When I first took an interest in "Family Trees", I was young and innocent of sense, common or otherwise. I had the idea that if I looked hard enough I would find lurking in the branches of my ancestry kings, astronauts, baseball players... or maybe someone wealthy who had left behind a healthy fortune just for me.
So far, the closest my DNA comes to fame and fortune is "7th cousin to Richard Nixon and Dwight D. Eisenhower's grandchildren".* But as cool as it is to be able to say that, I've discovered a much deeper fondness for my less "glamorous" ancestors than my younger self would have thought possible.
One of those regular people was Bob Callin. His great-grandfather, William Callin, was a true pioneer, clearing at least two farms in Ohio. Before the Civil War, one of those farms was a "stop" on the Underground Railroad. Bob's grandfather, John Henry Callin, fought for the Union, alongside brothers and cousins, and became a teacher after the war. His father, John Quincy Callin, was another groundbreaker, moving the family to Florida long before it became the Enchanted Kingdom. Bob himself enlisted in the Army when the rumbling approach of the Second World War could still be mistaken for a thunderstorm, and by the end of it, he had found his best friend and greatest partner, Nancy. They eventually settled in Glendale, the desert city where her father had carved out a farm back when Pancho Villa was still a real threat.
But, as impressive and manly as these deeds may sound in the history books, the real men behind them were not John Wayne archetypes. These were Real Men, who got by with love and a strange sense of humor. They would have needed a lot of both to survive. Great-grandpa William discovered an oil well on his farm, and sold it for what he thought was a great profit -- just a few years before Mr. Ford's very popular automobile took off. Grandpa John's Civil War service was spent largely in hospitals, recovering from diseases picked up in Civil War hospitals. And Bob's father, John, would write ruefully humorous letters to his son chronicling "that old Callin luck" that kept him from becoming a real estate tycoon. (It had less to do with luck, and more to do with a man who was too generous to succeed in such a cutthroat market.)
The man I knew as Grandpa Bob was every bit as lucky as his forefathers; blessed with happiness and a healthy family, yet plagued by minor tragedies. Prone to accidents around open cupboard doors and his beloved Volkswagen, Fang, he met every challenge with a long-suffering grin, and a ready joke. My last visit with him, during our 2005 Christmas trip to Arizona, he had just come out of the hospital. He had required another procedure to clean up his circulatory system, and the doctors had left him with livid bruises on both his arms. I asked him if it hurt him, and if he was alright, and he said he was.
"It's not as bad as it looks," he told me, looking somewhat glum. But then his eye twinkled, and he perked up as he said, "But you shoulda seen the OTHER guy!"
So, while I may not have found any kings or powerful magnates in our past, I have found something of much greater value to me. Our stories are the treasures that we spend at family gatherings. They collect in our memories, and the interest compounds with time. They are fortunes built on love, and Grandpa Bob always had a great storehouse of that treasure.
He will be missed, but our sadness is overwhelmed by the joy of having known him. We will mourn, but we are grateful for his life and his love: the greatest inheritance.
*Julie Nixon married Dwight D. Eisenhower, II, and my grandmother was 5th cousin to President Nixon. I can prove it, if you like!
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
New Blog/Old Tricks
Welcome. I know that saying this will make it seem like I don't know what I'm doing, but that's alright because I really don't know what I'm doing.
Here's the story:
Back in my USAF days, I worked on a watch floor. This meant regular mid-watches, often with little or nothing to do (don't start in on the self-improvement crap, or I'll get very cranky). Out of the dull stretches of the wee hours grew a weekly gathering/editing/resending tradition that I called "Tad's Happy Funtime".
From day one of the existence of email, there have been bad jokes circulating, and I made it part of my personal mission to collect them and distribute them to others who, like me, were sitting before a CRT screen at 2a.m. wondering how long they could hold their urine without doing permanent damage to their kidneys.
After a time, finding new material to forward became harder. Either I had seen it and sent it, or seen it and deleted it in disgust. Eventually, I began to include more of my own brain scribblings and meanderings... and much to my surprise, this was a bigger hit with people than the stupid jokes, lists of "actual quotes", Onion articles, and other violations of taste and UCMJ regulations.
Upon finding myself in the civilian world, several friends urged me to keep up THFT, and I tried half-heartedly to do so. Finally, James started up a Blogger.com account, called it "Tad's Happy Funtime", and begged me to start posting. We put up a number of stories there (happyphuntime.blogspot.com), and also started a seperate account just for our toilet humor (cornerstall.blogspot.com). But it was hard to keep up with, and I didn't really see the point. Eventually, I just stopped going there.
