Gay/Anti-Gay Legislation

We sure seem to be spending a lot of time and effort on this issue.  I find both sides off the mark in their positions.

First, many who oppose, say, same-sex marriages/unions (or whatever they are called), offer as a justification their own "religious freedom."  Huh?  Nobody, certainly not the gays, are preventing any Christians from free exercise of their religion.  Christians can practice what they want, as long as they don't kill anyone, etc.  They don't have to marry others of the same sex.  They can oppose it, just like they can oppose a lot of things.  But doesn't "freedom of religion" mean that Christians can't impose their religious beliefs on others?

Besides, wasn't it this guy Jesus who told us to "love thy neighbor as thyself?"  Aren't gays "neighbors?"

It wasn't too long ago, in historical context, that religion (Christianity) and, specifically, the Bible that were used to justify slavery.  No, it wasn't only in the South.  When both Yale and Dartmouth were still affiliated with the Christian Church, deans/presidents of those institutions gave speeches defending slavery and citing the Bible as the authority for their defense.  Hmmm......  And those of us who grew up in the '50s and '60s remember a different time, with a different minority, when bigotry was justified through a variety of means.

By the same token, if some baker or photographer or whoever, doesn't want to serve or take pictures at a gay wedding, that should be his prerogative, his right.  Government should not dictate what people must do.  I think such bakers and photographers or whoever are bigots, that they reflect poorly on their religions, etc. but the government (be it state or federal) should tell them they must "bake a cake" or "take photos," etc. of gay weddings.  And if boycotts are called and those businesses are hurt, even put out of business, well and good.  People have a right to be bigots, but they also should bear the consequences of that bigotry.

In the same vein as Christians not being able to impose their beliefs on others, gays shouldn't be allowed, by using the tools of government, to force others to accept gay marriage, etc.  Now, as I noted earlier, why they don't, as if it affects them personally?????, is sometimes beyond me.  Hey, didn't the Pope himself a short while ago say Catholics focused on the wrong issues?  This was one of them.  Some are opposed to gay marriages, even gays themselves, but this is America--we have the right to have wrong opinions.

It's interesting how the sides have seemingly changed, that is, in calling for the government to come in and solve the problem.

We have cities with kids being shot and killed every day.  We have schools, suburban schools, where there are students murdering other students seemingly every other week.  We have a government that is taking away freedoms bit by bit.  Our schools are in the toilet.  But gay marriages is the issue??????

And, almost as an addendum, a couple weeks ago I was called "an old fogey."  OK, I admit I am in many ways.  I know I've written about this before, many times.  But "new" and "modern" are not synonyms with better.  Our culture, regarding morality and ethics, is disintegrating.  I think much of it is due to the attitudes that were inculcated (When I was a freshman in college, I always made fun of the use of that word!) in the '60s and, esp, '70s.  And I think it's been ingrained since then.  Bill Clinton made immorality fashionable.  He's not only not considered a scumbag, but held up as the senior spokesman of the party.  Imagine Bill Clinton as a paragon?!?!?!  There are no leaders out there who set high standards of decency.  In effect, we are managing to "dumb down" morality.  I don't think that's a good thing and if it makes me "an old fogey," I plead "Guilty."

"Nowhere to Run"

Wow!  Wasn't that a great tune by Martha and the Umbrellas?!?!?!  It still is and I think it's one of my two favorites by that group.  (Yes, I love, love, love Motown songs!)

Now, "Nowhere to Run" has taken on a new meaning--a literal one.  There's nowhere to run, at least not outside.  Michael, my blind buddy, and I called off our run this AM, mostly due to the strong winds--20 to 30 mph or more.  But I was also concerned about the streets and the footing on them--ice and packed snow that is like running on slag or big rocks.

Here, running on the main roads is fine--on the main roads, not the shoulders.  The shoulders are pretty much solid ice.  I tried walking this AM on them and went back home.  The side/subdivision streets are also very bad.  There are some clear spots, but mostly they, too, are like ice rinks.  Toss in the rough slag-like conditions, ripe for ankle turns and spills, and there's nowhere to run.

