Jotting Tittles: Governor Jar-Jar and Paranormal TV

I realized it had been nearly a month since I had checked in here, so I thought I would emerge from my post-Noel hibernations. Actually, it was a combination of logging on to the internet and watching TV this morning that spurred me on to a couple of brief observations.

First up, I saw a Yahoo! News teaser on the "worst people of the year." In that teaser story was this picture of Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. My first thought was "Who IS that?" My second thought was: "Look at that freaking wattle!" And then my third thought made me do a quick internet search. Tell me these two were not separated at birth.... Maybe it is just me but the Governator looks distinctly Gungan to me. If you still cannot see it, look at Arnie's neck and mouth. He's Gungan with hair. And sunglasses.

Second up: I came downstairs and found the Horde watching something called "Destination Truth" on the SyFy Channel. [Aside: I trust I am not the only one out there that STILL cannot stand the 'new' spelling of their channel name. I keep wanting to call it the 'Sissy Channel.' Of course, the stupid spelling somewhat indicates the quality of their made-for-TV movies. I love 'B' movies and monster movies as much as the next man, but that dreck is purely unwatchable.] Apparently this "Destination Truth" is another in a long line of what I call "Paranormal Television." As much as I would love to believe that creatures like the Sasquatch are out there somewhere, I find it impossible to call this brand of television "Reality Television." [Aside: I suppose that for accuracy's sake I should say that the technical term for these creatures is 'cryptids.' And now you know.]I sat and absorbed this television peripherally, from the Sasquatch They hunt to the hunt for the Ahool to the hunt for a massive 8' x 3' eel-like creature in the Philippines. As I watched I asked myself a question: "Do these people really believe in what they're doing? Really?" It is the same question that I ask when I see an advertisement for a ghost-hunter series. "Really? They're spending money on this?" But then I had a realization. Just once, I would love to see one of these cryptids (or spirits) actually exist and come out of the dark (because these people are always filming with night-vision cameras) and just bite the face off of one of these "investigators." Chomp. That's all. Ratings boost. SyFy wins credibility. Instead, I am reminded of Dean Yaeger's comments from Ghostbusters:

Dr. Venkman, we believe that the purpose of science is to serve mankind. You, however, seem to regard science as some kind of "dodge" or "hustle." Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy and your conclusions are highly questionable. You're a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman, and you have no place in this department or in this University.

Third up: The New Years' celebration quickly approaches. As it does every year, the "year-end" countdowns and "best-ofs/worst ofs" have begun to fill the airwaves. I am compelled to ask: Am I the only one that is utterly and completely IRRITATED this crap? I loathe these programs. I detest them with a passion. I dislike them even more than I do the "human interest filler" stories on the local news. I cannot believe they have any use or value other than to kill time and keep writers and producers from actually doing their work and writing real stories. Ugh. Thank heavens for the DVD collection. I think I will wear out the DVD player between now and Sunday.

Anyway, thanks for letting me ramble. Feel free to leave me your own thoughts. I will try and check back in before the last year-end countdown airs. If I do not connect with you again, may I extend to you my hopes that your Christmas was wonderful, that your New Year will be prosperous, and thank you for your readership and friendship. Shalom and God Bless.

Pedestrian Concerns

O.K. I must preface this post with an apology. The rant that is about to occur, while potentially calm-ish in nature, still will be, unfortunately, in the "Seinfeldian" tone. In other words, using the "What's the deal with Ovaltine?" template.

There is just no way to avoid it with this one.

What is wrong with pedestrians lately?

I do quite a bit of walking and bicycling, particularly through our (relatively) busy downtown area from my office to the Courthouse. I see a lot of other pedestrians doing the same thing. Quite a few in fact.

The difference between myself and most of them? I seem to have retained a healthy and reasonable point of view.

I am smaller and more fragile than a moving car or truck.

Period.

Which is, incidentally, what my remains would be smaller than were I ever to walk out in front of said car and/or truck.

As I was enjoying a rare late-summer air-conditioned drive through the downtown shopping district today I came to this stunning realization: there are many in my town who are apparently survivors of the Krypton disaster. They truly believe they are indestructible and stronger than a speeding car. Twice, on two different intersections that are several blocks apart, I watched the same man cross the street on a solid "hand" sign in front of me. Each time he made it no further than the median before the light turned green in my favor. Each time he sauntered into the intersection. Each time he made no effort to speed up to get out of the intersection once the light turned against him. Each time he did not even appear to notice that he was now crossing against the light.

This is why I say I believe he is from the planet Krypton.

What happened to the general healthy fears and rational thoughts our parents instilled in us as children when we wanted to cross the street? You know: Look both ways. Cross on the "walk" sign. Do not cross on the "hand" sign. Cars are bigger than you, faster than you, and can make you hurt. You can and will die.

[Aside: It is not as if my parents' generation was overly cautious in their child-rearing. After all, my generation grew up without car seats, usually sitting on the hump on the floor in the back seat, listening to our parents talk. We crawled around the station wagon, switching seats with abandon. I remember Chinese Fire Drills at red lights. We had hair dryers, blenders, and clothes irons without needing a pamphlet full of disclaimers and warnings. We had lead-based paint and lead-based toys, not to mention toys with long strings on them. We had REAL cap guns. The list goes on.]

It is the same mentality that I see when I travel to Utah and visit my friends in Salt Lake City. As I have mentioned before, their offices are near to several of the light rail system stations. The stream of pedestrians jay-walking from the stations to the sidewalks -- across very busy metropolitan streets, mind you -- is unbelievable. Some even go so far as to walk down the middle of the rail tracks from one end of the block until they reach the "verboten" end of the station platform.

Umm.... Excuse me, people. I have just two thoughts:

(1) Cars are bigger, faster, and stronger than you.
(2) Trains are bigger, faster, and stronger than cars.

Is this symptomatic of the intelligence or common sense of the average American citizen in the twenty-first century? Could it be that we are so inured to mayhem by video games, movies, and television that we truly believe that we are invincible? That life truly has a "Reset" button? I am not one who likes to blame bad things in life on games, video or otherwise. After all, I grew up during the advent of home video game console systems (Magnavox Odyssey and Atari, anyone?) and during the hysteria of the anti-Dungeons & Dragons-because-its-Satanic craze.

[Aside: And let me tell you children, the hubbub of the anti-Harry Potter movement has NOTHING on the whole Dungeons & Dragons scare. Ask your parents if you do not believe me.]

Or is it that we simply believe ourselves to be better than others, or our destination more important than another persons' destination? Think about the last time you went to Wal-Mart...or observe the next time you go. Make a conscious decision to drive on the road directly in front of the store. The flood of humanity that crosses in front of you, whether from the store to the parking lot or vice-versa: Observe them carefully. Look at how many bother to cross at the actual crosswalks. And then look at how many bother to actually stop for the cars traveling in front of the store. And then count how many of those actually look up and around for moving vehicles before stepping out in front of the cars.

Then do the same at any random box-store. Target. Best Buy. Barnes & Noble. Heck, even the grocery store.

My guess? Most of those who go in and out, crossing to or from the parking lot, will do so without regard for the vehicles around them, without regard for their own safety and welfare.

Granted, they have the right-of-way. I am in no way denying or arguing against that fact. But the way many of these people act it is as if they are entitled to cross willy-nilly and how, when, and where they wish.

