasons - a means of keeping friends and family up-to-date with what's happening in their world. Others do it because of ill health, a means of expressing themselves while they deal with dire consequence. Blogging is, in the modern day, a public diary.
Some people do it because they have a standard or a torch they want to advance. Social justice, inequality, politics, finances, all are blog fodder and all are valuable, if you happen to think and feel the same as the person doing the blogging.
The fact is, though, there are lots of people waving their banners about this or that or the other, but are they really changing minds?
Over on Authonomy I see it all the time. Someone will start a thread on Subject A. Someone else comes along and introduces Subject B. Eventually they will get to Subject C or D and it becomes controversial, or at least heated.
That devolves into a circular argument where two or three people are forcefully expressing their differing opinion and defending their polar positions, but no one is receiving a changed mind.
Person One isn't going to change because they expressed the thought or opinion that set the thing on its ear in the first place. Person Two, who picks the argument or fight with Person One isn't going to change. That's why they declared as they did, countering or disputing Person One's opinion or position. They'll grapple and kick and hiss like two kids on a playground while everyone else there stands around rooting for their favorite, or against the person they dislike most.
In the meantime, most of the other Persons who drop by to see what's happening are either going to side with One or Two, or they'll sit on the sidelines, chomp some popcorn, and watch the fur fly. Some will just shake their head in disgust and leave.
Enough already! I don't want to wave a standard or a torch. I don't want to stand on a soapbox and stridently expound upon my profound thoughts and beliefs. There are plenty of other places where that's happening, and that's fine. If it floats the boat of the person writing and the people reading, cool - go for it. Knock yourself out, but don't expect me to march alongside because I'm not interested in joining that parade.
In my daily living I have enough controversy and frustration and anger and irritation and all the rest of it. I don't need or want more.
This is a place where I can sit down, express myself quietly, and hope to bring a little pleasure to someone else's day.
Is it profound? No. It's not intended to be.
Is it controversial? Probably not, unless my knickers get twisted about something I deem interesting or important. Then I reserve the right to express my views and you, of course, have the right to think "Geez, what a moron!"
Is it a place where you can set yourself down for a couple of minutes, relax and just have a look in on the workings of someone else's mind and into their world? I hope so.
That's the point of it. Quiet and simple pleasure, a peaceful morning place, or an evening or afternoon place. A place where you can set aside your day, your situation and go somewhere else for a few moments. I hope that's how you find it, because that's all it's intended to be.
Have a lovely day!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)