Then came MySpace. I've been putting all kinds of goofy crap up on there, including some stories I wrote for a science fiction contest sponsored by my favorite Podcast (Escape Pod). The trouble was that I wanted to be able to share some of these writings with family and friends who weren't on MySpace.
And so, I have returned to Blogger.com in order to make my favorite snips and tails available for the public at large. If you care to see any of the older items, please visit the "happyphuntime" site, and skim through the archives. Newer stuff will show up on a strict schedule of "when I feel like it".
Either way, I'm not here to sell anything, change any minds, or make any enemies. I'm here to help anyone who is stuck in the watches of the night, staring at a screen and wishing there was something to read that can take the mind off of a swelling bladder for a while. I'm here to share. I'm here to reminisce (albeit imperfectly). Most of all, I'm here to help you take life a little less seriously.
It's only life, after all.
Here's the story:
Back in my USAF days, I worked on a watch floor. This meant regular mid-watches, often with little or nothing to do (don't start in on the self-improvement crap, or I'll get very cranky). Out of the dull stretches of the wee hours grew a weekly gathering/editing/resending tradition that I called "Tad's Happy Funtime".
From day one of the existence of email, there have been bad jokes circulating, and I made it part of my personal mission to collect them and distribute them to others who, like me, were sitting before a CRT screen at 2a.m. wondering how long they could hold their urine without doing permanent damage to their kidneys.
After a time, finding new material to forward became harder. Either I had seen it and sent it, or seen it and deleted it in disgust. Eventually, I began to include more of my own brain scribblings and meanderings... and much to my surprise, this was a bigger hit with people than the stupid jokes, lists of "actual quotes", Onion articles, and other violations of taste and UCMJ regulations.
Upon finding myself in the civilian world, several friends urged me to keep up THFT, and I tried half-heartedly to do so. Finally, James started up a Blogger.com account, called it "Tad's Happy Funtime", and begged me to start posting. We put up a number of stories there (happyphuntime.blogspot.com), and also started a seperate account just for our toilet humor (cornerstall.blogspot.com). But it was hard to keep up with, and I didn't really see the point. Eventually, I just stopped going there.
Then came MySpace. I've been putting all kinds of goofy crap up on there, including some stories I wrote for a science fiction contest sponsored by my favorite Podcast (Escape Pod). The trouble was that I wanted to be able to share some of these writings with family and friends who weren't on MySpace.
And so, I have returned to Blogger.com in order to make my favorite snips and tails available for the public at large. If you care to see any of the older items, please visit the "happyphuntime" site, and skim through the archives. Newer stuff will show up on a strict schedule of "when I feel like it".
Either way, I'm not here to sell anything, change any minds, or make any enemies. I'm here to help anyone who is stuck in the watches of the night, staring at a screen and wishing there was something to read that can take the mind off of a swelling bladder for a while. I'm here to share. I'm here to reminisce (albeit imperfectly). Most of all, I'm here to help you take life a little less seriously.
It's only life, after all.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
2 Chikkn 2 Pro-TEST!
Originally posted Sunday, January 28, 2007, I wanted to remind everyone that I have LONG argued against war, and have LONG been uncomfortable with those who protest. This is something that often confuses people.
As you may or may not have noticed, depending on your media coverage of choice, there was a Peace Rally in DC on Saturday. Many thousands of people showed up to denounce the poor handling of the war, to protest the proposed surge, and to call for the impeachment of the President and his V.P.
As you may or may not have noticed, depending on whether you have read Kater's blog (my #1 friend), I didn't go.
I will admit that the main reason I didn't go with her was that I chickened out. I was afraid for the safety of my family (always a risk when leaving the house), I was worried about my legal standing (marching around with people dressed as the Devil and dangling marionette effigies of one's boss from their hands is frowned upon by most employers), and... I'm not 100% in agreement with the protesters.
That's right: I'm not willing to stand in front of Jane Fonda and cheer just yet, despite my general opposition to this war from day one. (Day one being 15 September 2001, which is when I first heard Mr. Rumsfeld trying to tie Iraq to the 9/11 tragedy, and realized that I heard a grand national railroad building up steam.)
The way I see it, I'm already doing what I can do to for the war effort on a daily basis. I won't talk about that here, but those of you who know me are welcome to invite me out for a quiet drink sometime to discuss it.
As for the "surge", my objective feeling about that is this: isn't it a little late to be second-guessing the Commander in Chief? I heard a lot of (pardon me, Mom...) assholes during the Clinton administration pulling that "I don't have to respect the man, but I will respect his office" crap, and now it's my turn. He may have failed to fulfill every promise I wanted him to keep (and kept a few I wish he hadn't made), but until he is legally removed from office, I am legally sworn to support his decisions.
