An interesting editorial from the Charleston (West Virginia) Daily Mail. Not the first time it has occurred to me that "conservatives" are more interested in having a big, red-ink government sticking its nose into people's business than "liberals," who are often accused of same.
Charleston Daily Mail
Editorials: South Dakota hurts the right
Government has no business interfering in personal matters
Tuesday February 28, 2006
PLANNED Parenthood operates the only legal abortion clinic in South Dakota, performing about 800 abortions a year. These are difficult decisions for the women involved, and many of them must travel far to get to the facility.
The South Dakota Legislature now wants to make those women travel even further, to another state. A bill to ban abortion in South Dakota except to save a woman's life passed its House, 50-18, and its Senate, 23-12.
A doctor who performs an abortion could face up to five years in prison under this proposal. South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds said he is inclined to sign this ban into law.
This is madness, not conservatism. The idea that the state should interfere with a medical decision is repugnant. As awful as abortions are, having the government make such decisions is even worse.
As Bill Clinton said when he was president, "Abortions should be safe, legal and rare."
The South Dakota legislature and its governor seek to hijack the appointment of two fine judges to the federal Supreme Court. The South Dakota politicians seek to portray Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito as men hell-bent on overturning Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that recognized a woman has a right to make this choice.
But from their testimony during their nomination hearings, neither man is likely to vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Refine it, yes. Parental notification laws and a ban on late-term abortion make sense.
The South Dakota ban does not. Rape victims who become pregnant would be forced to bear a child and the rapist would have parental rights, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.
"The idea the rapist could be in the child's life . . . makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice," Heeren-Graber told Chet Brokaw of the Associated Press.
Nanny government is the forte of liberalism. Having the government decide whether an unwanted pregnancy is terminated is nanny-ism squared.
What is conservative about regulating such decisions?
Here is hoping the governor of South Dakota comes to his senses and vetoes the bill.
© Copyright 2005 Charleston Daily Mail
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
That's Our Boy!
This from Fortune magazine about our junior senator, John Thune:
South Dakota's $2.5 billion railroad jackpot
A provision inserted into last year's transportation bill by a lawmaker turned lobbyist turned lawmaker is attracting renewed scrutiny.
Fortune Magazine
By Barney Gimbel, FORTUNE
February 27, 2006: 8:21 PM EST
NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - In Washington, the revolving door usually leads lawmakers to become lobbyists so they can cash in on their connections. But in some cases, it spins all the way around; creating a rare circumstance in which a lawmaker turns lobbyist turns lawmaker.
It goes a long way to explaining why a small provision inserted in last summer's mammoth transportation bill is attracting renewed scrutiny. Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., says he plans to introduce legislation on Tuesday that would ban elected representatives from advocating for any former client during his or her first two years in office. Under current ethics rules, former legislators can't lobby Capitol Hill during their first year out of office. There are no regulations the other way around.
Dayton says he's responding to an amendment championed by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., which quietly laid the tracks for funding the largest railroad project in almost 100 years. It'll cost $2.5 billion, run 880 miles and link the coalfields of Wyoming's Powder River Basin to the power plants of the Midwest.
Dayton's problem? Before becoming senator, Thune had been through that revolving door. After serving three terms as South Dakota's lone congressman, he spent 18 months as a lobbyist for the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, the company that's building the new railroad. It was then that he and DM&E President Kevin Schieffer realized one way to get the stalled eight-year-old project going was through a Federal Railroad Administration loan.
There were problems with the idea, of course. For one thing, the project didn't precisely fit the loan program, whose mandate was to help railroads fix existing track. Worse, the program was small: Its entire annual budget was only $3.5 billion.
While lobbying for the DM&E in 2004, Thune was campaigning for South Dakota's Senate seat. And when he won, he continued to push for the project. As it happened, expanding the railroad loan program fit neatly into last summer's $286-billion transportation bill, which gained instant notoriety for such pork-barrel excesses as its $223 million grant to build Alaska's "bridge to nowhere." Senator Thune, just eight months after collecting his last check as DM&E's lobbyist, got a provision added with the Powder River Basin project specifically in mind.
It increased the Federal Railroad Authority's loan budget for 2006 by a decimal point -- from $3.5 billion to $35 billion. And it required the FRA to give priority to projects like DM&E's that "alleviate rail capacity problems." While the railroad's loan hasn't yet been approved, many analysts think it's likely.
Asked about the railroad's role in the legislation, the Senator says the increase in funding was in the public interest: "The DM&E was involved in the legislative process because of their expertise.... It was a national priority to bring this project over the finish line."
Coalmines in Wyoming's Powder River Basin and the electrical utilities that buy the coal have been complaining that the two railroads providing service to the mines -- the Union Pacific (Research) and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (Research) -- have been unable to keep up with the growing demand for low-sulfur Wyoming coal. "We needed another railroad years ago," says Chuck Linderman of the Edison Electrical Institute, who represents the utilities.
While Dayton calls Thune's actions "reprehensible," he too has an interest in the railroad project beyond simply lobbying reform. He wants this project killed because the coal trains would roll right past his biggest constituent, the Mayo Clinic. "The railroad will enter Rochester over my dead body," he says. "The Mayo Clinic is worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota."
The White House also wants to kill the loan program. "We would simply prefer the program not exist," says Alex Conant of the Office of Management and Budget. President Bush tried and failed to eliminate it in his 2006 budget and is trying again in his 2007 plan. Thune says there's little chance the White House will win this one. "The administration has always frowned on this, but it has very strong congressional support, and that's what's important," he says.
Thune, for his part, doesn't see a problem with his role in the project:"I backed this project when I was a Congressman, I backed it when I was in the private sector, and I'm backing it now. The project's a no-brainer."
Points to ponder:
* Mark Dayton's comment about South Dakota was idiotic. He later apologized, but that doesn't mean the original comment wasn't idiotic.
* Thune campaigned as the "moral" candidate, the one who "really represented South Dakotans. Well, I guess the DM&E people are South Dakotans. We should have asked Thune to be more specific about which South Dakotans he intended to represent.
* Republicans in this state tend to market themselves as fiscal conservatives who will do something about "out of control spending" in Washington. Hard then to understand Thune's backing the pork-laden transportation bill...and packing more of his own in there. I guess it's only "pork" if it's bein spent in someone else's state.
South Dakota's $2.5 billion railroad jackpot
A provision inserted into last year's transportation bill by a lawmaker turned lobbyist turned lawmaker is attracting renewed scrutiny.
Fortune Magazine
By Barney Gimbel, FORTUNE
February 27, 2006: 8:21 PM EST
NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - In Washington, the revolving door usually leads lawmakers to become lobbyists so they can cash in on their connections. But in some cases, it spins all the way around; creating a rare circumstance in which a lawmaker turns lobbyist turns lawmaker.
It goes a long way to explaining why a small provision inserted in last summer's mammoth transportation bill is attracting renewed scrutiny. Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., says he plans to introduce legislation on Tuesday that would ban elected representatives from advocating for any former client during his or her first two years in office. Under current ethics rules, former legislators can't lobby Capitol Hill during their first year out of office. There are no regulations the other way around.
Dayton says he's responding to an amendment championed by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., which quietly laid the tracks for funding the largest railroad project in almost 100 years. It'll cost $2.5 billion, run 880 miles and link the coalfields of Wyoming's Powder River Basin to the power plants of the Midwest.
Dayton's problem? Before becoming senator, Thune had been through that revolving door. After serving three terms as South Dakota's lone congressman, he spent 18 months as a lobbyist for the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, the company that's building the new railroad. It was then that he and DM&E President Kevin Schieffer realized one way to get the stalled eight-year-old project going was through a Federal Railroad Administration loan.
There were problems with the idea, of course. For one thing, the project didn't precisely fit the loan program, whose mandate was to help railroads fix existing track. Worse, the program was small: Its entire annual budget was only $3.5 billion.
While lobbying for the DM&E in 2004, Thune was campaigning for South Dakota's Senate seat. And when he won, he continued to push for the project. As it happened, expanding the railroad loan program fit neatly into last summer's $286-billion transportation bill, which gained instant notoriety for such pork-barrel excesses as its $223 million grant to build Alaska's "bridge to nowhere." Senator Thune, just eight months after collecting his last check as DM&E's lobbyist, got a provision added with the Powder River Basin project specifically in mind.
It increased the Federal Railroad Authority's loan budget for 2006 by a decimal point -- from $3.5 billion to $35 billion. And it required the FRA to give priority to projects like DM&E's that "alleviate rail capacity problems." While the railroad's loan hasn't yet been approved, many analysts think it's likely.
Asked about the railroad's role in the legislation, the Senator says the increase in funding was in the public interest: "The DM&E was involved in the legislative process because of their expertise.... It was a national priority to bring this project over the finish line."
Coalmines in Wyoming's Powder River Basin and the electrical utilities that buy the coal have been complaining that the two railroads providing service to the mines -- the Union Pacific (Research) and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (Research) -- have been unable to keep up with the growing demand for low-sulfur Wyoming coal. "We needed another railroad years ago," says Chuck Linderman of the Edison Electrical Institute, who represents the utilities.
While Dayton calls Thune's actions "reprehensible," he too has an interest in the railroad project beyond simply lobbying reform. He wants this project killed because the coal trains would roll right past his biggest constituent, the Mayo Clinic. "The railroad will enter Rochester over my dead body," he says. "The Mayo Clinic is worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota."
The White House also wants to kill the loan program. "We would simply prefer the program not exist," says Alex Conant of the Office of Management and Budget. President Bush tried and failed to eliminate it in his 2006 budget and is trying again in his 2007 plan. Thune says there's little chance the White House will win this one. "The administration has always frowned on this, but it has very strong congressional support, and that's what's important," he says.
Thune, for his part, doesn't see a problem with his role in the project:"I backed this project when I was a Congressman, I backed it when I was in the private sector, and I'm backing it now. The project's a no-brainer."
Points to ponder:
* Mark Dayton's comment about South Dakota was idiotic. He later apologized, but that doesn't mean the original comment wasn't idiotic.
* Thune campaigned as the "moral" candidate, the one who "really represented South Dakotans. Well, I guess the DM&E people are South Dakotans. We should have asked Thune to be more specific about which South Dakotans he intended to represent.
* Republicans in this state tend to market themselves as fiscal conservatives who will do something about "out of control spending" in Washington. Hard then to understand Thune's backing the pork-laden transportation bill...and packing more of his own in there. I guess it's only "pork" if it's bein spent in someone else's state.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
In the News!
