Hello Everyone;
This link is for something so profoundly simply, but so very necessary. I hope you will click on it and watch - I don't think you will be disappointed.
Sometimes when I reblog a post from Milkboys I feel a bit silly. They have such a huge readership I can only presume you all have read it. So, maybe it's just that it interests me and I want to be sure I have a link somewhere so I can find it again. Maybe there's that one person who missed it on Milkboys and my pointing to it prompts a second look. Maybe I've just wasted five minutes and should just give you the link and shut up. Yeah, maybe.... ok, here it is. It's great, please watch.
http://milkboys.org/article/the-myth-of-the-gay-agenda/
Saturday, June 23, 2012
The Right to Parent
Hello Friends;
As many of you who have read this blog know, I have some trigger topics. Gay rights. Child rights.
Human rights. Dogs. Music. ..... there's a few more, but those catch my attention.
This morning I was looking through my email. I saw an article on Yahoo's front page that caught my eye. (HERE) It was about a father losing custody of his children and them coming up to be adopted because of his weight.
Now, normally on Saturdays, I am off to a pet rescue adoption event - provided I'm in town. Today I just don't have the time or the stamina - this new job is wearing me out! But, in thinking about this man's rights to have his children, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with Scottie somewhat recently. You see, to adopt a dog or cat from this rescue organization, there are certain requirements: One must have a stable home capable of having the animal. For instance: placing a high energy large breed in an apartment is a poor combination. Secondly, if you've had a pet in the past, what vet. was used? We will check with the vet to be sure there were no abuse issues. There are costs involved in adopting - mostly to help cover the neuter, shots and microchip - so to a small extent, financial ability to care for the pet is sort of considered. Long end of the deal: we want to be sure placing a pet in this person's home is a good "forever" match.
So, let's consider the requirements for having a child: Man. Woman. Sex. 9-months and a lot of sweat. Bingo, it's a baby. How to care for it? How to afford it? Well, rarely does that come up. It's a slope that once started down becomes dicey at best. For instance, can we tell someone they are not allowed to have a child because they are very overweight? That's what happened to this man.
What would be next? You can't have a child because you don't make enough money? What constitutes enough money? Should one have to be married to have a child? Hetero only? What if the government decided that we would need a license to have a child - like we need to drive a car, a boat, have a dog? Could we have racial profiling used to steer acceptance? How big of a mess could this become?
And in amongst this mess are all these small souls who had no real vote in the matter of coming into the world and want only to be cared for and loved. Who can now love and care for them? Can a gay couple - male or female pair - adopt them? Love them? Help them grow into great people? Well, not really - the power mad declare that a child is best raised in a loving environment of hetero persuasion, don't you know. Which is much like saying that everyone should drive a brand new four wheel drive who live in snowy environments.... great to say, but unlikely to occur. And, failing to provide what they deem ideal, then the answer must be the limbo of foster care?
I guess in the end, I have no answer to any of this. Should that man lose his progeny because he is overweight? What is good enough reason? What really ought to be is that we as a people become responsible for our decisions, grow up, and do what is right. Until then, I guess we are going to be at the mercy of a government agency convinced it knows what's best - no matter how asinine.
What do you think?
As many of you who have read this blog know, I have some trigger topics. Gay rights. Child rights.
This morning I was looking through my email. I saw an article on Yahoo's front page that caught my eye. (HERE) It was about a father losing custody of his children and them coming up to be adopted because of his weight.
Now, normally on Saturdays, I am off to a pet rescue adoption event - provided I'm in town. Today I just don't have the time or the stamina - this new job is wearing me out! But, in thinking about this man's rights to have his children, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with Scottie somewhat recently. You see, to adopt a dog or cat from this rescue organization, there are certain requirements: One must have a stable home capable of having the animal. For instance: placing a high energy large breed in an apartment is a poor combination. Secondly, if you've had a pet in the past, what vet. was used? We will check with the vet to be sure there were no abuse issues. There are costs involved in adopting - mostly to help cover the neuter, shots and microchip - so to a small extent, financial ability to care for the pet is sort of considered. Long end of the deal: we want to be sure placing a pet in this person's home is a good "forever" match.
So, let's consider the requirements for having a child: Man. Woman. Sex. 9-months and a lot of sweat. Bingo, it's a baby. How to care for it? How to afford it? Well, rarely does that come up. It's a slope that once started down becomes dicey at best. For instance, can we tell someone they are not allowed to have a child because they are very overweight? That's what happened to this man.
What would be next? You can't have a child because you don't make enough money? What constitutes enough money? Should one have to be married to have a child? Hetero only? What if the government decided that we would need a license to have a child - like we need to drive a car, a boat, have a dog? Could we have racial profiling used to steer acceptance? How big of a mess could this become?
