As you can tell from the title of my Blog, I enjoy plays on words. In particular, I enjoy playing with Latin phrases. Below are a few I've invented, as well as one I've heard before (the last one). If you have any others, I'd love to hear them:
Memento Moron -- "Remember, thou art stupid."
Ex Posteriori -- An argument "pulled out of my ass."
Ad Hominid -- Logical fallacy that states that since the argument is made by a human, and all humans are fallible, the argument must be false.
Cogito Ergo Dim Sum -- "I think therefore I eat Chinese Food."
Carpe Per Diem -- "Seize the expense check."
Friday, May 20, 2005
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Meanwhile, In This Corner of the Country
Thanks for the Memory to Traderbob, crossposted over at Blogfather Rusty's:
The investigation into election *ahem* "irregularities" up in Washington is getting interesting. From the Seattle Times:
Interesting stuff. Given what's going on just over the river, you can understand why conservative Oregonians might look askance at politicians meddling with OUR election process.
The investigation into election *ahem* "irregularities" up in Washington is getting interesting. From the Seattle Times:
King County's absentee-ballot supervisor has testified that she collaborated with her boss when she filled out a report that falsely showed all ballots were accounted for in the November election.
Interesting stuff. Given what's going on just over the river, you can understand why conservative Oregonians might look askance at politicians meddling with OUR election process.
The Bachelor (Well, Not Really!)
TFR is heading off to a women's retreat with the ladies of our church tomorrow, and she's taking The Lad with her. They're only spending one night, but she'll be gone all tomorrow evening and most of Saturday. I'm still trying to decide how to make the most of my "Bachelor" time. This will be the longest I've been apart from The Lad since he came home from the NICE, and the longest apart from TFR since SHE came home from the hospital after having him. It's gonna be weird, but a nice break too. Sleep is definitely in the cards, but other than that....
Suggestions?
Suggestions?
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Purple Mountains Majesty
Twenty-five years ago today. It's amazing to thing that I'm now old enough to reflect on my memories of a historic event that happened that long ago. Of course, here in the Pacific Northwest, history is divided into Before Mt. St. Helens and After Mt. St. Helens.
I was living on the fringes of the region at the time, an 11-year-old about to finish 6th grade in the small town of Filer, Idaho. I had a passing interest in the new leading up to the eruption, since I had family in Portland, and the summer camp facilities owned by the denomination in which my father pastored (Camp Lackamas, at that time owned by the Northwest District of the Missionary Church) lay between PDX and the volcano. And of course, everyone was watching to see if they could get Harry Truman down from his cabin at Spirit Lake before the eruption. they didn't. He refused to budge, and he died on his own terms.
When Mt. St. Helens erupted, it pulverized a cubic mile of mountain in seconds. The day after the mountain blew, the sky turned blood red in Filer from all the ash in the air, but we received almost none of it on the ground. Months later, I would visit Lackamas and find a good half inch of the stuff on everything. We swept it up and I kept a small amount in a film jar, but lost that years ago, For a long time, you could buy small vials of ash, and even glass ornaments blown from ash that had been collected and reheated, in just about any souvenir shop in the region.
The mountain became an intrinsic part of our culture -- especially in Washington, but throughout the region in general. In school, they showed us the film "Keeper of the Fire", which was about Mt. St. Helens, and which recounted a local Native American myth about the mountain. In the myth, there were two great warriors of a local tribe who both fell in love with the same woman -- the beautiful maiden who tended the tribe's fire. They both wanted her for their own, and so they fought for her. Their fight was so violent, and lasted so long, that it angered the gods, who put a curse on all three. They turned all three into mountains, with one of the warriors on either side of the maiden, where both could see her but neither could reach her. The two warriors are Mt. Adams in Washington and Mt. Hood in Oregon, and the maiden is Mt. St. Helens -- the Keeper of the Fire.
The biggest way in which Mt. St. Helens changed the region, though, is probably the way it changed how we look at our mountains. We have always loved the Cascades, and they are one of the features, along with the Pacific Ocean, that most define our region and our climate. They are beautiful mountains, with plenty of snow-capped peaks and vast foothills, and while there are higher ranged and more rugged ranges in North America, few if any are greener or more varied.
But before St. Helens, few people in this region, apart from geologists, paid much attention to their geological history. Now, we have been made startlingly aware of just how these mountains we love were formed. And we view them all a little differently. At least three peaks, including one within 100 miles of where I sit typing this, have the potential for erupting in my lifetime. Oregon's only National Park, Crater Lake, was formed by the eruption of a Cascade volcano. Now, when we look at the Three Sisters or Hood or Rainier, we are reminded just how dangerous and powerful these mountains are.
And I, for one, think it makes them all the more beautiful.
I was living on the fringes of the region at the time, an 11-year-old about to finish 6th grade in the small town of Filer, Idaho. I had a passing interest in the new leading up to the eruption, since I had family in Portland, and the summer camp facilities owned by the denomination in which my father pastored (Camp Lackamas, at that time owned by the Northwest District of the Missionary Church) lay between PDX and the volcano. And of course, everyone was watching to see if they could get Harry Truman down from his cabin at Spirit Lake before the eruption. they didn't. He refused to budge, and he died on his own terms.
When Mt. St. Helens erupted, it pulverized a cubic mile of mountain in seconds. The day after the mountain blew, the sky turned blood red in Filer from all the ash in the air, but we received almost none of it on the ground. Months later, I would visit Lackamas and find a good half inch of the stuff on everything. We swept it up and I kept a small amount in a film jar, but lost that years ago, For a long time, you could buy small vials of ash, and even glass ornaments blown from ash that had been collected and reheated, in just about any souvenir shop in the region.
