Recycled

I sent this as an email to a friend, but thought I might post it here to see what reaction it got...

I come from a family of Republicans, but I am not one. My wife comes from a family of Democrats, and I am not one. I am the eternal optimist, always voting for the person who I think will do the better job (or, as in the last election, the person who I felt would do the least amount of damage). You can't convince me that John Kerry and GW Bush were the best two candidates in the country for president.

You know why people vote the way they do? Fear. GW Bush won the election by capitalizing on American fear of the unknown. "Oh no," said Susan to her husband James, "we might get attacked by some icky terrorists or something. We'd better vote for W because he was in the white house on 9/11." Cut me some slack, folks.

Not to be outdone, the Democrats also played to fear. "Oh no," said Susan to her husband James, "the deficit is out of control. What are we leaving our children? The world hates us, and gas prices are too high. Oh, and what about nuclear proliferation? We'd better vote for Kerry because if we keep on the way we are, we're in real trouble." Puh-lease.

You know what this country needs? It needs to make decisions based on love instead of fear. I heard a pastor once say that the opposite of love is not hate but fear! Think about that for a while and I think you'll find it's truer than you'd first imagine. All of a sudden, we aren't in Iraq because we're afraid we were getting attacked, but because we love the Iraqi people (and because we love the Iraqi people and aren't afraid, we certainly waited longer and tried harder to accomplish this goal the easy way). All of a sudden we aren't cutting spending because we're afraid that our 401K isn't going to look as good. We're cutting spending because we love our children. And since we love everyone so much, by the way, we're going to pay ourselves a little less. Don't you think?

Unfortunately, the American people as a rule don't make decisions based on love either. If we did, consistently and without fail, Washington DC would look a lot different before too terribly long.

And maybe, just maybe, the reign of peace would have a chance to begin.

Don't get me started about the so-called Conservative Christian Republican. Talk about rule of fear! "W doesn't support gay marriage." The world is not black and white, but shades of grey. Anyone who claims to work in absolutes is a fraud (catch the irony in that statement). Convictions and belief are one thing. Absolute judgement is quite another.

Jury Duty

Do you know the feeling? It's that sinking feeling you get when you open your mail box and find a summons for jury duty. If you're like most of the world, you fun in fear when this happens. And then you send it in, hoping you won't get picked. Last week, my number came up.

No, gentle reader, I didn't get released on day one. I was on the hook for the whole week, hearing a case involving various sexual abuse allegations. In the end, the glove didn't fit, so, well, you know what we had to do. If you don't, ask Johnny Cochran.

In short, we let a guilty guy go. We had no choice. The state didn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the fact that most of us thought he did it, it was not proven, hence we had to find "not guilty." We all felt bad about it. We all did it.

ROAST: A legal system that routinely lets guilty people roam the street in search of their next victim, convicts innocent people, and allows the rich a better defense than the poor.

TOAST: A legal system that is tilted to the side of the defendant, leaning toward letting the guilty go free rather than confining the innocent, thus curbing, in a way, our overdeveloped sense of vengeful justice, and members of juries who abandon their personal beliefs in favor of upholding the law of the land.

Hold on. I have to check my appointment book.

Methodists everywhere are currently in various stages of anxiety about appointments. I'm not talking about meeting someone for lunch here. I'm talking about the annual event that is redistributing our pastors to different churches.

You need some background. The United Methodist Church has a structure that looks like a pyramid. On the top is General Conference, the governing body of the church. Next down is the Jurisdiction, of which there are 4 in the US. Next down is the Annual Conference. I am in the Arkansas is now one conference. Georgia consists of 2 conferences. A conference is divided into districts, which are divided into charges. A "charge" is a single church, or in some cases, a few churches that share a pastor.

Each year, the bishop (over a conference) and his/her cabinet get together and make appointments for charges. Pastors are generally "promoted" by moving to larger churches. It is also possible to demote them to a smaller charge or move them laterally.

Iteneracy is not what it used to be. Pastors are staying in one place longer than they used to. The individual churches have much more say in their appointments than they have had in the past. Still, the appointment system by design requires that a small group of people make decisions that affect thousands of lives. Not only that, but sometimes the appointments don't work out for one reason or another--be it worship style preference, age issues, etc. And pastors often can't stay at a church long enough to see their programs through to completion. Frustrating.

On the other hand, every few years, each church has an opportunity to experience something new. Something different. Something challenging in a different way. This prevents stagnation in the church. And it prevents stagnation among the ministers.