Dreadmills, er, treadmills are out of the question.  I don't like them.  Besides, the one in the basement has a key that can't be found.  (Gee, the kids don't know what happened to it!)  I don't like to visit the local high schools and their indoor tracks, either.

I'm hoping tomorrow will give me a little window of opportunity to get out there.

Not one to wish my life away, but I can't wait for better weather--to run and to bike.  Hey, did Punxatawney Phil see his shadow??????

Relativity

I think that Einstein guy knew a little something, about relativity that is.  Now, this isn't his general theory of relativity, that many people equate with him:  E = mc2.  This is his special theory of relativity, which, because it's "special," people think is more difficult.  It isn't.

What it relates to are frames of reference, specifically speed, time, distance, etc.

And how about we folks here in Michigan this past week?  Talk about relativity/frames of reference!  Who'd a thunk we'd look at a thermometer at 6 AM, see 15 degrees, and jump for joy at the warmth?  Or, perhaps even more so, see the upper 20s and 30s are veritable heat waves?

I guess that's explained by all the single-digit and sub-zero temperatures--and all of the snow!--we've had since Jan 1.  There may have been a colder spell in my time, but I don't at all remember it.

I do recall, though, having only one "snow day" when I was a kid.  We had about 10" of snow and school was canceled because teachers couldn't get in to work--we kids all walked to school.  I spent most of the day shoveling snow in the neighborhood, some for money, but most for free because my mother sent me out to do Mrs. Rembicki's, Mr. and Mrs Toloco, the Hughes', the Soviaks, etc.  I did get pay, of sorts, from some of them--a glass of Vernor's, a special treat because we rarely had soda in the house, and, I remember, my first slice of Boston Cream Pie!

I also remember the coldest day as a kid, on a day we didn't have school--maybe a Saturday or the day (a Friday?) between the first and second semesters.  We walked to the Daly's on Greenfield and Joy, but I don't remember what we ordered, likely a Pig's Dinner so we could get a pin, "I Was a Pig at Daly's."  (I never tried a Pig's Trough, though I wonder now if I could have easily finished it.)  We thought it was so cool because the temperature was 10 degrees.  I don't know how I remember that!

The Oath

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Wouldn't it be great if the Chief Justice or whoever administers this oath ad libbed, "Do you really mean it or are you just kidding?"

OK, let's not just pick on the President.  Let's pick on all the politicians.

I read the other day, too, an article that identified Congressman Kerry Bentivoliio as "reindeer farmer."  I laughed, again.  Why aren't John Dingell, John Conyers, Debbie Stabenow, the Levins, et al similarly identified as "career politicians?"  Oh, and Bentivolio has occasionally been additionally identified as "plays Santa Claus."  Now, there's a great one.  It's supposed to be negative things, I guess, to have one's own business as a "reindeer farmer" and to "play Santa Claus" (Yep, making kids happy is a real bad thing!), but being a career politician is perfectly fine.  Note I haven't even touched upon the terrible things these career politicians have perpetrated upon us.

Where is the outrage as some of these Hollywood-types and hippy rock stars promote the use of the most recent party drug "molly?"  This drug has been linked with deaths, as it can cause a user to just stop breathing.  Yet, these lamebrains glorify the use of "molly."  

How great!  In profiling some teachers employing the new "Common Core," a newspaper article including this from one of the teacher's lessons, "There is no right or wrong answer......"  Just great.  The teachers explained that, the answer isn't important, the process is.  Yep, when that building you're in collapses, I'll remember to say at your funeral, "But the engineer/architect knew the process."  What fools!

"Intellectual Artillery"

I heard this term on the radio the other day and it struck me as a wonderful expression, "intellectual artillery." It was used in the context of discussing the current (well, at least the last couple of decades) trendy educational practice of dropping the study of Western Civilization--its history, literature, ideas, etc.--in favor of a more global (Oh, I don't like that word!) approach.  I'm never one to say the study of, say, 2nd Century BC or 12th Century Africa isn't important and desirable.  But, realistically, if time spend in formal education is limited, and it is, which has more to offer students and their lives?