Which brings us to the popular calls for impeachment. I put it to you this way: there is as much evidence to impeach as there was to invade Iraq. People like AG Gonzales may be slimy, double-talking, word-raping lawyers... but they are good lawyers, which means you won't be able to pin much on them when the dust settles.
Furthermore, it is my humble opinion that our Congress wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to impeach a president who ate a baby on national television; all he would have to do in his defense is:
a) stonewall them with denials until they produce the tape,
b) claim that the baby was a terrorist until they can prove otherwise, and
c) use the intervening time to dig up instances of Congressional baby-eating, thus forcing them to admit that, gee, it's not that impeachable an offense after all, is it?
So, you might now be wondering, "If he feels that way, is he mad at his wife for going to the rally?" No, I'm not. I know she has agonized over the events of the last few years right along with me. I know she has supported our troops steadfastly throughout, organizing charity events through her Girl Scout troop, and generally contributing in any way she can. In other words, I know she hasn't changed her opinion with the winds of the media (when they deign to cover the real events); I know she isn't just going down to be part of some "party" atmosphere or to be near celebrities. You go ahead and list a few more of the petty barbs the pundits might sling at the protesters: they don't apply to my wife.
So yes, I support what she is doing, even if I don't feel I can join her. I maintain a firm belief that people should exercise their right to assembly, and their right to express their opinions, whether I agree with them or not.
That said, I hereby exercise my God-given right to say "I told you so" to:
* everyone who allowed the 2000 election to fall to the right, and groused about it later
* everyone who told me to shut up when I tried to warn you that this stuff would happen after 9/11
* everyone who let them string us along, promising "evidence" of WMD, but didn't make them produce it in 2002
* everyone who insists on blaming the media for the bad news, but lets the administration off the hook for the bad planning, and...
* every 3rd party member who voted either Democrat or Republican for fear of "wasting" your vote.
I'll say again, for anyone still reading: let's find a better way to pick these people. Let's not blow it again.
As you may or may not have noticed, depending on your media coverage of choice, there was a Peace Rally in DC on Saturday. Many thousands of people showed up to denounce the poor handling of the war, to protest the proposed surge, and to call for the impeachment of the President and his V.P.
As you may or may not have noticed, depending on whether you have read Kater's blog (my #1 friend), I didn't go.
I will admit that the main reason I didn't go with her was that I chickened out. I was afraid for the safety of my family (always a risk when leaving the house), I was worried about my legal standing (marching around with people dressed as the Devil and dangling marionette effigies of one's boss from their hands is frowned upon by most employers), and... I'm not 100% in agreement with the protesters.
That's right: I'm not willing to stand in front of Jane Fonda and cheer just yet, despite my general opposition to this war from day one. (Day one being 15 September 2001, which is when I first heard Mr. Rumsfeld trying to tie Iraq to the 9/11 tragedy, and realized that I heard a grand national railroad building up steam.)
The way I see it, I'm already doing what I can do to for the war effort on a daily basis. I won't talk about that here, but those of you who know me are welcome to invite me out for a quiet drink sometime to discuss it.
As for the "surge", my objective feeling about that is this: isn't it a little late to be second-guessing the Commander in Chief? I heard a lot of (pardon me, Mom...) assholes during the Clinton administration pulling that "I don't have to respect the man, but I will respect his office" crap, and now it's my turn. He may have failed to fulfill every promise I wanted him to keep (and kept a few I wish he hadn't made), but until he is legally removed from office, I am legally sworn to support his decisions.
Which brings us to the popular calls for impeachment. I put it to you this way: there is as much evidence to impeach as there was to invade Iraq. People like AG Gonzales may be slimy, double-talking, word-raping lawyers... but they are good lawyers, which means you won't be able to pin much on them when the dust settles.
Furthermore, it is my humble opinion that our Congress wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to impeach a president who ate a baby on national television; all he would have to do in his defense is:
a) stonewall them with denials until they produce the tape,
b) claim that the baby was a terrorist until they can prove otherwise, and
c) use the intervening time to dig up instances of Congressional baby-eating, thus forcing them to admit that, gee, it's not that impeachable an offense after all, is it?
