And then you start to make the lists. There are, perhaps, a hundred things that could have gone wrong. You sort through them, on the two-mile drive--the best case, the worst case.
Best case: He fell asleep in his chair. He'd been complaining about waking in the wee hours and not being able to return to sleep, then being tired all day: Perhaps he sat down in front of the TV and dozed off, then didn't hear the phone(s) because the TV was too loud. Maybe you'll come in the back door and he'll awake with a start and you'll both have a laugh.
Worst case: He fell down the basement stairs and broke a leg, a hip...a neck. Or he had a stroke and has been unable to get to the phone. The thought of him having lain there injured or incapacitated for hours or longer is intolerable. Noon-hour traffic is heavy and slow.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
One Year Ago (3)
The day, as I recall, was gray, steely, cold but not bitingly so. Concerned at Dad's lateness, I pulled out my phone and dialed my dad's house. Answering machine. I called his cell phone. Voice mail. I even called his OnStar number, which he didn't usually activate unless he was planning to be on the road--which seldom happened anymore.
Concern now turned to...what? Not worry, exactly, for I now knew that something was completely and seriously wrong. The question now was only what I would find when I went to the house.
I turned and went down the hill to my office to retrieve my things. I knew I wouldn't be back that day.
Concern now turned to...what? Not worry, exactly, for I now knew that something was completely and seriously wrong. The question now was only what I would find when I went to the house.
I turned and went down the hill to my office to retrieve my things. I knew I wouldn't be back that day.
One Year Ago (2)
It was at about this point one year ago that I began to become concerned at my dad's lateness. Had we pushed the meeting time back? Sometimes we did, if he wanted to attend Mass. But I didn't recall that we had discussed it during the week.
One Year Ago
It was about this time, one year ago, that I was heading up the hill to the parking lot where my dad would pick me up for the weekly lunch date we had had since my mom's death some four years previous.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Now They're Getting Somewhere!
I have chronicled in the past (here and here, not to mention here) the oddities surrounding my subscription to the Daily Brief from The Huffington Post. Well, today's edition popped up in my mailbox a couple of minutes ago--12:03 p.m. CST, as it happens, which is allegedly the same time it was sent. Interesting. Well, no, not especially, but it is curious. A little.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
So it's Not Just the Catholic Church, Then?
This at CNN.com:
- Disgraced pastor Haggard facing new sex allegations
By Eric Marrapodi and Jim Spellman
CNN
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) -- A megachurch paid a 20-year-old man to keep silent about a sexual relationship he had with disgraced evangelical pastor Ted Haggard, a senior church pastor said.
Haggard, who was fired amid allegations that he used drugs and patronized a male prostitute in 2006, had a sexual relationship with a second man -- a 20-year-old volunteer at his megachurch, the Rev. Brady Boyd, a senior pastor at the church, said Monday.
The church agreed to pay the man in exchange for his pledges not to talk publicly about the relationship, Boyd said, referring to a settlement reached by the man's lawyer and the church's insurance company. Under the settlement, the church provided the man money to pay his college tuition, moving expenses and counseling, Boyd said.
Here's my favorite part:
- "This was compassionate assistance. It was to help him move forward, not a settlement to keep him quiet," said Boyd, senior pastor at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Oh, uh-huh. First the church "agreed to pay the man in exchange for his pledges not to talk publicly about the relationship," but then it's "compassionate assistance" and certainly not "a settlement to keep him quiet"--no, no, nothing like that! Where would you get such an idea?
So. A sex scandal. Embarrassment. The church, imbued as it is with Christ's message of compassion and forgiveness, kicks Haggard--its founder!--to the curb (he evidently got to keep his six-figure salary for a year, though, but--get this!--Haggard's settlement with the church included his agreeing to "leave the Colorado Springs area"...that is, they not only don't want him in their church anymore, they don't want him around town!). The church starts spreading money around to keep everything hush-hush (Haggard's settlement included his agreeing to not speak publicly about the event for one year, according to CNN)--"compassionate assistance" indeed!
And I thought my church had the market cornered on that sort of stuff!
One might think that the problems of guys like Ted Haggard et al. would lay to rest the bizarre notion that somehow the Catholic Church's adherence to celebacy for its priests is to blame for sexual misconduct in its ranks. But of course it won't.