The discussion turned to the study of the classics and "arming people with intellectual artillery."  One angle struck me as particularly cogent.  One of the speakers iterated something about the classics leaving students with the feeling that "I want more!"  Yes!  No doubt much of what I learned at Amherst I've forgotten and, in fact, likely didn't register to me then.  (Sometimes I think college is wasted on the young!)  I do, remember, though, that 15% of the Frankfurt Assembly of 1848 was composed of craftsmen and artisans!  (That's a very inside joke, but true.)  What has stuck with me all these years from my Amherst professors is just that, "I want more!"  They instilled a curiosity, a love of learning.  I can't die yet!  There's a lot more to learn!

BTW, I also heard some pundit on the radio say the federal courts should leave the states alone when it comes to recognition/legalization of gay marriages.  "The feds should stay out of it," he said.  (It was a substitute host and I don't have any idea of his name.)  Hmmm......  There is a lot "the feds should stay out of," but is this one of them?  Had I been able to confront this guy, I'd have asked if it was within the federal courts' (The Supremes in this instance) to rule unconstitutional state bans on interracial marriages??????  I believe that was the Loving case (?).  No, when states discriminate against any group of people the federal government should step in.

Books and Authors

The other day someone recalled the first book she remembers reading.  Hmmm......  It's been so long, I'm not certain I remember the first book.  I've always liked The Boxcar Children and, if I had my druthers, I'd choose that as the first one I read by myself.  It might well have been, but I just don't remember for sure.  It was one of the first, though.  I have read the book a number of times since, to by two kids more than once and to two of my grandkids, beginning with the third one, too.  The dog's name is "Watch," but we always call him "Watch-dog."  I constantly quiz them, "What's a brook?"  I think there are other books in the series, but I've never read any of them.

I do remember reading books by Walter Havighurst and others, books about each of the then 48 states.  I really enjoyed them, although my classmates must have considered me a nerd of sorts.  Only coincidentally I later discovered that Walter Havighurst was the brother of one of my Amherst professors, Alfred Havighurst. Professor Havighurst taught me British History and was superb.

There were also many biographies, a series I'm sure, of a wide variety of Americans.  They included George Washington, Lou Gehrig, George Washington Carver, Helen Keller, and more.  What I remember most about them is that they were all orange and were kept over by a large window on the back/west side of our cavernous jr high library.  Again, biographies?  Nerd......

Mrs. Pickerell was the character in a series of mystery or science fiction novels.  The one I recall most distinctly was Mrs. Pickerell Goes to Mars.  There were others, too, and I think I read most, if not all, of them.  And, inexplicably, I remember right where the Mrs. Pickerell books were shelved, to the side of the cool nook the library had.

In high school, in many if not each, of our English classes, we had to do a book report each cardmarking period, three a semester.  One teacher was hooked on biographies and had a list of them from which to choose; I assume(d) they were suggestions.  I selected for my first book and report a bio of Babe Ruth, since I loved baseball.  My grade wasn't so hot and I remember the comment, that this wasn't "a quality book."  Not as dumb as I looked, the next book I chose from the teacher's list, a bio of Father Damien de Veuster, the Leper Priest of Molokai.  My grade improved noticeably.  Of course, I never questioned anything then, but have thought of this often since, esp in evaluating teachers.  Who was this teacher to determine what book was a "quality" one?  After all, shouldn't teachers want to encourage high school kids to read as much as possible?  More important, I think this reflected the shallowness of the teacher's own education and/or views.  Who, in the overall scheme of things, had a greater impact on America:  Babe Ruth or Damien de Veuster?  The winner is clear.  But I'm glad I was exposed to de Veuster; who knows if I'd have ever heard of him otherwise.  Still, the teacher's tacit smugness still rankles me.

At Amherst, I read far too many good and great books to recount.  One I will remember, in a 19th Century British Literature course, is John Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman.  Now this novel was decidedly not 19th Century, although Fowles was British.  I think I remember it for two reasons.  We had to read it during our week-long preparation for final exams, an inter-regnum of sorts, I guess.  Then, our final exam question was to describe The French Lieutenant's Woman as a 19th Century novel.  And, there was a librarian, perhaps middle-aged and very attractive, if not winsome, at least to us, at Frost who a friend of mine and I characterized as The French Lieutenant's Woman.  Then there was The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which was also an inter-regnum book to read, which we had to describe on our final exam as "a religious experience."  No, I don't know how I answered that one!