The mountain became an intrinsic part of our culture -- especially in Washington, but throughout the region in general. In school, they showed us the film "Keeper of the Fire", which was about Mt. St. Helens, and which recounted a local Native American myth about the mountain. In the myth, there were two great warriors of a local tribe who both fell in love with the same woman -- the beautiful maiden who tended the tribe's fire. They both wanted her for their own, and so they fought for her. Their fight was so violent, and lasted so long, that it angered the gods, who put a curse on all three. They turned all three into mountains, with one of the warriors on either side of the maiden, where both could see her but neither could reach her. The two warriors are Mt. Adams in Washington and Mt. Hood in Oregon, and the maiden is Mt. St. Helens -- the Keeper of the Fire.
The biggest way in which Mt. St. Helens changed the region, though, is probably the way it changed how we look at our mountains. We have always loved the Cascades, and they are one of the features, along with the Pacific Ocean, that most define our region and our climate. They are beautiful mountains, with plenty of snow-capped peaks and vast foothills, and while there are higher ranged and more rugged ranges in North America, few if any are greener or more varied.
But before St. Helens, few people in this region, apart from geologists, paid much attention to their geological history. Now, we have been made startlingly aware of just how these mountains we love were formed. And we view them all a little differently. At least three peaks, including one within 100 miles of where I sit typing this, have the potential for erupting in my lifetime. Oregon's only National Park, Crater Lake, was formed by the eruption of a Cascade volcano. Now, when we look at the Three Sisters or Hood or Rainier, we are reminded just how dangerous and powerful these mountains are.
And I, for one, think it makes them all the more beautiful.
Monday, May 16, 2005
A Win for Wine
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades.
This is a Supreme Court case I've been watching for some time, and the ruling is a big win for Oregon's wine industry. While Oregon does not produce as much wine as California or a couple of other states, our wineries produce some very high quality wines. Unfortunately, many states require that out of state wineries sell only to in-state wine distributors. Because many of our wineries are small operations, they often don't have the volume or market clout to even appear on a distributor's radar.
The arguments in this case were the states' constitutional right to regulate alchohol production vs. the rights of Interstate Commerce. Commerce won, and so did many of the small Oregon wineries.
And so did you, if you like good, reasonably priced wines.
Cross-Posted at Head West, Turn Right.
Update:
Despite his usual impeccible taste and class, The Maximum Leader misses the boat by expressing plans to order wine that exlude Oregon wineries.
May I humbly suggest that our esteemed erzats emperor, and all other regarded readers consider the following excellent Oregon Wineries:
Girardet Winery -- Their Barrel Select and Petit Cuvee are my two favorite Pinot Noirs.
Abacella Vineyards -- They pride themselves on their Spanish-style Tempranillo, but I prefer their excellent Cabernet Franc.
King Estate Winery -- Producing good wine at a reasonable price, they also have one of the prettiest wineries in the state (and that's saying something)!
Court Lets Wine Lovers to Buy Out-Of-State
WASHINGTON May 16, 2005 — Wine lovers may buy directly from out-of-state vineyards, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, striking down laws banning a practice that has flourished because of the Internet and growing popularity of winery tours.
This is a Supreme Court case I've been watching for some time, and the ruling is a big win for Oregon's wine industry. While Oregon does not produce as much wine as California or a couple of other states, our wineries produce some very high quality wines. Unfortunately, many states require that out of state wineries sell only to in-state wine distributors. Because many of our wineries are small operations, they often don't have the volume or market clout to even appear on a distributor's radar.
The arguments in this case were the states' constitutional right to regulate alchohol production vs. the rights of Interstate Commerce. Commerce won, and so did many of the small Oregon wineries.
And so did you, if you like good, reasonably priced wines.
Cross-Posted at Head West, Turn Right.
Update:
Despite his usual impeccible taste and class, The Maximum Leader misses the boat by expressing plans to order wine that exlude Oregon wineries.
May I humbly suggest that our esteemed erzats emperor, and all other regarded readers consider the following excellent Oregon Wineries:
Girardet Winery -- Their Barrel Select and Petit Cuvee are my two favorite Pinot Noirs.
Abacella Vineyards -- They pride themselves on their Spanish-style Tempranillo, but I prefer their excellent Cabernet Franc.
King Estate Winery -- Producing good wine at a reasonable price, they also have one of the prettiest wineries in the state (and that's saying something)!
Yes, Sir, That's My Baby
In response to all those who requested more pictures of The Lad:
Unfortunately, I have effectively rendered us sans digital imaging technology. However, the last time we had a couple of rolls developed, we ordered CD's too. So, without further ado,
The World's Most Beautiful Baby:
Start 'Em Young
Little Big Dog takes an early interest in The Lad (This photo was... umm... Digitally Cropped).
As you can see, we neglect LBD so....
A Happy Family
The Lad and his paternal grandmother
...and his maternal grandfather
And with his Godfather, Lurch (The Mini Me Pose).
Unfortunately, I have effectively rendered us sans digital imaging technology. However, the last time we had a couple of rolls developed, we ordered CD's too. So, without further ado,
The World's Most Beautiful Baby:
Start 'Em Young
Little Big Dog takes an early interest in The Lad (This photo was... umm... Digitally Cropped).
As you can see, we neglect LBD so....
A Happy Family
The Lad and his paternal grandmother
...and his maternal grandfather
And with his Godfather, Lurch (The Mini Me Pose).