My adoptive home state is in the news again...as usual, for something I wouldn't be inclined to brag about. Here's the lead from an item in today's International Herald Tribune "Americas" section:
PIERRE, South Dakota South Dakota lawmakers have voted to outlaw nearly all abortions, setting up the first direct legal attack on Roe v. Wade by a state in 14 years.
It goes on to say:
After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators Wednesday rejected exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of a mother and voted, 23-12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save a mother's life. They also rejected an effort to allow South Dakotans to decide the question in a referendum and an effort to prevent state tax dollars from financing what is certain to be a long and expensive court battle.
Now, read that again. The "compassionate" conservatives in the statehouse don't care if pregnancy threatens a woman's (or girl's) health. They don't care if she is pregnant thanks to a rapist or incestuous sexual predator. (It wouldn't surprise me at all if at least some of them don't think it's "her own fault" for "leading on" her attacker.)
Nor do they care what the voters of their state think.
It strikes me as odd that they are so concerned with "protecting" the unborn while displaying such callous disregard for those who are already here: the girls and women who would be affected by this legislation. To say nothing of kids in school, for whom there never seems to be enough money...despite there apparently being plenty of money to fight a "test case" in the courts.
Don't get me wrong: Abortion is a terrible thing all the way around. Lives are lost, lives are scarred. Nobody wins.
But why is it that no one seems interested in trying to do something about the cause of abortions--the circumstances that some women find themselves in in which this physically, emotionally, psychically deadly option seems their only choice? Why can't the "concerned" folks in the legislature, or those marching in front of "abortion mills," find enough compassion in their hearts to worry about the women involved?
And make no mistake: This legislation, if passed, will not prevent abortions in this state. Just legal ones. And, again, where's the compassion? Where's the heart?
Of course, this is the same legislature that, earlier this term, decided that the working poor of this state didn't deserve a bump in the minimum wage, so I guess I shouldn't be at all surprised. In fact, I'm not: It's been obvious for some time that there are a couple of grandstanders in the capitol who enjoy seeing their names in the news and who are more than happy to carry that notoriety to the national arena.
It's just too bad that people will have to suffer so that they can get their headlines. And that taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
PIERRE, South Dakota South Dakota lawmakers have voted to outlaw nearly all abortions, setting up the first direct legal attack on Roe v. Wade by a state in 14 years.
It goes on to say:
After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators Wednesday rejected exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of a mother and voted, 23-12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save a mother's life. They also rejected an effort to allow South Dakotans to decide the question in a referendum and an effort to prevent state tax dollars from financing what is certain to be a long and expensive court battle.
Now, read that again. The "compassionate" conservatives in the statehouse don't care if pregnancy threatens a woman's (or girl's) health. They don't care if she is pregnant thanks to a rapist or incestuous sexual predator. (It wouldn't surprise me at all if at least some of them don't think it's "her own fault" for "leading on" her attacker.)
Nor do they care what the voters of their state think.
It strikes me as odd that they are so concerned with "protecting" the unborn while displaying such callous disregard for those who are already here: the girls and women who would be affected by this legislation. To say nothing of kids in school, for whom there never seems to be enough money...despite there apparently being plenty of money to fight a "test case" in the courts.
Don't get me wrong: Abortion is a terrible thing all the way around. Lives are lost, lives are scarred. Nobody wins.
But why is it that no one seems interested in trying to do something about the cause of abortions--the circumstances that some women find themselves in in which this physically, emotionally, psychically deadly option seems their only choice? Why can't the "concerned" folks in the legislature, or those marching in front of "abortion mills," find enough compassion in their hearts to worry about the women involved?
And make no mistake: This legislation, if passed, will not prevent abortions in this state. Just legal ones. And, again, where's the compassion? Where's the heart?
Of course, this is the same legislature that, earlier this term, decided that the working poor of this state didn't deserve a bump in the minimum wage, so I guess I shouldn't be at all surprised. In fact, I'm not: It's been obvious for some time that there are a couple of grandstanders in the capitol who enjoy seeing their names in the news and who are more than happy to carry that notoriety to the national arena.
It's just too bad that people will have to suffer so that they can get their headlines. And that taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Reading ads for fun and profit.
Well, this is different. I have for quite a few years now subscribed to, belonged to, been a part of—not sure what the right term is—an operation called MyPoints. (I think it was called BonusMail or something back when I signed on in the Dark Ages.) Anyway, it's a pretty slick deal: basically, they e-mail you advertising. You click on the "Get Points" link that takes you to the advertiser's web site, and you earn a few points (usually 5 or 10); more if you buy what the advertiser's selling (the exact number depends on the offer). You can also get points by logging on at MyPoints and shopping via their links. Eventually you can spend your points on a pretty wide variety of stuff—a year or so ago I "cashed in" for a bunch of gift cards from Target, Suncoast, and I forget what all.
Of course, as with any "points" system, you need a lot of points before you can start buying stuff—most $10 gift cards seem to cost 1400 points, so you can see that you'll have to read a lot of 5-point messages before you get very far; but responding to even one or two of the offers can really rack up points fast. I've bought some things at Office Depot, for instance, via MyPoints mail: they have a nice "staggered" system where larger purchases earn more points. Makes a difference.
So what? Well, in my MyPoints e-mail this morning comes this tip:
My tip for members:
Have a blog? Want to earn 25 Points? Blog about MyPoints ... the good stuff, of course, like your favorite way to earn Points or how you spent your Points. Send us a link by February 23, 2006, to blogaboutMyPoints@mypoints.com to be considered. Offer good for first 500 qualified responses.
Odds are good that I won't be among the first 500, but what the hey: I've talked up the service to people before with no benefit to myself (I do see they now have a refer-a-friend program that I haven't investigated), so why not now? And you never know: When I was in junior high I won a whole case of Mountain Dew in a radio call-in contest. Too bad Mountain Dew was and is the one soda I really dislike…
Monday, February 20, 2006
Monsignor Mac redux
A longer obit for my late friend, Msgr. John McEneany:
Msgr. John McEneaney
(December 12, 1917 - February 16, 2006)
Msgr. John J. McEneaney, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, died February 16, 2006, at Avera McKennan Hospital. He was 88.
John McEneaney was born on December 12, 1917, in Lawrence, MA. He was educated at Holy Cross University and St. John’s Seminary before being ordained for the Archdiocese of Boston in 1943. He came to South Dakota on an 18-month loan in 1946, and stayed. He was formally incardinated in the Diocese of Sioux Falls in 1949. He served at parishes in Aberdeen, Clark, Garretson, Hartford, Huntimer, Brookings, and Huron. He served as rector of St. Joseph Cathedral for 10 years, and as pastor of Christ the King, Sioux Falls for another 10.
He was named Vicar General of the diocese in 1976, a position he held for three bishops until 1994. He was named a prelate in 1965, and in 1995, a Protonotary Apostolic. Over the years he served as a member of the priest council, finance council, Priest Retirement Committee and currently was a member of the board of the Catholic Foundation for Eastern South Dakota. He served as president of the National Liturgical Conference from 1965-1967. He conducted Liturgy and Worship workshops for several dioceses around the country and for military chaplains. He was active in ecumenical affairs, including a long running local television program with other ecumenical-minded leaders called “The Open Door.” He received a variety of honors and awards in his lifetime, and was a member of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem.
His “retirement” came in 1994 but his days were filled with more personal ministry including his daily hospital visits, substantial correspondence and weekend parish coverage. As recently as 2003 he served as sacramental minister for St. Edward, Worthing for several months. His entire ministry was rooted in his love of God. At his Golden Jubilee homily he said, “What a joy and privilege is has been for me to be ordained to the priesthood. For a priest is empowered by the Sacrament of Holy Orders to proclaim the infinite riches of Christ, in word, in sacrament and in loving deed.”
He is survived by his sister, Mary Elizabeth Wilkinson, many nieces, nephews, cousins, brother priests, and countless friends.
The Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated 1: 00pm Tuesday, February 21, at St. Joseph Cathedral. Burial will follow at St. Michael Cemetery. Visitation begins at 2:00pm Monday, at St. Joseph Cathedral. A Scripture Service and Rosary will be held at 7:00 on Monday evening, also at the Cathedral. Visitation will then continue and will be ongoing to the time of the celebration of Mass.
In lieu of flowers, memorials may be directed to the Msgr. John J. McEneaney Endowment Fund at the Catholic Foundation for Eastern South Dakota.
Msgr. John McEneaney
(December 12, 1917 - February 16, 2006)
Msgr. John J. McEneaney, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, died February 16, 2006, at Avera McKennan Hospital. He was 88.
John McEneaney was born on December 12, 1917, in Lawrence, MA. He was educated at Holy Cross University and St. John’s Seminary before being ordained for the Archdiocese of Boston in 1943. He came to South Dakota on an 18-month loan in 1946, and stayed. He was formally incardinated in the Diocese of Sioux Falls in 1949. He served at parishes in Aberdeen, Clark, Garretson, Hartford, Huntimer, Brookings, and Huron. He served as rector of St. Joseph Cathedral for 10 years, and as pastor of Christ the King, Sioux Falls for another 10.
He was named Vicar General of the diocese in 1976, a position he held for three bishops until 1994. He was named a prelate in 1965, and in 1995, a Protonotary Apostolic. Over the years he served as a member of the priest council, finance council, Priest Retirement Committee and currently was a member of the board of the Catholic Foundation for Eastern South Dakota. He served as president of the National Liturgical Conference from 1965-1967. He conducted Liturgy and Worship workshops for several dioceses around the country and for military chaplains. He was active in ecumenical affairs, including a long running local television program with other ecumenical-minded leaders called “The Open Door.” He received a variety of honors and awards in his lifetime, and was a member of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem.
His “retirement” came in 1994 but his days were filled with more personal ministry including his daily hospital visits, substantial correspondence and weekend parish coverage. As recently as 2003 he served as sacramental minister for St. Edward, Worthing for several months. His entire ministry was rooted in his love of God. At his Golden Jubilee homily he said, “What a joy and privilege is has been for me to be ordained to the priesthood. For a priest is empowered by the Sacrament of Holy Orders to proclaim the infinite riches of Christ, in word, in sacrament and in loving deed.”
He is survived by his sister, Mary Elizabeth Wilkinson, many nieces, nephews, cousins, brother priests, and countless friends.
The Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated 1: 00pm Tuesday, February 21, at St. Joseph Cathedral. Burial will follow at St. Michael Cemetery. Visitation begins at 2:00pm Monday, at St. Joseph Cathedral. A Scripture Service and Rosary will be held at 7:00 on Monday evening, also at the Cathedral. Visitation will then continue and will be ongoing to the time of the celebration of Mass.
