Exhausted by Negativity

I'm not sure when it happened but I find myself out of patience with negativity. I can no longer pretend that hearing such thoughts and opinions in excess has no bearing on my well being or on my world view.

Having said that, I am not some wide-eyed optimist. I like to vent. It might be my imagination of course but it just seems the balance is off. More bad chat than good. I feel like all the energy of the negative has taken up residence in my colon. Upper and lower.

I propose a brief experiment. Not scientific but so what. Let's start small. Can we go 24 hours without complaining? Not about the weather. Not about the state of the world. Not about our jobs. Or lack thereof. Not about our neighbors. Or our families. Prices. Our loss of radiant skin.

I'll give it a whirl and report back. If you try, spill the beans on the experience.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

H

GREETINGS & HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL! Click to enjoy my video shout out.

Stronger Than Their Walls: screenings

Stronger Than Their Walls Guilty Though Proven Innocent
(watch trailer at strongerthantheirwalls.com).

A documentary about struggles for justice in Rhode Island. RI law allows people on probation to be incarcerated for crimes for which they have been found innocent or for which the charges have been dismissed. This documentary follows the story of several men who were presumed guilty and never given a fair chance to demonstrate their innocence. The families of these imprisoned men take the issue to the Rhode Island Statehouse, where they tell their stories in an effort to reform the law.Stronger : is currently organizing screenings around Rhode Island. Please contact (strongerthantheirwalls@gmail.com) to arrange a screening--at your house, your church, your community center, anywhere.
Watch the full movie at a screening near you: check (strongerthantheirwalls.com )for new dates.

Providence South Side, Tuesday, 9th at 6:00 RI Family Life Center, 841 Broad Street

Providence North Side, Tuesday, Dec 9th at 7:30 Mount Hope Neighborhood Association, 142 Camp Street

Downtown Providence, Thursday, December 18 at 7:00 Black Repertory Theatre, 276 Westminster St. with panel discussion sponsored by Rhode Island Council of the Humanities

Newport Sunday, January 4 at noon, St. Paul's Church, 12 Marlborough Street

Storytelling at Risk?

Curiously enough the MIT Media Lab has paired up with some current & former Hollywood industry people to create the Center for Future Storytelling.

David Kirkpatrick who once headed Paramount Pictures motion picture group is one of the founders of the experiment and currently the CEO of Plymouth Rock Studios, a 240 acre studio complex featuring 14 soundstages, a 10 acre backlot and the MIT Storytelling Lab that is being constructed in Plymouth, MA

The group formed out of concern that text messages, cell phones and the constant bombardment of visual chatter and changing the integrity of narrative.

Starting in 2010 MIT faculty members, grad students, interns, and those working in the worlds of films and books will gather to experiment with and study the future of digital delivery and the way innovation in the field might erode or further compromise storytelling as we know it today.

The shared goal is to keep meaning alive in 21st-century storytelling.

I was just having a conversation this morning with a friend about how the devices of our contemporary life seem to be fracturing our abilities to focus and pay attention. Odd for me to say I suppose since I have been diagnosed with ADD but I see this happening to people I know who did not exhibit symptoms previously.

It is troubling to think that our storytelling might morph into more action oriented products or perhaps highly edited work that keeps our eyes in gear. But what about our brains? Our imagination? Memory?

What do you think?

BEING GRATEFUL

Apparently Thanksgiving brings up all sorts of issues for people. Maybe there is some ambivalence about family dynamics. Perhaps there are food issues. What if you're a vegan and everyone in your family will be doing heavy turkey consumption. Maybe there are political differences and after the election, emotions might be volatile. Travel could be a pain in the butt.

But let's put all those possibilities (and more) aside for a few. What about all the things we can truly be thankful for? Doesn't it seem manageable to actually pay attention to, at the heart, all the swell manifestations of grace that have rained down on us?

When I am feeling overwhelmed or depressed or anxious, I start the mantra of gratitude for myself. I just take a minute to list every little thing, every big thing and all the stuff that can't be sized.

I might do this in traffic. When I can't sleep. When I'm peeved.

And if you open yourself to the process, you will be amazed at what you come up with. And trust me on this, if you are not in the habit of doing this simple practice, you will be awestruck by how much better you feel.

If you scroll all the way down to the bottom, I have a related piece.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

Another I TOLD YOU SO. Almost.