Friday, May 13, 2005
Dogfight
Yesterday was absolutely gorgeous -- blue skies, somewhere in the 70's. The day before had been quite rainy and cool. that's the way Spring is in Oregon -- it comes in fits and starts, with an unexpected mixture of dry and wet, warm and cool. Don't like the weather? Give it fifteen minutes, it'll change. TFR tells me that Minnesota Springs are not like that -- she says that in the Twin Cities, if you blink, you miss the transition from bitter winter to blazing summer.
Spring days like yesterday tend to draw Oregonians out even more than nice summer days -- the more recent the cold, the more appreciated the warmth. I couldn't get out too much yesterday afternoon because the Lad had had a fussy morning, and was finally sleeping, but I stepped into the back yard for a few minutes, passing Little Big Dog over the fence to play with the neighbor dogs (a hyper Papillon and a cowardly Golden Retriever, whom LBD has completely cowed).
All of this is just to introduce what happened next, which was one of the most interesting things I've ever witnessed. As I stood at the fence talking to our neighbor, I heard a faint, high-pitched soundcoming from what seemed to be above. I looked up to see a large bird soaring towards me. At first, I thouight it was a turkey vulture -- a very common carrion bird in these parts. But I noticed a couple of differences. This bird was much bigger, the wings didn't have the right shape, or the split finger-like feathers, and the head was white, not the hairless red of a buzzard.
It was a bald eagle.
Bald eagles aren't that rare in this part of the country, I've seen them numerous times around lakes and rivers up in the Cascades, and even on one occasion circling over the river by a county park just outside of town, but from the angle he was approaching, he had to have flown right over downtown Springfield.
And that wasn't even the oddest thing about the sight. As he flew, his course was not as straight and graceful as normal. As my eyes focused, I noticed that another bird was wheeling and circling the eagle, swooping in and trying to strike. It was obvious that the smaller bird was the aggressor, and the eagle was trying to get away as quickly as he could. And most interesting of all, the other bird was also a raptor. It was one of the Osprey that are so numerous here in the Northwest. Both the bald eagle and the osprey are fishing birds, and I live less than a mile from the Willamette River.
Now, I've seen smaller birds chase of bigger birds before. In fact, a few days ago, standing at the window at work, I watched another osprey (I work even closer to the Willamette than I live) being driven off by a pair of corvids. From a distance I couldn't tell if they were ravens or crows. I've seen crows chase ravens. I've seen sparrows chase both. Hummingbirds are absolutely vicious when it comes to this behavior. But I'd never seen a raptor-on-raptor fight like this before.
Given that they're competitors for fish, and I believe osprey are territorial, I shouldn't be surprised. But I couldn't help but be fascinated by what I saw.
Spring days like yesterday tend to draw Oregonians out even more than nice summer days -- the more recent the cold, the more appreciated the warmth. I couldn't get out too much yesterday afternoon because the Lad had had a fussy morning, and was finally sleeping, but I stepped into the back yard for a few minutes, passing Little Big Dog over the fence to play with the neighbor dogs (a hyper Papillon and a cowardly Golden Retriever, whom LBD has completely cowed).
All of this is just to introduce what happened next, which was one of the most interesting things I've ever witnessed. As I stood at the fence talking to our neighbor, I heard a faint, high-pitched soundcoming from what seemed to be above. I looked up to see a large bird soaring towards me. At first, I thouight it was a turkey vulture -- a very common carrion bird in these parts. But I noticed a couple of differences. This bird was much bigger, the wings didn't have the right shape, or the split finger-like feathers, and the head was white, not the hairless red of a buzzard.
It was a bald eagle.
Bald eagles aren't that rare in this part of the country, I've seen them numerous times around lakes and rivers up in the Cascades, and even on one occasion circling over the river by a county park just outside of town, but from the angle he was approaching, he had to have flown right over downtown Springfield.
And that wasn't even the oddest thing about the sight. As he flew, his course was not as straight and graceful as normal. As my eyes focused, I noticed that another bird was wheeling and circling the eagle, swooping in and trying to strike. It was obvious that the smaller bird was the aggressor, and the eagle was trying to get away as quickly as he could. And most interesting of all, the other bird was also a raptor. It was one of the Osprey that are so numerous here in the Northwest. Both the bald eagle and the osprey are fishing birds, and I live less than a mile from the Willamette River.
Now, I've seen smaller birds chase of bigger birds before. In fact, a few days ago, standing at the window at work, I watched another osprey (I work even closer to the Willamette than I live) being driven off by a pair of corvids. From a distance I couldn't tell if they were ravens or crows. I've seen crows chase ravens. I've seen sparrows chase both. Hummingbirds are absolutely vicious when it comes to this behavior. But I'd never seen a raptor-on-raptor fight like this before.
Given that they're competitors for fish, and I believe osprey are territorial, I shouldn't be surprised. But I couldn't help but be fascinated by what I saw.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Note to Pat Buchanan: Lay Off the Cough Syrup
Thanks for the Memory to my good buddy Vulture 6 over at Vulture's Row.
Apparently, Pat Buchanan questions the validity of defeating Nazi Germany in World War II:
Yes, Stalinism WAS one of the greatest wrongs of history. Right up there with the equally heinous wrong that was the Holocaust. The fact that it took us until the 80's to defeat one doesn't mean we shouldn't have fought the other.
Um... Earth to Pat. Sprechen zie "Lebensraum"? Remember the Sudetenland? Poland? The camps?
He did not mention Jews or the Holocaust - the most outrageous omission for Yaffa Eliach, a Holocaust expert and survivor.
