OK so, a discussion group I belong to had a post from a member that contained a newsletter excerpt from the oh-so-wise *gag* Gary Bauer where, like your typical neocon, he completely distorts, rewords, and lies about Sen. Ted Kennedy's speech recently. In part, it reads:
Hope Or Despair?
Today brought some good news from Iraq – the capture of two more of terrorist thug Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's top aides. No doubt the arrest earlier this week of the man in charge of car bombings produced intelligence information that led to these arrests. Meanwhile, Iraqis all over the world, including here in the United States, started voting today.
The "main event" in Iraq itself is on Sunday. All Americans can feel a sense of pride in the knowledge that our young men and women in uniform have sacrificed greatly in order to secure liberty for the Iraqi people.
But here in the United States, the Senate's biggest "naysayer,"Senator Ted Kennedy, chose yesterday to deliver a major foreign policy speech in which he called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Kennedy said U.S. troops, who he claimed to support, "are fanning the flames ofconflict." He added, "the war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation."
Perhaps Senator Kennedy can explain to us why, if he is correct, thugs like Zarqawi are killing other Iraqis as often as they attack U.S. soldiers. The fact is that the violence in Iraq is a struggle over the future of theMiddle East with profound implications for the future of our children too.
Will the region be controlled by bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the Baathists of Syria and the mullahs of Iran? Or can freedom take root and bring this breeding ground of Islamofascism and terrorism into the civilized world?
Once again, Senator Kennedy has embraced defeat and despair at the very moment when hope and strength are needed most. I still remember another Kennedy standing on the steps of the Capitol andspeaking these memorable words: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Of course, being the person that *I* am, I refuted, point by point, the stupidity of statements like "why are they targeting civilians," etc? Frankly, I get so sick of people perpetuating this type of crap -- they perpetuate it because they're on some "Christian" mailing list and they BELIEVE this type of propaganda. Often I lose patience but there's one member of this discussion group who always seems to stay logical, rational, and right on. With her permission, I'd like to share a response of hers - it's long but SO worth the read! Thanks to michiaj.
Here is some of what your post made me think about. First, about people like Gary Bauer...I don't consider him a "true" conservative. I see him as a pharisee or a saducee...a legalist who believes that his way is the only way...that is not a conservative or American value. Conservative American values have always been that we each have a right to believe, worship, and live in freedom. Not freedom according to Gary Bauer, but in our own true pursuit of liberty, justice, and happiness. If Gary, (and others) were true conservatives, they would still have and express strong religious beliefs, but they would fight to the death for yours and my freedom to believe, worship and live according to our own beliefs. They don't...they fight tooth and nail to enforce their beliefs on us.That violates a true conservative principal.
Second, I don't think we can even say, "Well, we don't agree on everything but I still think he is a good man with good intentions." Lies are lies. Misleading is misleading. Lying to people, blatantly, misquoting, misrepresenting other people is dishonest...so it isn't just a matter of "disagreeing." It is blatant attempts to manipulate huge numbers of people from behind a pulpit. When you do so deliberately (and they cannot say it isn't deliberate---he had a copy of the speech, they twist numbers and studies long after the authors of those studies have come out and TOLD them they are misrepresenting them and not being honest about them) then you lose the right to say "I meant well...."
If we look at even just this most recent example of this report or article that he sent out in which he so blatantly misquoted and misrepresented the facts, we have to ask: "Why???" If he cannot support his beliefs without resorting to lies, then are his beliefs defensible? That's the problem when you start stretching and manipulating the truth--the very fact that you had to resort to such methods indicates there is a weakness in your argument.
As far as 9/11...the vote...all of that...I believe that the propaganda machines have done a very good job of creating this idea that anyone who believes Bush is doing a bad job in Iraq didn't care about 9/11, or has forgotten it, or that they don't want terrorists defeated. It is so way off base I almost don't know where to begin.
I remember 9/11. It happened the day before I was supposed to give my partner her 40th birthday party. She begged me to cancel it and I did. We watched the television for hours and we wept profusely. Every time I heard one of the recorded calls from people in the towers telling loved ones goodbye...my heart was ripped from my chest. I literally was watching when the second plane hit the other tower. I think we all walked around numb with pain and shock...I don't think cutting off one of our own limbs would have produced more numbness...more shock.