Getting Closer
Well, this is some improvement: Today's Daily Brief from The Huffington Post actually arrived today, sometime between 4:30 this afternoon and 7:45 this evening. It claims to have been mailed at 11:53 this morning, though, so it's still taking the scenic route to get here.
Important Safety Note!
A headline today at Reuters:
- Octuplets stun doctors at California hospital
More Strangeness from HuffPo. Or Is it the Same Strangeness?
I mentioned the other day that weird stuff was going on with my Huffington Post Daily Brief: In a nutshell, I had written them to ask why it comes so damn late, and the "response," if that's the word I want, was for it to stop entirely.
As predicted, I went to the website and re-subscribed. And this morning when I logged in to my e-mail, there was the Daily Brief waiting for me.
Yesterday's Daily Brief.
I was online until about 10:30 last night, local time, and logged in again at about 6:30 this morning, so the Monday Daily Brief arrived somewhere in that time slot...late enough that it should more accurately be labeled the Tuesday edition.
According to the header information, for whatever it may be worth, the brief was sent yesterday at 12:03 p.m.--three minutes after noon. I don't know whose time zone, but assuming it was somewhere in the continental United States, that means the thing floats around in the ether for upward of ten hours before it's delivered to my mailbox. I would blame my e-mail provider, except that this happens pretty much every day, which causes me to suspect it's an issue closer to HuffPo's end of the pipe.
But I guess that's just how it is. No point trying to communicate the concern to the folks at Huffington Post: My previous attempt not only generated no action, it seems to have prompted them to pull the plug on my subscription entirely.
Strangeness indeed.
As predicted, I went to the website and re-subscribed. And this morning when I logged in to my e-mail, there was the Daily Brief waiting for me.
Yesterday's Daily Brief.
I was online until about 10:30 last night, local time, and logged in again at about 6:30 this morning, so the Monday Daily Brief arrived somewhere in that time slot...late enough that it should more accurately be labeled the Tuesday edition.
According to the header information, for whatever it may be worth, the brief was sent yesterday at 12:03 p.m.--three minutes after noon. I don't know whose time zone, but assuming it was somewhere in the continental United States, that means the thing floats around in the ether for upward of ten hours before it's delivered to my mailbox. I would blame my e-mail provider, except that this happens pretty much every day, which causes me to suspect it's an issue closer to HuffPo's end of the pipe.
But I guess that's just how it is. No point trying to communicate the concern to the folks at Huffington Post: My previous attempt not only generated no action, it seems to have prompted them to pull the plug on my subscription entirely.
Strangeness indeed.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Strangeness from the Huffington Post
For quite some time now I have been receiving and, mostly, enjoying The Daily Brief from the Huffington Post. But in the past couple of weeks I have noticed that my "dailies" are arriving later and later...so late, in fact, that they haven't yet shown up my my mailbox when I decide to call it a day, and in fact arrive at some point late at night or in the wee hours of the following day.
When I began to note that I was reading a lot of Huffington posts on Digg.com which I hadn't yet seen in my mailbox, and would usually receive the following day, I dropped the Huffington folks a friendly, I thought, inquiry. Maybe there was an issue with their delivery service. Maybe there was an issue with my e-mail provider. Maybe they would like to know about it.
Maybe not.
I sent my query just over a week ago--Friday, January 16--and in short order received a message headed "Thanks for Contacting HuffPost."
And that's the last I've ever heard from them.
No, no--I wasn't expecting a reply. In fact, it says right in the "Thanks for Contacting HuffPost" message that I won't be getting one, and that's fine.
What I mean is, they've quit sending the Daily Brief.
Is that weird or what? I write to enquire as to the lateness of the Daily Brief, and the response is to terminate the subscription? No, it's weird, all right.
Dear Huffington Post People: Now the Daily Brief is even later than before!
Well, obviously, I can go back to their site and just subscribe again and see how it goes. But how strange.
So now on top of the mystery of the later-and-later Daily Briefs, there's the mystery of who decided to pull the plug on me, and why.
This is no way to make friends.
When I began to note that I was reading a lot of Huffington posts on Digg.com which I hadn't yet seen in my mailbox, and would usually receive the following day, I dropped the Huffington folks a friendly, I thought, inquiry. Maybe there was an issue with their delivery service. Maybe there was an issue with my e-mail provider. Maybe they would like to know about it.