Shortly after Obama picked Biden as his number two, I had the feeling as prez he'd ask Hillary to be Secretary of State.

Naysayers up the yin-yang.

You wait and see.

The Emperess has no clothes!

Some of you have heard me RANT on this before but I swear the problem is getting much worse. I cannot find any clothes or shoes to buy and I am about to throw open the window (just like in NETWORK) and scream, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!".

I am not 14. I am not 25 and skinny. I am not a matronly suburban Volvo driving Mom. I am not a girly girl. I am not willing to spend hundreds of dollars to look like the Olsen Twins because I do not appreciate their aesthetic.

Where in hades (should that be capitalized?) are the designers and manufacturers for middle-aged gals who are not frumpy, not skinny, not rich, somewhat hip and who prefer not to look like an extra on Gossip Girl?

Chicos is weird in every sense of the word. J Jill has a better style but the line is oddly cut.

What about shoes that are comfortable AND stylin' and cost less than $300 (sorry Linda!)? I am not wearing high heels every day! Nor do I want, in a casual shoe, a Mary Jane strap or a friggin' bow! The gap between the high fashion option (which I would need to wear approximately once every 2 years) and the day-to-day utilitarian and "old & tired" style is massive.

I am thinking of finding a lawyer willing to file a class action suit against all the major design houses.

I have threatened this before but I may have to really take action on this: I will write and repeat an affirmation to receive a huge motherlode of cash. I will then seek out some disillusioned & demoralized RISD grad who is currently designing some underwhelming crap for Old Navy and/or it's big sister The Gap, sit down with them, design some stuff, find a FAIR TRADE cooperative (in this country and no, that is not an oxymoron) to make the stuff, identify the one textile factory left in this country, but some fabric & "stuff", make it and sell it from kiosks in supermarkets, at libraries, at gas stations, at Farmer's markets, at movie houses, at restaurants and bars and possibly at temples/churches/other spiritual joints.

Ditto for shoes & boots. We might have to go with an all vegan line but my feet like to breathe so I'll have to research some options that will not set off a firestorm.

The label will be called BRANDLESS.

Nothing will cost more than $250.00.

I am accepting advance orders at this time for delivery within the next 5 years.

IN THE MEANTIME, if you have any tips for where I can shop, HOLLA!

I TOLD you so!

As I listened to his acceptance speech I had a broader, deeper understanding of the message and the intention of this community organizer. The presidency is just the obvious vehicle. This man through his vision and intention (yes, I'm using it again) has been challenging us to shift our mired hearts and minds out of a stinking, dark, claustrophobic, tar pit of despair & ugliness.

He's offering us a hand to climb out of a very lonely place. As individuals, as a country. Country as community. No need to blame anyone. We all had a part in creating the environment that brought us to our knees in sadness.

We diminished our compassion for others and for ourselves. Dulled our warrior minds, making it easier for hordes of self-serving emperors to suck the life out of us as they ran naked through our streets vandalizing the American Dream, the Golden Rule, the better nature of our angels.

This is a shift from the negative to the positive. From lack to prosperity. From holding people down to lifting them up. But this isn't about a savior. This man is a community organizer. Fundamental principle: Don't do for others what they can do for themselves. But he will bring us to the table. Turn on a light. Offer leadership and resources. But he expects us to move beyond our learned passivity fueled by consumerism into a place of creation and action. We need to become participants in creating the community we want, the country we want, the world we want.

This man is bringing us to a powerful place. Physically. Emotionally. Spiritually. Get ready for the shift.

Is Originalism surreal or is it me?

Maybe a year ago I saw Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia profiled on 60 Minutes. Leslie Stahl was questioning him on Originalism and I thought the whole concept was curious but I was more curious about other aspects of his being.

Recently I saw a repeat of the segment and I found myself thinking a lot about the concept which seems, on some levels, to be peculiar (this is my most benign response) and fairly surreal on others.

I came across this info on the topic on Legal Theory Lexicon "All the concepts that fit."

If you already have an opinion, please share it. If not, please read...digest...respond. In other words, discuss.