Recently I read an essay about biographers and their tendencies to gloss over the many imperfections of their subjects.  Perhaps these bios aren't quite hagiographies, but are darn close.  The essayist wrote, "What I find odd is that biographers apparently feel a need to depict their subjects as especially admirable human beings," even if they're not, even if in their private lives they were despicable.  It's as if the authors think they will diminish their own works by portraying the subjects as they really were, the whole picture, warts and all.  But perhaps that has become a characteristic of our times.  For a long time I have maintained that "only good people die."  And look at our growing number of halls of fame--schools, communities, businesses, and more-- and the like and the number of people who are inducted although they hardly are deserving.  Note, too, the faux Nobel Peace Prizes awarded (I purposely didn't write "earned.") to Al Gore and Barack Obama.  We think, perhaps, instead of diminishing the real accomplishments of those who do deserve such accolades, we elevate ourselves by honoring the mediocre--and worse.

And now, out to read--what else?

Big Government, Morality, and More

Am I a prude?  Maybe.  But I just read the other day an article about moral relativism and shook my head. I think there's a strong contingent out there which thinks that, as long as an activity is among or between "consenting adults," it is moral and, therefore, should be legal.  Each individual should determine what is moral.  For instance, it is utterly proper for, say, a professional athlete to have several children with multiple women and then abandon them.  After all, as long as begetting is consensual......

Ultimately, there are no sins.  That leads to no laws against immorality.  No longer proscribed would be prostitution ("What a woman does with her own body....), polygamy, pornography (as long as it's consensual), drug abuse, and more.

OK, no doubt I would be called a prude or perhaps even a modern-day Puritan, but when nobody sets any rules......

Tea Partiers are not opponents of government, not at all.  They would embrace the Constitutionally-limited government established by the Founders.  That they oppose the Big Government of today, though, has made them targets of Big Government--its politicians, appointees, and bureaucrats.  They are demonized, with the disgraceful complicity of the LameStream media, as "haters of government," "bigots," and "racists."  They are criminalized; note the IRS scandal.  Big Government desires to perpetuate itself, for a variety of reasons.  Opposition, therefore, is not tolerated.

Are our politicians, as a "class," bad people?  I don't know.  But they, of both parties, are increasingly arrogant and elitist.  They do what they want; what their constituents want be damned.  After all, they know what's best for us better than we do.  They may well be smarter than most of us, although from what I've gathered--listening, reading, and seeing their handiwork--over the years, I really doubt that.That that isn't really the point here doesn't matter--to them.

How can the City of Detroit and State of Michigan hand over half a billion dollars of welfare, er, incentives to the Red Wings for a new stadium?  Can't $465 billion be better used elsewhere in Detroit--lights, streets and roads, schools, police protection, bus service, etc.?  OK, some Detroiters may get construction jobs while the facility is being built, but those dry up upon completion.  And haven't studies shown that new stadiums and other such facilities really don't add up to more long-term jobs than the old places?  Besides, isn't the owner of the Wings a billionaire?  Why do taxpayers have to front his stadium for him?  The next time one of our opponents of welfare rips on that system, bring up this example of corporate welfare--to a billionaire!

So, today marks the 50th anniversary of the Beatles' debut in the US, on the Ed Sullivan Show.  I know their impact here was pretty big, but I never was a big fan of theirs.  Oh, there were some songs I liked, but I think I owned only one of their albums, Abbey Road.  I guess I liked the Stones a little better, but also owned only one of their albums, Hot Rocks.  I never got caught up in the British-mania, largely I guess because I didn't think their music was what others thought it was.  A chacon son gout......

I also read where a "legendary reporter" died yesterday.  Supposedly he wrote and reported nationally for years.  I've followed politics for more than 40 years, pretty closely.  I admit I never heard of this guy.  His name never rang a bell, not even a tinkle.  I would think I would at least recognized a little bit the name of "a legend."

Brave New World Double Speak?

Sometimes I don't believe what I hear with my own two ears.  Sometimes I find it even more incredible that people accept what we hear.