Did I miss the handing-out of the car-proof suit and magic cape? Or was I simply born in a different time?

What is this mentality? And why do I think our society is worse-off for it?

I am an American.

Unfortunately, calling yourself an American has become a dirty word. You are urged to become, and praised for your wisdom and tolerance, if you call yourself a "citizen of the world" or something similarly politically correct. If you profess to be an American, you are usually called "jingoist," "rascist," "intolerant," "war-monger," "imperalist," and any of a host of other labels.

I dislike labels. Nearly all kinds. When I walk out of a 7-11 or a Circle K with a bottle of water, the label is off before I hit the car. I peel the mailing labels off my magazine subscriptions on the way back from the mailbox.

I will admit to using labels, though. Sometimes in frustration. Sometimes it is necessary to quickly portray to another person a specific stance or outlook that you may share. Sometimes it is out of frustration, I will admit it: sometimes I am a bit of a hypocrite on the issue. But I will also admit -- and it must be acknowledged -- that not everyone shares the same view or definition of these labels. Neither is it likely that any specific label fully covers or describes any one individual.

Case in point: I consider myself to be politically conservative. Let me be clear: I am not a Republican. However, a friend of mine took me to task this weekend because I commented to him how much I appreciated a neighbor of ours being unwilling to sell a parcel adjoining the neighbor’s home to a developer who was planning on putting in an apartment building. I commented that “a little open space is nice in the area” and “do we really need more apartments in the neighborhood?” I was the immediate recipient of scorn and disbelief: “I thought you called yourself a Conservative! Any true Conservative would be in favor of allowing the landowner to do with his property whatever he wishes; and any true Capitalist, like myself, would want to see him do something productive with the land. He should have sold it for apartment buildings, because he could have gotten a lot of money for it. Either that or he should rent it out for a neighborhood gardening co-op, or maybe use it as a pumpkin patch and Christmas Tree lot in the fall and winter. He could make a load of cash from that little piece of property.”

That is when I realized: I may be a Conservative, and I call myself a Capitalist and a lover of the free-market system. I agree with my friend: the property owner should be allowed to do whatever he wishes with that property and make as much money from the land as the market will bear. But there’s a bit of the cowboy in me. That part of me loves looking out from the side of an afternoon campfire over a beautiful, undeveloped meadow filled with wild flowers, while a mountain with no man-made improvements or construction towers towers over it all as a backdrop. No sounds of aircraft or vehicular traffic. Song birds, deer, even the occasional cougar: they all pass through unmolested. Nothing but clear mountain air between me and heaven. On second thought, let me change that: This is Heaven.

I shop at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and 7-11. I like making money and I like spending money. I like buying a new hat and new boots. But that cowboy winces every time he drives down the street and sees another piece of land -- land that was part of a family farm fifty years ago -- being developed into duplexes or apartments. Green space torn up and thrown away in the name of cookie-cutter crap-quality so-called town homes. (Glorified apartments or dorm rooms, if you ask me. They are ugly and of questionable value.)

That’s why I am re-committing myself to re-labeling myself. Or maybe you can call it “un-labeling.” I am not a Republican or Democrat. I am not a Conservative or a Liberal. I am not a Capitalist, Socialist, Marxist, or any other such label.

In my opinion, I am what we all, ideally, should be.

I am an American.

We are all Americans.

We should all start acting like it, too.

Sometimes, like today, I think that there is too much focus on politics and political views.

Last week I got into a discussion of health care with a good friend of mine, who has decidedly liberal-slanted views. He actually told me, “You are a conservative I can actually talk to, because you are reasonable and have well-thought out ideas rather than just spouting off talking points.” He then proceeded to excoriate Tea Partiers, Glenn Beck, the Drudge Report, and anyone else who dares question any piece of Obama’s policies using the same language used by Olbermann, MSNBC, the Daily Kos, Nancy Pelosi, et al.

Talking points. We are all guilty of using them from time to time. Fundamentally, it is difficult to get away from them. But maybe they should be used as a springboard to our own thoughts and positions on a given subject, rather than used verbatim. Or maybe, just maybe, we should refrain from using them at all, stop all the arguing, and just go ahead and fix what is wrong with our beloved country.

Most of the people -- the real people -- in the country agree that there are serious problems. And most of the real people agree on what needs to be done to fix the problems. It is the zombies in the country that do not understand. These are the people who change their positions with their underwear, that cater to the elite, who believe (as does Senator Hatch, for example) that their constituents are not smart enough to understand what it is they do, and that’s why they need their Senators. These are the ones that are out of touch with the real people.

They are the walking undead.

Which is, I suppose, better than being a Progresstitute.

But I am an American.

We are all Americans.

Let’s start acting like it, and let’s get our country back. The one that we’re all proud of; the one that we all remember being so great. Let’s get it done and take her back.

Oh yeah.... the cowboy in me says, “Giddy up.”

(Cross-posted at Spirit of the Law.

Nothing Like a Rant....

Nothing like a rant to wipe the dust from the blog and actually start typing.

It just struck me today....

What is it about co-workers/employees that they feel it their prerogative to comment upon others' lunches?

My office is right next to the breakroom. As such, I am bombarded on a daily basis with the smells of bad coffee, overdone chicken, tv dinners, and any of a number of rancid, disturbing smells. It is especially vile once four or five individuals have gone in to warm their lunches, creating the strange miasma of fake parmesan cheese, watery red sauce, cheap barbecue sauce, and overcooked tofu. There are days when simply walking into the breakroom (or sitting in my office) is to subject yourself to acts of victual terrorism.

So what is it that makes them think others care about what they think about our lunches? Case in point: I warmed up some homemade fried rice today, heavy on the onions and garlic, but also with plenty of peas, carrots, and other goodies. Onions and garlic just happen to have been the strongest smelling of the ingredients. And simply put: I am one who, after both anecdotal and personal experience, believe that onions and garlic do wonders for your immune system. Well, my sinuses are hyperactive and the onions and garlic were just what the doctor ordered. Add in a bit of pepper paste, and Voila! A meal to lower health care costs.

Well, my co-workers spent the next hour commenting on "how strong are those onions?" "I'm not going in his office!" "I feel sorry for any clients after all that garlic!" "How can his wife kiss him at night?!" Despite the fact that my window was open, fans blowing, and the simple fact that--in all actuality--the smell was gone from the breakroom within five minutes, I simply cannot understand the phenomenon.

(Aside: Just in case you were wondering, the answers to the questions are as follows: "Quite strong, actually, and quite tasty!" "You were not invited into my office, nor are you generally welcome to enter." "Unfortunately, my clients meet with me in the conference room, as you know, and not in my office." and "She kisses quite well, thank you, and shares my love for garlic.")

It is not just me, either. I hear them commenting on each others' food as well. Of course, never to the alleged olfactory offender's face.

Maybe it goes back to upbringing. Maybe it goes to common courtesy. Maybe it goes to IQ level. Whatever it is, I am willing to acknowledge your right to eat where, when, and what you may. While there is no Constitutional protection for food choices, I am willing to live and let live; you can eat your smelly fish or your noxious TV dinners, so long as you allow me to eat my pungent rice and my garlic bread. For us, individually, it is likely part of our pursuit of happiness.

