Another 3 day weekend is upon us. This time it's Memorial Day. People are scurrying about loading up on items for the grill - hot dogs, burgers, and the accompanying condiments. Others, of course, are headed out to lakes, campgrounds, beaches, or other places of enjoyment or relaxation. Still others will toil in their yards, getting rid of the weeds that have popped up during the spring, or landscaping, or doing that long put-off project around the house.
All of that is well and good, but, like most holidays, the reason behind them rarely gets remembered. Or, if it does, it is fleeting at best. A brief thought. A glance at the news where a sound bite, or a picture of some happening commemorates the reason for the holiday. Then it's back to the fun or the project.
This Memorial Day, however, wouldn't it be nice if everyone just stopped for more than a minute to think about what this "Holiday" is all about. Back when this old fart was but a youngster, this holiday was known as "Decoration Day". Regardless of the name, the day is set aside to honor the brave men and women who over our more than 200 years, have fought and died to secure the freedom of the United States of America. Over 1.3 million of our brave people have died in this endeavor. As we are still involved in wars today - and likely will be in the future - more of our citizens will die protecting us. So, setting aside a day - and more than a few minutes to honor those who have given their life for our freedoms, doesn't seem to be a stretch to me.
In fact, we should honor more than just the memory of those who died in wars protecting us. Everyone who has served in one of our many wars deserves our thanks and praise. Countless thousands of brave men and women have protected us, and have been wounded - either physically or psychologically. Others came through their time in wars seemingly unscathed. But, as many have attested, war changes those who experience it. We must never forget that. Or those who have served.
So, to all those folks who are planning their fun weekend, or going to complete that long-delayed project, don't forget that your 3-day weekend wouldn't have been possible without the sacrifices of the people who have fought and died to enable you to have this time off. Stop for more than a minute and reflect on those people who cannot experience what you are about to. And say a prayer for their families who have had to live without them.
Old Fart Mike
Friday, May 28, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Tea Party's Newest Whacko
A new crazy has been awakened in the Tea Party. Rand Paul, the Tea Party candidate, who won the Republican Nomination for Senate over the preferred mainstream GOP candidate in the State of Kentucky on Tuesday night has shocked even a few of the Republican leadership.
His response to the question, posed by liberal Rachel Maddow,who asked if a private business had the right to refuse service to a black person? was "Yes". Cool, huh? After all the stuff that has gone on in this country for 200+ years; the civil war; the civil rights act of 1964 - enacted the year this old fart graduated from high school; the beatings and hosings that were seen on nightly news broadcasts; Rosa Parks; Dr. Martin Luther King; , and so many low and high points in the struggle to gain equality, this idiot bigot, in one three-letter-word answer, affirms something that is still practiced by too many people in the country - racial prejudice.
Mr. Paul, of course, has spent the better part of the last couple of days attempting to backtrack on this position a bit. Saying in further interviews that he would have voted for the Civil rights act had he been in the Senate when it came up for the vote. He also said he abhors bigotry. Yada, yada, yada.
He further attempts to explain his view as that of a libertarian - simply defending the right of a business owner to choose to serve whomever he/she wants, without Government interference. Problem is, Mr. Paul, there are laws. Oh - whoops, I forgot - you and your kind only want CERTAIN laws. Like against abortion and Gay marriage. It's okay for the government to intervene then. Just not when it comes to serving nigras (That's probably how you refer to African-Americans behind closed doors).
Interesting, too, that the day before you answered that question for Rachel Maddow, you had a little interview on NPR where you exercised your concerns about the Americans with Disabilities Act. Seems that law is a bit too stringent for you also. I'd bet you're a big supporter of those new laws in Arizona too.
He's a real man of the people, Mr. Paul is. He even had his victory party at a country club. A place where most of the Tea Party probably couldn't get in.
Demagoguery is alive and well in Kentucky, and the Tea Party has a new hero. If he gets elected to the Senate in November, maybe they will have a candidate to run for President in 2012.
Ain't we lucky?
Old Fart Mike
His response to the question, posed by liberal Rachel Maddow,who asked if a private business had the right to refuse service to a black person? was "Yes". Cool, huh? After all the stuff that has gone on in this country for 200+ years; the civil war; the civil rights act of 1964 - enacted the year this old fart graduated from high school; the beatings and hosings that were seen on nightly news broadcasts; Rosa Parks; Dr. Martin Luther King; , and so many low and high points in the struggle to gain equality, this idiot bigot, in one three-letter-word answer, affirms something that is still practiced by too many people in the country - racial prejudice.
Mr. Paul, of course, has spent the better part of the last couple of days attempting to backtrack on this position a bit. Saying in further interviews that he would have voted for the Civil rights act had he been in the Senate when it came up for the vote. He also said he abhors bigotry. Yada, yada, yada.