In lieu of flowers, memorials may be directed to the Msgr. John J. McEneaney Endowment Fund at the Catholic Foundation for Eastern South Dakota.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Monsignor Mac
This appeared today in my local newspaper:Monsignor McEneaney dies after 60 years of service
From Staff Reports
February 17, 2006, 2:55 am
Monsignor John McEneaney, who gave heart to young priests, comfort to the sick and inspiration to Catholics across South Dakota for six decades, died Thursday at McKennan Hospital. He was 88.
McEneaney left an indelible impression on the faithful in Sioux Falls, say those who knew him.
"I think if one wanted to hold up a model of priesthood for the ages, you would look at the life Monsignor McEneaney lived," said Jerry Klein, diocese chancellor in Sioux Falls. "He was effective, generous and true to his calling, true to his beliefs, true to God."
A prayer service and rosary will be held at 7 p.m. Monday at St. Joseph cathedral. The funeral Mass will begin at 1 p.m. Tuesday at the Cathedral. Arrangements are under the direction of Miller Funeral Home.
He came to South Dakota from Boston in 1946. Among his assignments were Aberdeen, Garretson, Clark, Brookings and Sioux Falls.
In addition to McEneaney's spiritual life, he was an avid sports fan. He said the naming of McEneaney Field at O'Gorman High School was one of his greatest honors.
+++
Monsignor Mac was a longstanding friend of my family. Here's what I wrote in the funeral home's online guest book:
"I haven't seen you in a hundred years"--or so Monsignor Mac would always greet me, even if we hat chatted the day before! The monsignor has been a good and great friend of my family for at least that hundred years he was always talking about. When my mother was hospitalized before her death, Monsignor Mac was always there. When she died, he did us the honor of co-officiating at her funeral. Just two weeks before his own death (the last time I saw him), his concern was about how my father was getting along. We've lost one of the good guys. But our lives are so much the richer for his having shared his with us. So long, Monsignor. See you again, by and by!
+++
Well, that's how it goes. Mac lived a good, long life--by which I mean both good and long. Whenever the Catholic priesthood is being bashed around because of the latest revelations of abuse of, usually, altar boys by their parish priest, I think of guys like Mac, and a dozen or more others I've known over the years, and feel very sorry for them. It's the old story: The people who are doing their best to do their best are always overshadowed by the crooks, the creeps, and the bums--who in turn tar the entire profession by their misdeeds. (Don't get me wrong: Pedophile priests belong behind bars, as do the bishops who protect them.) Monsignor Mac was indeed one of the good guys, one of the guys who provided an example for other priests as well as for ordinary citizens, and I'll miss seeing him at the fitness center.
There was only one occasion that Mac and I were at odds with one another. Back in the 1980s there was a certain hubbub around town that had to do with taxpayer support of Catholic education--specifically, public dollars for textbooks to be used in Catholic schools. I wrote a letter to the editor in opposition to it. Although a product of Catholic grade school and college, I'm a staunch believer in the separation of church and state. If you want to send your kid to Catholic school--or Lutheran school, or any private school--then go for it. But don't then complain that your school doesn't have the same resources as public institutions and insist that the public should help underwrite your desire for private education for your kid. Well, that sort of attitude doesn't get you very far with most of my fellow Catholics. I had a few nasty phone calls about that (funny how abusive "Christians" get when you disagree with them). And I also had a very nice note from Mac, expressing some dismay at my stand, since, as he pointed out, I graduated from a Catholic university that, like virtually every university in the country, accepts federal dollars.
"Since your note is much nicer in tone than most of the comments I've received," I wrote back--or words very much like that, "and since you have the good sense to be Irish, I'll explain myself further." I pointed out that what he said was true, and unfortunate. But that was the reality of the world, and had been since well before I went to college. No one asked for my input, nor was there anything I could do about it. However, I pointed out that by virtue of participating in federal funding for college, colleges lose a degree of independence. The one who has the checkbook always gets to make the rules, or he takes the checkbook away. The local Catholic schools were insisting that they had a "right" to textbooks paid for by the state, which was ludicrous and was in fact inviting the state to come in an exercise more control over the private schools--since, everybody knows, there's no free lunch.
Well, that was all there was to that. Mac and I pretty much agreed, I think, to disagree. Which only further illustrates what a gentleman he was--as the saying goes, a gentleman and a gentle man. I miss him already.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Aging Fast Enough, part 2
This past Sunday, I groused about finding myself on "old peoples" mailing lists, specifically HeartLine Plus, a Dakotacare program apparently designed for folks on Medicare who have heart conditions (neither condition applies to me); and AARP, expressing confusion over my not joining since I am "fully eligible" for their dubious services (even though their letters clearly state you must be 50 or older, and I'm not). As previously outlined, I tried to be a good sport and tell them they were wasting money by sending me their stuff—no easy task, since neither organization is very forthcoming with useful e-mail contact information. Here's where things stand at the moment:
Never heard from the Executive Director of HeartLine Plus (Dakotacare), whom I had originally e-mailed some weeks ago. But on my second go-round I e-mailed the Marketing Director, who sent me a very nice if somewhat puzzling note. She apologized for the "inconvenience" of my receiving mail from them, and indicated that they were sending said mail to lots of people to make them aware of the program. Okaaaay…. Except that the mail that I received from them very clearly was addressed to people who are on Medicare and have a heart condition, not a general audience. By the time I'm eligible for Medicare, in sixteen years (assuming the Bush Administration has not succeeded in destroying the program), I'm sure that the various supplemental programs from Dakotacare and others will be completely different, so I have very little (read: no) incentive for paying any attention to what they're offering today. But I appreciate the speedy, friendly, and personal reply.
And speaking of speedy, friendly, and personal replies, there's AARP, which was certainly speedy in sending me this boilerplate:
Thank you for your recent communication. Your concerns are very important to us at AARP. Please be assured that we will prepare a response for you as quickly as possible.
Please do not reply to this message. This email address is not monitored for responses.
Additionally, all of your Member Benefits and Services are available by visiting the Member Services and Discounts area of the Web site at http://www.aarp.org/benefits.
It has been our pleasure to assist you.
AARP Member Service
Well, of course, so far they actually haven't assisted me, but I remain inexplicably hopeful, even after nearly a week.
Still, one does wonder about the quality of their customer service, no? And considering that I will be eligible for AARP in another year, you'd think maybe they'd be trying to get on my good side now. As it stands, I'm inclined to keep my money in my wallet, not theirs.
Okay, What Would Jesus Do?
In his blog in today's Washington Post, Dan Froomkin references his column of last Friday, in which he wrote about President Bush's "fundamental challenge as he tries to regain his political footing," viz., most Americans don't trust him anymore. (Anymore??) Anyhow, Froomkin had invited readers to suggest sample interview questions for the president regarding his credibility, uh, problem. You can read the ones Froomkin published in his column, but here's my favorite:
What Would Jesus Do?
From Mary Beth Hastings:
"Mr. President, you have spoken often and with conviction of your Christianity and how you bring Christian principles to bear on your conduct of foreign and domestic policy. The 2007 budget you have just proposed extends tax cuts that mostly benefit upper income Americans, while drastically cutting programs that help the poor, including sick children. As news sources have pointed out, the cost of these tax cuts is far greater than the cost savings coming from entitlement program cuts. Given the number of times the Bible, and Jesus himself, references lifting up the poor and tending to the sick, how do you reconcile this proposed budget with your Christianity?"
Well put, Ms. Hastings! Nice to know there are a few people who agree that there's more to being a Christian than the ability to spout the "right" lines at the "right" times.
What Would Jesus Do?
From Mary Beth Hastings:
"Mr. President, you have spoken often and with conviction of your Christianity and how you bring Christian principles to bear on your conduct of foreign and domestic policy. The 2007 budget you have just proposed extends tax cuts that mostly benefit upper income Americans, while drastically cutting programs that help the poor, including sick children. As news sources have pointed out, the cost of these tax cuts is far greater than the cost savings coming from entitlement program cuts. Given the number of times the Bible, and Jesus himself, references lifting up the poor and tending to the sick, how do you reconcile this proposed budget with your Christianity?"
Well put, Ms. Hastings! Nice to know there are a few people who agree that there's more to being a Christian than the ability to spout the "right" lines at the "right" times.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Telegram
This is in today's New York Times:
February 8, 2006
Appreciations
The Telegram
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
I've received exactly one telegram in my life. It arrived on New Year's Eve a couple of decades ago. The message was congratulatory — it quoted J. D. Salinger — and so was the medium, which had a sort of "all the ships at sea" feeling about it. In fact, the telegram was just a piece of paper that looked a little down at the heels, as if it had been a ragged night for the telegraphers. But it arrived with a sense of its own occasion, which went a long way toward enhancing the occasion it had been sent to celebrate: a wedding.
The last telegram ever delivered appears to have been sent by Western Union — whose very name seems to say "telegram" — on Jan. 27. It's easy to understand why the practice of sending telegrams lapsed. They simply could not compete with telephones, express delivery services, e-mail and text-messaging — which, in its compression, bears some curious analogy to the telegram. But knowing that the last telegram has now been delivered is somehow a little like knowing that the last martini has been drunk or the last dinner jacket worn. I would like to believe that there will always be a world where telegrams come directly to the door, throwing a note of suspense into the air.
How many movies turn on that moment! The doorbell rings. A uniformed boy says, "Telegram!" or, "Western Union!" He hands over an envelope in return for a tip, and the plot rounds the corner. Only the telephone has rivaled the telegram as a plot point. It's hard to imagine that e-mail will ever play as large a role in Hollywood.
It is probably as well, though, that the telegram has gone its way. We are out of the habit. Hardly any of us could manage opening the door, tipping the boy and slitting the telegram's throat with the air of familiarity — even aplomb — that one sees in the old movies. In these days when information flows like a river, when e-mail comes and goes no matter how we are dressed or what change we have in our pockets, the telegram has become too singular, too momentous.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
I too remember the only telegram I've ever received. (When I was a kid, someone sent my parents a Candygram—anyone remember those?—but that hardly counts.) On the morning of our wedding day, almost 25 years ago, we arrived at the church to find waiting for us an honest-to-gosh telegram, congratulations from my then-boss in St. Paul. He and I didn't often see eye-to-eye, but I've always said he had class.
February 8, 2006
Appreciations
The Telegram
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
I've received exactly one telegram in my life. It arrived on New Year's Eve a couple of decades ago. The message was congratulatory — it quoted J. D. Salinger — and so was the medium, which had a sort of "all the ships at sea" feeling about it. In fact, the telegram was just a piece of paper that looked a little down at the heels, as if it had been a ragged night for the telegraphers. But it arrived with a sense of its own occasion, which went a long way toward enhancing the occasion it had been sent to celebrate: a wedding.