So, you might now be wondering, "If he feels that way, is he mad at his wife for going to the rally?" No, I'm not. I know she has agonized over the events of the last few years right along with me. I know she has supported our troops steadfastly throughout, organizing charity events through her Girl Scout troop, and generally contributing in any way she can. In other words, I know she hasn't changed her opinion with the winds of the media (when they deign to cover the real events); I know she isn't just going down to be part of some "party" atmosphere or to be near celebrities. You go ahead and list a few more of the petty barbs the pundits might sling at the protesters: they don't apply to my wife.
So yes, I support what she is doing, even if I don't feel I can join her. I maintain a firm belief that people should exercise their right to assembly, and their right to express their opinions, whether I agree with them or not.
That said, I hereby exercise my God-given right to say "I told you so" to:
* everyone who allowed the 2000 election to fall to the right, and groused about it later
* everyone who told me to shut up when I tried to warn you that this stuff would happen after 9/11
* everyone who let them string us along, promising "evidence" of WMD, but didn't make them produce it in 2002
* everyone who insists on blaming the media for the bad news, but lets the administration off the hook for the bad planning, and...
* every 3rd party member who voted either Democrat or Republican for fear of "wasting" your vote.
I'll say again, for anyone still reading: let's find a better way to pick these people. Let's not blow it again.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Is It Too Much to Ask?
From Martin Luther King Day, Monday, January 15, 2007 - again, note that I wrote this before I had heard of Barack Obama. It's worth reflecting, regardless of your opinions, that electing him was a significant moment in our history.
Some would argue that a certain dream will never come true. They will point to the problems that we still have, and to the conflicts that still arise, and they will tell you that this is how it will always be. They will hold up the human failings of the dreamers and sneer at their faith and their goals. They will tell you that holding on to that dream is foolish and weak.
I disagree.
People will always be people, and that means there will always be something to fight over; but look at how very far we have come. Those who used to be banished to the back are now driving the bus. Those who were forced to run a gauntlet through jeering crowds to get to school are now the administrators, teachers, coaches, and superintendents. The transition is not complete, but it is implacable, and the Dream is attainable.
It is still going to be hard to take it all the way to its conclusion; past the grudging acceptance of the last generation, through the sometimes painful transition of our own, and into the peaceful and colorblind integration of the next. I can see it coming in the way my own children behave with their classmates; working together every day, seeing their similarities, and minimizing their differences.
Some have argued that this "politically correct" vision is being forced on them. They say that things like Martin Luther King's holiday and Black History Month are being shoved down their throats -- and they try to pretend as though it is this that they object to, and nothing else. They try to pretend that their resentment comes from some betrayal of their rights. To those people I say, you are not being dragged from your home and forced to endure 400 years of subjugation. You are being asked to help bring about a society where that sort of thing can't happen, and if you don't like the methods being used, you are more than welcome to offer a peaceful alternative. You have that right because courageous people like Dr. King led the fight for promised equality, and not for dominance.
And you can't stand in the way of that goal without giving the lie to your own avowed American ideals.
The beauty of the Dream was not that it led to a peaceful fairytale vision of the future; I don't think anyone has ever really believed that we could bring about Utopia. The beauty of the Dream lay in the non-violent nature of the journey. Dr. King's faith in those ideals that we have had "forced down our throats" since primary school -- the ideals of peace, freedom and equality -- is what makes his Dream so powerful. His Dream was that the so-called American Dream would come true, and we would all pay more than lip service to it.
It is that faith in our own ideals that we need to hold onto, even in the face of war.
The last few years have been a test of our belief in those ideals; a test we have done poorly on. We have allowed ourselves to be led into all of the old, familiar traps that have perpetuated violence and oppression throughout human history. "Eye for an eye", "if you are not with us you are against us", and "by any means necessary"; these are not the ideals our fabled founding fathers set out for us. These are the easy answers of the reactionary, the tool of those who crave power, and the Achilles' Heel of the ignorant.
The tragic truth is that people who truly believe in peace are few and far between. Finding people with the courage to say, "We have a reason to fight, but there is a better weapon than violence" is my own dream, though it seems impossible these days. Prevailing logic tells us that our enemies must be killed, but our methods have driven away our allies, and the violence has only continued the cycle of revenge.
What we desperately need is someone who, like Dr. King, can articulate a way to bring about peace peacefully, and can convince even the most rabid hawks to give us that chance to end the fighting.
And let's see if we can't keep that person alive this time, along with the Dream.
Some would argue that a certain dream will never come true. They will point to the problems that we still have, and to the conflicts that still arise, and they will tell you that this is how it will always be. They will hold up the human failings of the dreamers and sneer at their faith and their goals. They will tell you that holding on to that dream is foolish and weak.
I disagree.
