Sunday/Sunday

Happy Father's Day to all of you fathers out there.  I heard a fascinating history of Father's Day on the radio yesterday, learning a lot.  Although Mother's Day has been around for seemingly forever, Father's Day is much newer.

It was quite a jolt this AM to open the newspaper and find not the normal/usual 3 1/2 to 4 pages of obituaries, but almost five full pages!  Whoa!  As I used to say, but don't quite enjoy it as much as I age, "They're dropping like flies."  OK, so it's a little weird to turn first thing to the death notices.  I guess it's an age thing?  But I didn't recognize any names, although I often do--esp from the old neighborhood.

I also scanned the next three on the greatest Detroit songs of all time.  I've not agreed with many I've seen in the past month or so, at least the order, but I've really enjoyed reading the paragraph or two that accompanies each entry.  It's been a fun thing to follow.

Of course, with the tragedy of the terrorist shooting in Orlando, much of today's Detroit Free Press editorial section focuses on it.  And, considering it's the Free Press, it wasn't hard to predict what would appear.  Two of the lead op-eds are aiming at the number of guns in US society, discounting or minimizing any Constitutional rights.  The authors seeks to revisit or "rethink" our rights in light of the glut (Is that the right word?) of recent shootings, esp of children, not to mention the mass shootings.  Again, the views were not hard to predict.

I don't own any guns and haven't shot a gun in, what 50 years, or almost that.  I don't love guns and I don't hate them.  But I cringe when I hear or read of people who want to revisit or "rethink" our rights.  If one right can be revisited or rethought, can't another one?

But these op-ed authors would be more credible if they got their facts straight, esp about guns and their capabilities.  And, often their logic is strained, at best.  I wonder, too, why they don't rail about the people who use guns to murder others.  Where, in either of these op-eds, is anything about the Muslim extremist who shot all these people in Orlando?  There wasn't a single sentence condemning the man himself or even ISIS, to whom he pledged allegiance.  No, it was the gun.  Do these writers ever rant about the punks who shoot Detroiters, spraying/riddling houses of those who "dissed" them or whatever idiotic reason used for shooting?  Do they question the humanity of those who risk and often succeed in shooting kids?  If they do, I don't see those columns.  Why are they afraid to condemn the shooters, but only the guns?  (No doubt they would argue they do, but I don't see those op-ed pieces.)  So, if a guy goes out and gets loaded at a bar and runs some people over on his drive home, should we ban alcohol?  (After all, drunk drivers kill far more people than shooters with rifles or shotguns, far far more!)  It's not the beer's fault; it's the drinker's/drunk's, isn't it?  I suppose some would say that's a faulty analogy, that alcohol isn't manufactured to kill people.  But most guns aren't either, not even the often misrepresented AR-15s!  Again, why are they so afraid or at least unwilling to call out people--shooters!?!?!?

Another op-ed attempted to deal with the fractured society we have, how uncivil we've become in discussing our differences, esp our political ones.  The writer makes some good points and I agree with him.  (That would surprise him, in light of his first paragraph.  And it surprises me because I often find his arguments shallow, "sloppy thinking< to those of you who are regular readers of "One Man's Lonely Opinions.")  But agree though I did, I chuckled as I read.  One of his points is that we often "delegitimize" our opponents' arguments, dismissing them out of hand without reason or real scrutiny.  (Again, regular readers will recognize this, what I often call "name-calling"instead of debate or discussion or dialogue.)  Yet, in reading several of his colleague's own op-ed pieces, they do exactly what his point emphasizes; they "delegitimize" the other side.  Yep, I still am chuckling.

OK, here's a little more personal and rewarding/worthwhile end to today's post.  Michael pitched for his baseball team on Fri, his first pitching in two years.  (Don't ask why it was his first.  I'm trying to keep this positive.)  He was slated to pitch the 3rd and 4th innings, but the kid who was supposed to start didn't show up.  So Michael started the game and pitched the 1st and 2nd innings--and the 3rd and 4th, too.  Oh, and the 5th as well.  He gave up two runs, one earned, and two or three hits.  He had 7 or 8 strikeouts, too.  He had one walk and hit one batsman.  All in all, Grandpa (his coach!) was very happy--and so was he.  To top it all off, he drilled a long double, pulling it down the right field line well over the RF's head.  It was a good night to be a coach--and a Grandpa!