Maybe not.
I sent my query just over a week ago--Friday, January 16--and in short order received a message headed "Thanks for Contacting HuffPost."
And that's the last I've ever heard from them.
No, no--I wasn't expecting a reply. In fact, it says right in the "Thanks for Contacting HuffPost" message that I won't be getting one, and that's fine.
What I mean is, they've quit sending the Daily Brief.
Is that weird or what? I write to enquire as to the lateness of the Daily Brief, and the response is to terminate the subscription? No, it's weird, all right.
Dear Huffington Post People: Now the Daily Brief is even later than before!
Well, obviously, I can go back to their site and just subscribe again and see how it goes. But how strange.
So now on top of the mystery of the later-and-later Daily Briefs, there's the mystery of who decided to pull the plug on me, and why.
This is no way to make friends.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Whistleblower: Bush's NSA spied on EVERYONE
With video: Rampant spying, especially targeting of journalists. The NSA had access to ALL YOUR COMMUNICATIONS, regardless of who you were or whether or not you were communicating internationally.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
1,000 Words
The moment we've all been waiting for. Well, most of us, anyway.
W has left the building. Thank you and good night.
W has left the building. Thank you and good night.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Countdown Ended!
I gotta tell you, there were days when I thought that "Official George W. Bush Days Left In Office Countdown" thingy over there in the right-hand column would never get to zero!
Saturday, January 10, 2009
50 Beautiful Examples Of Tilt-Shift Photography | Inspiration | Smashing Magazine
50 Beautiful Examples Of Tilt-Shift Photography | Inspiration | Smashing Magazine
Posted using ShareThis
Posted using ShareThis
Tilt-shift photography is a creative and unique type of photography in which the camera is manipulated so that a life-sized location or subject looks like a miniature-scale model. Below we present 50 beautiful examples of tilt-shift photography. All examples are linked to their sources. We strongly encourage you to explore other works of the photographers we’ve featured in this post.
To add good miniature effect to your photographs, shoot subjects from a high angle (especially from the air). It creates the illusion of looking down at a miniature model. A camera equipped with a tilt-shift lens, which simulates a shallow depth of field, is essentially all you need to start.
You may also want to take a look at the following related posts:
- Beautiful Examples Of High-Speed Photography
- 35 Fantastic HDR Pictures
- 45 Beautiful Motion Blur Photos
50 Amazing Examples of Tilt-Shift Photography
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Some "Help"!
Lately a very intrusive "service" from Qwest has infected my computers. I've been able to "opt out," as they say, on my iMac, but not on the Dell laptop I sometimes use. The fact that I never "opted in" to this "service" in the first place seems to be neither here nor there.
The "service" in question--Qwest Web.Help redirection service--theoretically "helps" you find a URL when your browser isn't able to. In fact, it hijacks your browser.
Veteran web-users will remember a time when you absolutely had to enter the whole big long http-colon-slash-slash-dubya-dubya-dubya-whatever-dot-com in order to get anywhere. Then came whatever version of the wonderful old Netscape Navigator browser, whose authors decided that maybe, just maybe, a browser could be smart enough to decode the Domain Name Server information without your having to take it by the hand. You type in, say, "blogger," and presto! a few seconds later you arrive at http://www.blogger.com! Amazing!
Internet Exploder, of course, continued to insist on the whole string for quite some time, which was a big part of the reason I dumped IE--or, as I still think of it, Aieeee!--many years ago. Following the demise of Netscape Navigator, Firefox continued the smart tradition, and for that and many other reasons has long been my browser of choice.
Well, thanks to Qwest Web.Help, internet browsing has taken a giant step backward!
For now, typing "Zap2It" (my favorite TV listings service) into the URL field gives me this:
Charming, no? The worst part is, Qwest Web.Help can't find anything unless you type in the whole URL, or at least the name-dot-com part of it. Just like web surfing in the 1980s!
Or, perhaps more accurately, Qwest Web.Help won't find anything. And why? Well, look at the screenshot. All of those "helpful" results--only the third on the list being the actual website I want, incidentally--aren't there by accident. They're all "sponsored" links. "Sponsored" as in "paid advertising."
In short: Qwest's "help" involves their hijacking my web browser so they can make money on top of the fee I pay them every month for my DSL.
Gee, thanks, Qwest.