ROAST: The appointment system in the Methodist church prevents long-term relationships with pastors and often puts churches in the awkward position of adjusting to a new leader. It also requires pastors to move their families each year, adversely affecting their family lives.

TOAST: The appointment system keeps us Methodists thinking about our faith in a new light, examining our beliefs and questioning their sources.

Judicial Abnominations

Despite what you are thinking, this is not a deliberate whack at Mikey's post concerning a general lack of orrthawgro...arthrago...thawragro...good spelling. It's more like a sniglet.

You remember sniglets, right? I can't even remember on which show they appeared now, but I remember that they were words made up (often of a couple of legitimate words) to represent something comical. I recall "microcity" referred to the veritable cornucopia of microphones in front of political speakers. No pun intended. Really.

So today I made up my own sniglet. Abnomination. Obviously this is a synthesis of two words: abomination and nomination. I'm using it to refer to the madness that is the process of judicial nominations in Washington right now. And I'm writing this knowing that, once again, I'll have one reader for this article. Nobody cares about judicial nominations except extremists who want to get away with something or don't want someone else to.

Checks and balances are a wonderful thing. They're what keep us from turning into Cuba, the former Iraq, etc. They are what prevent a single person or a small group of people from usurping to much power. Now in the Senate, accusations are being lofted from one side of the aisle to the other. "This party just can't accept that they don't have control." "That party won't admit that it's trying to stack the courts to reverse Roe v. Wade." Whatever. They are bickering children. I've lamented about this before. I won't go any further.

The courts of this great land should be the one place free of partisan ridiculosity. That's why Supreme Court appointments are for life. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Politicians seek to gain more influence by appointing more conservative or liberal judges to the bench who, in turn, make decision favoring the politicians. It's like getting elected to office without having to talk to pesky, loser voters.

No, the Senate, instead of confirming or denying appointees based on ability to judge fairly and impartially, is abusing Robert's Rules of Order, filibustering and threatening the "nuclear option" (which conservatives seem to have learned to say correctly only when referring to politics, not weapons, which are still nuculer).

ROAST: All parties involved. Literally. Cut us some slack. Confirm some. Deny some. If you won't fairly represent our interests, at least give us judges who will protect them in the courts.

TOAST: Is good with butter and a little jelly. There isn't anything to toast here.

It worked the first time...

Wow! My last post roasting and toasting the Catholic Church elicited some heated debate from at least 3 readers! This blogging can get addictive when you discover that people actually care!

Today I was listening, as usual, to WABE, Atlanta. This is out NPR station. Talk was, of course, about politics. It's at times like this that I think I should run for President. Then I could address congress as a bunch of goofs and tell them to get their act together (no pun intended, but I'll pause to be mildly amused).

Our political system is completely out of touch with the people of this fine country. Politicians come talk to us periodically as necessary to get votes, and then they retreat to Washington where they check out concerns at the door and begin focusing on what sorts of things might get them re-elected.

People with money get more money. People without money get sympathy and encouragement. People in the middle, with enough money to get by but not enough to do much else? They get the shaft. Up the tail pipe.

I'm tired of people telling me what's important to me. I'm tired of fictional crises, and I'm tired of important questions going unanswered. I'm tired of political dynasties (can it really be true that GW Bush is the most qualified person in the country for president?).

We've come to the moment of the Roast and Toast, and I think it will be pointed in a surprising direction, focusing on citizens instead of the politicians.

ROAST: The American people ultimately do have the power to effect change in government by electing qualified candidates instead of the ones they see on TV the most. They often don't elect the best candidate because they don't care enough to research the choices and make an informed decision based on something other than campaign promises the most often never get honored.

TOAST: The entity that is the United States that has managed, since 1865, to avoid all out civil war between "haves" and "have nots" or black and white, or gay and straight, or liberal and conservative, or... Fortunately, we the people generally don't shoot each other when we disagree (with notable exception). We talk it out. The thing I find most frustrating about our government is the very thing that keeps us United. I hate that.

My First Roast and Toast

When I named this blog, I had in mind picking people in the media and then roasting them, toasting them, or both. Then I had a startling realization: I don't know enough about people to roast them. Or toast them.

Take Joseph Ratzinger, for example. I'd love to write a piece about him, but I know very little about him. He's German. He was a cardinal. His name is Pope Benedict XVI. He's "conservative" (for whatever that's worth). He's older, but looked good at JPII's funeral mass.

I can't blast him with that! What am I going to say? "Well, that Catholics blew it big this time. They elected a GERMAN of all people." I've got nothing against Germans. Or Cardinals. Or guys named after eggs. Or even older guys. Eventually I'll be one too, hopefully.