After 9/11 the entire world gathered around us...the entire world was ready to stand with us and go after terrorists. The entire world was sick of the violence and sick of terrorists. I believe we did the right thing going into Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to cough up Bin Laden...and then something happened...the focus started to change. Instead of doing all the things Bush said we would in Afghanistan--rebuilding roads, schools, hospitals...we started like little boys playing with firecrackers looking for something new to blow up. We fulfilled less than 10% of the rebuilding we promised (to this day)...and we started pouring money into a war in Iraq...and at first they tried to connect that war in Iraq with 9/11...over and over the connection was made--then later "We never said that..."
Don't you find it just a little bit odd that even though Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld all now say "We never said there was a connection between Iraq and Al Quaida" that you yourself still see a connection there? It is because it was a very carefully and very cunningly crafted idea planted in the hearts and minds of the American people...so they would support a war in Iraq...
But then they said, "Weapons of mass destruction..." Over and over they said it, and over and over they emphasized "We KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT there are weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam is planning on using them..." They ignored the inspectors, they ignored even American CIA agents and reports who kept sending memos up the line refuting their "intelligence." In fact, the guy who put the line BACK into Bush's speech about Hussein obtaining uranium from Nigeria after a CIA fact checker took it OUT of the speech because he said they already KNEW IT WAS FALSE INFORMATION--the guy who put it BACK IN got promoted!!?
Then it became, well we went in to "liberate" the people. Great, I am all for helping others to have freedom and liberty, especially if they are being killed by the thousands...except the mass graves were NOT being filled currently...the mass executions took place back when the US was sending Rumsfeld to shake hands with Hussein (the Reagan administration) and back when Bush senior was allowing biological samples like smallpox and anthrax to be SOLD TO IRAQ. Hussein murdered tens of thousands of Kurdish people, men, women, children, using biological weapons in the 80's!!! We never heard about it back then...partly because WE SOLD THEM the makings!! By the time we went into Iraq there were no more mass executions. The torture and prisons? Well we replaced their gaurds with ours. Because the Bush administration developed a policy of "sweeps" in which they picked up men, women, and children, literally off the street and put them in jail for interrogation. Our new Attorney General, as White House Council, wrote a memo that was passed down the line of command that said, "Geneva Convention laws are not applicable" and paved the way for methods of torture and humiliation that Americans should be incredibly ashamed of....all used on the same people we were "liberating."
In the meantime, even though we have captured 3/4 of the people said to "lead" Al Quaida, world wide intelligence shows that Al Quaida has quadrupled in numbers...they are four times as strong as they were before 9/11. Why the explosion in numbers? Because the Arab countries that grieved with us, stood with us, after 9/11 now believe that Bush has used this as an excuse to build an American empire...because Arab countries that believed we truly did want to bring freedom to Iraqi's now believe that the elections are a ruse, and that we will still put our "puppets" in place...like we put Hussein in place (something Americans forget--we helped him get into power, and we remained an ally right through his mass murders...)
In Iraq itself, when we first went in, the insurgents were small, isolated...but as the stories of torture have come out, as they have seen more and more of their children lying in hospitals, more and more of them have started to believe what the insurgents have told them--that Americans are there to protect oil interests and to create a puppet government.
So why did they vote in spite of the dangers? Because it is their only hope. Even if they think it is rigged, the only hope is to go and vote so that you can stand up and say, this is how I voted if you believe the Americans rigged it. They still hold onto hope that somehow freedom will come, but if you are listening to them, one of those freedoms they long for is FROM Americans.
The administration wants you and me and everyone to believe that they are the guys in the white hats who stand for freedom and liberty—even while they sit at home attacking my family. Even while they literally lie and bully in our own country.
Again, I have to ask...if their aims and their goals and their execution of their tasks are innocent and pure, why do they have to lie all the time? Why force government employees to put out reports without numbers, or with false numbers? Why promote people who give you BAD information deliberately (when it is removed for inaccuracy and then you put it right back in, it is deliberate) and fire people who say "No that isn't right"...? If you have to do so many bad things to accomplish your goals, can the goals be better than the means of achieving them?
We MUST get away from this entrenched idea that if people don't support Bush's errors, lies, ineptitude, that they didn't care about 9/11 or terrorism. Of course we all care about and remember them. We want to deal with them in ways that do not create MORE Of them.