Not just for Yaffa, actually. Trivializing 6 million deaths tends to get under the skin of ANYONE with even a modicum of decency.
Absolutely right, for once, Ed. I am amazed and ashamed that Buchanan was once considered a contender for the presidential candidacy of my party. What a maroon.
Update: I'm as hesitant as anyone to play the Race card, but in the case of Buchanan, I think that Ace is right.
Update II: Thanks for the Memory to The Maximum Leader. He links to an excellent essay by the esteemed Victor David Hansen which, while not directed specifically at Buchanan, provides ample ammunition for rebuttal of his view.
Apparently, Pat Buchanan questions the validity of defeating Nazi Germany in World War II:
On the radio and Internet, Buchanan framed his positions as amplification of remarks made over the weekend by President George W. Bush that the pact ending the war brought on a Stalinist domination that was "one of the greatest wrongs of history."
Yes, Stalinism WAS one of the greatest wrongs of history. Right up there with the equally heinous wrong that was the Holocaust. The fact that it took us until the 80's to defeat one doesn't mean we shouldn't have fought the other.
But Buchanan's comments on the Don Imus radio show and in an essay posted on the Web site of his organization, The American Cause, went much further. He suggested that because Germans voted Hitler in, they did not need to be liberated, and that Britain and France drew Germany into the wider conflict.
Um... Earth to Pat. Sprechen zie "Lebensraum"? Remember the Sudetenland? Poland? The camps?
He did not mention Jews or the Holocaust - the most outrageous omission for Yaffa Eliach, a Holocaust expert and survivor.
Not just for Yaffa, actually. Trivializing 6 million deaths tends to get under the skin of ANYONE with even a modicum of decency.
Former Mayor Ed Koch offered this blunt rebuttal: "I believe that no decent human being should ever sit down at the same table with Pat Buchanan and I am shocked that otherwise responsible, respectable citizens share platforms with him on Sunday shows."
Absolutely right, for once, Ed. I am amazed and ashamed that Buchanan was once considered a contender for the presidential candidacy of my party. What a maroon.
Update: I'm as hesitant as anyone to play the Race card, but in the case of Buchanan, I think that Ace is right.
Update II: Thanks for the Memory to The Maximum Leader. He links to an excellent essay by the esteemed Victor David Hansen which, while not directed specifically at Buchanan, provides ample ammunition for rebuttal of his view.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Anybody But Anybody But Bush
Thanks for the Memory to Vultures Row.
Interesting news today. Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Convention, has endorsed a candidate for U.S. Senate in Vermont. Interestingly enough, the candidate in question isn't a Democrat. He's an independent.
Not so big a deal, you might argue, since Vermont's exiting Indie Senator, Jim Jeffords, leaned to the Democratic side, and the endorsement is strategic, since anyone who can defeat a Republican is good news for the Dems. But here's the catch -- Bernard Sanders leans even farther leftwards than Jeffords. In fact, he leans even farther than most Democrats would like to admit they lean. Sanders is a Socialist.
My good friend Vulture six maintains that this support by Dean indicates either Socialist tendencies on the part of Dean, or a calculated willingness to overlook Sanders' socialism just to stick it to the Republicans.
I'd be willing to consider the possibility of both options being true. The most influential Democratic President of the Twentieth Century, F.D.R., was definitely a socialist, and most liberal domestic policies smack of at least small-s socialism. The difference between the Dems and Sanders is more a matter of degrees than of kind, and when compared to Dean, even the degree is hard to distinguish.
But I've also noticed a willingness among the left, especially among the more radical Democrats and the leadership (less so among rank-and-file Democrats who tend to be idealists), to get in bed with the most odious elements of the left if that's what it takes to defeat the Republicans. This is reflected in the "Anybody but Bush" tone during the elections, as well as in expressions by notable leftists like Michael Moore, expressing hope that insurgents in Iraq would succeed in inflicting more casualties just so Bush's election chances would be damaged.
Again, while I know many who lean farther to the left than I who truly believe they are fighting for good, and while politicians in general tend to Macchiavellianism, the level to which the DNC has taken it in recent years is truly frightening.
Interesting news today. Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Convention, has endorsed a candidate for U.S. Senate in Vermont. Interestingly enough, the candidate in question isn't a Democrat. He's an independent.
Not so big a deal, you might argue, since Vermont's exiting Indie Senator, Jim Jeffords, leaned to the Democratic side, and the endorsement is strategic, since anyone who can defeat a Republican is good news for the Dems. But here's the catch -- Bernard Sanders leans even farther leftwards than Jeffords. In fact, he leans even farther than most Democrats would like to admit they lean. Sanders is a Socialist.
My good friend Vulture six maintains that this support by Dean indicates either Socialist tendencies on the part of Dean, or a calculated willingness to overlook Sanders' socialism just to stick it to the Republicans.
I'd be willing to consider the possibility of both options being true. The most influential Democratic President of the Twentieth Century, F.D.R., was definitely a socialist, and most liberal domestic policies smack of at least small-s socialism. The difference between the Dems and Sanders is more a matter of degrees than of kind, and when compared to Dean, even the degree is hard to distinguish.
But I've also noticed a willingness among the left, especially among the more radical Democrats and the leadership (less so among rank-and-file Democrats who tend to be idealists), to get in bed with the most odious elements of the left if that's what it takes to defeat the Republicans. This is reflected in the "Anybody but Bush" tone during the elections, as well as in expressions by notable leftists like Michael Moore, expressing hope that insurgents in Iraq would succeed in inflicting more casualties just so Bush's election chances would be damaged.