All I know is that I resist telling them what manner of sewage I believe they are consuming. (OK, I confess, I just commented, but it was out here.) Why can I not be shown the same courtesy? You all know how I truly feel about those who surround me at the office: there ain't a soul here I would trust to have my back long enough to turn around.

Maybe it means that my staff simply does not have enough work to keep them busy. Maybe I should increase their workloads? Nah. That would seem vindictive.

I am open to ideas, solutions, or even explanations of the phenomenon.

Until then, I'm going to put my noseplugs back in and get back to writing my brief.

Goodbye to mormonblogs

Recently (as in, this morning) a group of conservative-minded individuals who run The Spirit of the Law was removed and banned by the administrator of mormonblogs, a blogroll with supposedly LDS-oriented leanings.

The reason given was because of constant "screeds" against the sitting, duly-elected President of the United States.

Wow.

Essentially the same thing that those on the left did for the past eight straight years against the sitting, duly-elected President of the United States.

Back then, it was claimed to be patriotism. Now, apparently, it is un-Christlike.

The other reason is that the "Spirit of the Law"vians supposedly claim those who disagree with them are "unworthy" members. (Of course, the fact that if this claim is ever made, it is after the name-calling has already started from the other side.)

I am, frankly, amazed at the narrow-mindedness from a blogroll that applauds open-mindedness.

I suppose I should not be too surprised, however. In the past, I have considered asking for my blog to be taken from the mormonblogs blogroll because I have not really been wanting to be associated with some of the more common blogs on that site.

Now I am considering it again. To ban that blog for fairly reasoned, although sometimes overly-passionate, question-and-answer commentary is amazing. Especially considering the screeds I have read concerning George W. Bush prior to the election, the ramapant militant feminism, the (apparently) commonly-held ideals by many of the bloggers on the blogroll that you should not agree with the Prophet or the Brethren on anything (regardless of whether you have prayed about it or not) because that is simply blind obedience....

Shall I go on?

The common, popular blogs all use fairly reasoned, although sometimes overly-passionate question-and-answer commentary. I have frequently seen some of these blogs, or their readers, question the worthiness, or spirituality of anyone who "tows the party line."

It appears that, to be listed on Mormonblogs, it is OK to question the Gospel, the Prophet, and the US President so long as you disagree, disagree, and agree respectively. It is OK to question and drip venom, so long as it is against the approved targets. Politics is OK to discuss, so long as you have the approved politics.

That kind of "open-mindedness" is A-OK in their book. Any others need not apply.

(I should not paint with such a broad brush, I guess. There are a few harmless blogs that actually attempt to spread the Gospel, or a missionary message, and for those I am grateful. It is simply too bad they are swallowed up in the dank morass made by the others. There is a reason I have not visited for months and intend not to visit the blogroll any longer.)

Of course, if the "banning" of the website gets rid of some of the small number of lunatics (who are, I suspect, the ones who have complained to Ms. Angela at the blogroll) then maybe it is a good thing. I suspect several of them were simply using multiple aliases to seem to be a larger and more vocal group. I recommend all of my readers who are so-inclined to check out The Spirit of the Law and make up their own minds.

I had considered requesting removal of my blog in the past. But nope. I am no longer considering it.

It has been done. Apparently freedom of speech only slants one way on mormonblogs.

Good luck with your own favorite screeds, Angela. Hopefully they will keep you warm at night.

No hard feelings.

Quote of the Day -- August 20, 2009

“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton (D. NY)

I am sorry, but for 7+ years I decried the Republican's attempts to smackdown any and all who criticized President Bush, the war, etc. I may not have agreed with all of what was said, but I recognized and defended their right to say it.

The same holds true with the current criticism of the current administration.

At least it should.

But we all know it does not hold true. And if you say differently, while I recognize your right to say it, you are either lying, deluded, or misinformed.

Yeah. It's a harsh thing to say.

But look around. Show me where all those people were screaming about how patriotic were their anti-war commentaries, how "truly" American were their anti-American screeds. Where are they? Most of them are now decrying any who disagree with the President as anti-American, stupid, liars, "corporate shills," or worse.

If you stood up for 7 years screaming vitriol about Bush being a Nazi -- or Hitler himself -- and claimed a First Amendment right to do so, I am not telling you to shut your mouth. I am simply saying that you had darn well better acknowledge the same right for others now.

Otherwise, you're simply a hypocrite.

And you look really stupid, too.

Nope. Not Mighty Mouse!

I am sorry.

But even if it gets me put on a list somewhere, this is dang funny stuff.

Unfortunately, thanks to the state of the Country and the Future, it is probably close to being morbidly humorous (also known as "black humor" but I have to be careful about that term, don't I?).

Add to that the fact that, for many, he IS a Superhero.

Talk about a fantasy.

But I still have a First Amendment right, dagnabbit! So sit back and enjoy:

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

Rest in Peace, America

We lost two entertainment icons last week. Farrah and Michael. May they rest in peace.

America may be history as well. But more on that in a moment.

The loss of any human life is, at its most basic, a tragedy. There is some tragedy in how these two lived their lives, but I am not going to belabor that or lessen the impact their deaths have had on their families. Whatever you think of them, they were human beings, plain and simple.

What I will do, however, is excoriate the mainstream media for forcing it down our throats, non-stop. EVERYTHING on cable programming yesterday afternoon was about the death of Michael Jackson. Everything. I think I even saw him on a Beverly Hillbillies re-run, although I may be mistaken on that point.

I had to literally search for something -- anything -- that discussed the outcome of the vote on the biggest tax attack perpetrated upon the American People. I mean, of course, the so-called cap and trade "HR.2454: Title: To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.

Politically-correct Global Warming crap.

Even the local news spent more time trying to link Michael Jackson's life, somehow, however tenuously, to our little town than they did reporting on how our representatives voted on the cap and tax scheme.

You see, the mainstream media and the Washington insiders did not want the American people to focus on this bill. They knew that there was grave danger to the bill if the people really stood up and took notice.

So what did they do?

What do you do when you take a young toddler to get his or her picture taken? What do you do in church when the same child starts to fuss because you've taken something away from him or her?

You distract them.

You use the squeaky duck toy. You jingle your bright, shiny keys in front of them. Anything to get them to forget the camera or the fragile book you want to get away from their grasp.

At first, I believed that South Carolina Governor Sanford's saga was the shiny thing. After all, why make such a big deal over a person -- even though a Governor -- disappearing to hike in the mountains? I think I would do the same thing if I were in public office: just disappear and be by myself. I did not blame him in the least. But remember how the media kept harping and harping on how horrible it was that he would just "disappear"?

The jingling had started.

Then it was revealed he'd actually been in Argentina, not the Appalachian Trail. Even then, I must say, I was still on his side.

The jingling got louder.

Then it was revealed that the married Governor had left his wife at home and traveled to meet up with his Argentinian girlfriend. Whoops. I jumped off his bandwagon at that point. But the media kept harping and harping, louder and louder.

I think at some point I may have seen a big squeaking bunny toy on the lecturn next to Governor Sanford. Honest.

He looked a bit like Harvey, actually.

I don't blame the criticism of the Governor on this issue. After all, your wife should be the most important part of your life. If you're willing to cheat on that, if your wife means as little to you as that, what are your constituents? "Governor" is just a job, after all is said and done. If I was a South Carolinian, I would feel abused and cheated upon. I would want him run out of the Capitol on a rail.