I'll tell you what would have struck the greatest blow to terrorism and al Qaeda and would have encouraged democracy more than anything Bush has done--if we had done exactly what we had said we would in Afghanistan. If we had focused all our efforts right there...get Bin Laden, and while we were looking for him, poured even 1/10th of the money we have poured into Iraq on building schools and hospitals, kept a peacekeeping force there that would actually protect the girls' schools (the majority of women there still cannot go to school because when they do they are killed...), made Afghanistan a shining example of how we want to help people...then we would have taken away the recruiting tools of Al Quaida.
Want to know how they recruit? They show pictures of children with half their bodies blown away by "Shock and Awe." They show our telecasts where we oohed and ahhhed over our own powerfulness, and then they show the children hit by those bombs...they show videos of Bush saying we would rebuild Afganistan, and make it better, freer, then they show how most of the country still doesn't have usable roads, schools, or hospitals...and that all of our forces are stationed along the oil pipeline...
They do the same things that AFA, FOF, CWA do: they use religious doctrine, and they lie, and they point to one group of people who are out to destroy them (except for Al quaida, they use "Americans" in place of "gays") and they lie and they twist the truth and they scare parents and teens by saying, "if you don't help us stop them, they will destroy your family, your country."
Why does a sixteen year old boy strap explosives to his chest and walk into a crowd and detonate it? Hate? There is some hate there, yes, but it is hate born of something...what is the birthplace of that hate? Bush says it is hate of our freedoms...think about it. Is that deep enough? Really? "I hate the fact that your women can drive to the store without a male so I will blow myself up and die?" No...they are told, shown, that Americans are coming to kill your brothers and sisters and mother and father...they want all of us dead...see how they drop bombs on civilians? See how they arrest hundreds and torture them in Hussein's prisons? If you do not help us, they will come for YOUR family. Help us, sacrifice your life, and protect your family, your religion.
What Bush's policies and actions and even words "Bring it on!!" has done is to make it so they don't even have to work hard to come up with their propaganda...
Whew!! Sorry it is so long...but I wanted to explain all of why the whole "Well, we may not be entirely honest, but we are pure" ideas don't work...they don't work when you are a religious leader using dishonest means to express your faith, and they don't work when you are a world leader who says they are spreading freedom and liberty yet you do and say the opposite...
I hope that, after reading this, you said "WOW" too, like I did.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Monday, January 24, 2005
Words of Wisdom
I'd like to share a quote I saw on another web site today:
"Those who claim that homosexual people threaten to dismantle the value of heterosexual marriage would do well to remember that if anyone destroys marriage, it is married people, not gays and lesbians." -- Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short, Moderator of the United Church of Canada in an open letter to all members of Parliament.
Has anyone ever gotten a real answer to the question "How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten, devalue, undermine or otherwise harm the institution of marriage?"
We see all sorts of rhetoric regarding "protecting the children" from gay marriage, but isn't marriage how we protect those children?
I saw one member of Congress (or the Senate?) a few months ago commenting that, if we allowed gay marriage, more children would be born out of wedlock. HUH? I couldn't figure out the logic in that statement. If gays and lesbians were allowed to marry, then these children would not be born out of wedlock. By denying these marriages, those same children will be born out of wedlock and, denying those marriages won't prevent those children from being born anyway.
I find it pitiful that these homophobes would hide behind children -- but then again, they use "protect the children" for the emotional effect it produces, not as a matter of any real logic or rationalization.
"It's not natural" is another one of my favorite arguments. Says who? Throughout the world, homosexuality has been found in almost every living species. While the argument can be made that these are unintelligent animals without the ability to reason, it is exactly that which defeats the argument that homosexuality is a choice, isn't it?
"These people just want to indoctrinate more children into the homosexual lifestyle." Then who indoctrinated us? Our straight parents?
"These people want to redefine marriage -- they want to re-shape the tradition of marriage, something that has been defined throughout the history of man." If marriage had not been redefined, women would still be sold as chattel for a large dowery by their fathers. If marriage had not been redefined, marriages would still be "arranged" and would not be based on mutual love and respect for each other -- it'd still be a business deal based on what's best for the larger family. If marriage had not been redefined, mothers would still be in the home, cooking and cleaning and raising the kids while their husbands earned the only paycheck to come into the house. They would also be subject to whatever abuse their husbands heaped upon them. If marriage were to be exactly as it originated, there would be a requirement that the wife be a virgin, or face cruel penalties.