There is much debate about whether Catholics need a conservative pope or not, and no doubt several have plenty to argue about. If I go down that road, this is not about Ratzinger the white at all (as opposed to Ratzinger the grey or something). This is about my perception of Catholicism and where it stands.

I guess I should go ahead now and say that I have no issue with Catholics but some issue with some of their doctrine. You'll be able to tell.

The Catholic Church needs to understand something about the world. It changes. Radically. The past few decades have seen miracles unimaginable. People change. And if the parent-child relationship with God holds true, so our understanding of God must also change. This is one message of the Gospels. Jesus continually told those who thought they had solved God's mysteries that they were dead wrong. God is about love more than observance of ritual.

STOP. Do not read that last sentence to mean "ritual is bad." It is not intended that way. Rather, the ritual becomes empty and even contradictory if carried beyond its usefullness. Male priests (if you don't believe in priesthood of the believer) were a good idea when the world viewed females as inferior. Fortunately, we've progressed some since then. I've been blessed by more than one female pastor, and feel like Catholics everywhere are missing out. Let's not even mention the decline of men responding to the call.

Ok, you got me. Male priests are not equal to ritual. Ritual more often refers to practice, like the mass itself. But the analogy holds together even then. And here the Catholics got it right! Since Vatican II, they've been saying mass in the vernacular language. Good call. (Although I'm still waiting to hear it in Klingon).

Then again, is it any better to toss all tradition just because we don't like it? Wow, that's dangerous. Just because I want to be better at baseball doesn't mean I change the rules to make it easier!

You know what? I can roast and toast after all. Instead of the man, I'll roast and toast the church.

To the Catholic Church:

ROAST: The Catholic Church needs to find its new voice, a voice for the people of the 21st century. It needs to seek unity and relevance--a sort of new counter-reformation.

TOAST: The Catholic Church has shone much resolve in standing up to those who attack it and its proud tradition. Some traditions are worth keeping, even when the world disagrees.

Your basic nuts and bolts blog.

I don't use pictures in my blog. I was pointed to www.dontyouhatepants.blogspot.com by an anonymous yet loyal reader and discovered with glee many pictures. Mikey uses many, many pictures. Shoot, Gabi's page is expressly for pictures (isn't she the cutest?).

No, when you read this blog, you're getting nothing but raw, straight-ahead text. I mean, this is the kind of writing from which children of all ages flee! Oh my gosh, 12 pages with no pictures? Are you kidding me?

It's a little odd that I don't use pictures, though, because most of the time I see in pictures. I can't read a book without imagining the setting explicitely. When I read Last of the Breed, I couldn't help but imagine cold Russia, the running Volga, etc. It's just part of the experience for me. Why would I not want to provide that experience for you, gentle reader? (Or should that be readers since I now have 2, count 'em?)

Well, it's because you don't need my help. As amusing as it was to see the "Weekend at Terri's" image, I think I might have been able to imagine that on my own. Ok, bad example. I never would have imagined that picture. Never ever.

Still, I think we understand each other here. I write, and hopefully you don't need the visual aid. Can't you just picture Guanoosa, Idaho? I know I can. Why should those images have to be the same?

Calm down, gentle reader. I like pictures in blogs as much as the next guy. Would "Are You My Mother" have been as good without graphical representation? Probably not. I just don't do it here. For better or worse, you get only text from this writer.

At least I figured out how to use links.

When people are people who they aren't.

What do you do when one loyal reader portrays four? I suppose you write again to thank him/her for the dedication.

Thanks for the dedication, you.

Meanwhile, I was a bit taken aback this week when I learned about the troubling state of affairs in Guanoosa City, Idaho. It seems the person for whom the town was named (Mr. G. Uan Oosa) has passed on, and the city folk disliked him with such a passion that they are seeking to change the name of the town. They would have tried sooner, but he kept having a contest do the death and winning. Such is life. Er, death.

So there they are, wondering what they should name their city, and they just can't come up with anything. They just know they want to change it. Change is good, right? Or is it "different is good?" Shoot, I can't remember.

And it turns out it's not so easy to change a town name. Once you decide on the name, you then have to go through a complex process to officially change it. Otherwise, it would be forever mis-labeled on Google Maps and Satellite imaging!

Well, they may never get that mess straightened out over there. At least I've got Pringles. And Butterfinger hot chocolate mix. All else is superfluous. Serious inquiries only, please!

I have only one reader. Really.