I still believe that he was the intended "shiny thing." It was all a bit too convenient, timing-wise.

But can you tell me any man in America more grateful at the passing of Michael Jackson? Really? OK, granted, it's a pretty tactless thing to say or think.... But Michael's death (and to a much lesser extent Farrah's death) knocked Sanford right off the front page.

Jingle. Jingle. Look at the shiny keys, Little Darlings.

Unfortunately it appears as the deaths of these two human beings has become the latest "shiny thing" held up and jingled in front of the public to distract them from the more important things in life.

Come to think of it, we lost an "infotainment" icon this morning as well. Mr. Billy Mays. You may not know his name (I did not) -- after all, he's just an infomercial frontman -- but you'll remember him as the pitchman for Oxi-Clean and OrangeGlo, the guy with the big beard and loud, annoying voice. Rest in peace, Billy.

But take notice: an awful lot of attention is being paid to his passing. He was the pitchman for cleaning products in infomercials, for crying out loud. No disrespect intended for the newly-departed, but does he really warrant the barrage of coverage his death is getting? What accounts for this press coverage?

In my opinion, it's simple: the American Sheeple need first to be distracted from the passage of the cap-and-trade fiasco. They do not want you to know about the 300-page amendment that was added to the bill at the last minute.

They do not want you to know that, under this bill, if you sell your house, an environmental group is required to come out and "rate" your house, and you will not be allowed to sell your house until you "modernize" your appliances and have a certified "green" home. Liberty? You rest in peace, will you?

Jingle. Jingle. Jingle.

I am willing to bet that the conspiracy-theorists out there are having a field day. Michael and Billy both die under strange and still-unexplained circumstances? Anyone see the Men in Black around their homes?

Jingle. Jingle. Jingle, JINGLE.

I will be willing to bet there is more -- much more -- coming down the pike that will require further distractions.

What will those distractiosn be? It is anybody's guess at this point.

Rest in peace, Farrah, Michael, and Billy. Rest in peace. At least they do not have to worry about all this any longer. Just rest in peace.

And apparently, I may as well say this while I have my First Amendment right to do so: Rest in peace, America.

At least, the Free America I once knew and loved.

Simply Harry Potter

OK. I know that in my last post I may have indirectly heaped trash on the name of J.K. Rowling.

I swear I heard gasping, because there are so many for whom reading Rowling is nigh-unto worship.

That's why I have been reluctant to admit to you all that in the past nine days I re-read all seven Harry Potter novels. Yep. The entire series. Started on June 7 and ended last night.

It was an enjoyable little jaunt.

I am not going to take back my scorn, however.

And I am going to offend some people.

Yeah, I hear you saying that at least she's published. That people know who she is and who am I to criticize her. I understand all that.

I will admit the books are a somewhat pleasant diversion. But they are just that. There is no deeper meaning to them, although I am sure that the typical liberal-arts loving English professor could deconstruct them and find hidden meaning galore, if not The True Meaning Of Life. (Yes, capitalized even.) I tried last night as I was finishing up The Deathly Hallows. Surely there's a message there about learning the truth about your heroes, some warning to children not to look up to or trust adults, because there's always some hidden evil in their background. That was as close as I got, and if I am right -- if that was intended -- well then, J.K. Rowling should be ashamed of herself.

But see, I am of the opinion -- the STRONG opinion that these books are not children's books. I do not care what kind of marketing strategy or philosophy involved, these are not children's books. In fact, I am ready to argue that allowing a child to read some of these books may be akin to child abuse, or at least indifference to the child's mental/emotional welfare and well-being.

We will not discuss the movies, because I gave up caring after the second one.

But I remember being in a grocery store years ago and watching in disgusted amazement as a three-year-old child pointed at a Harry Potter balloon and called out "Harry Potter! Harry Potter!"

A three-year-old child has NO business knowing who Harry Potter is.

And I am not sure that anyone under the age of mid-teens should know either. My teenager has not read them yet, and has not suffered any ill effects. She may in fact be able to live without reading them; the jury is still out on that one, though. Some sudden attack of fatal lackofpotteritis may yet prove to be her undoing.

Do not get me wrong: I am not going to make the argument of witchcraft and sorcery being peddled to our young. Others have made this argument, that is their prerogative. My thinking? They are fantasy novels. Not reality. Heck, outside of my spiritual endeavors, I spend most of my life in a fantasy world. [Aside: What? You think lawyers are sane individuals fully functioning in reality? I beg to differ.] I cannot take too much umbrage with this point. After all, Gandalf did magic. So did Willy Wonka.

No, I have different issues with Ms. Rowling's works. First and foremost, there is very little pure good represented in the books. Pure evil? Sure, it is everywhere; it saturates her little universe and it pours off the page. But pure good? I challenge you to point to ten major characters that are examples of pure, unadulterated, unquestioned goodness in the novels. No fair using animals: Hedwig and the owls do not count. Neither does Fawkes. I'll start the list, though these should probably be qualified as supporting cast:
1. Hagrid. Hagrid is an innocent and I am hardpressed to remember any specifically bad intentional act. The other characters treat Hagrid with pity, in part because he just doesn't seem as smart as they are.
2. Arthur and Molly Weasley. Again, innocents without any memorable bad intentional act. Again, well-meaning, but portrayed as slightly pitiable or less-intelligent. In fact, I could probably lump Bill and perhaps Charlie Weasley in here as well, but they are even more minor characters than their parents and, as such, perhaps do not warrant inclusion in the discussion at all.
3. Luna Lovejoy. Possibly. Her name just came to me; I will have to reserve judgment unless and until I can remember any specifics. But here again, an innocent that everyone considers to be slightly off-kilter or insane (or stupid).
4. Professor Minerva McGonagall. Again, she just came to me. I will have to think on her. She may be an exception to this list, as she is strong and intelligent.
5. Neville Longbottom. Another innocent. Another slightly off-kilter, slightly less-intelligent member of the cast.

See a trend? The only arguably purely good characters in the books are those that are innocent, naive, and possibly not intelligent. That's a nice portrayal; nice message to send to kids. "Hey, son! Why can't you act more like Neville Longbottom, eh?"

No, the main protaganists -- and by this I mean Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Dumbledore -- none of these are as unequivocally good as Voldemort is unequivocally evil. The Dark Lord has no direct counterpart. Dumbledore has a dark side and has done bad things. Harry and Ron waffle back and forth; they are not examples of pure good. Harry's soul is certainly not as lily-white as Voldemort's soul is midnight-black.

After the whole "peddling-these-books-to-kids" issue, this is my main beef with the books. There is pure good in this world. There is also pure evil. If you are going to acquaint readers with evil, especially if you are going to market to children and acquaint impressionable children with the concept of pure evil, then you better darn well be willing and prepared to acquaint them with the concept of pure good.