You will note, in small letters way off to the right-hand side of the screen, a link titled "Opt out of this service."
"Service." Right. He said with a sneer.
Well, not very easy. For one thing, to click the link does not, as you might expect, actually opt you out. Rather, it takes you to the following, eerily familiar page:
Yes, it's virtually the same page--got to keep those paid listings in front of your little eyeballs, you know--except that now you have a box telling you what the "service" that you never wanted does (it slows down your browsing experience so that you have to look at some ads along the way, that's what it does!), and then gives you another link to click on to, theoretically, "opt out."
But not so fast, buckaroo! First you have to look at this:
That's right, you're still not to the opt-out, um, option! Once again, they're telling you you can opt out "at any time"--instructions that must have been written by someone who never visited the Qwest Web.Help website. This is beginning to be a bit like Hotel California, no?
Okay, buried in the number-four position on the list is "Can I opt out of this service?" The answer would seem to be a resounding no, but I gamely click on it anyhow...and get yet another link for, supposedly, opting out!
This is truly and blatantly designed to prevent people from opting out of this idiotic imposition, and whoever at Qwest thought of this idea should have a special little corner of hell reserved for them.
Actually, I think there ought to be a law against this sort of thing, and I am seriously contemplating making such a suggestion to my congressional delegation (one of whom won't give a hoot, since he has over and over demonstrated himself to be in the hip pocket of "Business Interests," but the other two might at least give it some consideration).
Okay, having come this far one might as well play it out. I click on " opt out of this service" (again)...and...
Yep. No opting out going on quite yet! Instead here's yet another description of the "service" and yet another "opt out" link. What are we up to by now? I can't count that high!
Well, surely by now the "opt out" link must do something, no? So I click on it...and here comes this little gem:
Yes. We have at last reached the end of the trail, despite Qwest's best efforts. And what is our reward? Why, Qwest can't find the domain! Now, let's think for a moment. What is the domain that Qwest can't find? Well, the message says "Unable to determine IP address from host name for www.qwest.net."
Um...Qwest can't find its own address??
That's certainly how it appears. "Qwest DNS servers were not able to resolve the hostname presented in the URL," it says. "Check if the address is correct," it says.
The "hostname presented in the URL"? http://www.qwest.net/web.help/?confirm=1.
Qwest can't find its own address.
And they're the people who are going to "help" me with this wonderful "service" that I never asked for and which they won't let me opt out of.
Some "help"!
The "service" in question--Qwest Web.Help redirection service--theoretically "helps" you find a URL when your browser isn't able to. In fact, it hijacks your browser.
Veteran web-users will remember a time when you absolutely had to enter the whole big long http-colon-slash-slash-dubya-dubya-dubya-whatever-dot-com in order to get anywhere. Then came whatever version of the wonderful old Netscape Navigator browser, whose authors decided that maybe, just maybe, a browser could be smart enough to decode the Domain Name Server information without your having to take it by the hand. You type in, say, "blogger," and presto! a few seconds later you arrive at http://www.blogger.com! Amazing!
Internet Exploder, of course, continued to insist on the whole string for quite some time, which was a big part of the reason I dumped IE--or, as I still think of it, Aieeee!--many years ago. Following the demise of Netscape Navigator, Firefox continued the smart tradition, and for that and many other reasons has long been my browser of choice.
Well, thanks to Qwest Web.Help, internet browsing has taken a giant step backward!
For now, typing "Zap2It" (my favorite TV listings service) into the URL field gives me this:
Charming, no? The worst part is, Qwest Web.Help can't find anything unless you type in the whole URL, or at least the name-dot-com part of it. Just like web surfing in the 1980s!
Or, perhaps more accurately, Qwest Web.Help won't find anything. And why? Well, look at the screenshot. All of those "helpful" results--only the third on the list being the actual website I want, incidentally--aren't there by accident. They're all "sponsored" links. "Sponsored" as in "paid advertising."
In short: Qwest's "help" involves their hijacking my web browser so they can make money on top of the fee I pay them every month for my DSL.
Gee, thanks, Qwest.
You will note, in small letters way off to the right-hand side of the screen, a link titled "Opt out of this service."
"Service." Right. He said with a sneer.