If you are reading this, take a moment to comment. It can be any comment you like. I am attempting to prove that my writing here is a complete waste of time. It means you are a baboon and I'm not.

I won't do a pope posting.

You know, everyone is posting about the Pope. Everyone cares (one way or the other). Everyone is writing. So much ink and so many electrons being spilt on this character. I can't make myself do it.

I won't talk about how much he means to Catholics, for whom he is the single most important living figure apart from Jesus Christ.

I won't talk about how much he means to Protestants, even if they don't want to admit it.

I won't talk about how much he means to countless poor and needy people around the world who benefitted from his social justice agenda.

I won't even mention his relationship with important national leaders based on mutual respect rather than political connection, making him one of the few people in the world who could actually speak his mind to the President of the United States.

I suppose I should also not talk about the character of a man who could forgive his own would be killer.

Nope. I had better not post about the Pope. I'm a die hard Protestant. The Pope means nothing to me except evil evil Catholics. Because I can't stand Catholics. Nevermind that I benefitted from their religious orders and schools, as well as at least some aspects of the social agenda.

Nah, we Protestants need to focus on differences. That's how we got started, after all. Remember? "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen" Our differences are so much more important than our similarities. Our differences are so much more important than our shared belief in Jesus Christ as Emmanuel, God with us.

You know what? I may not agree with everything he said. Lord knows I don't agree with Catholics about a thing or two. But for right now, can't we put aside those things and thank God for the life of such a dedicated Christian?

Durn. I've posted about the Pope.

It was the best of times. Or was it the worst?

My friend Mikey has just had a beautiful baby girl. Actually, his wife did. But I think guys generally don't get quite enough credit. No, we don't experience the actual pain of delivery, but I'm guessing that there is a fair amount of pain associated with the pregnancy.

I'm sure that in the coming years, we will also decide to have children. We both want children, but we're nagged by a lingering question: is it really a good idea?

We're not thinking about financial concerns here. We're talking about a world that knows injustice all too well. We're talking about a world that really doesn't want another person...or need one for that matter. Is having a child for us a selfish act in which we fulfill our needs? What of the needs of the as yet not conceived child?

If we are really meant to have children, will not God intervene and create life? Should we adopt a wonderful child who already lives yet has little chance of a rewarding life?

We'll have children, God willing. We'll celebrate the miracle that is life. Who knows? Maybe our child will solve the energy crisis. Certainly nobody around now can handle it...

Anything to keep from writing more about blogging.

I began a few moments ago to write still another post on blogging. I realized very quickly that what I was writing was a synopsis of previous postings. What a waste of time. So I've decided that I will not write another post about blogging. Period. We're done there.

But despite an ever busier life, and an insanely busy week, I'm afraid I'm mostly speechless at this point. Nothing in my life seems worth blogging on.

Mikey usually doesn't blog about his personal life. He goes and finds news stories. Or he makes puns. Perhaps I could do that...

Oh no. Oil is going to be more expensive.

First, let me apologize for this. This blog is not in any way a rant against those who lost loved ones at the explosion, nor is this intended to stomp on their memories.

I found myself, just a few days ago, saying "oh look, gas is only 1.91 here." ONLY? It wasn't all that long ago that "oh my, gas is over a dollar" came out of my mouth. Ok, maybe longer than I'd like to think, but still...

Here's my question for you: how high will gas have to get before we finally understand that dependence on oil is not good for us? Drilling ANWR, while supported by Alaskans, will not solve our problem. OF COURSE they support it! It means more money for their state! Oil prices go up. Certain officials in a certain white house on a certain PA avenue don't care because those officials either have their own oil interests or owe someone who does.

It's time for the American people to become innovative again. It's the same innovation that will solve the manufacturing job loss problem. Instead of consistently "shoring up" sinking ships, let's build a better ship. Let's make cars that run on water. Let's harness the lightning bolt. For cryin' out loud, let's stop trying to make money long enough to save our nation's hide.

Unfortunately, it's just not possible. It's not possible because the people who have the money to develop such technology are the same people who stand to benefit from keeping it hidden. Why develop alternative fuels if you want oil prices high?

It's frustrating, isn't it? Democracy, it would seem, begins to fail in the same way the communism fails: people with the power make decisions to benefit themselves. The only difference is that in a democracy, those in power have to make an effort to appear as though they have the interest of the people at heart. Most of the time.

To Blave, which means to bluff...

Well, Mikey has certainly proclaimed the gospel according to blog. And very convincingly, I think. But I'm left wondering. I mean, if I accept that you don't care what I think, and I write this for myself, then what is the point? Wouldn't my time be better spent playing Xbox or something?