Plus, I simply cannot accept these as "great" literature. They are pleasant distractions. They cannot -- no matter how loud the groundlings scream -- compare to Shakespeare. Dickens. Twain. Rand. Do not try and argue; one hundred years from now, two hundred? Will Harry Potter be remembered? Will he be taught in AP English classes? Who's to say? Perhaps our standards are indeed that low. They're already suggested reading in elementary school. [Aside: We actually considered a private school for our oldest when she was ready to start school. The fact that the classrooms displayed posters of Harry Potter and Star Wars actually helped convince us to homeschool. Yes, even with a Star Wars-nerd father. There has to be a line in Education. That is a rant for another day, though.] I hope our standards -- not just as Americans, but as a civilization as a whole -- are not this low; I truly hope not. If she is our day's Shakespeare, we may as well simply throw in the towel.

I hear you saying that Shakespeare wrote to entertain, to satisfy the groundlings. Yes, but he did so with style, skill, and art. While Rowling uses magic as a subject, there is little or no magic in her words. Want to argue? Give me a passage with as much feeling and meaning as these:

What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

The Bard distills the essence of what makes up a man: the inherent goodness. And he does so with skill, art, and brevity. In the approximately 3,000 pages of the series, she cannot make Harry -- or, truly, any character -- fit this profile, let alone describe anything with this manner of magnificent prose.

I have actually read a review saying, "This [the fact that the characters, good and evil, are developed in such a way that they are, well, not simply good or evil] is perhaps Rowling's greatest achievement in the book. While the series can be described as an epic tale between good and evil, the individuals involved are not so easily defined." This is said as PRAISE of the books. [Aside: what adds a twist to this review was that it came from socialistworker.org. And yes, it was a random search; I just happened across it. In fact, now that I think about it, there's a whole host of blog entries on the fact that self-proclaimed socialists thrill over the blurring of the lines between good and evil. But I will leave that for another day. I do not want to discuss politics right now.] Sure... it may be an epic tale between good and evil, but it is one without a heck of a lot of real good shining out.

In these dark times, do we not deserve to treat ourselves to a little real good now and then?

And do not our children also deserve it? In fact, is it possible that they deserve it even more?

I know, it's a work of fiction. Why am I getting so riled up?

In part because it is a work of fiction. It is not literature.

Rowling's books surely cannot be part of the works of the Ages. If they are, well, I guess we deserve what we get.

Stimulus Package Explained!

I received this from my buddy in Salt Lake City today, forwarded from his e-mail. I wish I knew the original author, or knew to whom to attribute this fine explanation of the so-called Stimulus package.

Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics professor and says, "I don't understand this stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?"

The professor replied, "I don't have any time to explain it at my office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend progject, I'll be glad to explain it to you." The student agreed.

At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor's house. The professor handed the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, "First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water as you can." The student did as he was instructed.

The professor then continued, "Follow me over to the shallow end, and then dump all the water from your bucket into it." The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told.

The professor then explained they were going to do this many more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool.

The confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?" The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper.

The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough. However, after the sixth trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student began to become worried that his economics professor had gone mad.

The student finally replied, "All we are doing is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this process is all over, everything will be at the same level it was before, so all you will really have accomplished is the destruction of what could have been truly productive action!"

The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile, "Congratulations! You now understand the stimulus bill."

Crisis? Really?

All we have heard since November 2008 is the worsening state of the country's economy. All we have heard for the past two weeks is how the passage of the stimulus spendulous package was critical for the survival of the country, essential to stem the coming catastrophe, and likely the only thing to keep Satan's gateway from Hell from opening and allowing a demonic possession of the entire Earth. Something akin to Gozer crawling out of a New York refrigerator and ultimately causing a marshmallow explosion of epic proportions.

O.K. Maybe the last was a bit of hyperbole.

Maybe.

But now what are we hearing?

From Reuters today:

President Barack Obama's aides warned Americans on Sunday not to expect instant miracles from the $787 billion economic stimulus bill he will sign this week, but said it would help eventually.

I'm sorry, Mr. President, but did you not just spend two weeks telling us that our utter destruction was emminent if this bill did not pass? Telling us of the catastrophe that was certain, unless the bill was passed and boost economic growth?

Now you and your staff is telling us that the catastrophe has not, in fact, been averted? That the economic crisis is still getting worse even though the bill passed?

My guess? My guess is that the Republicans who voted against this bill are being set up for the fall. I will predict that if when this economic boost fails, Mr. President and the Democrats will point fingers and say, "It would have worked if it had been bigger, with more money involved, but the eee-vil Republicans would not let us pass anything bigger and better." (Aside: That's right, I said "Eee-vil. As in the froo-its of the De-veel." Gotta love the Axe Murderer.)

So back to the seemingly still-looming economic Armageddon. I'm going to guess that the Prez, in all reality, does NOT believe it will have much of an effect: something on the scale of a speed-bump in front of a runaway tractor-trailer rig in a steep mountain canyon.

Why do I say this? Take a look at this:

After pushing Congress for weeks to hurry up and pass the massive $787 billion stimulus bill, President Obama promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway.
. . . .
The president plans to spend the Presidents' Day weekend in the Windy City, and is not expected to sign the bill until Tuesday, when he travels to Denver to discuss his economic plan.

I'm sorry, WHAT?!?

HERE'S the story in full if you're interested.

Remember how frantic the Prez and the Dems were to pass this bill last week? The orgiastic furor almost violated the laws of physics. 1,071 pages of text went largely unread because of the looming catastrophe.

And as soon as it's passed, he flits off to Chicago.

Excuse me, Mr. President. This is your job now, y'know?

Oh wait; I forgot. Out of approximately 144 working days in the Senate, he was absent a tremendous percentage of the time. I believe that at one time, the estimate was 80% missed votes.

"So?" I hear you say? So.... He's just working the hours he's used to working, apparently.

You see, it seems the Commander in Chief has not yet figured out that this is a working federal position, not a federally-funded vacation. In office less than a full month and he has already taken a holiday. Man. I remember back when President Bush II took work home to his ranch and actually worked on vacation. Remember the outrage and screaming that took place? I think the echo can still be heard in some corners of Crawford.

But here? "Awww.... Look at the cute couple there. Oh! Isn't that...?"

Yep. That's the Prez and Mrs. Fashion-plate, Michelle Onassis Obama carrying that stylish doggie bag. (Aside: Wait! "Doggie bag"? Did I miss the adoption of the First Canine? Did I actually miss that story? [Yawn] Oh yes, that's right. I DON'T CARE! )

As much as I detest Nancy Pelosi, at least she had the dignity to finish her work (albeit overly-rushed) before she headed off on her vacation. Maybe her tickets were non-refundable.

Or else she did not have her own 747 at her beck and call.

Oh wait! I have it now.... As a sitting President, he must get President's Day off!
Somehow I have missed reading that part of Article II.

Back to the USSR!

Show me round your snow peaked
mountains way down south
Take me to your daddy's farm
Let me hear your balalaika's ringing out
Come and keep your comrade warm.
I'm back in the U.S.S.R. U.S.S.A. boy
You don't know how lucky you are boys

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America, Comrades!

Where's my tinfoil hat?

Well, the spending bill passed the Senate. Now the House and Senate have to compromise our future our Constitution our country on a bill to present to the President.

I wonder how much more that will cost us? And what will it cost our children?

One of my colleagues e-mailed me and opined: "The Democrats are going to be in a world of hurt in two years."

My response: "Are they? Are there enough people that care about this to make a difference in two years? And what will the country even look like in two years? Will we even have free elections any longer?"