Well, not very easy. For one thing, to click the link does not, as you might expect, actually opt you out. Rather, it takes you to the following, eerily familiar page:
Yes, it's virtually the same page--got to keep those paid listings in front of your little eyeballs, you know--except that now you have a box telling you what the "service" that you never wanted does (it slows down your browsing experience so that you have to look at some ads along the way, that's what it does!), and then gives you another link to click on to, theoretically, "opt out."
But not so fast, buckaroo! First you have to look at this:
That's right, you're still not to the opt-out, um, option! Once again, they're telling you you can opt out "at any time"--instructions that must have been written by someone who never visited the Qwest Web.Help website. This is beginning to be a bit like Hotel California, no?
Okay, buried in the number-four position on the list is "Can I opt out of this service?" The answer would seem to be a resounding no, but I gamely click on it anyhow...and get yet another link for, supposedly, opting out!
This is truly and blatantly designed to prevent people from opting out of this idiotic imposition, and whoever at Qwest thought of this idea should have a special little corner of hell reserved for them.Actually, I think there ought to be a law against this sort of thing, and I am seriously contemplating making such a suggestion to my congressional delegation (one of whom won't give a hoot, since he has over and over demonstrated himself to be in the hip pocket of "Business Interests," but the other two might at least give it some consideration).
Okay, having come this far one might as well play it out. I click on " opt out of this service" (again)...and...
Yep. No opting out going on quite yet! Instead here's yet another description of the "service" and yet another "opt out" link. What are we up to by now? I can't count that high!
Well, surely by now the "opt out" link must do something, no? So I click on it...and here comes this little gem:
Yes. We have at last reached the end of the trail, despite Qwest's best efforts. And what is our reward? Why, Qwest can't find the domain! Now, let's think for a moment. What is the domain that Qwest can't find? Well, the message says "Unable to determine IP address from host name for www.qwest.net."
Um...Qwest can't find its own address??
That's certainly how it appears. "Qwest DNS servers were not able to resolve the hostname presented in the URL," it says. "Check if the address is correct," it says.
The "hostname presented in the URL"? http://www.qwest.net/web.help/?confirm=1.
Qwest can't find its own address.
And they're the people who are going to "help" me with this wonderful "service" that I never asked for and which they won't let me opt out of.
Some "help"!
Maybe the Economy Is Worse than I Thought
Last week I received word that Law Motors is now following my updates on Twitter.
Law Motors is a local used-car lot. Twitter is something I signed up for ages ago and never use. Frankly, I don't much see the point of it. So I'm afraid Law Motors is destined to be pretty bored.
Incidentally, I've never done any business with Law Motors, never set foot on the lot, not even sure where they're located, so I assume their people merely combed through Twitter and signed up to follow everyone whose profile indicates they're within, probably, a certain geographic zone.
Naturally, I deleted the message. What's it to me?
Now today comes word that "ActionNews (KSFYActionNews) is now following your updates on Twitter." KSFY is one of the local TV stations. Again, I'm afraid they're not going to observe much "action" by following me on Twitter, but that's their problem.
Oddly, as I visit KSFYActionNews' profile, I observe that they are "following"--you guessed it--Law Motors.
To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of this. But I am somehow reminded of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet going round and round a tree in the Hundred Acre Wood and becoming progressively more worried about the increasing number of footprints...
Law Motors is a local used-car lot. Twitter is something I signed up for ages ago and never use. Frankly, I don't much see the point of it. So I'm afraid Law Motors is destined to be pretty bored.
Incidentally, I've never done any business with Law Motors, never set foot on the lot, not even sure where they're located, so I assume their people merely combed through Twitter and signed up to follow everyone whose profile indicates they're within, probably, a certain geographic zone.
Naturally, I deleted the message. What's it to me?
Now today comes word that "ActionNews (KSFYActionNews) is now following your updates on Twitter." KSFY is one of the local TV stations. Again, I'm afraid they're not going to observe much "action" by following me on Twitter, but that's their problem.
Oddly, as I visit KSFYActionNews' profile, I observe that they are "following"--you guessed it--Law Motors.
To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of this. But I am somehow reminded of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet going round and round a tree in the Hundred Acre Wood and becoming progressively more worried about the increasing number of footprints...