So you know what I think about the Frosted Flakes cover-up attempt (no, there really isn't one that I know of). Or maybe you know what I think about eye liner. Do you care? Is it important? Is a thought important just because I had it? Is it important to share just because I can? Does freedom of speech mean that we should all start speaking?

That seems to be the fundamental assumption of the blog. All thoughts are not only worth having, but also worth sharing. Such noise is created that I can't hear myself type. So much drivel is created that it becomes difficult to find good writing (this post is the perfect example of drivel, in case you're wondering).

***Insert Mikey's argument for blogging here. It's better than one I could come up with.***

To blog, or not to blog. That is the question.

To blog or not to blog.

Well, Mikey has certainly proclaimed the gospel according to blog. And very convincingly, I think.

But I'm left wondering. I mean, if I accept that you don't care what I think, and I write this for myself, then what is the point? Wouldn't my time be better spent playing Xbox or something?

So you know what I think about the Frosted Flakes cover-up attempt (no, there really isn't one that I know of). Or maybe you know what I think about eye liner. Do you care? Is it important?

Is a thought important just because I had it? Is it important to share just because I can? Does freedom of speech mean that we should all start speaking?

That seems to be the fundamental assumption of the blog. All thoughts are not only worth having, but also worth sharing. Such noise is created that I can't hear myself type. So much drivel is created that it becomes difficult to find good writing (this post is the perfect example of drivel, in case you're wondering).

***Insert Mikey's argument for blogging here. It's better than one I could come up with.***

To blog, or not to blog. That is the question.

What's a Blog for, Anyway?

I'm sitting here in front of my computer, wondering what exactly I'm supposed to be doing. I could rant now. I've recently learned the html tag for ranting from Mikey. Not only that, but I've been inspired to insert a link by his linkfullness, referenced in my last posting.

And now that I'm stretching my legs, I think I could even use the little quote thingies.

Actually, I am flabbergasted by the prospect of the "little guy" overcoming adversity and becoming more than his pitiful existence now. --George W Bush

Actually, he never said that (even though he probably has thought it). Maybe the little quote guys will get me in trouble. I'll just leave them out.

But I really do wonder why blogs are around. What does that say about society as a whole? So I'll start blogging. And someone (probably only one) will read them. And you'll only come back to read again if you agree with me. Or if you think I'm a putz. But for the most part, this is just a place for me to practice typing. And whether you want to admit it or not, your blog is the same. Unless your blog is a place where you can put very cute pictures of your new baby, in which case those of us in Timbuktu appreciate it.

You know, I guess in the end blogging is good. How much better to get your frustrations out in "print" rather than carrying a glock in the glove compartment and waiting for an opportunity!

So blog on, dear world. Write write write. Consider it therapy. And quit cutting me off in traffic, or else I'll open my glove compartment.

2 in a row!

For the second day in a row, I am posting. Not in a basketball, "posting up" kind of way. But you knew that. Because you're an experienced blog-reading machine.

Other than that, I really don't know what to blog about. It's so much easier when you have something to rant on. Or something to complain about. Oh, the juices flow then! Take my friend Mikey (who's such an experienced blogger that he would have made that a link to the blog in question). He usually takes some piece of news and either hails it, complains about it, or makes puns with it. This is great for him, and leads to much hilarity. Did you catch the one about the fat linemen?

But I'm not really that guy, truth be told. I'm the one in the crowd that always says, "Can't we all just get along?" Worse than that, I'm the one in the crowd that always believes that we can.

How affirming for me.

Special thanks to the person I'm not calling "comma commando." Or "promiscuous periods." Or, an a more encompassing way, "Punctuation Punk." I appreciate your encouragement.

Look. I want to post. Really. I want to spend lots of time writing elaborate messages. My dream is to write one that includes something like the Bible code. That way, you could read my message and find out about care and feeding of toadstools, but you could also read between the lines and find out about something really secret. I mean, so secret that the only other way you'll find out is by locating the decoder ring in a cracker jack box.

No, there just isn't time. I find myself sitting here at my desk, doing those things that music directors do, wondering when I'm ever going to get caught up. And you, puncuation punk, can't say something encouraging?

I'll bet you're the guy in the back row at the concert who throws beer at the stage, only managing to cover people in the back 4 rows, one of whom is almost invariably me.

Thanks. A lot. Punk.

This is my first post. It's stupid.

Or am I? I'm not sure. I'm not even sure if I'm going to do much posting. Come on. Do I have time for this? No.