The other day the CBO issued a report claiming that ObamaCare will cost the US about 2.5 million jobs in the next decade.  And the White House proclaims that's "a good thing."  Huh?  People not having jobs is "a good thing?"  Yep, now, says the WH, people won't be bogged down with jobs to get what they want and will be able to "pursue their dreams."  Does anyone really believe that stuff??????

And there was a good op-ed in the Det News yesterday about the costs of gov't regulations that require fast food places to list the calories in the good they serve.  Estimates of those extra costs reach one billion dollars!  First, it isn't the gov't's business to tell me what I can and can't eat or, rather, should and shouldn't eat.  It's my choice!  Second, is there anyone who doesn't know that a solid diet of fast food isn't particularly healthy?  Third, when I see that a Big Mac has 600 calories, does some gov't bureaucrat really think that's going to dissuade me from getting a Big Mac if I want one?  Hey, I know broccoli and spinach and that rabbit food is good for me; but I don't like it.  Oh, I'll eat it, sometimes, but only because it's good for me.  I don't and won't make it a habit, though.  And what happens if and when the calorie count doesn't work, that people still order their pizzas and Baconators?  I'd guess taxes are coming.  There will be excise taxes on fast food to try to price them out of our diets.  Yep, those arrogant elitists--bureaucrats and elected officials--know what's best for us better than we do.  And that's not even my main point.  It's none of their business what I eat.

Double Speak?  How about that "Farm Bill" sponsored, or so she loudly has crowed, by Sen Stabenow.  80% of it has nothing to do with farms!  Nope, it has to do with more food stamps, what almost $500 billion more?  Perhaps I'm a bit touchy about this, but to call this a "Farm Bill" seems to be, if not out-and-out dishonest, at least disingenuous.  But when was the last time you hear "honesty" and "politician" used in the same sentence--in a good way?

BTW, what are the US Postal Service and IRS doing buying weapons, lots of weapons??????

Grrrrrr......

Random Wed Thoughts

I didn't hear the Super Bowl commercial (for what product?) that sparked so much rancor.  OK, as I've noted, I didn't pay a lot of attention to the SB, so I missed most of the ads.  I did hear on the radio the singing of America the Beautiful in different languages.  Hey, what's the big deal??????  I thought it was very beautiful, extremely well done.  The singing was vastly superior to anything during halftime, if that can be called "singing."  That American the Beautiful was sung in different languages does nothing, absolutely nothing, to surrender American culture to others.  There are things to be concerned about with American culture; this isn't one of them.

I still don't understand how we elevate people and things to statuses that belittle or diminish others who deserve to be elevated.  OK, I admit I don't do movies or plays.  I have never heard of this actor who overdosed on heroin and died.  That says more about me than him, I'd guess.  But was he really "a legend" and "an icon?"  Then why haven't I even heard of him?  I fully realize that it might just be me.  Still......

The Super Bowl scored the highest TV ratings of any broadcast in history.  Hmmm......  What does that say, I wonder, about us?

Last weekend, I think more to get my goat than anything, some folks were ribbing me about Obama.  One even suggested I put an Obama bumper sticker on my car.  It was all good-natured joking, I think.  But I did add that I can't imagine anyone actually supporting Obama, unless they were ignorant, hypocritical, or getting freebies on other people's dimes.  Of course, I do recognize that some might legitimately support him and what he does; I just don't understand it outside of my parameters.  One pundit in the newspaper last weekend tried to defend Obama's use of executive orders by citing other Presidents' use of them.  I chuckled that the columnist could equate any of Obama's ex orders with Truman's Executive Order 9981, which integrated the armed forces, which, as one observer noted of the Brown v Board of Ed decision, "was so manifestly right and proper."