Saturday, January 03, 2009
And We're Missing the Whole Point
My chum Jerry sends me this, from the Wall Street Journal:
I was being flip, of course, but it's true: churches as institutions have a nasty habit of coming to convince themselves that they--their traditions, their rules, their rituals, their clergy, their own continued survival--are more important than the mere people whom they purport to serve. I've seen it repeatedly in my own church, where sexual predators among the clergy are shuttled around and sheltered to avoid "scandal" and "protect the church." New flash: People are the church! And I've seen it in matters great and small in other churches as well.
And now this--the wonderful church boots out the homeless shelter because its people went ahead and fed the hungry first instead of forcing them to wait while the churchy folk preached to them. Perfect.
Without going back to look it up, I'm pretty sure Jesus' exhortation was to feed the hungry--not preach to them, then make them sing Christmas songs, then feed them.
And then so many of my priest and pastor friends scratch their heads in wonder because so many people eschew "organized" religion...
- U.S. NEWS - DECEMBER 29, 2008, 10:16 P.M. ET
Homeless Shelter Evicted After Prayer Debate
Associated Press
HACKENSACK, N.J. -- A Bergen County homeless shelter is homeless itself -- again.
The First Reformed Church of Hackensack dismissed the FAITH Foundation in a dispute over rules at its Christmas dinner for about 100 homeless people last week.
Church officials say they wanted a sermon and carols before dinner was fed. But shelter director Robin Reilly started serving food first, saying some patrons hadn't eaten for 24 hours.
Ms. Reilly says she'll try to find a new place to help the homeless. She's storing the group's supplies at another church for now.
It's not the first time the foundation has lost its home. Hackensack officials closed its previous building because it lacked permission to serve food there.
Copyright © 2008 Associated Press
I was being flip, of course, but it's true: churches as institutions have a nasty habit of coming to convince themselves that they--their traditions, their rules, their rituals, their clergy, their own continued survival--are more important than the mere people whom they purport to serve. I've seen it repeatedly in my own church, where sexual predators among the clergy are shuttled around and sheltered to avoid "scandal" and "protect the church." New flash: People are the church! And I've seen it in matters great and small in other churches as well.
And now this--the wonderful church boots out the homeless shelter because its people went ahead and fed the hungry first instead of forcing them to wait while the churchy folk preached to them. Perfect.
Without going back to look it up, I'm pretty sure Jesus' exhortation was to feed the hungry--not preach to them, then make them sing Christmas songs, then feed them.
And then so many of my priest and pastor friends scratch their heads in wonder because so many people eschew "organized" religion...
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Bet People Will Be as Stupid in the New Year!
This little gem appeared yesterday in the letters section of the local rag:
Ah, and here we go again...the majority of people who live in X are Christians, or profess to be (not, experience teaches, quite the same thing), therefore X is a "Christian" country/ state/county/neighborhood/fill in your favorite pointless geographic boundary.
Ms. Ryden is of course half-right: South Dakota is not a "Jewish state." I have the feeling that I could have every Jew in the state over for lunch and we would fit comfortably in my backyard. (Not at the moment, when the backyard is snow-covered and the temperature is a brisk 7 degrees, but you get my point.) But she is also half-wrong, for neither is South Dakota a "Christian state." It's a "state," that's all, and under the Constitution of the United States (remember that old thing? We haven't seen much of it these past eight years) that makes it a secular entity.
Side Point One: Don't tell me you've read the Constitution and don't find "separation of church and state" in there anywhere. The phrase is not there, but the concept is. Don't be disingenuous.
Side Point Two: Observe how Ms. Ryden on the one hand insists that South Dakota is a "Christian" state but then subsequently complains that the governor "has violated the separation of church and state" by his lighting of a menorah. Well, which is is? If this is a "Christian" state--and by extensions I suppose she must mean that every state that has a majority of self-proclaiming Christians as residents must perforce also be "Christian" states--then "separation of church and state" has no meaning, and it thus would be impossible for the governor, or anyone else, to violate it.
Although I am unsurprised that such bigoted ignorance exists (I live in South Dakota, mind, and encounter such staggering stupidity and shallowness nearly every day of the week) I am a little surprised that someone would be so colossally ignorant as to put such an opinion to paper. And then mail it, or e-mail it, to the local rag. But I suppose the Cloak of Righteousness means you can say any stupid, shallow, prejudiced thing you like and be confident that (A) Jesus agrees with you and (B) anyone who disagrees with you must by definition not be a "real Christian" since, after all (C), Jesus agrees with you.
