Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Rule on Looking Like Me

Dear People Who Look Like Me: Will you please stop assuming that everyone who looks like you is an affluent, hetero, practicing Christian American? When I look at you, I work hard to not assume that you are: (a) A Christian - which is how I was raised, but I no longer carry the label (b) Heterosexual - as a fence rider, that would be pretty fucking ridiculous of me, wouldn't it? (c) Affluent or not affluent - looks can be terribly deceiving (d) An atheist or agnostic - like I am now (e) Smart - white does not equal smart (f) Stupid - though I do have a firm commitment to the 80/20 rule so....... Social interactions would be so much smoother if we'd all forget these assumptions. And, yes, it is possible to have social interaction without these assumptions. Pretend that we're all reasonably evolved humans and go from there. If someone isn't reasonably evolved, it will show pretty quickly. At that point just smile, pat the other person on their widdle noggin and walk away. Really, really fast.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Thought for the day(s)

I'm experiencing some major life changing events right now, to the neglect of my blog and three regular readers. It's all good, however, very good, that much I'll share. I don't have an original thought for the day, but I just visited Main and Central, where this line grabbed my mood:
"If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican."


Saturday, June 23, 2007

Another level of reasonable lol

I'm all for reasonable accommodation in the workplace, and the progressive nature of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but the Swedes take "reasonable" to a whole new level. LOL.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Ordinary heroes

If you're somewhat morbid like me, then perhaps you have a habit of perusing the obituaries as part of my daily read of the newspaper, and I'm often struck by accomplishments of ordinary citizens who have made an extraordinary difference. One such man, whose obit appeared today, did just that. Emphasis is mine.

Roy Torcaso, 96; Defeated Md. in 1961 Religious Freedom Case
By Adam Bernstein, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 21, 2007;

Roy R. Torcaso, 96, whose application to be a Maryland notary public led to a U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed his refusal to take a state oath requiring him to declare a belief in God, died June 9 at the Himalayan Elderly Care assisted living home in Silver Spring. He had complications of prostate cancer.

Mr. Torcaso, who said he was an atheist, was a bookkeeper by profession. He worked for a Bethesda construction company when his legal challenge started in 1959. He had been urged by his boss to become a notary public.

At the Montgomery County Circuit Court, he refused to swear to a state oath given to notaries public that made them profess the existence of God.

"The point at issue," he said at the time, "is not whether I believe in a Supreme Being, but whether the state has a right to inquire into my beliefs."

Sunday, June 17, 2007

As Yogi Berra once famously said...

"It's Déjà vu all over again". The Washington Post begins a series on how we, in the United States, are failing our new damaged combat veterans in the same way we let those from the Vietnam experience down.
Army Spec. Jeans Cruz helped capture Saddam Hussein. When he came home to the Bronx, important people called him a war hero and promised to help him start a new life. The mayor of New York, officials of his parents' home town in Puerto Rico, the borough president and other local dignitaries honored him with plaques and silk parade sashes. They handed him their business cards and urged him to phone.
But a "black shadow" had followed Cruz home from Iraq, he confided to an Army counselor. He was hounded by recurring images of how war really was for him: not the triumphant scene of Hussein in handcuffs, but visions of dead Iraqi children.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Colombia to recognize gay unions

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) - Colombia is set to become the first Latin American country to give established gay couples full rights to health insurance, inheritance and social security under a bill passed by its Congress.

The plan approved Thursday is expected to take effect soon. It is backed by the country's conservative President Alvaro Uribe.

The measure would allow gay couples in long-term relationships to have the same health insurance and social security benefits as heterosexual couples. It also guarantees that assets accumulated during the relationship will be divided between the two, and in the case of death, inherited by the survivor.
There goes our erstwhile enthusiastic support for the Andean Regional Initiative (formerly, Plan Colombia.)

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Prime contender: Idiocy of the year

Andrew Sullivan has been on a roll this week. He's excused himself of all responsiblity for the catastrophies of the last six years because, at the very last minute, he "endorsed" Kerry over Bush in 2004 (gee, I supported Kerry, but I don't know who I endorsed). But, according to him, he gets a pass for the first four years where he ardently supported the war in Iraq and questioned anyone's patriotism who didn't. Because hey, we were all fooled, right?

Wrong, nobody was fooled, and he has the blood on his hands of many young Americans, whose lives he was eagerly willing to offer up, in support of Mr. Bush's policies -- a luxury if ever there was one for a British citizen. And he did oppose Medicare reform and compassionate conservatism during the first term, so that counts for something, surely.

He points to a chart of where and when conservatives bailed on Bush, and proudly counts himself in the class of 2004, way before so many others. How about those who foresaw much of this in, oh, say, 1999? It means he was stupider for many more years than he should have been, not that he was prescient in November, 2004. Cripes.

His mantra is if you don't like what he says, read some other blog. He's right there; because occasionally he has a kernal of wisdom and writes good books, I continue to read his often deranged, warped, misunderstanding of his adopted homeland and its people, to my own frustrated detriment.

He took on Mike Kinsley's assessment of marriage rights for gays in Massachusetts this week, because Kinsley implied that the "left" had won. Andrew asserts it's really a conservative (right) victory - notwithstanding Romney, McCain, Gingrich, Robertson, Falwell, Reagan, and yes, even Guiliani's cowardly stance on the issue (small exception made here for Guiliani and Romney, who after all, did support equality to their credit before it became expedient not to). But tonight's comment takes the cake. In his own words, I give you the idiocy idiot of the year:

The lesson of Reagan and to a lesser extent Thatcher - the pre-eminent conviction politicians of my lifetime - is that even those who deeply disagreed with them eventually respected their ability to stand for something unpopular and to lead. When I look at the Democrats today, I see no such conviction. That's a problem. No one is worse than Clinton, of course.
I'm not going to link to him but he's easy enough to find if you want to read the rest of the nonsense. This week is exceptionally bad. He has a Ph.D from Harvard in government -- that alone should alarm us all.