Introduction: There are many different theories of constitutional interpretation, but the most controversial and also perhaps the most influential is "originalism"--actually a loosely-knit family of constitutional theories. The idea that courts would look to evidence from the constitutional convention, the ratification debates, The Federalist Papers, and the historical practice shortly after ratification of the Constitution of 1789 (or to equivalent sources for amendments) is an old one. This post provides a very brief introduction to "originalism" that is aimed at law students (especially first-year law students) with an interest in legal theory.
Originalism is not just an ivory tower theory. It has had a profound influence on the practice of constitutional interpretation and the political contest over the shape of the federal judiciary. President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork (an avowed originalist) was one key moment--with his defeat by the democrats seen as a political rejection of originalism. The current Supreme Court has at least two members who seem strongly influenced by originalist constitutional theory--Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and two others, John Roberts and Samuel Alito who may also be receptive to originalist arguments. In the late 1980s Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that originalists should shift their attention from "the original intentions of the framers" to the "original public meaning of the constitutional text."

The New Originalism The final chapter of the originalism debate in legal theory has yet to be written--and perhaps it never will be. But one last set of developments is particularly important. In the 70s and early 80s, originalism was strongly associated with conservative judicial politics and conservative legal scholars. But in the late 1980s and in the 1990s, this began to change. One of the important moves was the shift from "original intentions" to "original public meaning," but two developments were key. First, Bruce Ackerman's work on constitutional history suggested the availability of "left originalism" that maintained the commitment to the constitutional will of "We the People" but argued that the constitution included a New Deal constitutional moment that legitimated the legacy of the Warren Court. (Ackerman does not call himself an "originalist," but many of Ackerman's former students do work that is implicitly or explicitly originalist.) Second, Randy Barnett (the leading figure in libertarian legal theory) embraced originalism in an influential article entitled An Originalism for Nonoriginalists. The most recent development in this dynamic is Jack Balkin's attempt to reconcile originalism with living constitutionalism.

The original-meaning version of originalism emphasizes the meaning that the Constitution (or its amendments) would have had to the relevant audience at the time of its adoptions. How would the Constitution of 1789 have been understood by an ordinary adult citizen at the time it was adopted? Of course, the same sources that are relevant to original intent are relevant to original meaning. So, for example, the debates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia may shed light on the question how the Constitution produced by the Convention would have been understood by those who did not participate in the secret deliberations of the drafters. But for original-meaning originalists, other sources become of paramount importance. The ratification debates and Federalist Papers can be supplemented by evidence of ordinary usage and by the constructions placed on the Constitution by the political branches and the states in the early years after its adoption. The turn to original meaning made originalism a stronger theory and vitiated many of the powerful objections that had been made against original-intentions originalism.

This sets the stage for what is sometimes called “the New Originalism” and also is called “Original Meaning Originalism.” Whatever the actual origins of this theory, the conventional story identifies Antonin Scalia as having a key role. As early as 1986, Scalia gave a speech exhorting originalists to “change the label from the Doctrine of Original Intent to the Doctrine of Original Meaning.” The phrase “original public meaning” seems to have entered into the contemporary theoretical debates in the work of Gary Lawson with Steven Calabresi as another “early adopter.” The core idea of the revised theory is that the original meaning of the constitution is the original public meaning of the constitutional text.

We are already beginning to see originalists coming to grips with the relationship between original meaning and precedent--both in the narrow sense of Supreme Court decisions and the broader sense of the settled practices of the political branches of government and the states. Some originalists have argued that as a general rule, constitutional actors should give follow original meaning, even if it would conflict with longstanding historical practice or settled precedent. Other originalists argue that precedent and/or historical practice can trump original meaning in specified circumstances.

Legal Theory Lexicon
"All the concepts that fit."

Stop fretting! Obama will be president (or is it President?)

Last night in yoga class some gals were filled with anxiety about the election. Apparently I was at that very moment chosen to receive a message from the great collective unconscious or else from the "state" of shared energy with the luminous strings that Carlos Castenada used to write about.

Here's the message I received swiftly and with no doubt: Obama is a shoe-in. Though I am extrapolating because there no words used in this visitation. It was as if a small diamond had been propelled out of a pulsing particle accelerator (much like a Top Fuel Funny Car's burnout)) that was aimed at my brain and the diamond was moving so fast and was cut so sharp by some robotic laser dervish that all I felt was a massive electrical surge (which I would have appreciated more if it lasted longer) that wordlessly planted the idea OBAMA IS A SHOE-IN throughout my physical plant.