Again, while I know many who lean farther to the left than I who truly believe they are fighting for good, and while politicians in general tend to Macchiavellianism, the level to which the DNC has taken it in recent years is truly frightening.
Recommended Reading
Blogfather Rusty has posted an excellent piece on comparisons between Communism and Naziism.
Actually, his piece is a review of an equally well-written article in the Washington Times, so he had a head start, but his additional comments are well worth the read.
Actually, his piece is a review of an equally well-written article in the Washington Times, so he had a head start, but his additional comments are well worth the read.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Forewarned is Forearmed
Thanks for the Memory to Lars Larson.
Sex offenders may be forced to drive vehicles with pink license plates
According to the article, Ohio is considering a law that would require that registered sex offenders be issued special plates for their cars. The plates would be all pink (why that color I don't know, other than high visibility), and the rationale is that children would know which vehicles to stay away from.
I don't know what Ohio's paws regarding sex offenders already are, so this might be a "band-aid" law, but if it's being proposed in conjunction with other effective laws, I'm all for it. Anything to help protect our children from real monsters.
Sex offenders may be forced to drive vehicles with pink license plates
According to the article, Ohio is considering a law that would require that registered sex offenders be issued special plates for their cars. The plates would be all pink (why that color I don't know, other than high visibility), and the rationale is that children would know which vehicles to stay away from.
I don't know what Ohio's paws regarding sex offenders already are, so this might be a "band-aid" law, but if it's being proposed in conjunction with other effective laws, I'm all for it. Anything to help protect our children from real monsters.
Slainte Mhath! (Indeed!)
The word Whisky comes from the Gaelic uisge beatha, which is translated "Water of Life". The traditional Gaelic toast is Slainte (in Ireland, Slainte Mhath in Scotland), which is translated "health".
Appropriate.
Appropriate.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Forcing My Hand
I was trying to avoid commenting on the whole brouhaha regarding First Lady Laura Bush and her jokes the other night, only because it seems like everyone is getting WAY too worked up over what should be a non-issue. Unfortunately, it's the level 0f worked-uppedness that has forced my hand. That and the fact that it ties in to several other issues that have worked their way under my skin under the guise of "Church-State Issues".
For the record, I think that the level of offense some have taken with the First Lady's comments is a bit Sullivanesque. Lighten up -- the event has ALWAYS been irreverent, and the Horse joke specifically has been misinterpreted.
On the other hand, I also think that those defending Mrs. Bush have also taken this one not just over the top, but through the wire and well into No Man's Land. I'm getting a bit tired of the chracterization of anyone with a modicum of morals as being a repressed Victorian prude. There's nothing wrong with a little proper decorum and respect for one anothers sensibilities.
Now, to be sure, there are some morally conservative people, most of whom are Christian,s who are overreacting. But to paint all Christians, or even all social conseervatives, with the same brush is a bit much. Today Ace posted an excellent bit on the current friction between religious and non-religious conservatives. I think he's dead on. In addition, there's a good and lively discussion going on in the comments. I especially appreciated this comment by Ace's reader Jason:
Also today I noted that the esteemed Smallholder addresses persecution. Twice. While I agree whole-heartedly that the characterization of ANY opposition to Christianity as persecution trivializes real persecution, I'd beg to make two points:
1. I have heard the argument before that Christians here keep whining about persecution. A good friend of mine made the same observation on his Blog. However, with the exception of a few loudmouths who get more attention than they deserve and whom one can almost dismiss out of hand any time they speak, I quite honestly don't hear the "P" word being used as much as Smallholder seems to indicate.
2. Having said that, let me address Smallholder's comment, It's not Christians who are persecuted. We are doing the persecution (though not all of us agree with it).
Again, any reasoned agreement or disagreement with this statement on my part would require that I extract from Smallholder a definition of Persecution. Included in that definition there would necessarily be either an acceptance or rejection of degrees of persecution. In one Blog Entry, he states that real persecution would be execution for ones faith. In another, limiting tax benefits is persecution. This leads me to believe that he must at least recognize varying degrees of persecution as still being persecution.
Furthermore, I must take exception with his comment, So when my coreligionists whine about the persecution of not having Principal-led prayer in the public schools, I become a bit indignant. I become indignant when Pat Roberston complains that extending civil rights to gays "persecutes" believers.
I do hope he really doesn't think that that is the extent of the objections many Christians have with our treatment in modern society. But I will reserve further reaction until he has clarified.
A few days ago, my good friend and reader Mary left a comment asking me if I feel any moral obligation to provide for public education. I shall address her here, because itis, as you will see, germain to the crux of my post. I do geel a moral obligation to help others -- to give to the poor, to help provide those in need with that which will help them. But as I've stated before, when it comes to translating my personal morals into political policy, there's a fine line to be walked. As Ace argues in his article, it is unfair to expect people of religious convictions to not apply those convictions to the way they vote. Because, as his reader hobgoblin points out, ALL law is morality. Anything we require or prohibit by law is because the majority have determined that that which is required is morally necessary and because that which is prohibited is morally wrong. The question is, whose morals? Which morals? Which morals supercede other morals -- freedom vs. Justice, for instance? In the long run, it seems to me that the best laws are those which enforce the moral concept of not doing wrong to others. Once we get into the realm of forcing people to do good to one another, the law becomes a bit too intrusive, and open to debate. And that is why I can see the point of those who think that taxes for public education is not as morally or legally necessary as, say, fire or police or defense or tort laws.