He further attempts to explain his view as that of a libertarian - simply defending the right of a business owner to choose to serve whomever he/she wants, without Government interference. Problem is, Mr. Paul, there are laws. Oh - whoops, I forgot - you and your kind only want CERTAIN laws. Like against abortion and Gay marriage. It's okay for the government to intervene then. Just not when it comes to serving nigras (That's probably how you refer to African-Americans behind closed doors).
Interesting, too, that the day before you answered that question for Rachel Maddow, you had a little interview on NPR where you exercised your concerns about the Americans with Disabilities Act. Seems that law is a bit too stringent for you also. I'd bet you're a big supporter of those new laws in Arizona too.
He's a real man of the people, Mr. Paul is. He even had his victory party at a country club. A place where most of the Tea Party probably couldn't get in.
Demagoguery is alive and well in Kentucky, and the Tea Party has a new hero. If he gets elected to the Senate in November, maybe they will have a candidate to run for President in 2012.
Ain't we lucky?
Old Fart Mike
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Suffer the Little Children
I was baptized a Catholic at the age of approximately 3 months, which is pretty much the custom among Catholics. I went to Catholic school through the 8th grade. I raised all of my three children in the faith, and even sent one through parochial schools through his high school years.I practiced Catholicism, going to mass each Sunday, until maybe 8 years ago when I had experienced enough hypocrisy to last a lifetime. I am now what you might call a lapsed Catholic, or Fallen one. While I won't go into ALL the reasons for this, I do want to comment upon the most egregious sins of the church - pedophilia.
When the Pope came out last week and took some responsibility for the most recent scandals involving the Catholic Church and it's priests and bishops involved in the molestation of boys over the years, I had a brief glimmer of hope. What he said was that the blame shouldn't be borne by the media as had been strongly suggested by his underlings and others connected with the Roman Catholic church, rather the church should accept the blame itself for it's failures. How refreshing, I thought. It's about time, I thought. For far too long, the church and it's leaders have either shifted the blame somewhere else, or simply ignored the problems that have been going on for decades. Now, I thought, we're getting somewhere.
Today, however, in scanning the Washington Post, as I do on a daily basis, I saw a story headline that raised the hackles on my neck. "Vatican Defense Centers on employment status of Bishops" read the article's headline. Obviously, I had to read it. The first sentence really says it all: "The Vatican prepared Monday to make its most detailed defense yet against claims that it is liable for U.S. bishops who allowed priests to molest children, saying bishops are not its employees and that a 1962 Vatican document did not require bishops to keep quiet."
A lawsuit had apparently been brought forth by three gentlemen in 2004 who were abused by priests decades ago and "...accuse the Vatican of negligence". The lawyer for the Vatican apparently contends that the "...bishops are not its employees because they are not paid by Rome, do not act on Rome's behalf and are not controlled day to day by the pope -- factors courts use to determine whether employers are liable for the actions of their workers."
Good Grief! So, Bishops, and/or Cardinals, "do not act on Rome's behalf and are not controlled day to day by the Pope..." Can they be serious? Just who calls the shots then? If a Bishop, or Cardinal wants to go his (Notice the "His" here as women will never have a place on the alter) own way on a policy (Liturgical) decision, you mean the Pope won't jerk his chain and bring him in line? Or require his resignation? For example, let's just say, a Bishop/cardinal tells his congregation that birth control is okay as far as he is concerned - condoms, etc. This, of course is NOT okay with Church teachings. So, the Pope finds out about this. He's not gonna reverse the local teaching? Gimme a Break.
In any case, they are using this argument to again deny any responsibility for what has been going on for decades - the molestation of innocent children by criminal priests. And, that, my friends, is what it is - CRIMINAL! I happen to know someone who was molested by a priest many years ago. He is still screwed up because of it - nearly 60 years later. It has ruined his life. If anyone else committed this crime, there would be no question. He would be arrested, tried, and in most cases, convicted of this heinous crime. But, the Catholic Church has been exempt from the law.
Instead, when bishops, cardinals and the Pope himself have been made aware of the crimes, they have hidden the criminals by transferring them to other parishes - sometimes multiple times. Isn't this a crime too? Aiding and abetting? So why are they above the law?
It seems to me that although God will eventually judge these men for their horrific sins against innocent children, we do need to both ensure justice here in our world and prevent further crimes from occurring to the vulnerable and trusting youth affected by these monsters.
The Pope, his Cardinals & Bishops, need to do more than just hire a fancy lawyer who utilizes loopholes in corporate law to get the church off the hook for paying out money to those who have been damaged by molestation. As with anything, they need to first admit it is a problem of the church. Then they need to find a way to stop it from happening in the future.
Old Fart Mike
When the Pope came out last week and took some responsibility for the most recent scandals involving the Catholic Church and it's priests and bishops involved in the molestation of boys over the years, I had a brief glimmer of hope. What he said was that the blame shouldn't be borne by the media as had been strongly suggested by his underlings and others connected with the Roman Catholic church, rather the church should accept the blame itself for it's failures. How refreshing, I thought. It's about time, I thought. For far too long, the church and it's leaders have either shifted the blame somewhere else, or simply ignored the problems that have been going on for decades. Now, I thought, we're getting somewhere.