People will always be people, and that means there will always be something to fight over; but look at how very far we have come. Those who used to be banished to the back are now driving the bus. Those who were forced to run a gauntlet through jeering crowds to get to school are now the administrators, teachers, coaches, and superintendents. The transition is not complete, but it is implacable, and the Dream is attainable.
It is still going to be hard to take it all the way to its conclusion; past the grudging acceptance of the last generation, through the sometimes painful transition of our own, and into the peaceful and colorblind integration of the next. I can see it coming in the way my own children behave with their classmates; working together every day, seeing their similarities, and minimizing their differences.
Some have argued that this "politically correct" vision is being forced on them. They say that things like Martin Luther King's holiday and Black History Month are being shoved down their throats -- and they try to pretend as though it is this that they object to, and nothing else. They try to pretend that their resentment comes from some betrayal of their rights. To those people I say, you are not being dragged from your home and forced to endure 400 years of subjugation. You are being asked to help bring about a society where that sort of thing can't happen, and if you don't like the methods being used, you are more than welcome to offer a peaceful alternative. You have that right because courageous people like Dr. King led the fight for promised equality, and not for dominance.
And you can't stand in the way of that goal without giving the lie to your own avowed American ideals.
The beauty of the Dream was not that it led to a peaceful fairytale vision of the future; I don't think anyone has ever really believed that we could bring about Utopia. The beauty of the Dream lay in the non-violent nature of the journey. Dr. King's faith in those ideals that we have had "forced down our throats" since primary school -- the ideals of peace, freedom and equality -- is what makes his Dream so powerful. His Dream was that the so-called American Dream would come true, and we would all pay more than lip service to it.
It is that faith in our own ideals that we need to hold onto, even in the face of war.
The last few years have been a test of our belief in those ideals; a test we have done poorly on. We have allowed ourselves to be led into all of the old, familiar traps that have perpetuated violence and oppression throughout human history. "Eye for an eye", "if you are not with us you are against us", and "by any means necessary"; these are not the ideals our fabled founding fathers set out for us. These are the easy answers of the reactionary, the tool of those who crave power, and the Achilles' Heel of the ignorant.
The tragic truth is that people who truly believe in peace are few and far between. Finding people with the courage to say, "We have a reason to fight, but there is a better weapon than violence" is my own dream, though it seems impossible these days. Prevailing logic tells us that our enemies must be killed, but our methods have driven away our allies, and the violence has only continued the cycle of revenge.
What we desperately need is someone who, like Dr. King, can articulate a way to bring about peace peacefully, and can convince even the most rabid hawks to give us that chance to end the fighting.
And let's see if we can't keep that person alive this time, along with the Dream.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Majority Report
Originally posted 3 January, 2007, I thought I adequately expressed my lack of enthusiasm about the Democratic Party's recapture of a slim Congressional majority, but I guess since I didn't call to have them poisoned or compare them to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Darth Vader, I was considered "too tame"...
Well, the holidays are over, and it's time to get back to the business at hand. The Dawn of the Dems has arrived, friends and neighbors, and a new chapter in American politics begins. Of course, it will sound a lot like the last chapter...good luck keeping straight who's who.
The new majority may be slimmer than Nicole Ritchie, but it will still behave as though it has a universal mandate from the mythical People (you know, the People they are all supposed to be looking out for). The new minority, despite 12 years of nearly unimpeded corruption and a full death grip on all three branches of government will blame their ascendant opponents for all of the country's ills. Careers will rise and fall like Roman candles on the 4th of July, characters will be assassinated in the run-up to the next big brouhaha, and nothing much will be accomplished except the small accidental triumphs that come from the rest of us ignoring them all and struggling on as best as we can.
But rather than waste the next year or so listening to the Leaders of Conventional Wisdom blat away at each other with overwrought and under-thought rhetoric, how's about we try something new. Let's start a list of "things that really matter that we can fix", and maybe another one of "people who really ARE looking out for us". Don't put labels on them, just note when they do things right. You may have to go looking for them, because people doing good things doesn't make the news; but they are out there. Let's start now so that when the Coke and Pepsi candidates ask which tastes better, we can tell them... I'll take a beer, thanks.
I know it's sad to think of putting them out of work... but I can think of a very nice parting gift: Has Been, by William Shatner
Well, the holidays are over, and it's time to get back to the business at hand. The Dawn of the Dems has arrived, friends and neighbors, and a new chapter in American politics begins. Of course, it will sound a lot like the last chapter...good luck keeping straight who's who.