For the record, I think that the level of offense some have taken with the First Lady's comments is a bit Sullivanesque. Lighten up -- the event has ALWAYS been irreverent, and the Horse joke specifically has been misinterpreted.
On the other hand, I also think that those defending Mrs. Bush have also taken this one not just over the top, but through the wire and well into No Man's Land. I'm getting a bit tired of the chracterization of anyone with a modicum of morals as being a repressed Victorian prude. There's nothing wrong with a little proper decorum and respect for one anothers sensibilities.
Now, to be sure, there are some morally conservative people, most of whom are Christian,s who are overreacting. But to paint all Christians, or even all social conseervatives, with the same brush is a bit much. Today Ace posted an excellent bit on the current friction between religious and non-religious conservatives. I think he's dead on. In addition, there's a good and lively discussion going on in the comments. I especially appreciated this comment by Ace's reader Jason:
Well, this just depends on who you consider the "Religious Right" to be. If you're referring to any conservative who has the audacity to be religious, then it's simply not true. If you're referring to specific religious conservatives, it's true, but trivial. You can point to members of any political group that demand 100% compliance.
Also today I noted that the esteemed Smallholder addresses persecution. Twice. While I agree whole-heartedly that the characterization of ANY opposition to Christianity as persecution trivializes real persecution, I'd beg to make two points:
1. I have heard the argument before that Christians here keep whining about persecution. A good friend of mine made the same observation on his Blog. However, with the exception of a few loudmouths who get more attention than they deserve and whom one can almost dismiss out of hand any time they speak, I quite honestly don't hear the "P" word being used as much as Smallholder seems to indicate.
2. Having said that, let me address Smallholder's comment, It's not Christians who are persecuted. We are doing the persecution (though not all of us agree with it).
Again, any reasoned agreement or disagreement with this statement on my part would require that I extract from Smallholder a definition of Persecution. Included in that definition there would necessarily be either an acceptance or rejection of degrees of persecution. In one Blog Entry, he states that real persecution would be execution for ones faith. In another, limiting tax benefits is persecution. This leads me to believe that he must at least recognize varying degrees of persecution as still being persecution.
Furthermore, I must take exception with his comment, So when my coreligionists whine about the persecution of not having Principal-led prayer in the public schools, I become a bit indignant. I become indignant when Pat Roberston complains that extending civil rights to gays "persecutes" believers.
I do hope he really doesn't think that that is the extent of the objections many Christians have with our treatment in modern society. But I will reserve further reaction until he has clarified.
A few days ago, my good friend and reader Mary left a comment asking me if I feel any moral obligation to provide for public education. I shall address her here, because itis, as you will see, germain to the crux of my post. I do geel a moral obligation to help others -- to give to the poor, to help provide those in need with that which will help them. But as I've stated before, when it comes to translating my personal morals into political policy, there's a fine line to be walked. As Ace argues in his article, it is unfair to expect people of religious convictions to not apply those convictions to the way they vote. Because, as his reader hobgoblin points out, ALL law is morality. Anything we require or prohibit by law is because the majority have determined that that which is required is morally necessary and because that which is prohibited is morally wrong. The question is, whose morals? Which morals? Which morals supercede other morals -- freedom vs. Justice, for instance? In the long run, it seems to me that the best laws are those which enforce the moral concept of not doing wrong to others. Once we get into the realm of forcing people to do good to one another, the law becomes a bit too intrusive, and open to debate. And that is why I can see the point of those who think that taxes for public education is not as morally or legally necessary as, say, fire or police or defense or tort laws.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
It Just Dawned on Me
Back in my high school days, when my father was pastoring a church in Southern Oregon, my mother used to sing trios in church along with a musically inclined couple who also led our youth group. One of the songs they sang quite often was called Bless the Lord. The theme running through the song was that the beauty surrounding the songwriter moved them to praise God. The opening line of the song was "Morning Sun, light of creation..."
Ever since TFR went back to work, I've been working an earlier shift, 6 AM - 3 PM. Today, as I was standing next to my desk, looking out the window, I was reminded of that song. There's something special about the quality of lighting at sunrise, especially somewhere as beautiful as here in Oregon. The sun is still low enough that it doesn't flood the entire landscape, so taller things like trees are lit more brightly, giving them greater contrast -- they almost glow. This time of year, the deciduous trees have new leaves which are a light, bright green, magnifying the contrast when compared to the darker green of the conifers. I remember a visitor who mentioned to me once that what struck them most about Oregon was not just how much green there was, but how many different hues and shades of green there were.
I could get used to being a morning person.
Ever since TFR went back to work, I've been working an earlier shift, 6 AM - 3 PM. Today, as I was standing next to my desk, looking out the window, I was reminded of that song. There's something special about the quality of lighting at sunrise, especially somewhere as beautiful as here in Oregon. The sun is still low enough that it doesn't flood the entire landscape, so taller things like trees are lit more brightly, giving them greater contrast -- they almost glow. This time of year, the deciduous trees have new leaves which are a light, bright green, magnifying the contrast when compared to the darker green of the conifers. I remember a visitor who mentioned to me once that what struck them most about Oregon was not just how much green there was, but how many different hues and shades of green there were.
I could get used to being a morning person.
Monday, May 02, 2005
May's Days
Quite a busy week as far as the minor holiday calendar goes.
Growing up I used to love to celebrate May Day - not Soviet style, with parades and MiG flyovers, but by leaving flowers on the doorsteps of neighbors. As a child in Idaho, I had a neighbor in her 80's, Mrs. Brown, on whose doorstep I'd leave paper baskets full of dandelions. I'd ring her doorbell and then run, so that the flowers would be "anonymous".