The last telegram ever delivered appears to have been sent by Western Union — whose very name seems to say "telegram" — on Jan. 27. It's easy to understand why the practice of sending telegrams lapsed. They simply could not compete with telephones, express delivery services, e-mail and text-messaging — which, in its compression, bears some curious analogy to the telegram. But knowing that the last telegram has now been delivered is somehow a little like knowing that the last martini has been drunk or the last dinner jacket worn. I would like to believe that there will always be a world where telegrams come directly to the door, throwing a note of suspense into the air.
How many movies turn on that moment! The doorbell rings. A uniformed boy says, "Telegram!" or, "Western Union!" He hands over an envelope in return for a tip, and the plot rounds the corner. Only the telephone has rivaled the telegram as a plot point. It's hard to imagine that e-mail will ever play as large a role in Hollywood.
It is probably as well, though, that the telegram has gone its way. We are out of the habit. Hardly any of us could manage opening the door, tipping the boy and slitting the telegram's throat with the air of familiarity — even aplomb — that one sees in the old movies. In these days when information flows like a river, when e-mail comes and goes no matter how we are dressed or what change we have in our pockets, the telegram has become too singular, too momentous.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
I too remember the only telegram I've ever received. (When I was a kid, someone sent my parents a Candygram—anyone remember those?—but that hardly counts.) On the morning of our wedding day, almost 25 years ago, we arrived at the church to find waiting for us an honest-to-gosh telegram, congratulations from my then-boss in St. Paul. He and I didn't often see eye-to-eye, but I've always said he had class.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Aging Fast Enough, Thanks
I just wasted half an hour trying to slow down the aging process, sort of. And getting pretty vexed at a couple of organizations that supposedly serve so-called Older Americans.
Obviously, some out there has A Mailing List, and on that Mailing List is my name, and after my name is an incorrect date of birth. Consequently, I have been receiving junk mail from HeartLine Plus, a Dakotacare program apparently designed for folks on Medicare who have heart conditions. I appreciate their concern, but I'm still 16 years away from being eligible for Medicare, nor do I have a heart condition.
Being a good sport, I went online a few weeks ago seeking to e-mail them and encourage them to quit wasting good money sending me unsolicited junk that will go straight into the garbage. Of course, their web site was spectacularly unhelpful. You would think a "Contact Us" link might provide something more than an 800 number and a street address (I wish to waste neither a stamp nor my time on what will likely be a sales pitch)...like, say, an e-mail address, since it's a virtual certainty that someone who visits their web site will have e-mail access. But no. Finally I Googled them, found an address for the Executive Director, and e-mailed him. No reply. Well, unless you count the junk mail that came from them the other day, over the signature of the Marketing Director. Whom I e-mailed today (thanks again, Google, since the Dakotacare web site hasn't improved in the last couple of weeks). We'll see. Hah.
I've also been getting junk from AARP, expressing confusion over my not joining since I am "fully eligible" for their dubious services. And yet, the very junk mail they send me indicates that one is eligible for membership at the age of 50...which I have not yet hit. Whoops.
Well, see above re: being a good sport, and also good luck finding an e-mail contact on the AARP web site. Again, do they not suspect that anyone who is, you know, at their site might have e-mail? Their "Contact Us" page is in fact an overgrown FAQ page. Google was not much help, at least in part because there are so bloody many hits. Finally I did come upon a form to fill out with comments on the web site. My comment, naturally, was that their site does a pretty poor job of proffering contact information and, oh, by the way, howzabout you take me off your mailing lists, since I am ineligible...which is why I was trying to contact you in the first place!!
I have to say, my experience with these two organizations does not fill me with enthusiasm for possibly doing business with either of them when I reach my Golden Years. They don't seem to be very detail oriented; in the case of Dakotacare, they don't seem very responsive; and based on my experience with their web sites, neither seems really interested in making it easy for their "members" (or anyone else) to contact them. Both of these outfits are really going to have to spruce themselves up if they want any money from me down the line.
Obviously, some out there has A Mailing List, and on that Mailing List is my name, and after my name is an incorrect date of birth. Consequently, I have been receiving junk mail from HeartLine Plus, a Dakotacare program apparently designed for folks on Medicare who have heart conditions. I appreciate their concern, but I'm still 16 years away from being eligible for Medicare, nor do I have a heart condition.
Being a good sport, I went online a few weeks ago seeking to e-mail them and encourage them to quit wasting good money sending me unsolicited junk that will go straight into the garbage. Of course, their web site was spectacularly unhelpful. You would think a "Contact Us" link might provide something more than an 800 number and a street address (I wish to waste neither a stamp nor my time on what will likely be a sales pitch)...like, say, an e-mail address, since it's a virtual certainty that someone who visits their web site will have e-mail access. But no. Finally I Googled them, found an address for the Executive Director, and e-mailed him. No reply. Well, unless you count the junk mail that came from them the other day, over the signature of the Marketing Director. Whom I e-mailed today (thanks again, Google, since the Dakotacare web site hasn't improved in the last couple of weeks). We'll see. Hah.
I've also been getting junk from AARP, expressing confusion over my not joining since I am "fully eligible" for their dubious services. And yet, the very junk mail they send me indicates that one is eligible for membership at the age of 50...which I have not yet hit. Whoops.
Well, see above re: being a good sport, and also good luck finding an e-mail contact on the AARP web site. Again, do they not suspect that anyone who is, you know, at their site might have e-mail? Their "Contact Us" page is in fact an overgrown FAQ page. Google was not much help, at least in part because there are so bloody many hits. Finally I did come upon a form to fill out with comments on the web site. My comment, naturally, was that their site does a pretty poor job of proffering contact information and, oh, by the way, howzabout you take me off your mailing lists, since I am ineligible...which is why I was trying to contact you in the first place!!
I have to say, my experience with these two organizations does not fill me with enthusiasm for possibly doing business with either of them when I reach my Golden Years. They don't seem to be very detail oriented; in the case of Dakotacare, they don't seem very responsive; and based on my experience with their web sites, neither seems really interested in making it easy for their "members" (or anyone else) to contact them. Both of these outfits are really going to have to spruce themselves up if they want any money from me down the line.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
You Said It!
More of the quotations I like to collect. As usual, most if not all are from A Word A Day.
- As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests. -Gore Vidal, writer (1925- )
- I love you, and because I love you, I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies. -Pietro Aretino, satirist and dramatist (1492-1556)
- In the republic of mediocrity genius is dangerous. -Robert G. Ingersoll, lawyer and orator (1833-1899)
- Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God holds others in contempt. -Robert Green Ingersoll, lawyer and orator (1833-1899)
- We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -Dwight David Eisenhower, U.S. general and 34th president (1890-1969)
- Which of us is not forever a stranger and alone? -Thomas Wolfe, novelist (1900-1938)
- A king can stand people fighting but he can't last long if people start thinking. -Will Rogers, humorist (1879-1935)
- The problem with being sure that God is on your side is that you can't change your mind, because God sure isn't going to change His. -Roger Ebert, film-critic (1942- )
- An open mind is a prerequisite to an open heart. -Robert M. Sapolsky, neuroscientist and author (1957- )
- Literature is the language of society, as speech is the language of man. -Louis de Bonald, philosopher and politician (1754-1840)
- It is one of the maladies of our age to profess a frenzied allegiance to truth in unimportant matters, to refuse consistently to face her where graver issues are at stake. -Janos Arany, poet (1817-1882)
- Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear. -Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate (1872-1970)
- I don't hate my enemies. After all, I made 'em. -Red Skelton, comedian (1913-1997)
- Words are things; and a small drop of ink / Falling like dew upon a thought, produces / That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think. -Lord Byron, poet (1788-1824)
- Creative activity could be described as a type of learning process where teacher and pupil are located in the same individual. -Arthur Koestler, novelist and journalist (1905-1983)
- When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I am old, I admire kind people. -Abraham Joshua Heschel, theology professor (1907-1972)
- I place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)
- Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. -Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797)
- We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. -Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate (1879-1955)
- Whoever, in the pursuit of science, seeks after immediate practical utility, may generally rest assured that he will seek in vain. -H.L.F. von Helmholtz, physiologist and physicist (1821-1894)
- The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)
- These are not books, lumps of lifeless paper, but minds alive on the shelves. -Gilbert Highet, writer (1906-1978)
- In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful. -Leo Tolstoy, author (1828-1910)
- We are not the same persons this year as last; nor are those we love. It is a happy chance if we, changing, continue to love a changed person. -William Somerset Maugham, writer (1874-1965)
- If writers were good businessmen, they'd have too much sense to be writers. -Irwin S. Cobb, author and journalist (1876-1944)
- If you want to work on your art, work on your life. -Anton Chekhov, short-story writer and dramatist (1860-1904)
- A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it. -Lewis H. Lapham, editor and writer (1935- )
- When angry, count to four; when very angry, swear. -Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)
- Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough. -Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)
- The life of every man is a diary in which he means to write one story, and writes another, and his humblest hour is when he compares the volume as it is with what he vowed to make it. -J.M. Barrie, novelist and playwright (1860-1937)
- Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -Ernest Hemingway, author and journalist, Nobel laureate (1899-1961)
- When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. -Robert T. Pirsig, author and philosopher (1928- )
- Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
- The power to command frequently causes failure to think. -Barbara Tuchman, author and historian (1912-1989)
- For me, words are a form of action, capable of influencing change. -Ingrid Bengis, writer and teacher (1944- )
- Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed. -Benjamin Franklin, statesman, author, and inventor (1706-1790)
- It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind. -Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
- Literature is the art of writing something that will be read twice; journalism what will be grasped at once. -Cyril Connolly, critic and editor (1903-1974)
- The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline towards the religion of solitude. -Aldous Huxley, novelist (1894-1963)
- In the case of good books, the point is not how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through to you. -Mortimer J. Adler, philosopher, educator and author (1902-2001)
- Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900)
- The bitterest tears shed over graves are for words left unsaid and deeds left undone. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and novelist (1811-1896)
- An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. -Don Marquis, humorist and poet (1878-1937)
- New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. -John Locke, philosopher (1632-1704)
- Ideas are like rabbits. You get a couple and learn how to handle them, and pretty soon you have a dozen.--John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
- A quiet conscience sleeps in thunder. -English proverb
- Questions show the mind's range, and answers its subtlety. -Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
- The voice of conscience is so delicate that it is easy to stifle it; but it is also so clear that it is impossible to mistake it. -Madame De Stael, writer (1766-1817)
- Political freedom cannot exist in any land where religion controls the state, and religious freedom cannot exist in any land where the state controls religion. -Samuel James Ervin Jr., lawyer, judge, and senator (1896-1985)
- You can't do anything about the length of your life, but you can do something about its width and depth. -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)
- Learning is weightless, a treasure you can always carry easily. -Chinese Proverb
- To read without reflecting is like eating without digesting. -Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797)
- A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)
- Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. -Flannery O'Connor, writer (1925-1964)
- In this age, the mere example of nonconformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)
- The high minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think. -Aristotle, philosopher (384-322 BCE)
- You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. -Naguib Mahfouz, writer (1911- )
- It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. -Thomas Paine, philosopher and writer (1737-1809)
- The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause. A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. - Eric Hoffer, philosopher and author (1902-1983)
- A sneer is the weapon of the weak. -James Russell Lowell, poet, editor, and diplomat (1819-1891)
- People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them. -Dave Barry, author and columnist (1947- )
- They defend their errors as if they were defending their inheritance. -Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797)
Good and Evil
Here's a letter to the editor, which I wrote a week or so ago and which ran in my local newspaper this morning. The genesis, as alluded to, was a previous letter whose author asserted that "leftists" don't know the difference between good and evil, therefore are always wrong, therefore "aren't worth anything"--or words to that effect. I saved a copy of that letter, but lost it. Anyhow, here's mine:
____________________
January 28, 2006, 2:55 am
A recent letter-writer mean-spiritedly claimed that liberals (or, as he insisted, "leftists") know not the difference between good and evil.