Don't tell me that we want to "redefine" marriage -- the heterosexuals have done that throughout history in order to adapt to the times, cultures, and societal needs. Why else would it be easy to get married in a marriage-mill chapel in Las Vegas, or get a "quickie divorce" in Mexico? Why else would there be "no fault, no contest" divorces where it allows the couple to just give up on the marriage and walk away?
And what about the Gen-X'ers who now have the term "starter marriage" to describe a first marriage where they "learn" about marriage and, if it doesn't work out, they walk away?
"Marriage and family experts — psychologists, sociologists, lawyers and clergy — are beginning to look at these brief young unions, seeing in their implications a barometer of society's attitudes about marriage and divorce. Some say starter marriages signal the need for more premarital counseling."—Deborah Schupack, "'Starter' Marriages: So Early, So Brief," The New York Times, July 7, 1994
Doesn't this redefine marriage? How does two people wanting to make a lifetime commitment to each other, fighting tooth and nail to make that commitment, redefine the essence of marriage? Isn't this exactly what marriage is all about? Love, respect, commitment, walking through the fires of hell for the sake of the relationship?
Then there's the "If homosexuals get married, they'll do it just for kicks and there will be more divorces for them." Just for kicks...you mean like Brittany Spears? You mean like a lot of heterosexual couples who get married for all the wrong reasons? This "We'll save them from themselves" mentality makes me want to vomit sometimes.
Do people really believe this drivel, or are they just parrotting what they hear on the television from the likes of Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart?
And let's talk about these two guys here for a minute.
Jerry Falwell attacked a children's television character (Tinky Winkie) claiming that it was a symbol for homosexuality with his purple color, triangle head, and purse. In the first place, the Teletubbies are basically genderless. So how do we know it's improper for one or any of them to carry a purse? Secondly, the triangle doesn't have to represent anything, especially when another character has a circle on its head, and another has what appears to be a lightning bolt on its head. Should we infer, per Mr. Falwell, that the lightning bold signifies the darkness of Satan? Should we infer that the circle looks more like a bulls-eye to advocate less restrictive laws on gun control? Doesn't this guy have anything better to do than to attack children's television programming?
Jimmy Swaggart really messed up when he said, in front of a live audience on a program televised throughout the country, "If one of them looked at me in that way, I'd kill him and tell God he died." It's bad enough that Jimmy Swaggart, with that one statement, advocated violence against gays just for a LOOK and THEN HE'D LIE TO GOD ABOUT IT, but what I found more disturbing was that the audience applauded him. He later apologized, but hasn't that damage already been done? And this from a confessed pornography addict and patron of prostitutes? This from a man who is rumored to have had extramarital affairs? This from the man who described the prophet Muhammad as a pervert" and a "sex deviant?"
Why is it that these so-called "Men of God" use lies, deceit, and hatred to convince people that homosexuality is wrong? Most likely because they can't justify it in any other way -- they're not content to teach their followers to read the Bible, and pray for understanding of what the Bible means. No, they have to take it a step further and incite violence against gays, tell people that the gay community is after their children [“It’s one thing to say, `We have rights to jobs...we have rights to be left alone in out little corner of the world to do our thing.’ It’s an entirely different thing to say, well, `We’re not only going to go into the schools and we’re going to take your children and your grandchildrenand turn them into homosexuals.’ Now that’s wrong.” -- Pat Robertson, 700 Club] and to make people AFRAID of homosexuals -- fear is the most powerful motivator known to man and you can't tell me that these men who claim to speak the word of God don't know this and use it to promote and spin their own personal brand of hate.
I'm often reminded of a line from the movie "Oh God!" Paul Sorvino plays the Reverend Willie Williams, a Falwell/Robertson/Swaggart sort of minister who is suing Jerry Landers (played by John Denver) for libel and slander after Landers, in front of a television audience, branded Williams a fraud after having conversed with God concerning the reverend. Jerry tells the minister "God says that you claim to be spreading God's words, but the problem is, you ran out of Gods words a long time ago" (not an exact quote).