Today, however, in scanning the Washington Post, as I do on a daily basis, I saw a story headline that raised the hackles on my neck. "Vatican Defense Centers on employment status of Bishops" read the article's headline. Obviously, I had to read it. The first sentence really says it all: "The Vatican prepared Monday to make its most detailed defense yet against claims that it is liable for U.S. bishops who allowed priests to molest children, saying bishops are not its employees and that a 1962 Vatican document did not require bishops to keep quiet."
A lawsuit had apparently been brought forth by three gentlemen in 2004 who were abused by priests decades ago and "...accuse the Vatican of negligence". The lawyer for the Vatican apparently contends that the "...bishops are not its employees because they are not paid by Rome, do not act on Rome's behalf and are not controlled day to day by the pope -- factors courts use to determine whether employers are liable for the actions of their workers."
Good Grief! So, Bishops, and/or Cardinals, "do not act on Rome's behalf and are not controlled day to day by the Pope..." Can they be serious? Just who calls the shots then? If a Bishop, or Cardinal wants to go his (Notice the "His" here as women will never have a place on the alter) own way on a policy (Liturgical) decision, you mean the Pope won't jerk his chain and bring him in line? Or require his resignation? For example, let's just say, a Bishop/cardinal tells his congregation that birth control is okay as far as he is concerned - condoms, etc. This, of course is NOT okay with Church teachings. So, the Pope finds out about this. He's not gonna reverse the local teaching? Gimme a Break.
In any case, they are using this argument to again deny any responsibility for what has been going on for decades - the molestation of innocent children by criminal priests. And, that, my friends, is what it is - CRIMINAL! I happen to know someone who was molested by a priest many years ago. He is still screwed up because of it - nearly 60 years later. It has ruined his life. If anyone else committed this crime, there would be no question. He would be arrested, tried, and in most cases, convicted of this heinous crime. But, the Catholic Church has been exempt from the law.
Instead, when bishops, cardinals and the Pope himself have been made aware of the crimes, they have hidden the criminals by transferring them to other parishes - sometimes multiple times. Isn't this a crime too? Aiding and abetting? So why are they above the law?
It seems to me that although God will eventually judge these men for their horrific sins against innocent children, we do need to both ensure justice here in our world and prevent further crimes from occurring to the vulnerable and trusting youth affected by these monsters.
The Pope, his Cardinals & Bishops, need to do more than just hire a fancy lawyer who utilizes loopholes in corporate law to get the church off the hook for paying out money to those who have been damaged by molestation. As with anything, they need to first admit it is a problem of the church. Then they need to find a way to stop it from happening in the future.
Old Fart Mike
Saturday, May 15, 2010
No one to talk to
When a man reaches a certain age - in my case, nearly 64 - it becomes apparent that there really is no one to turn to when things trouble him. As a boy, of course, you have your father. He knows everything - at least until you reach those awful teenage years when you decide he knows nothing. Fortunately, you realize, in your early to mid-twenties that maybe Dad does know a little bit about something after all. Unfortunately, some of that disappears when you reach you mid-thirties and find you are now a grown-up and think you have most of the answers. Then dad passes on.
I am fortunate in that I have a brother on whom I can lean from time to time, but he lives across the country and sometimes a phone call just doesn't suffice when it comes to explaining things that are long, drawn-out affairs that encompass years of development. I also have a spouse who I've been married to for nearly two-third's of my life, but, you know, sometimes a man needs another man to talk to. Or, if the problem should involve your spouse, that could definitely pose a problem.
Unfortunately, my absolute best friend passed away a couple of years ago. He was a guy that I could talk to about every, or any, thing. In fact, we shared some of the most intimate problems in our lives, as well as, of course, the most wonderful things we were experiencing. Alas, he's long gone, so there's no one to talk to.
This sounds kinda whiny, and a man isn't supposed to do that, so I better stop now.
Old Fart Mike
I am fortunate in that I have a brother on whom I can lean from time to time, but he lives across the country and sometimes a phone call just doesn't suffice when it comes to explaining things that are long, drawn-out affairs that encompass years of development. I also have a spouse who I've been married to for nearly two-third's of my life, but, you know, sometimes a man needs another man to talk to. Or, if the problem should involve your spouse, that could definitely pose a problem.
Unfortunately, my absolute best friend passed away a couple of years ago. He was a guy that I could talk to about every, or any, thing. In fact, we shared some of the most intimate problems in our lives, as well as, of course, the most wonderful things we were experiencing. Alas, he's long gone, so there's no one to talk to.
This sounds kinda whiny, and a man isn't supposed to do that, so I better stop now.
Old Fart Mike
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)