The new majority may be slimmer than Nicole Ritchie, but it will still behave as though it has a universal mandate from the mythical People (you know, the People they are all supposed to be looking out for). The new minority, despite 12 years of nearly unimpeded corruption and a full death grip on all three branches of government will blame their ascendant opponents for all of the country's ills. Careers will rise and fall like Roman candles on the 4th of July, characters will be assassinated in the run-up to the next big brouhaha, and nothing much will be accomplished except the small accidental triumphs that come from the rest of us ignoring them all and struggling on as best as we can.
But rather than waste the next year or so listening to the Leaders of Conventional Wisdom blat away at each other with overwrought and under-thought rhetoric, how's about we try something new. Let's start a list of "things that really matter that we can fix", and maybe another one of "people who really ARE looking out for us". Don't put labels on them, just note when they do things right. You may have to go looking for them, because people doing good things doesn't make the news; but they are out there. Let's start now so that when the Coke and Pepsi candidates ask which tastes better, we can tell them... I'll take a beer, thanks.
I know it's sad to think of putting them out of work... but I can think of a very nice parting gift: Has Been, by William Shatner
Friday, November 10, 2006
What Makes Me Gay
Originally posted Friday, November 10, 2006, this little piece still makes me giggle at my own wit... which is pretty gay. My hope is that, if YOU are gay, you will recognize that the intent is to mock the clueless way supposedly non-gay people have stereotyped and demonized you - and, in their cluelessness, me. If you are NOT gay, the intent is to make you wonder.
Current mood:Super (thanks for asking)
I am not a homosexual, and yet people feel compelled to tell me with alarming frequency that I am Gay. What prompts this sort of thing? Well...
1) I don't like football. Nor do I care for professional wrestling, NASCAR, hunting, or even fishing. I do, however, enjoy all manner of music, and even a bit of theater. This, I am told, makes me Gay. I first learned this from a football player -- of course -- who told me that being in choir was gay, and that a real man played football. I questioned his logic, since choir brought me into close, occasionally intimate contact with a variety of lovely young women, while football offered the prospect of showering en masse with a roomful of men.
Years later there was a major scandal in our state involving "hazing" practices on many of our varsity teams. A few of the teams had forced new players to participate in highly illegal and certainly immoral acts with livestock and with each other.
Conclusion: football is "gay".
2) I love my wife. This beautiful woman, whom I often refer to as "my lovely bride", is the central focus of my existence, my business manager, my lover, and of course, my best friend. I will emphasize one of her most obvious features: she is a female. Yang to my yin, if you will. Most assuredly NOT a man.
And yet, when I mention -- or even hint -- that I feel this way about my spouse, my fellow men tell me (you may have guessed): how very Gay I am.
Pardon me for asking, but isn't being "gay" supposed to have something to do with activities between males? Or, at least, two or more persons of the SAME gender? After all, the subject usually comes up when I'm making excuses for not going out "with the fellas", drinking, watching football, or other "manly" activities. Somehow, preferring the company of my wife -- a person of the opposite gender -- to that of my male counterparts is what they are pointing out as my fatal flaw.
Conclusion: marriage, between a man and a woman, is Gay.
3) Then there is Grandpa. Grandpa would come to our house, and my parents would hover about, making sure that his Archie Bunker-esque comments were edited for our wee ears. But Grandpa felt that there were Things We Should Know about the world, so we could effectively gird ourselves with the whole armor of God. (Ephesians 6:13) So, when mom and dad were busy, Grandpa would pull us aside and "warn us" in extremely cryptic terms about the evils of the world.
"Never cross a brown horse with a white horse, son," he said once. I was confused. "Isn't that how you get an Appaloosa, Grandpa?" I asked. He made and exasperated noise, sounding rather like Foghorn Leghorn trying to talk the chicken hawk out of eating him. "No, son, you misunderstand me..."
He often suggested haircuts, though my hair was never any longer than you see it in the Superman picture to the left. And of course he cautioned against earrings of any kind. "You don't want to get too light in the loafers, son" he would say. Whatever THAT was supposed to mean. I ran to the bathroom to weigh myself, but I wasn't even sure what would count as "too light". So I changed into sneakers.
As near as I could figure, before someone actually explained what a "homosexual" was, being gay meant growing your hair out, piercing your ears, and walking around hating Jesus. So, basically, I thought it was a big word for "pirate". I did have one question about Grandpa's definition, though.
"What about Jesus, Grandpa? He had long hair. Was HE gay?"