Nonsense. We liberals do indeed know the difference between good and evil. For instance:
Deceiving Americans and their elected representatives to launch a war against a country that did not attack us and which did not possess nor was building weapons of mass destruction: Evil.
Questioning politicians and their cronies whose actions work against the good of the people, the progress of American society, and plain old common sense: Good.
Torturing prisoners who are incarcerated indefinitely without being charged: Evil.
Insisting that those in authority keep their promises, including their promise to uphold the Constitution: Good.
Crowing about being such moral Christians while ignoring inconvenient teachings of Christ (see especially Matthew 5:9, John 8:2-11, Luke 18:9-14, and Matthew 7:1-2 (yes, liberals read the Bible and go to church and everything): Evil.
Branding everyone who doesn't agree with you as "evil": Evil. And un-American.
Interesting aside: "Liberal" and "liberty" derive from the Latin "liber," meaning "free" - as in "free speech," "free choice," "free society", that old-fashioned stuff on which the United States was founded.
____________________
I'll happily concede naivete, and I often suspect I'm nostalgic for a time that never was, but it seems to be more than ever that we are completely unwilling to listen to a contrary opinion...hell, it's not that we won't listen to it: we don't want any to be out there whether we have to listen to it or not!
Whatever happened to that strange old notion, "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? Or was it always just big talk?
Of course, we have always demonized "the other" as a way to justify out opinion, position, or action. And I have to give conservatives their due: they've done a superb job as portraying anyone who disagrees with them as not just wrong but out-and-out evil. Many of my conservative acquaintances think this is just swell (they also think of themselves as pretty exemplary Christians, which is either ironic or hypocritical depending on what sort of mood I'm in when I think about it), and I suspect they will continue to think so right up until they find themselves on the "wrong" side of an issue.
That may be a long time in coming, of course: most of my conservative acquaintances are so bobble-headed (always nodding yes) that they seem incapable of forming an opinion of their own but only regurgutate the latest doublespeak coming from Pennsylvania Avenue.
____________________
"An open mind is a prerequisite to an open heart." -Robert M. Sapolsky, neuroscientist and author (1957- )
____________________
Good v. evil
January 28, 2006, 2:55 am
A recent letter-writer mean-spiritedly claimed that liberals (or, as he insisted, "leftists") know not the difference between good and evil.Nonsense. We liberals do indeed know the difference between good and evil. For instance:
____________________
I'll happily concede naivete, and I often suspect I'm nostalgic for a time that never was, but it seems to be more than ever that we are completely unwilling to listen to a contrary opinion...hell, it's not that we won't listen to it: we don't want any to be out there whether we have to listen to it or not!
Whatever happened to that strange old notion, "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? Or was it always just big talk?
Of course, we have always demonized "the other" as a way to justify out opinion, position, or action. And I have to give conservatives their due: they've done a superb job as portraying anyone who disagrees with them as not just wrong but out-and-out evil. Many of my conservative acquaintances think this is just swell (they also think of themselves as pretty exemplary Christians, which is either ironic or hypocritical depending on what sort of mood I'm in when I think about it), and I suspect they will continue to think so right up until they find themselves on the "wrong" side of an issue.
That may be a long time in coming, of course: most of my conservative acquaintances are so bobble-headed (always nodding yes) that they seem incapable of forming an opinion of their own but only regurgutate the latest doublespeak coming from Pennsylvania Avenue.
____________________
"An open mind is a prerequisite to an open heart." -Robert M. Sapolsky, neuroscientist and author (1957- )
Monday, November 28, 2005
"The Law Is the Law"
A friend sent me the following today, apparently concerned that my blood pressure might be too low. I shared it (and vented) with a few trusted (viz., right-minded) souls. Plus a couple of people I wanted to bug (you know who you are!). Plus whoever reads this blog.
My well-reasoned comments appear after the original, which I have not altered in any way...not even to correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors, and you know how hard that is for me...
_______________
THE LAW IS THE LAW !
This is one of the better e-mails I have received in a long time! I hope this makes its way around the USA several times over!!!!! So Be It!
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So if the US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.
And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
And since they already have prohibited any prayer in the schools, on which they deem their authority, then so be it.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have the American Publics' best interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot Post His Commandments in Government buildings,
I don't believe the Government and it's employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.
I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day.
I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter.
It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."
In fact....
I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says
that it should be just another day....
What do you all think????
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin, once again, to represent the 'majority' of ALL of the American people.
SO BE IT...........
Please Dear Lord, Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!
'Amen' and 'Amen'
_____________________
Dear Jesus, please protect us from your followers...
Well, where to begin? First off, I might point out that the government hasn't decided to remove the words "under God" from our money...mostly because they were never there. The motto on our currency is "In God We Trust," and it's still there. Guess that shows how much attention the original author actually pays to the various empty phrases he/she seems to want to defend.
Second, why would he/she think that God needs our "help" in order to "keep [him] in our country"? I mean, isn't God, ex officio, everywhere? And isn't the concept of our "helping" God just a little conceited? Since, for me at least, it's ordinarily kind of the other way around...
Third, does anybody really and truly believe that not having organized (Christian) prayer in (state-operated) public schools means and end to prayer? "Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot Post His Commandments in Government buildings"... Huh?? You mean you can't pray to God unless a government employee tells you to? And how to? And when? Sad. Likewise, I don't think anyone can legislate one way or another whether anyone trusts in God. And doe the Ten Commandments somehow have no meaning or validity unless posted in a state-owned building?
Finally, I have to wonder about the whole prayer-in-public-schools (and other government settings) business. Specifically, how would these folks -- the ones who seem to think it's not only okay but a good idea for the government to dictate what and when and how to pray -- would feel if Christianity were not in the driver's seat in this country. I read an article some years ago (pre-9/11, so things may have changed) that pointed out that, if then-current population and immigration trends continued, the major religion in the United States by the mid- to late-21st century will be Islam. One then wonders how enthusiastic some of these allegedly Christian folks will feel about prayer in public schools when "prayer" involves the kids facing east, rolling out a mat, and bumping their little foreheads on the floor. Oh, you're not Muslim? That's okay--just pretend to pray. Won't hurt you a bit.
My guess is that the evangelicals and other conservative Christians will break both legs rushing to their hated ACLU for protection from the tyrannical majority, which in turn will be annoyed and disgusted by the whining Christian minority who refuse to just shut up and play along, and which will view any concession toward "those Christians' " feelings or beliefs as mere "political correctness."
But I've discovered that a lot of self-proclaimed Christians are pretty unfamiliar with their Bibles...especially those namby-pamby limp-wristed parts like "love they neighbor" and "do unto others" and that other liberal crap.
My well-reasoned comments appear after the original, which I have not altered in any way...not even to correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors, and you know how hard that is for me...
_______________
THE LAW IS THE LAW !
This is one of the better e-mails I have received in a long time! I hope this makes its way around the USA several times over!!!!! So Be It!
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So if the US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.
And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
And since they already have prohibited any prayer in the schools, on which they deem their authority, then so be it.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have the American Publics' best interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot Post His Commandments in Government buildings,
I don't believe the Government and it's employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.
I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day.
I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter.
It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."
In fact....
I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says
that it should be just another day....
What do you all think????
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin, once again, to represent the 'majority' of ALL of the American people.
SO BE IT...........
Please Dear Lord, Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!
'Amen' and 'Amen'
_____________________
Dear Jesus, please protect us from your followers...
Well, where to begin? First off, I might point out that the government hasn't decided to remove the words "under God" from our money...mostly because they were never there. The motto on our currency is "In God We Trust," and it's still there. Guess that shows how much attention the original author actually pays to the various empty phrases he/she seems to want to defend.
Second, why would he/she think that God needs our "help" in order to "keep [him] in our country"? I mean, isn't God, ex officio, everywhere? And isn't the concept of our "helping" God just a little conceited? Since, for me at least, it's ordinarily kind of the other way around...
Third, does anybody really and truly believe that not having organized (Christian) prayer in (state-operated) public schools means and end to prayer? "Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot Post His Commandments in Government buildings"... Huh?? You mean you can't pray to God unless a government employee tells you to? And how to? And when? Sad. Likewise, I don't think anyone can legislate one way or another whether anyone trusts in God. And doe the Ten Commandments somehow have no meaning or validity unless posted in a state-owned building?
Finally, I have to wonder about the whole prayer-in-public-schools (and other government settings) business. Specifically, how would these folks -- the ones who seem to think it's not only okay but a good idea for the government to dictate what and when and how to pray -- would feel if Christianity were not in the driver's seat in this country. I read an article some years ago (pre-9/11, so things may have changed) that pointed out that, if then-current population and immigration trends continued, the major religion in the United States by the mid- to late-21st century will be Islam. One then wonders how enthusiastic some of these allegedly Christian folks will feel about prayer in public schools when "prayer" involves the kids facing east, rolling out a mat, and bumping their little foreheads on the floor. Oh, you're not Muslim? That's okay--just pretend to pray. Won't hurt you a bit.
My guess is that the evangelicals and other conservative Christians will break both legs rushing to their hated ACLU for protection from the tyrannical majority, which in turn will be annoyed and disgusted by the whining Christian minority who refuse to just shut up and play along, and which will view any concession toward "those Christians' " feelings or beliefs as mere "political correctness."