Thursday is, of course, Cinco de Mayo, which commemorates a Mexican victory over French troops at the Battle of Puebla. And as a run-up to it, Saturday was Camerone Day, the day the French Foreign Legion commemorates a tactical defeat that established their reputstion as brave, fierce fighters.
And next Sunday is Mother's Day. NOt so minor for me this year. The Lad (*ahem*) has already purchased his Mommy a present -- a set of earrings and a pendant in his birthstone.
Not much esle to say right now, maybe more on these topics after I wake up.
Growing up I used to love to celebrate May Day - not Soviet style, with parades and MiG flyovers, but by leaving flowers on the doorsteps of neighbors. As a child in Idaho, I had a neighbor in her 80's, Mrs. Brown, on whose doorstep I'd leave paper baskets full of dandelions. I'd ring her doorbell and then run, so that the flowers would be "anonymous".
Thursday is, of course, Cinco de Mayo, which commemorates a Mexican victory over French troops at the Battle of Puebla. And as a run-up to it, Saturday was Camerone Day, the day the French Foreign Legion commemorates a tactical defeat that established their reputstion as brave, fierce fighters.
And next Sunday is Mother's Day. NOt so minor for me this year. The Lad (*ahem*) has already purchased his Mommy a present -- a set of earrings and a pendant in his birthstone.
Not much esle to say right now, maybe more on these topics after I wake up.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Sense and Censorship
I just received an email from a good friend, and the email included a link to the following article, along with the suggestion that I Blog on it:
Alabama Bill Targets Gay Authors
At first blush, I was rather disturbed by the idea. Especially when the article starts out like this:
(CBS) A college production tells the story of Matthew Sheppard, a student beaten to death because he was gay.
And soon, it could be banned in Alabama.
As soon as I read that, I got fired up, all ready to launch into a "What part of no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; didn't you understand?" rant.
Please understand. As a thelogically conservative Christian, I believe that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. But I aslo believe strongly that when we start playing favorites with regards to the Consititution, we're treading on a mighty thin lava crust over a mighty deep pool of magma. The same Constitution that protects your right to tell me that Homosexuality is OK is the same Constitution that protects my right to tell you you're wrong. If I kick that right out from under you, I find mself at risk as well.
But as I read the article further, I started to question my initial impression. It seems possible that the CBS News reporter who filed this report may have sensationalized things a bit (As shocking as it may be to some to think that CBS might be... ahem... creative in their presentation...). The article goes on to say:
As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under [Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen's] bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.
While that's still an iffy proposition, that's a bit different than "banned in Alabama". So before I address the issue of the bill itself, I'd like to finish the article, and point out one other bit of overreacting, this time on the part of an interviewee:
"I think it's an absolutely absurd bill," says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
First Amendment advocates say the ban clearly does amount to censorship.
"It's a Nazi book burning," says Potok. "You know, it's a remarkable piece of work."
Try to take a deep breath, Mark. I understand your opposition to the law, but Godwinesque hyperbole isn't helping. It may (or may not) be a bad law, but it's by NO stretch a "Nazi Book burning". If it were, there'd be, ya know, Nazis and bonfires and such.
Now, as for the law itself:
I have a real dilemma on my hands with regards to this law. The problem is that it specifically targets public school libraries. In the article, Strassman reports
Librarian Donna Schremser fears the "thought police," would be patrolling her shelves.
"And so the idea that we would have a pristine collection that represents one political view, one religioius view, that's not a library,'' says Schremser.
Again, Schremser's overstating the point, so I'll return the favor. I have NO problem whatsoever with the judicious screening of material made available to underage children. Ms. Schremser seems to disagree, and thinks all viewpoints should be represented. Should I conclude then that she advocate the placement of Playboy or Hustler or The Anarchist's Cookbook in an elementary school library? I think not. so if we eliminate the extremes, both "This is thought police" and "This is pornography", we find that there's a middle ground -- the agreement that Children DO need a certain level of protection from images or words that could damage them. The question becomes, which images? Which ideas? The Devil is in the details.
Now, I would argue that banning an author JUST because he or she was/is gay is a stretch. And I furthermore have no objection to the sympathetic portrayal of a gay character. I'd draw the line at the graphic portrayal of sex, gay OR straight. But in the middle we have the issue of literature that advocates the gay lifestyle.
Which leads me to a conclusion I reached only as I wrote this entry. I believe firmly that it is the right and duty of parents to teach their children morality and ethics. First and forempst my job is to love my son, provide for him, and teach him right from wrong. That's not a school's job. And so I would argue that it would be fair to regulate books that directly address moral issues -- either allow all viewpoints (which means requiring that P.S. Libraries stock books that both advocate and oppose a given moral viewpoint), or remain silent on all viewpoints (which means requiring that P.S. Libraries avoid stock books that either advocate and oppose a given moral viewpoint).
In addition, I also believe that if parents were more actively involved with their childrens' educations, this would be an issue. That's why I'll be keeping a close eye on the TV programs, movies, music, and books The Lad has access to growing up. It's also one more reason I'm seriously looking long and hard at home schooling.
Alabama Bill Targets Gay Authors
At first blush, I was rather disturbed by the idea. Especially when the article starts out like this:
(CBS) A college production tells the story of Matthew Sheppard, a student beaten to death because he was gay.
And soon, it could be banned in Alabama.
As soon as I read that, I got fired up, all ready to launch into a "What part of no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; didn't you understand?" rant.