Yes, probably hyperbole. But is it really? What will history really say about this period of time? Or will it say anything at all, because the "victors" will not want the rabble to know the truth, that -- once -- we were free? How many of our freedoms and our liberties will we still have?

And tell me this: How can so many stupid people be leading our government?

Or an even better question: How can we keep electing these same stupid people to positions of leadership in our government?

And because we do, do we deserve what we get?

That's a scary thought. Think about all of the stories in the Scriptures, where a people "get what they deserve." It usually does not end well, does it? Especially in the Book of Mormon, everyt time the people are as prideful and stiffnecked as we Americans seem to have become. Do we really need to be humbled this way? Honestly?

Are we intelligent adults, we voters? Or are we sheep?

Actually . . . maybe you should not answer that. I am scared to know the answer. The Gadiantons are no longer at the door. They're already inside and sitting at the dinner table, folks.

Because I do not know how to say "Baaaaaa" in Russian, I'll simply say, "до свидания."

Trust Me. I Talk Good.

As anyone who knows me well will tell you, there is little else that raises my hackles like really bad grammar, poor spelling, and inaccurate puncutation. Both of these things send my proofreading brain spinning.

I almost fell off the bus today because of this problem.

There is a new business in town. Apparently, it is one of these outfits that performs commercial, albeit medical-type, scans for early warning of cancer, heart disease, and the like. Obviously, in this economy, they could be considered a luxury expenditure, and have therefore increased their advertising presence accordingly.

Well... I am relatively certain that this was not the kind of advertising effect they wanted.

You see, as I was sitting on the bus this morning, my eyes wandered up to the advertising along the space between the window and roof of the bus. Here, right in front of me, was an advertisement for this body-scan outfit. (Aside: Perhaps I am being too charitable in not printing their name. Maybe, just maybe, I need the extra points that charity could get me. Or maybe I am simply weak. Whatever it is, forgive me, because I am going to withhold the name. But I do believe it is a national company; if you see the same kind of advertising, please let me know.)

I quickly read the new advertisement. Then the mental nails scratched down the chalkboard in my brain. I re-read it to make sure I had not misunderstood. Then I read it a third time in utter disbelief. Surely they did not mean....

Here's what I saw (alas, if only I'd had a camera with me)--it was an ad for a lung scan, $299.00 if I remember correctly, and the text was as follows:

Breathe easier.
Get screened.
Their is a good chance it will save your life.

Excuse me? What?!

You're serious? A professional, likely multi-state, medically-related company does not have the sense to proofread their advertising? I do not know whether to hope they had an outside advertising company help them or not. Which is worse: to make this mistake in-house and not catch it? or to hire someone so inept as to make this mistake and then not catch the mistake in the draft?

Plain and simple: would you trust these people too to tell you weather whether you had cancerous cells in you're your lungs?

Really now, would you?

And actually, the second thought I had was even worse: how many people read that advertisement every day and see nothing wrong with it? Truthfully, is that not the actual state of society? of public education? or am I being too cynical?

This entire event has actually caused a slight headache this morning. Sharp pains at the base of my skull.

I'm going to go lie down for awhile, I believe.

Lie, I said. Not lay. Their There is a difference, you know.

Call to Arms

I know there are a lot of people out there that may not like Glenn Beck's style. As you probably know, I am not one of those type.

And before some of you pull out the "ignorant hating racist" card, just stop it.

Regardless of what you think of him, the numbers and facts just don't lie. Take a look at this video and consider what the heck we are doing to this country, and to the world as a whole. (Hint: National bankruptcy may be coming, and it ain't the kind that's going to make my career any better.)

Take a look with an open mind. O-PEN.

These charts are much simpler / less-complex than Al Gore's hocus-pocus. And this is a crisis much more real, much more imminent, and much more critical than the potential hoax of "climate change."

Watch this and then tell me it ain't a conspiracy, somewhere, somehow. I do not know who or how, but I can tell you why: Power. Plain and simple.

Watch and weep. Better yet: watch, wake up, and call a friend or two. Or even your Senator. Wake them up, too.

18 And these Gadianton robbers, who were among the Lamanites, did infest the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof began to hide up their treasures in the earth; and they became slippery, because the Lord had cursed the land, that they could not hold them, nor retain them again.
19 And it came to pass that there were sorceries, and witchcrafts, and magics; and the power of the evil one was wrought upon all the face of the land.
~Mormon 1:18-19

Global What?!?

Walking from the bus stop to the office today I had the thought: "Boy, I would take some of that California weather right now." Then I hear from a co-worker that her family in Los Angeles is walking around in parkas. I guess that 40 degrees, to them, is cold right now.

I cannot even wish for Las Vegas weather.

My friends in Salt Lake City are reporting lows in the low teens and single digits. Blowing drifts, high winds.

We are experiencing much the same around here, including record lows for December.

All that leads me to ask . . . Where the heck is this Global Warming thing?

Sorry, should I have said "conspiracy" rather than "thing"? Or is that too politically incorrect?

Do not get me wrong, I can and will accept that climate change happens.

But I cannot and will not accept that climate change happens primarily because of mankind.

You see, there's this big nuclear reactor up in the sky that has just a little bit to do with temperature, weather patterns, etc.

Compared to that, we humans are akin to parasites living off the flaky skin and dandruff of our host creature.

Case in point: When was the last time that any three so-called meteorologists actually managed to call a seven- or ten-day forecast accurately? Honestly? And then you expect me to believe that they can predict weather patterns and climate change out for one hundred years?

Really? Do you think I am that stupid and/or gullible?

I ain't buyin' your bridge in New York, or the big green lady in the harbor.

Are we really such a self-important bunch of creatures to believe that we can really have such a massive effect on a living entity so much larger than us? This is not to say we do not have an effect, but come on, really? We are going to destroy the world? We are really that self-centered, that egotistical?

Oh wait, we have to consider Al Gore. Maybe he is.

I know I am not. I am still humbled when I look up at the multitude of stars at night. I am still humbled standing at the edge of a canyon, looking down at the majesty of God's Creation. I am still humbled when I look at my hands and consider just how complex a mechanism the hand truly is. I am still humbled when I watch a storm's fury: waves tearing homes from the earth, winds destroying anything a human can erect, snow and fire snuffing out life easier than a birthday candle.

Stand against that power, O Man!, and weep. Stand against that power, and die. The chaotic life cycle and natural rhythms of the Earth are much more than we little men could ever hope to create, not to mention the effects of the Sun.

I may not be as humble as I should be, but I am still humble enough to recognize the power of God's Hand, and the ineffectiveness of Man's will against that power. I do not choose to offend God by attributing to mankind a power that we do not have. I do not choose to worship at the Gore's altar or bow to the preachings of the Warming Religion.

I choose to worship a true God and a religion of real hope, love, and truth.

Do not tell me we are rapidly destroying the Earth. Do not tell me we're all going to roast to death in a oven of our own creation.

My toes are still frozen from my commute.

Now where's my hot chocolate?

UPDATE:
Apparently I am not alone. Just saw this little piece--

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate.... Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.

“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”

Wow. I feel validated. And he is not alone either; the article says that a second CNN meteorologist has taken issue with the whole global warming conspiracy religion theory.

And I am still waiting for my hot chocolate.

Baaaaaa-aaaaaa

Well.