I think these televangelists and the Pope have long since run out of God's words, too. They use their power and position to strike fear in the hearts of the faithful, and teach hate, intolerance, and prejudice -- values which directly contradict those taught in the Bible.
Perhaps these guys need to open their Bibles and read them for a change?
"Those who claim that homosexual people threaten to dismantle the value of heterosexual marriage would do well to remember that if anyone destroys marriage, it is married people, not gays and lesbians." -- Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short, Moderator of the United Church of Canada in an open letter to all members of Parliament.
Has anyone ever gotten a real answer to the question "How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten, devalue, undermine or otherwise harm the institution of marriage?"
We see all sorts of rhetoric regarding "protecting the children" from gay marriage, but isn't marriage how we protect those children?
I saw one member of Congress (or the Senate?) a few months ago commenting that, if we allowed gay marriage, more children would be born out of wedlock. HUH? I couldn't figure out the logic in that statement. If gays and lesbians were allowed to marry, then these children would not be born out of wedlock. By denying these marriages, those same children will be born out of wedlock and, denying those marriages won't prevent those children from being born anyway.
I find it pitiful that these homophobes would hide behind children -- but then again, they use "protect the children" for the emotional effect it produces, not as a matter of any real logic or rationalization.
"It's not natural" is another one of my favorite arguments. Says who? Throughout the world, homosexuality has been found in almost every living species. While the argument can be made that these are unintelligent animals without the ability to reason, it is exactly that which defeats the argument that homosexuality is a choice, isn't it?
"These people just want to indoctrinate more children into the homosexual lifestyle." Then who indoctrinated us? Our straight parents?
"These people want to redefine marriage -- they want to re-shape the tradition of marriage, something that has been defined throughout the history of man." If marriage had not been redefined, women would still be sold as chattel for a large dowery by their fathers. If marriage had not been redefined, marriages would still be "arranged" and would not be based on mutual love and respect for each other -- it'd still be a business deal based on what's best for the larger family. If marriage had not been redefined, mothers would still be in the home, cooking and cleaning and raising the kids while their husbands earned the only paycheck to come into the house. They would also be subject to whatever abuse their husbands heaped upon them. If marriage were to be exactly as it originated, there would be a requirement that the wife be a virgin, or face cruel penalties.
Don't tell me that we want to "redefine" marriage -- the heterosexuals have done that throughout history in order to adapt to the times, cultures, and societal needs. Why else would it be easy to get married in a marriage-mill chapel in Las Vegas, or get a "quickie divorce" in Mexico? Why else would there be "no fault, no contest" divorces where it allows the couple to just give up on the marriage and walk away?
And what about the Gen-X'ers who now have the term "starter marriage" to describe a first marriage where they "learn" about marriage and, if it doesn't work out, they walk away?
"Marriage and family experts — psychologists, sociologists, lawyers and clergy — are beginning to look at these brief young unions, seeing in their implications a barometer of society's attitudes about marriage and divorce. Some say starter marriages signal the need for more premarital counseling."—Deborah Schupack, "'Starter' Marriages: So Early, So Brief," The New York Times, July 7, 1994
Doesn't this redefine marriage? How does two people wanting to make a lifetime commitment to each other, fighting tooth and nail to make that commitment, redefine the essence of marriage? Isn't this exactly what marriage is all about? Love, respect, commitment, walking through the fires of hell for the sake of the relationship?
Then there's the "If homosexuals get married, they'll do it just for kicks and there will be more divorces for them." Just for kicks...you mean like Brittany Spears? You mean like a lot of heterosexual couples who get married for all the wrong reasons? This "We'll save them from themselves" mentality makes me want to vomit sometimes.
Do people really believe this drivel, or are they just parrotting what they hear on the television from the likes of Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart?
And let's talk about these two guys here for a minute.
Jerry Falwell attacked a children's television character (Tinky Winkie) claiming that it was a symbol for homosexuality with his purple color, triangle head, and purse. In the first place, the Teletubbies are basically genderless. So how do we know it's improper for one or any of them to carry a purse? Secondly, the triangle doesn't have to represent anything, especially when another character has a circle on its head, and another has what appears to be a lightning bolt on its head. Should we infer, per Mr. Falwell, that the lightning bold signifies the darkness of Satan? Should we infer that the circle looks more like a bulls-eye to advocate less restrictive laws on gun control? Doesn't this guy have anything better to do than to attack children's television programming?