And in amongst this mess are all these small souls who had no real vote in the matter of coming into the world and want only to be cared for and loved. Who can now love and care for them? Can a gay couple - male or female pair - adopt them? Love them? Help them grow into great people? Well, not really - the power mad declare that a child is best raised in a loving environment of hetero persuasion, don't you know. Which is much like saying that everyone should drive a brand new four wheel drive who live in snowy environments.... great to say, but unlikely to occur. And, failing to provide what they deem ideal, then the answer must be the limbo of foster care?
I guess in the end, I have no answer to any of this. Should that man lose his progeny because he is overweight? What is good enough reason? What really ought to be is that we as a people become responsible for our decisions, grow up, and do what is right. Until then, I guess we are going to be at the mercy of a government agency convinced it knows what's best - no matter how asinine.
What do you think?
Friday, June 22, 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
Double Standard
Hello Friends;
I noticed this article in the Yahoo front page when checking my email. It struck me, why is it that when a politician lies to us, it's excused. But, should one of us lie to a politician, specifically congress, suddenly it's a problem. And why should it be? Don't they work for us? Aren't they our employees?
Ok, when it gets right down to it, neither is acceptable. But, you get my point. A lie is a lie, and putting a "political spin" on it makes it no less the lie. I am frankly so tired of outright fakery and lies from our "leaders" that I could spit. I couldn't imagine lying to my boss. So, tell me, if they are lying to us... who do they really work for? ~r
After eight weeks, 46 witnesses, two dozing jurors and an estimated $2 million-$3 million spent in taxpayer money, the Roger Clemens trial has finally come to a close.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/roger-clemens-verdict-not-guilty-six-counts-204828190--mlb.html
The verdict: Not guilty on three counts of making false statements, not guilty on two counts of perjury and not guilty on one count of obstruction. The charges stemmed from testimony that Clemens made in February 2008, telling a Congressional committee that he had never taken steroids or HGH. Prosecutors also alleged that Clemens intentionally made false statements that misled investigators.
Clemens faced a maximum sentence of 30 years and a $1.5 million fine if he had been convicted on all six counts, but he instead made out better than Barry Bonds. The all-time career home runs leader was hit with one charge of obstruction — but sentenced to no jail time — in his own perjury case.
Both Clemens and Bonds will hit the Hall of Fame ballot for the first time this winter and it's likely that neither will walk away happy with the results. Whether you agree with their stance or not, Cooperstown's voters carry a much lower burden of proof when it comes to the evidence that both used performance-enhancing drugs during their careers.
But like Bonds, Clemens benefited from the reasonable-doubt standard that's applied in a federal courtroom. Despite staging an exhaustive trial, federal prosecutors were unable to build a convincing case. Nor were they able to defeat the doubts that the defense raised about the motives and integrity of former Clemens trainer Brian McNamee.
So that's that. While we'll argue forever about the merits of the nation's lawmakers getting involved with baseball's steroid era, Clemens has escaped the legal process with no major damage except for a sizable lawyer bill. He'll face much more public scrutiny going forward, of course, but this trial was really never going to have any impact on the court of public opinion. Your view of Clemens before this verdict is probably the same as your view now.
Ok, when it gets right down to it, neither is acceptable. But, you get my point. A lie is a lie, and putting a "political spin" on it makes it no less the lie. I am frankly so tired of outright fakery and lies from our "leaders" that I could spit. I couldn't imagine lying to my boss. So, tell me, if they are lying to us... who do they really work for? ~r
After eight weeks, 46 witnesses, two dozing jurors and an estimated $2 million-$3 million spent in taxpayer money, the Roger Clemens trial has finally come to a close.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/roger-clemens-verdict-not-guilty-six-counts-204828190--mlb.html
The verdict: Not guilty on three counts of making false statements, not guilty on two counts of perjury and not guilty on one count of obstruction. The charges stemmed from testimony that Clemens made in February 2008, telling a Congressional committee that he had never taken steroids or HGH. Prosecutors also alleged that Clemens intentionally made false statements that misled investigators.
Clemens faced a maximum sentence of 30 years and a $1.5 million fine if he had been convicted on all six counts, but he instead made out better than Barry Bonds. The all-time career home runs leader was hit with one charge of obstruction — but sentenced to no jail time — in his own perjury case.
Both Clemens and Bonds will hit the Hall of Fame ballot for the first time this winter and it's likely that neither will walk away happy with the results. Whether you agree with their stance or not, Cooperstown's voters carry a much lower burden of proof when it comes to the evidence that both used performance-enhancing drugs during their careers.