Although it is folly to try to make sense out of such ignorant ranting, one can't help but wonder how the governor's lighting a menorah signifies an attempt to "Judaize the rest of us." Is it that my laying eyes on a menorah would somehow compel me to convert to Judaism? If so, our churches should fair be bursting at the seams, since you can't turn around without seeing a cross hanging from someone's neck, or an ichthys on the back end of a car. Why, if symbols are all it takes to "-ize" people, there should be no non-Christians anywhere, so ubiquitous is Christian, or "Christian," symbolism!
I especially love the second-to-last line (by which point I imagine Ms. Ryden figuratively foaming at the corners of her mouth, as her tirade makes less and less sense and sounds more and more strident): "You won't find any symbols or rituals of Christianity on Jewish turf." So, so true. Nor will you find much in the way of Jewish symbols or rituals on "Christian turf" (one does occasionally encounter a Star of David in the Christian context). But again, she seems to be confusing the steps of the South Dakota capitol building with "Christian turf," when it isn't. It is, by law, custom, and common sense, "secular turf." Indeed, one could--and some probably will--argue that, because it's secular, there should be no religious symbolism at all there, but I consider such arguments to be silly. Put up a Christmas tree in the rotunda, light a menorah on the steps, who cares?
Well, lots of people, obviously. Which causes me to wonder why?
I mean, is the faith of Ms. Ryden and her ilk (that whole "war on Christmas" bunch that O'Reilly keeps bleating about) really so fragile, so shallow, so meaningless that the idea of the existence of a different faith is threatening? Are their beliefs so shaky that hearing "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" undermines their Christmas convictions? Is their brand of "religion" really so second-rate that they can advance it only by burying someone else's? Are they and their God really that small?
Personally, I find it hard to imagine Jesus getting too worked up over the lighting of a menorah, on the steps of the South Dakota capitol or anywhere else. It seems pretty likely to me that he himself may have lighted one or two, back in the day. Likewise, I doubt that he thinks that someone slapping a fish symbol on the back of his or her car makes him or her a Christian.
I'm almost certain there's more to it than that.
- S.D. is a Christian state
Carole V. Ryden • Sioux Falls • December 30, 2008
I read that Gov. Mike Rounds lighted Menorah candles on the Capitol step during Hanukkah. The Menorah has been the symbol of the Jewish religion for 3,000 years. South Dakota is a Christian state - not a Jewish state. It is inappropriate for government officials to do this lighting ritual. To what purpose is Judaism being singled out? I suspect this ritual is designed to show that South Dakotans stand in support of the Jewish religion. Why? Don't South Dakotans stand for all those who choose to worship God in their own way? I do. However, I object to Gov. Rounds going along with a minority group which seeks to Judaize the rest of us, such as insisting that we now say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas. This is especially repugnant to me in light of the fact that Jews reject the divinity of Christ. I don't. You won't find any symbols or rituals of Christianity on Jewish turf. Gov. Rounds has violated the separation of church and state and turned his back on the Christian traditions of South Dakota.
Ah, and here we go again...the majority of people who live in X are Christians, or profess to be (not, experience teaches, quite the same thing), therefore X is a "Christian" country/ state/county/neighborhood/fill in your favorite pointless geographic boundary.
Ms. Ryden is of course half-right: South Dakota is not a "Jewish state." I have the feeling that I could have every Jew in the state over for lunch and we would fit comfortably in my backyard. (Not at the moment, when the backyard is snow-covered and the temperature is a brisk 7 degrees, but you get my point.) But she is also half-wrong, for neither is South Dakota a "Christian state." It's a "state," that's all, and under the Constitution of the United States (remember that old thing? We haven't seen much of it these past eight years) that makes it a secular entity.
Side Point One: Don't tell me you've read the Constitution and don't find "separation of church and state" in there anywhere. The phrase is not there, but the concept is. Don't be disingenuous.
Side Point Two: Observe how Ms. Ryden on the one hand insists that South Dakota is a "Christian" state but then subsequently complains that the governor "has violated the separation of church and state" by his lighting of a menorah. Well, which is is? If this is a "Christian" state--and by extensions I suppose she must mean that every state that has a majority of self-proclaiming Christians as residents must perforce also be "Christian" states--then "separation of church and state" has no meaning, and it thus would be impossible for the governor, or anyone else, to violate it.