Jimmy Swaggart really messed up when he said, in front of a live audience on a program televised throughout the country, "If one of them looked at me in that way, I'd kill him and tell God he died." It's bad enough that Jimmy Swaggart, with that one statement, advocated violence against gays just for a LOOK and THEN HE'D LIE TO GOD ABOUT IT, but what I found more disturbing was that the audience applauded him. He later apologized, but hasn't that damage already been done? And this from a confessed pornography addict and patron of prostitutes? This from a man who is rumored to have had extramarital affairs? This from the man who described the prophet Muhammad as a pervert" and a "sex deviant?"
Why is it that these so-called "Men of God" use lies, deceit, and hatred to convince people that homosexuality is wrong? Most likely because they can't justify it in any other way -- they're not content to teach their followers to read the Bible, and pray for understanding of what the Bible means. No, they have to take it a step further and incite violence against gays, tell people that the gay community is after their children [“It’s one thing to say, `We have rights to jobs...we have rights to be left alone in out little corner of the world to do our thing.’ It’s an entirely different thing to say, well, `We’re not only going to go into the schools and we’re going to take your children and your grandchildrenand turn them into homosexuals.’ Now that’s wrong.” -- Pat Robertson, 700 Club] and to make people AFRAID of homosexuals -- fear is the most powerful motivator known to man and you can't tell me that these men who claim to speak the word of God don't know this and use it to promote and spin their own personal brand of hate.
I'm often reminded of a line from the movie "Oh God!" Paul Sorvino plays the Reverend Willie Williams, a Falwell/Robertson/Swaggart sort of minister who is suing Jerry Landers (played by John Denver) for libel and slander after Landers, in front of a television audience, branded Williams a fraud after having conversed with God concerning the reverend. Jerry tells the minister "God says that you claim to be spreading God's words, but the problem is, you ran out of Gods words a long time ago" (not an exact quote).
I think these televangelists and the Pope have long since run out of God's words, too. They use their power and position to strike fear in the hearts of the faithful, and teach hate, intolerance, and prejudice -- values which directly contradict those taught in the Bible.
Perhaps these guys need to open their Bibles and read them for a change?
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Our gas grill -- after the storm!
As you can see, we got quite the storm! The state police are asking people to stay off the roads until they can get them cleared. One highway was closed because it snowed so hard even the plows couldn't get through.
It's beautiful outside -- just damn glad I don't have to drive to work in the stuff! :-)
Friday, January 21, 2005
Fluff
It's damn cold here!
We've had snow most of the week, in varying amounts. There's 9 inches of snow on top of our grill out on the patio. Joe's been out with the snowblower almost every day this week. We've gotten hit with a lot of "lake effect" snow. If you're interested in this phenomenon, you can read about it here:
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/lkefsnw1.htm
Anyway, as of this writing (at 1:57 PM) it's ONE degree outside with a wind chill of MINUS thirteen. We are under a "winter storm watch" through tomorrow, with an additional 6 inches of snow predicted for our area (NOT lake-effect stuff, so it won't be as light and fluffy). However, the western southern tier of NY (where my daughter lives) has the greatest potential for a substantial amount of snow accumulating.
The good news is, we've got groceries, kerosene (for the heaters, in case we lose power), bottled water, and all kinds of emergency stuff laid on (thanks to our C.E.R.T. training).
The bad news is, I'm out of wine!
Looking forward to a quiet weekend - Joe bought "Troy" and, although we've seen it once, I think I'd like to see it again. Something about curling up on the couch, snuggled up against my honey, under a warm afghan, fire in the fireplace, watching a good movie.
Stay warm!
We've had snow most of the week, in varying amounts. There's 9 inches of snow on top of our grill out on the patio. Joe's been out with the snowblower almost every day this week. We've gotten hit with a lot of "lake effect" snow. If you're interested in this phenomenon, you can read about it here:
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/lkefsnw1.htm
Anyway, as of this writing (at 1:57 PM) it's ONE degree outside with a wind chill of MINUS thirteen. We are under a "winter storm watch" through tomorrow, with an additional 6 inches of snow predicted for our area (NOT lake-effect stuff, so it won't be as light and fluffy). However, the western southern tier of NY (where my daughter lives) has the greatest potential for a substantial amount of snow accumulating.