But I've discovered that a lot of self-proclaimed Christians are pretty unfamiliar with their Bibles...especially those namby-pamby limp-wristed parts like "love they neighbor" and "do unto others" and that other liberal crap.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Weapons?
A little something from "The Daily Show with John Stewart" from awhile back, via BlogTelevision.net.... I'm also curious to see whether the "republish" feature there actually works.
Update 2/6/06 - Alas, everyone's tired of having the silly thing play every single time the blog opens. Since I can find no way to shut off the autoplay, I see no recourse but to slash it out of here. Too bad: it actually worked, and it's a pretty funny clip. It seems you can still get to it here, however.
Update 2/6/06 - Alas, everyone's tired of having the silly thing play every single time the blog opens. Since I can find no way to shut off the autoplay, I see no recourse but to slash it out of here. Too bad: it actually worked, and it's a pretty funny clip. It seems you can still get to it here, however.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
If you know anybody in Dover, Pennsylvania...
This went out to the Far-Flung Correspondents yesterday, with the subject line "If you know anybody in Dover, Pennsylvania..."
"...better help them pack. Pat Robertson has again fired up his direct line to the Almighty, and it turns out the latter is unhappy with the citizens of Dover and is expected (by Robertson) to visit His wrath upon them, like, real soon. See below from The Washington Post for details. (Bet you didn't know your vote for School Board was so important!)"
========
Robertson Says Town Rejects God
By Alan Elsner
Reuters
Friday, November 11, 2005; A03
Conservative Christian television evangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them yesterday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network and the Christian Coalition, has a long record of apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God -- you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show, "The 700 Club."
"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.
In voting Tuesday, all eight Dover, Pa., school board members up for reelection lost their positions after trying to introduce "intelligent design" to high school science students as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
Adherents of intelligent design argue that certain forms in nature are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been created by a "designer." Opponents say it is the latest attempt by conservatives to introduce religion into the school science curriculum.
The Dover case sparked a trial in federal court when the school board was sued by parents backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The board ordered schools to read students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it. The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternate theory and recommended students read a book that explained the theory further.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
========
I can't help but think how swell it would be to be so unquestioningly plugged in to the will of God. Most of us bumble around trying to figure out how to be decent human beings and so on, while some of us -- some lucky somes of us -- got it all figured out! They know what God thinks, and what he wants, and what he's going to do! It's downright astounding!
My friend Paul hit the nail on the head when he wrote, in response to the above, "I don't think those guys ever read the New Testament except for the homophobic St. Paul passages." To which my 15-year-old added, "And Revelation."
The idea of God rewarding folks for doing things the "right" way (as defined by televangelists, evidently) and punishing them for doing things the "wrong" way strikes me as being pretty insulting to God. Doesn't strike me as a very Godlike way to behave, frankly.
It also puts us on very shaky ground, morally, theologically, and philosophically. If things are going well in my life, my family is healthy, I have friends and meaningful work and so on, why, then, it must be because I am doing things right and God is rewarding me, hooray! And, obviously, if you lose your job and your spouse is sick and your kid drops out of school, why, then, you must be doing things wrong and so naturally God is punishing you, you unrighteous sinner!
Well, as I've said before, I think I have a higher opinion of the Almighty than some of these blokes who run around bragging about what terrific Christians they are. I have this feeling that God cares for me and all of creation, and that he wants what's best for us all. Most of what gets screwed up is our own damn fault--not the fault of some capricious, scowling Creator who lies in wait for us to make a misstep so he can smite us. God is there to support, encourage, and help us up when we falter.
Of course, if the town of Dover, Pennsylvania falls off the map one of these first days, I take it all back.
"...better help them pack. Pat Robertson has again fired up his direct line to the Almighty, and it turns out the latter is unhappy with the citizens of Dover and is expected (by Robertson) to visit His wrath upon them, like, real soon. See below from The Washington Post for details. (Bet you didn't know your vote for School Board was so important!)"
========
Robertson Says Town Rejects God
By Alan Elsner
Reuters
Friday, November 11, 2005; A03
Conservative Christian television evangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them yesterday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network and the Christian Coalition, has a long record of apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God -- you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show, "The 700 Club."
"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.
In voting Tuesday, all eight Dover, Pa., school board members up for reelection lost their positions after trying to introduce "intelligent design" to high school science students as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
Adherents of intelligent design argue that certain forms in nature are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been created by a "designer." Opponents say it is the latest attempt by conservatives to introduce religion into the school science curriculum.
The Dover case sparked a trial in federal court when the school board was sued by parents backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The board ordered schools to read students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it. The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternate theory and recommended students read a book that explained the theory further.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
========
I can't help but think how swell it would be to be so unquestioningly plugged in to the will of God. Most of us bumble around trying to figure out how to be decent human beings and so on, while some of us -- some lucky somes of us -- got it all figured out! They know what God thinks, and what he wants, and what he's going to do! It's downright astounding!
My friend Paul hit the nail on the head when he wrote, in response to the above, "I don't think those guys ever read the New Testament except for the homophobic St. Paul passages." To which my 15-year-old added, "And Revelation."
The idea of God rewarding folks for doing things the "right" way (as defined by televangelists, evidently) and punishing them for doing things the "wrong" way strikes me as being pretty insulting to God. Doesn't strike me as a very Godlike way to behave, frankly.
It also puts us on very shaky ground, morally, theologically, and philosophically. If things are going well in my life, my family is healthy, I have friends and meaningful work and so on, why, then, it must be because I am doing things right and God is rewarding me, hooray! And, obviously, if you lose your job and your spouse is sick and your kid drops out of school, why, then, you must be doing things wrong and so naturally God is punishing you, you unrighteous sinner!
Well, as I've said before, I think I have a higher opinion of the Almighty than some of these blokes who run around bragging about what terrific Christians they are. I have this feeling that God cares for me and all of creation, and that he wants what's best for us all. Most of what gets screwed up is our own damn fault--not the fault of some capricious, scowling Creator who lies in wait for us to make a misstep so he can smite us. God is there to support, encourage, and help us up when we falter.
Of course, if the town of Dover, Pennsylvania falls off the map one of these first days, I take it all back.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Words of Wisdom
Been awhile since I posted. Summers are hideously busy. Just to get back into things a little, here are some more quotations I've collected, many from A Word a Day messages.
- There is a loftier ambition than merely to stand high in the world. It is to stoop down and lift mankind a little higher. -Henry van Dyke, poet (1852-1933)
- There is a road from the eye to the heart that does not go through the intellect. -G.K. Chesterton, essayist and novelist (1874-1936)
- The first man to see an illusion by which men have flourished for centuries surely stands in a lonely place. -Gary Zukav, author (1942- )
- Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue. -Robert King Merton, sociologist (1910-2003)
- We must not be frightened nor cajoled into accepting evil as deliverance from evil. We must go on struggling to be human, though monsters of abstractions police and threaten us. -Robert Hayden, poet and educator (1913-1980)
- As I grow to understand life less and less, I learn to live it more and more. -Jules Renard, writer (1864-1910)
- A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -Leo Rosten, author (1908-1997)
- Words are things; and a small drop of ink / Falling like dew upon a thought, produces / That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think. -Lord Byron, (1788-1824)
- No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded. -Margaret Mead, anthropologist (1901-1978)
- If moral behavior were simply following rules, we could program a computer to be moral. -Samuel P. Ginder, US navy captain
- Matters of religion should never be matters of controversy. We neither argue with a lover about his taste, nor condemn him, if we are just, for knowing so human a passion. -George Santayana, philosopher (1863-1952)
- The most tyrannical of governments are those which make crimes of opinions, for everyone has an inalienable right to his thoughts. -Baruch Spinoza, philosopher (1632-1677)
- I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually. -James Baldwin, writer (1924-1987)
- The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions. -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
- Literature encourages tolerance - bigots and fanatics seldom have any use for the arts, because they're so preoccupied with their beliefs and actions that they can't see them also as possibilities. -Northrop Frye, writer (1912-1991)
- True religion is the life we lead, not the creed we profess. -Louis Nizer, lawyer (1902-1994)
- God builds his temple in the heart on the ruins of churches and religions. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
- Doubt everything at least once, even the proposition that two times two equals four. -Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, scientist and philosopher (1742-1799)
- Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)
- Wherever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship. -Harry S. Truman, 33rd US president (1884-1972)
- None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang van Goethe, poet, dramatist, novelist, and philosopher (1749-1832)
- Force without wisdom falls of its own weight. -Horace, poet and satirist (65-8 BCE)
- Those who put out the people's eyes, reproach them for their blindness. -John Milton, poet (1608-1674)
- You may call God love, you may call God goodness. But the best name for God is compassion. -Meister Eckhart, theologian (c. 1260-1327)
- God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. -Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
- Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me anymore. -William Cowper, poet (1731-1800)
- Grasp the subject, the words will follow. -Cato the Elder, statesman, soldier, and writer (234-149 BCE)
- Loneliness... is and always has been the central and inevitable experience of every man. -Thomas Wolfe, novelist (1900-1938)
- The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion. -Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797)
- All restraints upon man's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree. -Lysander Spooner, lawyer (1808-1887)
- It's impossible to be loyal to your family, your friends, your country, and your principles, all at the same time. -Mignon McLaughlin, author (1915-)
- Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers. -Alfred, Lord Tennyson, poet (1809-1892)
- Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought. -Graham Greene, novelist and journalist (1904-1991)
- The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. -Stendal (Marie Henri Beyle), novelist (1783-1842)
- Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government. -Jeremy Bentham, jurist and philosopher (1748-1832)
- More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. -Woody Allen, author actor, and filmmaker (1935- )
- Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that! -Lewis Carroll, mathematician and writer (1832-1898)
- Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)
- The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. -Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900)
- If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers. -Thomas Pynchon, writer (1937- )
- Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)
- Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-esteem. That is why young children, before they are aware of their own self-importance, learn so easily; and why older persons, especially if vain or important, cannot learn at all. -Thomas Szasz, author, professor of psychiatry (1920- )
- The days come and go like muffled and veiled figures sent from a distant friendly party, but they say nothing, and if we do not use the gifts they
- bring, they carry them as silently away. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
- Nature is slow, but sure; she works no faster than need be; she is the tortoise that wins the race by her perseverance. -Henry David Thoreau,
- naturalist and author (1817-1862)
- One father is more than a hundred schoolmasters. -English Proverb
- Ideals are like stars; you will not succeed in touching them with your hands. But like the seafaring man on the desert of waters, you choose them as your guides, and following them you will reach your destiny. -Carl Schurz, general and politician (1829-1906)
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Bats
I've long remembered a bit of "poetry" from a long-gone issue of Mad magazine, circa 1966 or 1967--the height of "Batmania," when, believe it or not, that bizarre Adam West-Burt Ward incarnation of "Batman" ruled the airwaves. The bit stuck in my head was
Bats are creepy, Bats are scary,
Bats do not seem sanitary
Some years ago I tried an internet search for the poem and came up empty. To show that the web is indeed a growing organism, when I was again reminded of the poem and tried another search, I found a couple of references to it. To show that even Google nods, one of the hits included the author's name (well, actually, two did, but one attributed it to Shel Silverstein, which I knew was wrong, which shows yet something else about the internet, viz., don't believe everything you read there); when I searched using the author's name, I came up with still more references to it...mysteriously absent when I searched using the bit of the poem I recalled. Odd.