They've spoken.

They listened to what the rest of the world wanted, instead of what we needed. And they've spoken.


God bless America God save America.

We're gonna need it.

Naturally Blonde

I must say ahead of time that I am sorry if I offend any blondes or blonde-related readers today. But this must be shared.

From FoxNews.com: Judge Tosses Hair Dye Lawsuit for Blonde Who Had Less Fun as Brunette

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — A judge has brushed off a Connecticut woman's claim that L'Oreal Inc. ruined her social life when she accidentally dyed her hair brunette with one of its products.

Charlotte Feeney of Stratford said she can never return to her natural blonde hue, a shock that left her so traumatized she needed anti-depressants.

She says she suffered headaches and anxiety, missed the attention that blondes receive and had to stay home and wear hats most of the time.

A Superior Court judge dismissed Feeney's 2005 lawsuit Monday, saying she never proved her allegation that L'Oreal put brown hair dye in a box labeled as blonde. The company also had disputed the claim.

Feeney's attorney, David Laudano, declined to comment and she could not be reached after the judge's decision.

OK. Is it just me, or does this woman truly, truly epitomize blondeness? (Blondinity? Blondification?)

I will admit that I do not have much experience with hair dyes, but c'mon ladies, help me out here.... It grows out, does it not? Hair dye ain't permanent, is it? I mean, that's what keeps L'Oreal in business, right? Repeat customers?

OK, sure.... It may take a while to grow out...but was it really L'Oreal's decision that Ms. Feeney stay home? Really?

It's a good thing that Mr. Laudano declined to comment. He should be ashamed of even filing the stupid case.

I'm hoping it's just because he's blonde too.

What does this say about my profession? What does this say about our society? What, she couldn't read the label where it said "Brown" not "Blonde" before applying the dye? Really? or is it just a case of everyone trying to hit the Lawsuit Lottery?

Bankruptcy attorneys are not generally well-thought of among attorneys; our clients are not flashy or wealthy and we usually don't get rich from the practice. But we all console ourselves with one thing:

We're not personal injury/tort lawyers.

UPDATE:

Apparently her blonde brother sells cars. Also from FoxNews: Woman, 90, Dies After Crashing New Sports Car

POMPANO BEACH, Fla. — A 90-year-old woman was killed when she lost control of her new sports car and slammed into a pole, authorities said.

State motor vehicle records show that Maria Brunetti, of Pompano Beach, got the 2009 Dodge Challenger Friday on her birthday. A Broward Sheriff's spokesman said the car's odometer only showed 151 miles.

Detectives believe that Brunetti lost control Sunday when she accelerated instead of braking while trying to make a turn. The car hit a concrete pole and caught fire with Brunetti and her son, 47-year-old Peter Brunetti, trapped inside.

Witnesses pulled the them from the burning car, and fire-rescue took them to the hospital. The woman was pronounced dead a short time later, and her son was in serious condition.

I have more sense, tact, taste, and pathos than to say anything ill against the dead. I truly feel for this poor woman; my own grandfather mistook the gas for the brake on several occasions, one of which cost my family a garage door. So I feel for this woman and her family.

But the salesman.... He must have been blonde.

I don't want to think there are people that greedy, that desperate to make a commission.

Think about it. Did he not have a moral obligation to say, "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but isn't this big muscle car just maybe a bit too much car for you? We have this nice little car over here, although it costs much less."

He sold a 90-year-old woman a dang muscle car. A $23,000 muscle car.

That's not to say that he should be sued, or found liable in any way in her death. Please, you should know me better than that by now. She was an adult; I'm guessing her son went with her as well. He too is an adult. They made the choice.Do not pick up the phone to call David Laudano about this case. The salesman was not complicit in her death.

But he may just have been a bit blonde.

Jotting Tittles

Just about every blogger I know has "Random Thoughts" now and then. Today I dip my foot in the Pool of Perambulating Posts and meander through a morass of miscellany. These thoughts may not have anything to do with one another, or may be connected on some subconscious level. We will just have to wait and see what comes out, I suppose. Who knows, they could even lead to longer posts. I just have a bunch of stuff rattling around in my head this morning.

First: A shout-out to the woman I passed at the bus stop this morning while I was walking to work. She was nicely dressed and professional looking, so I do not believe she was one of the many homeless people that congregate around the local mission in the mornings. She was just standing, waiting for the bus; as I approached her, she threw up her arms and sang out, "Holy! Holy! Holy!" and began to sing some Gospel music as I passed her and continued down the street. I could hear her for almost the next two blocks. What a completely unexpected, but certainly positive and uplifting way to start your day. Thank you, ma'am.

Second: I noticed on the news that John McCain made a promise during Debate #2 last night, a promise to have the Federal Reserve buy up all the so-called "bad loans" and to renegotiate the terms so that people can afford to pay their mortgages. I have heard a lot of this the past few months since the housing market really started to tank; people on both sides of the political aisle calling for mercy for those who "got roped" into "bad loans" and were "taken advantage of" because they "did not know what they were doing." Now, I certainly appreciate and agree that there are many of those people out there; I see plenty of examples every day. However, there were a lot of gamblers and risk-takers that certainly knew exactly what they were doing. Oddly enough, the politicians calling for "mercy" for these poor citizens were the same politicians that, three years ago, refused to acknowledge that mercy was necessary for the "poor people" who were "suckered" into credit card use who "did not know what they were doing." These are the same people who refused to listen to calls for mercy while meddling with castrating criminalizing destroying amending the Bankruptcy Code. Hmmm. Mercy for abused home-buyers, no mercy for abusive credit card users. Anyone know what the difference is between 2005 and 2008? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? That's right, 2008 is an election year. I checked last night: McCain voted for the Bankruptcty reform bill; Obama voted against it.

Third: A very conservative friend of mine--let's call him "Bob"--was talking with me and others the other day. As we talked, our discussion turned to politics. Unfortunately. This very conservative friend--Bob--voiced his stance: "I'm voting for Obama. No question in my mind." As we all knew his typically-conservative stance on life, we were all taken aback. Bob said, "I just think he's the candidate that can 'bring us all together.'" {Aside: This one is definitely a post topic of its own.} As another of my friends began to badger Bob, Bob merely shook his head and said, "Don't bother me with facts; I already know who I'm voting for." I became frightened. Now: I have not yet made up my own mind as to who will be receiving my vote, although I do know at least one person that will NOT receiving my vote, and while I have strong feelings about Senator Obama, that was not the source of my fright." Don't bother me with facts." Ugh. The very thought that people can and do exercise their right to vote without wanting to know any facts about the candidate, the issues, etc.... THAT frightens me. Sure, you have the right to do so, but the rest of us have to suffer for your stubborn stupidity! Ahem. Sorry. Lost control there for a minute. In all truthfulness, I really do not care whether you vote for Obama, McCain, or Joseph Stalin for President, so long as you do informed while you do it. This is not March Madness, where you can pick a team based on its school colors or the designs of the uniforms. Just get informed. Please.

Fourth: I found out this morning that, for the first time, this blog came up in a Google search for... well, what can only be described as "bviously puerile and titillating information." I shuddered. Actually, I may have thrown up in my mouth a little bit. Yeah. There's a milestone.