After the choking and spluttering died down, Grandpa explained that Jesus didn't actually have long hair. All those pictures you see were just propaganda made up by Satan. (Also known in Grandpa's world as "the Catholic Church".) You see, they were all shepherds back then, and of course, they knew how to shear sheep. So, undoubtedly, he kept his hair shorn in a nice, brisk, 1950's era flat-top like any respectable Southern Baptist preacher. He appeared to be so relieved to have come up with that explanation, I didn't even ask about all of the kissing going on between men. Or why Jesus never got married.
Conclusion: Jesus was secretly Gay.
Summary: while I am not a homosexual, I am definitely going to hell. Which is fine with me, as long as they don't let in any football players!
Current mood:Super (thanks for asking)
I am not a homosexual, and yet people feel compelled to tell me with alarming frequency that I am Gay. What prompts this sort of thing? Well...
1) I don't like football. Nor do I care for professional wrestling, NASCAR, hunting, or even fishing. I do, however, enjoy all manner of music, and even a bit of theater. This, I am told, makes me Gay. I first learned this from a football player -- of course -- who told me that being in choir was gay, and that a real man played football. I questioned his logic, since choir brought me into close, occasionally intimate contact with a variety of lovely young women, while football offered the prospect of showering en masse with a roomful of men.
Years later there was a major scandal in our state involving "hazing" practices on many of our varsity teams. A few of the teams had forced new players to participate in highly illegal and certainly immoral acts with livestock and with each other.
Conclusion: football is "gay".
2) I love my wife. This beautiful woman, whom I often refer to as "my lovely bride", is the central focus of my existence, my business manager, my lover, and of course, my best friend. I will emphasize one of her most obvious features: she is a female. Yang to my yin, if you will. Most assuredly NOT a man.
And yet, when I mention -- or even hint -- that I feel this way about my spouse, my fellow men tell me (you may have guessed): how very Gay I am.
Pardon me for asking, but isn't being "gay" supposed to have something to do with activities between males? Or, at least, two or more persons of the SAME gender? After all, the subject usually comes up when I'm making excuses for not going out "with the fellas", drinking, watching football, or other "manly" activities. Somehow, preferring the company of my wife -- a person of the opposite gender -- to that of my male counterparts is what they are pointing out as my fatal flaw.
Conclusion: marriage, between a man and a woman, is Gay.
3) Then there is Grandpa. Grandpa would come to our house, and my parents would hover about, making sure that his Archie Bunker-esque comments were edited for our wee ears. But Grandpa felt that there were Things We Should Know about the world, so we could effectively gird ourselves with the whole armor of God. (Ephesians 6:13) So, when mom and dad were busy, Grandpa would pull us aside and "warn us" in extremely cryptic terms about the evils of the world.
"Never cross a brown horse with a white horse, son," he said once. I was confused. "Isn't that how you get an Appaloosa, Grandpa?" I asked. He made and exasperated noise, sounding rather like Foghorn Leghorn trying to talk the chicken hawk out of eating him. "No, son, you misunderstand me..."
He often suggested haircuts, though my hair was never any longer than you see it in the Superman picture to the left. And of course he cautioned against earrings of any kind. "You don't want to get too light in the loafers, son" he would say. Whatever THAT was supposed to mean. I ran to the bathroom to weigh myself, but I wasn't even sure what would count as "too light". So I changed into sneakers.
As near as I could figure, before someone actually explained what a "homosexual" was, being gay meant growing your hair out, piercing your ears, and walking around hating Jesus. So, basically, I thought it was a big word for "pirate". I did have one question about Grandpa's definition, though.
"What about Jesus, Grandpa? He had long hair. Was HE gay?"
After the choking and spluttering died down, Grandpa explained that Jesus didn't actually have long hair. All those pictures you see were just propaganda made up by Satan. (Also known in Grandpa's world as "the Catholic Church".) You see, they were all shepherds back then, and of course, they knew how to shear sheep. So, undoubtedly, he kept his hair shorn in a nice, brisk, 1950's era flat-top like any respectable Southern Baptist preacher. He appeared to be so relieved to have come up with that explanation, I didn't even ask about all of the kissing going on between men. Or why Jesus never got married.
Conclusion: Jesus was secretly Gay.
Summary: while I am not a homosexual, I am definitely going to hell. Which is fine with me, as long as they don't let in any football players!
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Put Up or Shut Up
I wrote this after a piece called "Bad News for Those who Hate 'Liberals'", because the response to that piece was to accuse me of being a "liberal"... or worse, a Democrat. This is from Saturday, October 14, 2006, and it obviously had no effect on the general populous. The links provided in the original were outdated, so I went ahead and updated them.