Fascinating though that may be, here is the poem in its entirety. The author is Frank Jacobs, sometimes referred to as "Mad's poet laureate."
Bats are creepy, Bats are scary,
Bats do not seem sanitary,
Bats in dismal caves keep cozy,
Bats remind us of Lugosi,
Bats have webby wings that fold up,
Bats from ceilings hang down rolled up,
Bats are careful, Bats use radar,
Bats at nighttime at their best are,
Bats by Batman, unimpressed are.
Ah, they don't write them like that anymore.
On the subject of poems remembered from childhood, here's this one, Eletelphony, by Laura E. Richards:
Once there was an elephant,
Who tried to use the telephant -
No! no! I mean an elephone
Who tried to use the telephone -
(Dear me! I am not certain quite
That even now I’ve got it right.)
Howe’er it was, he got his trunk
Entangled in the telephunk;
The more he tried to get it free,
The louder buzzed the telephee -
(I fear I’d better drop the song
Of elephop and telephong!)
In these days of cordless this and wireless that, will kids even understand the entanglement references in the above? When my now-fifteen-year-old daughter was small, I once used the expression "like a broken record," and had it explain it to her. She had had some small experience with "children's records," many of them handed down from older cousins (and a few handed down from me!), but had no concept of the "broken record" connotation. Heck, I've even amused her and her brother with tales of how when I was there age--in the 1960s and 1970s!!--we not only didn't have a remote control for our TV set, we didn't particularly see the need for one (yes, they did exist), since there were only three or four channels anyway, which made for lousy surfing.
One can only wonder how they'll entertain their kids!
Friday, April 15, 2005
School Prayer, etc.
I received this the other day from a well-meaning friend. It's one of those things that's been forwarded 11,000 times...this week. It purports to be from Paul Harvey, but a lot of stuff that gets passed around with Harvey's name on it turns out to not be his. I haven't checked on this one, because, well, I don't care that much.
Anyways, here it is:
And here's what I wrote back to my friend, slightly edited to preserve his anonymity:
Uh-huh.
I can't help but think that these people would be the ones crying the loudest if positions were reversed. In fact, I know they would be--they're the same people who insist that the federal government should be subservient to the states, but want an amendment to the US Constitution to ban gay marriage and flag burning; they're the same people who rail against "activist judges" and then all but condone violence against those judges who effectively refused to be activists, refused to contravene the laws of Florida to "save" Terri Schiavo.
There's no reason to think they wouldn't be taking up arms against prayer in school if the prayer in question wasn't THEIR prayer.
It's all well and good for Harvey/whoever to "expect" to hear a Jewish prayer in Jerusalem. But would he be so sanguine about American public schools beginning the day with a non-Christian prayer?
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...
Anyways, here it is:
Paul Harvey & Prayer/Please Take Time to Read
Paul Harvey says: -
"I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.
I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue. Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna? If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome..
"But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized.. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds.. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer! Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well.........just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long. it's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vast majority don't care what they want.. it is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray.. you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance, you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right.. but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away . we are fighting back.. and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all, especially those who denounce Him... God bless America, despite all her faults, she is still the greatest nation of all.....
God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God...
May 2005 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.
Keep looking up..... In God WE Trust. If you agree with this, please pass it on. If not , delete.
And here's what I wrote back to my friend, slightly edited to preserve his anonymity:
An interesting piece...but...I've come to believe that a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is the formers' ability/willingness to put themselves in other people's positions. Conservatives, for the most part, don't seem to care. Read Harvey's (or whoever's: I know at least a dozen people who could have voiced these thoughts) sentiments again--basically, "I want there to be a [Christian] prayer before the football game, so there should be. It won't hurt non-Christians to sit there quietly for a few seconds."
...one wonders if the Paul Harveys (and [a minister friend of ours who frequently opines about "returning" prayer to public schools]) of this world would be so quick to promote public prayer, prayer in schools, etc., if Christianity were not the dominant religion.
Make than "WHEN Christianity is no longer the dominant religion." It's been documented that, worldwide, the percentage of people who identify themselves as Christian has for some time been dropping, while the percentage identifying themselves as Muslim is growing. It's been predicted that by the mid- to late-21st century there will be more Muslims in the US than Christians. If "public prayer," then, means everyone rolls out a mat, faces east, and bangs his head on the floor, are we Christians, as the minority, going to be quite as enthusiastic about it? Or are we going to be crying that "our rights" are being violated by the majority--who quite reasonably point out that the United States is a Muslim nation and everyone else should just put up with it?
That's the main reason I'm opposed to prayer in public schools (and public-school activities): Someday the shoe will be on the other foot. "Do unto others," etc.
And now you know...the rest of the story!
PS: Don't stop sending me stuff just 'cause I sometimes argue with it--I like to have something to sharpen my teeth on now and then!!
Uh-huh.
I can't help but think that these people would be the ones crying the loudest if positions were reversed. In fact, I know they would be--they're the same people who insist that the federal government should be subservient to the states, but want an amendment to the US Constitution to ban gay marriage and flag burning; they're the same people who rail against "activist judges" and then all but condone violence against those judges who effectively refused to be activists, refused to contravene the laws of Florida to "save" Terri Schiavo.
There's no reason to think they wouldn't be taking up arms against prayer in school if the prayer in question wasn't THEIR prayer.
It's all well and good for Harvey/whoever to "expect" to hear a Jewish prayer in Jerusalem. But would he be so sanguine about American public schools beginning the day with a non-Christian prayer?
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for...
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Living Will (2)
And another one. You know, these would be funnier if they weren't so true...
Like many of you, I have been compelled by recent events to prepare a more detailed advance directive dealing with end-of-life issues. Here's what mine says:
LIVING WILL
* In the event I lapse into a persistent vegetative state, I want medical authorities to resort to extraordinary means to prolong my hellish semiexistence. Fifteen years wouldn't be long enough for me.
* I want my wife and my parents to compound their misery by engaging in a bitter and protracted feud that depletes their emotions and their bank accounts.
* I want my wife to ruin the rest of her life by maintaining an interminable vigil at my bedside. I'd be really jealous if she waited less than a decade to start dating again or otherwise rebuilding a semblance of a normal life.
* I want my case to be turned into a circus by losers and crackpots from around the country who hope to bring meaning to their empty lives by investing the same transient emotion in me that they once reserved for Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy and that little girl who got stuck in a well.
* I want those crackpots to spread vicious lies about my wife.
* I want to be placed in a hospice where protesters can gather to bring further grief and disruption to the lives of dozens of dying patients and families whose stories are sadder than my own.
* I want the people who attach themselves to my case because of their deep devotion to the sanctity of life to make death threats against any judges, elected officials or health care professionals who disagree with them.
* I want the medical geniuses and philosopher kings who populate the Florida Legislature to ignore me for more than a decade and then turn my case into a forum for weeks of politically calculated bloviation.
* I want total strangers - oily politicians, maudlin news anchors, ersatz friars, and all other hangers-on - to start calling me "Bill," as if they had known me since childhood.
* I'm not insisting on this as part of my directive, but it would be nice if Congress passed a "Bill's Law" that applied only to me and ignored the medical needs of tens of millions of other Americans without adequate health coverage.
* Even if the "Bill's Law" idea doesn't work out, I want Congress - especially all those self-described conservatives who claim to believe in "less government and more freedom" - to trample on the decisions of doctors, judges, and other experts who actually know something about my case. And I want members of Congress to launch into an extended debate that gives them another excuse to avoid pesky issues such as national security and the economy.
* In particular, I want House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to use my case as an opportunity to divert the country's attention from the mounting political and legal troubles stemming from his slimy misbehavior.
* And I want Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to make a mockery of his Harvard medical degree by misrepresenting the details of my case in ways that might give a boost to his 2008 presidential campaign.
* I want Frist and the rest of the world to judge my medical condition on the basis of a snippet of dated and demeaning videotape that should have remained private.
* Because I think I would retain my sense of humor even in a persistent vegetative state, I'd want President Bush - the same guy who publicly mocked Karla Faye Tucker when signing off on her death warrant as governor of Texas - to claim he was intervening in my case because it is always best "to err on the side of life."
* I want the state Department of Children and Families to step in at the last moment to take responsibility for my well-being, because nothing bad could ever happen to anyone under DCF's care.
* And because Gov. Jeb Bush is the smartest and most righteous human being on the face of the Earth, I want any and all of the aforementioned directives to be disregarded if the governor happens to disagree with them. If he says he knows what's best for me, I won't be in any position to argue.
Like many of you, I have been compelled by recent events to prepare a more detailed advance directive dealing with end-of-life issues. Here's what mine says:
LIVING WILL
* In the event I lapse into a persistent vegetative state, I want medical authorities to resort to extraordinary means to prolong my hellish semiexistence. Fifteen years wouldn't be long enough for me.
* I want my wife and my parents to compound their misery by engaging in a bitter and protracted feud that depletes their emotions and their bank accounts.
* I want my wife to ruin the rest of her life by maintaining an interminable vigil at my bedside. I'd be really jealous if she waited less than a decade to start dating again or otherwise rebuilding a semblance of a normal life.
* I want my case to be turned into a circus by losers and crackpots from around the country who hope to bring meaning to their empty lives by investing the same transient emotion in me that they once reserved for Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy and that little girl who got stuck in a well.
* I want those crackpots to spread vicious lies about my wife.
* I want to be placed in a hospice where protesters can gather to bring further grief and disruption to the lives of dozens of dying patients and families whose stories are sadder than my own.
* I want the people who attach themselves to my case because of their deep devotion to the sanctity of life to make death threats against any judges, elected officials or health care professionals who disagree with them.
* I want the medical geniuses and philosopher kings who populate the Florida Legislature to ignore me for more than a decade and then turn my case into a forum for weeks of politically calculated bloviation.
* I want total strangers - oily politicians, maudlin news anchors, ersatz friars, and all other hangers-on - to start calling me "Bill," as if they had known me since childhood.