Please understand. As a thelogically conservative Christian, I believe that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. But I aslo believe strongly that when we start playing favorites with regards to the Consititution, we're treading on a mighty thin lava crust over a mighty deep pool of magma. The same Constitution that protects your right to tell me that Homosexuality is OK is the same Constitution that protects my right to tell you you're wrong. If I kick that right out from under you, I find mself at risk as well.
But as I read the article further, I started to question my initial impression. It seems possible that the CBS News reporter who filed this report may have sensationalized things a bit (As shocking as it may be to some to think that CBS might be... ahem... creative in their presentation...). The article goes on to say:
As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under [Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen's] bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.
While that's still an iffy proposition, that's a bit different than "banned in Alabama". So before I address the issue of the bill itself, I'd like to finish the article, and point out one other bit of overreacting, this time on the part of an interviewee:
"I think it's an absolutely absurd bill," says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
First Amendment advocates say the ban clearly does amount to censorship.
"It's a Nazi book burning," says Potok. "You know, it's a remarkable piece of work."
Try to take a deep breath, Mark. I understand your opposition to the law, but Godwinesque hyperbole isn't helping. It may (or may not) be a bad law, but it's by NO stretch a "Nazi Book burning". If it were, there'd be, ya know, Nazis and bonfires and such.
Now, as for the law itself:
I have a real dilemma on my hands with regards to this law. The problem is that it specifically targets public school libraries. In the article, Strassman reports
Librarian Donna Schremser fears the "thought police," would be patrolling her shelves.
"And so the idea that we would have a pristine collection that represents one political view, one religioius view, that's not a library,'' says Schremser.
Again, Schremser's overstating the point, so I'll return the favor. I have NO problem whatsoever with the judicious screening of material made available to underage children. Ms. Schremser seems to disagree, and thinks all viewpoints should be represented. Should I conclude then that she advocate the placement of Playboy or Hustler or The Anarchist's Cookbook in an elementary school library? I think not. so if we eliminate the extremes, both "This is thought police" and "This is pornography", we find that there's a middle ground -- the agreement that Children DO need a certain level of protection from images or words that could damage them. The question becomes, which images? Which ideas? The Devil is in the details.
Now, I would argue that banning an author JUST because he or she was/is gay is a stretch. And I furthermore have no objection to the sympathetic portrayal of a gay character. I'd draw the line at the graphic portrayal of sex, gay OR straight. But in the middle we have the issue of literature that advocates the gay lifestyle.
Which leads me to a conclusion I reached only as I wrote this entry. I believe firmly that it is the right and duty of parents to teach their children morality and ethics. First and forempst my job is to love my son, provide for him, and teach him right from wrong. That's not a school's job. And so I would argue that it would be fair to regulate books that directly address moral issues -- either allow all viewpoints (which means requiring that P.S. Libraries stock books that both advocate and oppose a given moral viewpoint), or remain silent on all viewpoints (which means requiring that P.S. Libraries avoid stock books that either advocate and oppose a given moral viewpoint).
In addition, I also believe that if parents were more actively involved with their childrens' educations, this would be an issue. That's why I'll be keeping a close eye on the TV programs, movies, music, and books The Lad has access to growing up. It's also one more reason I'm seriously looking long and hard at home schooling.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes....
Amazing how fatherhood changes your perspective. This week has been the first week of a new schedule, in which I care for The Lad in the afternoons while TFR works. Yesterday was an absolutely GORGEOUS spring day, somewhere in the high 60's, scattered clouds, the kind of day that Nor'Westers keep reminding themselves will come as they wait all winter. So I loaded The Lad into his stroller, leashed up Little Big Dog, and headed out for a walk through the park. On the way there, we were passed by a man walking a very large dog. The dog was straining at its leash, but we managed to pass each other without incident. But it got me thinking: What if it had attacked us? How would I defend both The Lad and LBD? And I knew in an instant that if I couldn't, I'd lose my dog, because my child's life was the most important of the three in question. And I also knew in an instant that if I had to, I'd kill that dog, or anyone or anything trying to harm my son.
I constantly find myself doing this now, and I suppose it's a parent thing. Everywhere I go, every setting in which I find myself, my first instinct is to size up my surroundings and evaluate any possible threats to my little family, and assess what I will do to respond if any of those potential threats become actual threats.
I suppose I'm no different than any other parent, but it's disconcerting when you realize it's happened to you.
I constantly find myself doing this now, and I suppose it's a parent thing. Everywhere I go, every setting in which I find myself, my first instinct is to size up my surroundings and evaluate any possible threats to my little family, and assess what I will do to respond if any of those potential threats become actual threats.
I suppose I'm no different than any other parent, but it's disconcerting when you realize it's happened to you.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Right Again!
Thanks for the Memory to Patty-Jo.
For all its liberal politics, Portland has some features I love. I love its hilliness (Eugene and Springfield are too danged FLAT!), I love all the stuff to do there and the great restaurant and Pub scenes, and the diversity of types of neighborhoods. TFR and I very much want to move there.
American Cities That Best Fit You: |
65% Portland |
60% Denver |
60% Philadelphia |
55% San Francisco |
50% Chicago |
For all its liberal politics, Portland has some features I love. I love its hilliness (Eugene and Springfield are too danged FLAT!), I love all the stuff to do there and the great restaurant and Pub scenes, and the diversity of types of neighborhoods. TFR and I very much want to move there.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Erin Go Bragh!
Thanks for the Memory to The Llama Butchers.
Hey, sometimes these things are accurate:
Hey, sometimes these things are accurate:
Your Inner European is Irish! |
 Sprited and boisterous! You drink everyone under the table. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)