The good news is, we've got groceries, kerosene (for the heaters, in case we lose power), bottled water, and all kinds of emergency stuff laid on (thanks to our C.E.R.T. training).
The bad news is, I'm out of wine!
Looking forward to a quiet weekend - Joe bought "Troy" and, although we've seen it once, I think I'd like to see it again. Something about curling up on the couch, snuggled up against my honey, under a warm afghan, fire in the fireplace, watching a good movie.
Stay warm!
What a week this has been!
Wow!
I could leave this post at just that -- WOW! -- and it could suffice to express how I'm feeling. Unfortunately, leaving it at that doesn't tell WHY I feel that way.
Throughout the week, people have stopped in to my office and offered words of support and encouragement.
"Good luck, Pat!"
"You go girl!"
"Congratulations!"
"Give 'em hell!"
"It's about time someone took them to task!"
It's been mind-boggling.
This morning, as I got out of my RAV, I noticed the mailroom supervisor sort of standing in front of her pickup, kicking at the snow absently. She was waiting for me and, as I approached her, she opened her arms and just gave me a huge hug.
It's incredible, the support and good wishes that I've gotten from people at my workplace. I commented this morning that, while it's been empowering, it's also been affirming regarding the people we work with.
One of my favorite faculty members came in on Tuesday, asked me if he could get a handshake from the local "celebrity," and voiced support. Now, this guy has been one of my three favorite people here since the day I met him. He's the only PhD I've ever met that's intelligent, logical, witty, kind, compassionate, down-to-earth, humble, and just plain REAL.
He commented that he doesn't understand why there are so many "educated" people out there that are so closed-minded about this while issue. I told him about a comment I'd seen on an internet message board where a clear-cut homophobe claimed intelligence through college-education and, as a result, should be taken credibly as far as her opinions that simply boiled down to "because I say so." Another poster pointed out to her that all the degrees in the world mean nothing unless you retain the critical thinking skills you learned and used throughout college. That applying narrow focus to an issue was contrary to education, and shows an unwillingness to learn anything that one doesn't WANT to learn. Very powerful, insightful.
This professor also confided that his eldest daughter, highly educated at Cornell, about my age, had joined a fundamentalist type of church about 15 years ago and, he was surprised and also disappointed, that her thinking was very one-dimensional where it conflicted with what she believed to be true, based on how SHE felt the Bible (or, rather, the word of God) should be interpreted.
Now, the thing I love about this guy (besides the fact that he's just a decent human being) is that he's TASTED SO MUCH OF LIFE!
As a young man, he went down south and attended a Catholic college for his first year. He lived with Benedictine monks that year and, as he chuckled, was always hungry because those monks ate terrible food. While he was staying there, he went to a KKK meeting, a "colored Baptist" revival, Catholic mass, you name it, he experienced it. It gave him exposure not only to the PEOPLE in these organizations, but to the belief systems and philosophies associated with them. It gave him understanding.
While attending college in the deep south, he took a part-time job driving school bus -- through the "colored" part of town. He relates that, often, he'd pull up to what appeared to be an empty street corner but, as the bus stopped, he'd begin to see the school children climbing out of ditches, coming out of the woods, or from behind buildings -- so great was their fear of standing alone in the south. He also said that, as part of the route to get those kids to school, he had to go through a white part of town and, as they passed through, he'd look in his mirror and, based on what he saw in his mirror, you'd never know there was anyone on that bus. The children all ducked below the windows so they weren't seen.
He has a degree in English and teaches Art History. He's a Fulbright Scholar, performs some sort of consultant duties to the British government, taught for a semester in China, another semester in Hawaii, and has traveled throughout the world either teaching, or being a student of life. I ADORE this guy -- and he's a Republican!
If this guy told me that he truly believed that homosexuality was wrong, I'd listen up, raptly. In the first place, he'd tell me why he believed that, using logic, rational thought, and citing research and/or studies he's perused. But even if he just said that it was his OPINION, based on his life experiences, I'd have a lot of respect for that, too, because he's spent his life learning about PEOPLE, about their experiences and dreams and values -- he didn't pick and choose who he learned from, he made LIFE a learnable moment.