* I'm not insisting on this as part of my directive, but it would be nice if Congress passed a "Bill's Law" that applied only to me and ignored the medical needs of tens of millions of other Americans without adequate health coverage.
* Even if the "Bill's Law" idea doesn't work out, I want Congress - especially all those self-described conservatives who claim to believe in "less government and more freedom" - to trample on the decisions of doctors, judges, and other experts who actually know something about my case. And I want members of Congress to launch into an extended debate that gives them another excuse to avoid pesky issues such as national security and the economy.
* In particular, I want House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to use my case as an opportunity to divert the country's attention from the mounting political and legal troubles stemming from his slimy misbehavior.
* And I want Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to make a mockery of his Harvard medical degree by misrepresenting the details of my case in ways that might give a boost to his 2008 presidential campaign.
* I want Frist and the rest of the world to judge my medical condition on the basis of a snippet of dated and demeaning videotape that should have remained private.
* Because I think I would retain my sense of humor even in a persistent vegetative state, I'd want President Bush - the same guy who publicly mocked Karla Faye Tucker when signing off on her death warrant as governor of Texas - to claim he was intervening in my case because it is always best "to err on the side of life."
* I want the state Department of Children and Families to step in at the last moment to take responsibility for my well-being, because nothing bad could ever happen to anyone under DCF's care.
* And because Gov. Jeb Bush is the smartest and most righteous human being on the face of the Earth, I want any and all of the aforementioned directives to be disregarded if the governor happens to disagree with them. If he says he knows what's best for me, I won't be in any position to argue.
Living Will (1)
One of the funny-but-sad items that landed in my mailbox as poor Terri Schiavo's should-have-been-personal tragedy played itself out across our 24-hour-news networks.
Living Will
I, _________________________ (fill in the blank), being of sound mind and body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means.
Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of peckerwood politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it.
If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to sit up and ask for a cold beer, it should be presumed that I won't ever get better. When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my spouse, children and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes and call it a day.
Under no circumstances shall the members of the Legislature enact a special law to keep me on life-support machinery. It is my wish that these boneheads mind their own damn business, and pay attention instead to the health, education and future of the millions of Americans who aren't in a permanent coma.
Under no circumstances shall any politicians butt into this case. I don't care how many fundamentalist votes they're trying to scrounge for their run for the presidency in 2008, it is my wish that they play politics with someone else's life and leave me alone to die in peace.
I couldn't care less if a hundred religious zealots send e-mails to legislators in which they pretend to care about me. I don't know these people, and I certainly haven't authorized them to preach and crusade on my behalf. They should mind their own business too.
If any of my family goes against my wishes and turns my case into a political cause, I hereby promise to come back from the grave and make his or her existence a living hell.
_______________________________________
Signature
_______________________________________
Witness
Living Will
I, _________________________ (fill in the blank), being of sound mind and body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means.
Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of peckerwood politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it.
If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to sit up and ask for a cold beer, it should be presumed that I won't ever get better. When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my spouse, children and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes and call it a day.
Under no circumstances shall the members of the Legislature enact a special law to keep me on life-support machinery. It is my wish that these boneheads mind their own damn business, and pay attention instead to the health, education and future of the millions of Americans who aren't in a permanent coma.
Under no circumstances shall any politicians butt into this case. I don't care how many fundamentalist votes they're trying to scrounge for their run for the presidency in 2008, it is my wish that they play politics with someone else's life and leave me alone to die in peace.
I couldn't care less if a hundred religious zealots send e-mails to legislators in which they pretend to care about me. I don't know these people, and I certainly haven't authorized them to preach and crusade on my behalf. They should mind their own business too.
If any of my family goes against my wishes and turns my case into a political cause, I hereby promise to come back from the grave and make his or her existence a living hell.
_______________________________________
Signature
_______________________________________
Witness
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Papacy
To be honest, I had to look and see how many popes I've shared the planet with. When you're a kid--or at least when I was--he's just "the pope," with no other identity beyond that title. I do recall the death of Pope Paul, in 1978--after all, by then I was 22--and the 32-day-long reign of John Paul I; and of course the exciting and unexpected election of Karol Wojtyla, John Paul II.
Anyhow, I looked it up and, to my surprise, there have been five popes since I came on the scene in late 1956. They are...
Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli), pope from 1939 till his death in 1958;
John XXIII (Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli), 1958-1963
Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini), 1963-1978
John Paul I (Albino Luciani), 1978
John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla), 1978-2005
The Holy See's official website has, as you might expect, a good deal of information about recent popes. See http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/.
And there's a short article about the "official" mourning process here: http://194.244.5.202/main/notizie/rubriche/approfondimenti/20050403183733356099.html.
Watching news coverage of what can only be described as the death watch for John Paul II was interesting. I guess. First, it was a fabulous example of the problem with 24-hour news networks, viz., you have to be on and talking EVEN WHEN THERE'S OBVIOUSLY NOTHING NEW. I wasted two hours Saturday morning awaiting a news release that was expected "within the hour"..."within the half-hour"..."any minute now"..."an hour ago." Granted the networks can't control whether or when the Vatican chooses to release information. But their fear of being scooped--and the need to fill time even when not much is going on--causes CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News to prattle on breathlessly about something that MIGHT happen...
Second, I was surprised at how seemingly ignorant some of these TV newspeople seem to be of how the Vatican works. More correctly, how bureaucracy works. At least one woman--didn't catch her name; she was on Fox News, which I don't watch much--was pretty breathless in quizzing her guest, a priest, about who was "in charge" now that the pope was gone. Could she really be so stupid as to think that nothing happens unless the pope is there barking out orders like the deranged captain of an ancient sea-vessel?
(Well, it being Fox News, it's entirely possible she was that stupid. And yet, there I was watching it...)
But certainly anyone with any real-world experience at all knows that any institution, religious or secular, has at least a semi-permanent bureaucracy in place, and that that bureaucracy handles much of not virtually all of the mundane trivia that makes up nine-tenths of the undertaking. The White House, General Motors, Harvard University, the Vatican--all of them, I am confident, can function quite tolerably for some time in the absence of "the head."
(But there I go again: Where would a Fox News reporter get any "real"-world experience?)
My take on the late pope is ambivalent. Typical for me. I liked him, and I felt that he always had the best of intentions. Certainly no one can say that he did not give his all for his faith and his church. But his conservatism--and, in later years, his authoritarianism--undermined what had begun as a promising ecumenical initiative. As the Catholic half of a Catholic-Lutheran marriage, I had hoped for, if not full communion between the churches, at least a movement in that direction. Instead, in recent years, came grumblings from the Vatican that Catholics should not be receiving communion at non-Catholic services--as I have been doing for some years now. And continue to do. And will continue to do, as long as my wife's church continues to invite me to do so. The attitude from the Holy See does not advance the cause of unity that Christ wants for his church: quite the opposite. JP2 had the opportunity and authority to set such things right, but he did not take it.
Curiously, while on his watch relations between the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, my wife's denomination improved greatly at "high levels," things seemed to stagnate and even backslide on the "pew level." And that is where ecumenism must happen, if it is to have any validity.
The next pope, I think, will be at least as conservative as John Paul II. Probably a short-timer. And after that... As the Catholic church--and the whole Christian church--shifts below the Equator, an even more conservative world, the prospects of a renewal of the church, a revitalization of ecumenism, and the attainment of real Christian unity seem increasingly remote.
Anyhow, I looked it up and, to my surprise, there have been five popes since I came on the scene in late 1956. They are...
Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli), pope from 1939 till his death in 1958;
John XXIII (Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli), 1958-1963
Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini), 1963-1978
John Paul I (Albino Luciani), 1978
John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla), 1978-2005
The Holy See's official website has, as you might expect, a good deal of information about recent popes. See http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/.
And there's a short article about the "official" mourning process here: http://194.244.5.202/main/notizie/rubriche/approfondimenti/20050403183733356099.html.
Watching news coverage of what can only be described as the death watch for John Paul II was interesting. I guess. First, it was a fabulous example of the problem with 24-hour news networks, viz., you have to be on and talking EVEN WHEN THERE'S OBVIOUSLY NOTHING NEW. I wasted two hours Saturday morning awaiting a news release that was expected "within the hour"..."within the half-hour"..."any minute now"..."an hour ago." Granted the networks can't control whether or when the Vatican chooses to release information. But their fear of being scooped--and the need to fill time even when not much is going on--causes CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News to prattle on breathlessly about something that MIGHT happen...
Second, I was surprised at how seemingly ignorant some of these TV newspeople seem to be of how the Vatican works. More correctly, how bureaucracy works. At least one woman--didn't catch her name; she was on Fox News, which I don't watch much--was pretty breathless in quizzing her guest, a priest, about who was "in charge" now that the pope was gone. Could she really be so stupid as to think that nothing happens unless the pope is there barking out orders like the deranged captain of an ancient sea-vessel?
(Well, it being Fox News, it's entirely possible she was that stupid. And yet, there I was watching it...)
But certainly anyone with any real-world experience at all knows that any institution, religious or secular, has at least a semi-permanent bureaucracy in place, and that that bureaucracy handles much of not virtually all of the mundane trivia that makes up nine-tenths of the undertaking. The White House, General Motors, Harvard University, the Vatican--all of them, I am confident, can function quite tolerably for some time in the absence of "the head."
(But there I go again: Where would a Fox News reporter get any "real"-world experience?)
My take on the late pope is ambivalent. Typical for me. I liked him, and I felt that he always had the best of intentions. Certainly no one can say that he did not give his all for his faith and his church. But his conservatism--and, in later years, his authoritarianism--undermined what had begun as a promising ecumenical initiative. As the Catholic half of a Catholic-Lutheran marriage, I had hoped for, if not full communion between the churches, at least a movement in that direction. Instead, in recent years, came grumblings from the Vatican that Catholics should not be receiving communion at non-Catholic services--as I have been doing for some years now. And continue to do. And will continue to do, as long as my wife's church continues to invite me to do so. The attitude from the Holy See does not advance the cause of unity that Christ wants for his church: quite the opposite. JP2 had the opportunity and authority to set such things right, but he did not take it.
Curiously, while on his watch relations between the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, my wife's denomination improved greatly at "high levels," things seemed to stagnate and even backslide on the "pew level." And that is where ecumenism must happen, if it is to have any validity.
The next pope, I think, will be at least as conservative as John Paul II. Probably a short-timer. And after that... As the Catholic church--and the whole Christian church--shifts below the Equator, an even more conservative world, the prospects of a renewal of the church, a revitalization of ecumenism, and the attainment of real Christian unity seem increasingly remote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)