Although I am unsurprised that such bigoted ignorance exists (I live in South Dakota, mind, and encounter such staggering stupidity and shallowness nearly every day of the week) I am a little surprised that someone would be so colossally ignorant as to put such an opinion to paper. And then mail it, or e-mail it, to the local rag. But I suppose the Cloak of Righteousness means you can say any stupid, shallow, prejudiced thing you like and be confident that (A) Jesus agrees with you and (B) anyone who disagrees with you must by definition not be a "real Christian" since, after all (C), Jesus agrees with you.
Although it is folly to try to make sense out of such ignorant ranting, one can't help but wonder how the governor's lighting a menorah signifies an attempt to "Judaize the rest of us." Is it that my laying eyes on a menorah would somehow compel me to convert to Judaism? If so, our churches should fair be bursting at the seams, since you can't turn around without seeing a cross hanging from someone's neck, or an ichthys on the back end of a car. Why, if symbols are all it takes to "-ize" people, there should be no non-Christians anywhere, so ubiquitous is Christian, or "Christian," symbolism!
I especially love the second-to-last line (by which point I imagine Ms. Ryden figuratively foaming at the corners of her mouth, as her tirade makes less and less sense and sounds more and more strident): "You won't find any symbols or rituals of Christianity on Jewish turf." So, so true. Nor will you find much in the way of Jewish symbols or rituals on "Christian turf" (one does occasionally encounter a Star of David in the Christian context). But again, she seems to be confusing the steps of the South Dakota capitol building with "Christian turf," when it isn't. It is, by law, custom, and common sense, "secular turf." Indeed, one could--and some probably will--argue that, because it's secular, there should be no religious symbolism at all there, but I consider such arguments to be silly. Put up a Christmas tree in the rotunda, light a menorah on the steps, who cares?
Well, lots of people, obviously. Which causes me to wonder why?
I mean, is the faith of Ms. Ryden and her ilk (that whole "war on Christmas" bunch that O'Reilly keeps bleating about) really so fragile, so shallow, so meaningless that the idea of the existence of a different faith is threatening? Are their beliefs so shaky that hearing "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" undermines their Christmas convictions? Is their brand of "religion" really so second-rate that they can advance it only by burying someone else's? Are they and their God really that small?
Personally, I find it hard to imagine Jesus getting too worked up over the lighting of a menorah, on the steps of the South Dakota capitol or anywhere else. It seems pretty likely to me that he himself may have lighted one or two, back in the day. Likewise, I doubt that he thinks that someone slapping a fish symbol on the back of his or her car makes him or her a Christian.
I'm almost certain there's more to it than that.
Slow Day for News
This, in its entirety, is my "Today's Headlines & Columnists" from the Washington Post:
Wow. I never thought I'd see the day when there is no news to report! It's really something! By telling me that "none of the modules you selected have content today," the Post is telling me that nothing worth reporting happened in any of these categories (my "modules"):
Well, of course, it stands to reason that TODAY'S HIGHLIGHTS would be blank, given that nothing happened today (or, I suppose, yesterday). But the others? Didn't the governor of Illinois appoint someone to Barack Obama's Senate seat, and the Democratic Party have fits? Isn't there some kind of hubbub associated with the Wall Street bailout (like, where's the money)? Isn't there a war or something in Israel? And certainly the Bush Administration has been up to something!
So I'm thinking "We are experiencing technical difficulties" would be more accurate than "none of the modules you selected have content today," yes?
Wow. I never thought I'd see the day when there is no news to report! It's really something! By telling me that "none of the modules you selected have content today," the Post is telling me that nothing worth reporting happened in any of these categories (my "modules"):
- TODAY'S HIGHLIGHTS
POLITICS
BUSH ADMINISTRATION
NATION
WORLD
Well, of course, it stands to reason that TODAY'S HIGHLIGHTS would be blank, given that nothing happened today (or, I suppose, yesterday). But the others? Didn't the governor of Illinois appoint someone to Barack Obama's Senate seat, and the Democratic Party have fits? Isn't there some kind of hubbub associated with the Wall Street bailout (like, where's the money)? Isn't there a war or something in Israel? And certainly the Bush Administration has been up to something!
So I'm thinking "We are experiencing technical difficulties" would be more accurate than "none of the modules you selected have content today," yes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)