Oh that we could all do that - the heck with that, if only *I* could do that!
Often, after I talk to him, I'm very aware that he is a far better person than I, and a far better person than any other I have ever met or known. If we could all aspire to be something like him, can you imagine the sort of world we'd live in?
I could leave this post at just that -- WOW! -- and it could suffice to express how I'm feeling. Unfortunately, leaving it at that doesn't tell WHY I feel that way.
Throughout the week, people have stopped in to my office and offered words of support and encouragement.
"Good luck, Pat!"
"You go girl!"
"Congratulations!"
"Give 'em hell!"
"It's about time someone took them to task!"
It's been mind-boggling.
This morning, as I got out of my RAV, I noticed the mailroom supervisor sort of standing in front of her pickup, kicking at the snow absently. She was waiting for me and, as I approached her, she opened her arms and just gave me a huge hug.
It's incredible, the support and good wishes that I've gotten from people at my workplace. I commented this morning that, while it's been empowering, it's also been affirming regarding the people we work with.
One of my favorite faculty members came in on Tuesday, asked me if he could get a handshake from the local "celebrity," and voiced support. Now, this guy has been one of my three favorite people here since the day I met him. He's the only PhD I've ever met that's intelligent, logical, witty, kind, compassionate, down-to-earth, humble, and just plain REAL.
He commented that he doesn't understand why there are so many "educated" people out there that are so closed-minded about this while issue. I told him about a comment I'd seen on an internet message board where a clear-cut homophobe claimed intelligence through college-education and, as a result, should be taken credibly as far as her opinions that simply boiled down to "because I say so." Another poster pointed out to her that all the degrees in the world mean nothing unless you retain the critical thinking skills you learned and used throughout college. That applying narrow focus to an issue was contrary to education, and shows an unwillingness to learn anything that one doesn't WANT to learn. Very powerful, insightful.
This professor also confided that his eldest daughter, highly educated at Cornell, about my age, had joined a fundamentalist type of church about 15 years ago and, he was surprised and also disappointed, that her thinking was very one-dimensional where it conflicted with what she believed to be true, based on how SHE felt the Bible (or, rather, the word of God) should be interpreted.
Now, the thing I love about this guy (besides the fact that he's just a decent human being) is that he's TASTED SO MUCH OF LIFE!
As a young man, he went down south and attended a Catholic college for his first year. He lived with Benedictine monks that year and, as he chuckled, was always hungry because those monks ate terrible food. While he was staying there, he went to a KKK meeting, a "colored Baptist" revival, Catholic mass, you name it, he experienced it. It gave him exposure not only to the PEOPLE in these organizations, but to the belief systems and philosophies associated with them. It gave him understanding.
While attending college in the deep south, he took a part-time job driving school bus -- through the "colored" part of town. He relates that, often, he'd pull up to what appeared to be an empty street corner but, as the bus stopped, he'd begin to see the school children climbing out of ditches, coming out of the woods, or from behind buildings -- so great was their fear of standing alone in the south. He also said that, as part of the route to get those kids to school, he had to go through a white part of town and, as they passed through, he'd look in his mirror and, based on what he saw in his mirror, you'd never know there was anyone on that bus. The children all ducked below the windows so they weren't seen.
He has a degree in English and teaches Art History. He's a Fulbright Scholar, performs some sort of consultant duties to the British government, taught for a semester in China, another semester in Hawaii, and has traveled throughout the world either teaching, or being a student of life. I ADORE this guy -- and he's a Republican!
If this guy told me that he truly believed that homosexuality was wrong, I'd listen up, raptly. In the first place, he'd tell me why he believed that, using logic, rational thought, and citing research and/or studies he's perused. But even if he just said that it was his OPINION, based on his life experiences, I'd have a lot of respect for that, too, because he's spent his life learning about PEOPLE, about their experiences and dreams and values -- he didn't pick and choose who he learned from, he made LIFE a learnable moment.
Oh that we could all do that - the heck with that, if only *I* could do that!
Often, after I talk to him, I'm very aware that he is a far better person than I, and a far better person than any other I have ever met or known. If we could all aspire to be something like him, can you imagine the sort of world we'd live in?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)