But like Bonds, Clemens benefited from the reasonable-doubt standard that's applied in a federal courtroom. Despite staging an exhaustive trial, federal prosecutors were unable to build a convincing case. Nor were they able to defeat the doubts that the defense raised about the motives and integrity of former Clemens trainer Brian McNamee.
So that's that. While we'll argue forever about the merits of the nation's lawmakers getting involved with baseball's steroid era, Clemens has escaped the legal process with no major damage except for a sizable lawyer bill. He'll face much more public scrutiny going forward, of course, but this trial was really never going to have any impact on the court of public opinion. Your view of Clemens before this verdict is probably the same as your view now.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
To Life, Hope and Change!
Some look upon a scarred body as one that has received so much pain, agony, hurt... I think on the scars I've seen in some of my family who went through surgery. Older heart surgeries were huge for scars.
Yet, there is an odd thing about a scar.... it is a place where an injury occurred, yet it has healed. At least on the outside.
Now, I think upon the concept of the sore; of the phrase "opening a sore wound". Unhealed, barely scabbed over, aching, bleeding, frustrating and hobbling. So many of us have wounds that do not heal, that do not even give us the merit of showing scars, only weeping wounds that will just not leave us be. The tragedy upon all of that, it seems like scars are so evident where the seemingly more evident wounds would be easily seen yet are not. They hide, behind small corners, shadows, little small smiles and ineffective laughs, yet the persist. Staying closed until odd moments seem to bring them to the surface to be all but intolerably painful.
I am fortunate to have certain things scarred over and, if ugly, at least acceptable. They are memories of pain, yet no longer painful in themselves. And, like all of us, I have my wounds. I try to keep those covered. Every now and again, I peek, but mere acknowledgement comes with its own trauma.
I tell you this to speak about my choices of living alone. I choose that rather than let people close to me. I know it. I even have a good feel for why. Such is my life. And yet, every now and again a phrase hits me, and I realize that it still hurts.
I mentioned in a response to an earlier comment that I had seen a great show on PBS. http://www.anyoneandeveryone.com In that show, there were a few stories that had me empathizing and feeling their pain, even their hope and joy. And, in some, I felt the words strike deep to my soul. One of those phrases went sort of like this: 'Everyone needs someone to love - Someone to share the popcorn while watching a movie; Someone to wait with them as they see the doctor; Someone to pick them up at the airport, greeting them with a smile and a 'welcome home'.'
I don't honestly know what my future will bring. I like living alone, and I understand that in part it is to avoid opening those sores that seem to weep and bleed upon investigation but otherwise seem quite healed and scarred over nicely. I like that I come home and my dog is so happy to see me, loves to cuddle with me, be part of my family. Will I ever have anyone else? I don't know. For that matter, I don't even know if the dog will allow anyone else on the bed - there are times she barely allows me!
Now, I think upon the concept of the sore; of the phrase "opening a sore wound". Unhealed, barely scabbed over, aching, bleeding, frustrating and hobbling. So many of us have wounds that do not heal, that do not even give us the merit of showing scars, only weeping wounds that will just not leave us be. The tragedy upon all of that, it seems like scars are so evident where the seemingly more evident wounds would be easily seen yet are not. They hide, behind small corners, shadows, little small smiles and ineffective laughs, yet the persist. Staying closed until odd moments seem to bring them to the surface to be all but intolerably painful.
I am fortunate to have certain things scarred over and, if ugly, at least acceptable. They are memories of pain, yet no longer painful in themselves. And, like all of us, I have my wounds. I try to keep those covered. Every now and again, I peek, but mere acknowledgement comes with its own trauma.
I mentioned in a response to an earlier comment that I had seen a great show on PBS. http://www.anyoneandeveryone.com In that show, there were a few stories that had me empathizing and feeling their pain, even their hope and joy. And, in some, I felt the words strike deep to my soul. One of those phrases went sort of like this: 'Everyone needs someone to love - Someone to share the popcorn while watching a movie; Someone to wait with them as they see the doctor; Someone to pick them up at the airport, greeting them with a smile and a 'welcome home'.'
I don't honestly know what my future will bring. I like living alone, and I understand that in part it is to avoid opening those sores that seem to weep and bleed upon investigation but otherwise seem quite healed and scarred over nicely. I like that I come home and my dog is so happy to see me, loves to cuddle with me, be part of my family. Will I ever have anyone else? I don't know. For that matter, I don't even know if the dog will allow anyone else on the bed - there are times she barely allows me! Past injuries ought to be in the past. Passed. Gone. Yet, hobbled and frustrated, pains come back to all of us, I guess. Still, there is hope, still there is life. Here's to life, hope and change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)