UPDATE: And then I go and name today's post what I did. The first one was an accident; now I am just looking for trouble, aren't I? Well, maybe someone will look at one of my blogposts instead of their naughty pictures and I will have done someone some good today.

Fifth: Not to sound too goulish, but I have to express a little bit of gratitude for the economic downturn. I truly feel sorry for those who are suffering, particularly those who are completely innocent in the fate in which they find themselves. That being said, I have been nice and busy for the past three weeks at the office. "Frantic" may be a better word. Maybe now is the time to find out just how much the Boss values me. Heh. If only he was in town.

Sacramental Blunders

Melanie over at The Write Stuff has inspired me today. The stories of cultural horrification. Horrendous but hilarious happenings at cultural events.

While the majority of the comments involved public, secular events (dances, concerts, plays, and the like), it occurred to me that these things happen at sacred events as well.

It put me instantly in mind of a man in our LDS Ward. I am pretty sure that every ward has one of these gentlemen. He is a man who has no grasp of the concept of "volume" where the human voice is involved. He also has issues with common sense courtesy. He is also the one that can be counted on to stand in Sunday School and somehow inevitably bring up topics of questionable doctrinal value and/or truth. "Did Adam have a belly-button" anyone?

You know exactly who I mean, do you not?

Several months ago, just as the first counselor in the Bishopric stood up to begin Sacrament Meeting, and the organist stopped playing the prelude music--in that brief moment of relative silence, a cell phone went off.

Yep. It was this gentleman's phone. He was sitting five rows from the front of the chapel.

He answered the phone and began talking. Not whispering. Talking. The first counselor waited for five or ten seconds for the gentleman to stop talking and hang up.

It quickly became obvious that he was not going to finish his conversation quickly. It was also quickly apparent that it was his absent wife calling him from home. "Yes, we're in Sacrament Meeting." "Yes, I'm in the Chapel." "No, I told them you were sick and they gave me a copy of the lesson." "No, I'll be home when it's over."

After the first ten seconds, the gentleman fell silent and the first counselor figured he could start the meeting. As he worked his way through the announcements, however, he found himself competing with this brother's conversation. "Next week will be a...." "Yes, it looks like I'll have to fly to Florida after all." "Then on the 14th the youth will be...." "No, I'll pack tomorrow morning. It will be OK."

This literally went on for the first three minutes of the meeting.

(Interestingly, Dallin H. Oaks just now made the point in General Conference that Sacrament Meetings were not a place for whispered conversations on cell phones. I would assume that included conversations that were not whispered.)

After competing with this brother for three minutes--even raising his voice to try and be heard over him (and with the Bishop increasing the volume on the microphone), the first counselor finally just stopped. He stopped talking completely. The only sound was this brother's talking.

The pause was pregnant.

Everyone waited; everyone listened; heads were shaking and members were trying not to laugh out loud.

He finally--obliviously--finished up his conversation with a loud, "I love you too." He hung up and the first counselor waited five beats before progressing.

To this day I am convinced that this brother is completely clueless about having stopped Sacrament Meeting cold.

Class Act?

Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech....

Buckle up. I am bound to offend someone today; keep in mind that any perceived offense is not intentional. Before I begin my rant I just want it understood that I revel in my ability--my freedom--to express myself how, where, and when I want. I fully support and uphold your freedom to do the same. That freedom--that right--is one of the things that makes America the greatest country on the Earth.

{Aside: That and Twinkies. Seriously: little sponge cakes with frosting inside? Who else but an American could have made such a thing? Thank you, James Dewar.
But I digress....}

That being said, I still have the right to mock you or take exception to the things you say or how you express this freedom. I can still support your ability to say the things you say, but I do not necessarily have to like them. My not liking them is not "censorship" or an abridging of that freedom. {Point of order: No-one but a governmental entity can actually infringe on someone's Constitutional rights. That is something a lot of people tend to forget.}

I open my browser this morning and what do I see?

Yahoo! tells me here that Josh Howard, a player for the Dallas Mavericks of the NBA, has opened his mouth and shown just how much class he has.

Again: I respect his right to speak his mind.

I just think that he may have lost his mind. Or his class. Or his tact. You decide.

In a video posted on YouTube, Howard is shown on a football field at a charity flag football game. As the national anthem plays in the background, Howard approaches a cameran and says, "'The Star Spangled Banner' is going on right now. I don't even celebrate that (expletive). I'm black."

Excuse me?

Maybe I am naive. Maybe I have been living in a cave. But somehow, for some reason, I was under the apparently incorrect assumption that black Americans lived in the same America that I do.

At least, that's what I interpret his comments to mean: I'm black, not American. Am I wrong? Please. Tell me if I am.

What is this comment? From whence does it come and what is its basis? On one level, does this idiot realize that it is, in part, this "(expletive)" that has allowed him to make the ridiculous amounts of money he has made from playing a game for a living? In the words of a local sports talk show host from my college days: It's a game. A darn fun one, but only a game. Does he really think that he'd make anywhere near as much money playing somewhere basketball elsewhere in the world.

Send him to China. Let's see what his bankroll looks like then.

Is this just a dumb jock athlete basketball player mouthing off? Is this part of a small subculture in America that feels this way? Is it maybe due to his feeling of entitlement as a dumb jock athlete basketball player that he is somehow more than just a mere entertainer? That people care about his opinion of this country? (Again, I respect his freedom to have that opinion, remember.)

Okay. My fuse is lit: I had convinced myself that some of the furor over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments about America--as well as Michelle Obama's comments about America--had been overblown and overplayed by the Republicans. Now? I'm not so sure anymore.

We have a Reverend calling for the damnation of America.

We have the wife of a Senator / Presidential candidate proclaiming that she is finally proud of America.

And we have an over-rated pseudo-celebrity glandular case comparing (take your pick) the national anthem, America, and/or American traditions to "(expletive)."

Wow.

Good thing the First Amendment is in place. Think about what would happen without it. Think about where these people would be without the good old American values they hold so dear contemptible.

The good Reverend would be doubly lost without the guarantee of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Michelle Obama? Take a look around the world and see what happens to "outspoken" (I acknowledge this is not the best choice of words) women: Pakastani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto? Tibetan nun Phuntsog Nyidron? How about Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Agathe Uwilingiyimana?

Again, I could be naive, but I am pretty sure that all of these women had more than a little pride in their individual countries.

And we've already discussed just how much our little game-player could earn elsewhere in the world. Let's take it one step further: imagine playing for an Iranian National team... or the Chinese National team... or the (fill in the blank) National team. What do you think would happen if he refused to acknowledge the National Anthem of his host country? if he insulted the Anthem or his host country itself? How long would he continue to play his game?

How long before he was "disappeared"?

How much play would anything said by these three get in a country dominated by, say, the Taliban?

Anyone? Anyone?

That's what I thought.

Back to my original point--Mr. Howard, you may not like what the country stands for, you may not want to celebrate what you term: "(expletive)", and you have every right to speak your mind. Your so-called "(expletive)" gives you that right.

You may just want to recognize that the rest of us have our OWN right to speak OUR minds as well.

And like it or not, all of us red-blooded Americans who may not like our country likened to "(expletive)" by someone getting paid outrageously for a playground game? We red-blooded Americans that buy NBA tickets, merchandise, and programming?

We red-blooded Americans pay your salary, kiddo.