I received an e-mail from Sen Stabenow touted passage of the Farm Bill, as if I am supposed to be overjoyed.  A couple weeks ago, I wrote about it and how it should have been defeated and defeated soundly.  Hey, the thing is almost 1,000 pages long!  That, in itself, should condemn it.  And then I received an e-mail from Congressman Levin, asserting that Congress should "Reward Work!"  Yeah, right.  People like him want to punish work, by stealing more of its rewards in the form of taxes, regulations, etc.  He was actually trying to drum up support for the "income inequality" issue, raising the minimum wage.  "Reward Work," huh?  If Congress increases the minimum wage to what the protesters want, they'll be making about what I make, most weeks, in teaching college classes (at least at one of them, including class time, essay and paper grading, and minimal preparation).  I'm not exaggerating.  So, what about "rewarding" all the work I did to put me in a position for that job--the BA, the three MAs, all of my research and writing, etc.?  I wonder if either of them will respond to my replies, well, in a meaningful way, not their usual nonsequiturs.  They are both what's wrong with Washington, DC, both Democrats and Establishment Republicans.  They are arrogant elitists, who believe they and they only know what's best.  Any ideas that differ from their own (or at least ideas that their party leadership tells them to support) are obviously the result of Neanderthal thinking or worse.

I'm not sure I often agree with political commentator Dana Milbank, but he hit the nail on the head last week in citing Establishment Republicans turning their backs on their Republican base.  He writes, "The problem for Republicans is that the people who brought them to power didn't ask for consensus and smooth processes."  That is right on the money!  The Reps platform seems to be "Business as Usual."  That is, they are intent on compromise, bipartisanship, and, indeed, "consensus," (Oh, I don't like that word!) etc.  The Establishment Republicans never fight back, never offer their own programs.  They just try to make what the Democrats offer less extreme.  Those Republicans who do try to fight back are marginalized, even ostracized by their so-called "leadership."  But compromise here, give in there, consensus always still leads us into the abyss, just not in one fell swoop (or is it one swell foop?).

I don't listen to Laura Ingraham very often.  Perhaps I should.  It wasn't anything she said about policy or programs or even ideology--no, none of that.  What she said was something like this, "I have three kids who I want to have a promising future.  I don't care about me.  I'll likely be dead before all comes crashing down.  It's my kids I care about."  Amen!  I've been saying that for years and years.  I'll likely escape the abyss (see above), but I don't want my kids and grandkids to be swallowed by it.

Super Bowl

Well, I guess it's over.  Oddly, I just finished an online survey about my/our Super Bowl experience(s).  Hmm....  Karen won a quarter "square," $50.  Not too bad.  But that was the extent of my interest in the game.  I really knew Peyton Manning's name and not any others.  Oh, some were mentioned and they rang a bell.  But had I been asked to name one off the top of my head, nope, I couldn't do it.

Ditto for the halftime show.  Who's this "Bruno" guy?  I never heard of him.  Although he wasn't freaky, how'd he get on the show?  The other group was freaky and more about that in a bit.

Doing the survey, I wonder if the tally person will believe the answer I clicked to the question of my interest in the game, "I didn't really pay attention."  I ate a bit, not much, although C's cake was pretty good.  I had a couple of LaBatts, OK more than a couple, but not many.  I finished the second half drinking Coke Zero.

I may be wrong, but didn't that winning coach drive the USC program into probation with the NCAA?  There was a loss of scholarships and the program went from #1 in the nation (well, yeah, he managed to get the college on probation for a reason!) to an also-ran, just like that.  But he got to move on, make even more money.  Isn't that a kick?  The school gets punished (and maybe it should for hiring a guy like that) and the guy who did the wrong gets to find a new job making more bucks--and a Super Bowl.  Of course, how many have ruined college programs and moved on to other college jobs, with nary a peep from the NCAA?

I saw a few plays, mostly on replay, that determined the outcome of the game.  But other than that, I mostly just talked with the pretty ladies. So, it was a good evening.  And all three kids were asleep when we arrived home!

I've been dwelling on this all week.  In the early '70s, Alistair Cooke wrote a book, America.  It celebrated the greatness of the United States.  But Cooke warned, in the last chapter, that perhaps the US was headed in the same direction as the Roman Empire--that is, fall/collapse.  One of the factors he noted was "a freakishness in the arts."  Look around; there's "freakishness" all over the place, not just the arts.  Note what passes for "music" and other forms of art today.   Note the second group at the Super Bowl.  More about all that later in the week.  Now, it's time to make sure the kids are tucked in for the night.