I've said before that we need to give the so-called "Third parties" another look, but I know without reading any of your responses to that statement that a lot of you won't. Some of you have looked at them before and decided that they were nuts, some of you bought into the ridiculous idea that NOT voting for the Donkey or the Elephant would be the same thing as not voting, and some of you were just too lazy to bother.
Well, let's address these misguided notions, shall we?
First: Those Third Parties are all full of nuts.
Okay, maybe they are. But tell me this: would you rather have a nut willing to try some new ideas, or a crook willing only to sell you out to the highest bidder sitting in that elected office? Honestly, if you are fed up with your traditional party's inability to represent you, what is the harm in giving someone else a shot? Besides, that is exactly what our system of Checks & Balances is for! If you don't like the results, you can get rid of the nut... but you have to give them a chance first.
And hold the phone -- when you say you've "looked at them" before, do you mean that you actually visited their sites, read their platforms, or done anything more than wait for someone on FOX or CNN to make snide references to them in passing? Think about how quickly you are willing to write them off and sell yourself back to the big-money boys. I'm tired of Republicans and Democrats smugly telling us that they are the only two choices, and expecting me to run to them based on the "lesser of two evils" principle.
Second: Voting for them is like throwing away my vote, because they can't win anyway.
WRONG. Voting for a guy you don't like, who will not represent you, and who won't stand up for anything you believe in is throwing away your vote. So is being too lazy to do any research, and showing up at the polls, only to pick "D" or "R" down your whole ticket. So is simply not voting, because "they won't count me anyway". Enough of that bogus, defeatist, LAZY talk!
In 1992, Ross Perot (certified nut, and "Third Party" candidate) took 17% of the Presidential vote. Some post-ballot polls showed that some 15% of those who voted for the two major parties only voted for them because they "didn't think Perot would win". In a three-way race, that could have given him more than 35%... more than 1/3 (allowing for the usual margins of error in polls). But only if people actually cast the vote according to their conscience, and not according to some misguided notion of popularity.
And last: Again, don't be lazy. I'm a very lazy procrastinator, and yet I can come up with a list of links in five minutes to find out what I feel I need to know about the candidates. Here is a handful that you might find useful:
*Write to Your Representative (search engine for finding your U.S. Rep)
*Contact your Senator
*List of Third Party Presidential Candidates
*Tweet Congress - so you can "follow" your representatives
I'd like to point out to you that I am not 100% behind any of these people myself, and I'm not campaigning for anyone (which would be a violation of the 1939 Hatch Act). But I want my friends and readers to be educated about the possibilities. I am educating myself, too. None of the candidates have fulfilled my wildest dreams, but I have emailed a few of them, and will make up my mind based on their answers. There is nothing stopping you from doing the same. Don't be ignorant; don't be complacent.
Don't be Sheep.
I've said before that we need to give the so-called "Third parties" another look, but I know without reading any of your responses to that statement that a lot of you won't. Some of you have looked at them before and decided that they were nuts, some of you bought into the ridiculous idea that NOT voting for the Donkey or the Elephant would be the same thing as not voting, and some of you were just too lazy to bother.
Well, let's address these misguided notions, shall we?
First: Those Third Parties are all full of nuts.
Okay, maybe they are. But tell me this: would you rather have a nut willing to try some new ideas, or a crook willing only to sell you out to the highest bidder sitting in that elected office? Honestly, if you are fed up with your traditional party's inability to represent you, what is the harm in giving someone else a shot? Besides, that is exactly what our system of Checks & Balances is for! If you don't like the results, you can get rid of the nut... but you have to give them a chance first.
And hold the phone -- when you say you've "looked at them" before, do you mean that you actually visited their sites, read their platforms, or done anything more than wait for someone on FOX or CNN to make snide references to them in passing? Think about how quickly you are willing to write them off and sell yourself back to the big-money boys. I'm tired of Republicans and Democrats smugly telling us that they are the only two choices, and expecting me to run to them based on the "lesser of two evils" principle.
Second: Voting for them is like throwing away my vote, because they can't win anyway.
WRONG. Voting for a guy you don't like, who will not represent you, and who won't stand up for anything you believe in is throwing away your vote. So is being too lazy to do any research, and showing up at the polls, only to pick "D" or "R" down your whole ticket. So is simply not voting, because "they won't count me anyway". Enough of that bogus, defeatist, LAZY talk!
In 1992, Ross Perot (certified nut, and "Third Party" candidate) took 17% of the Presidential vote. Some post-ballot polls showed that some 15% of those who voted for the two major parties only voted for them because they "didn't think Perot would win". In a three-way race, that could have given him more than 35%... more than 1/3 (allowing for the usual margins of error in polls). But only if people actually cast the vote according to their conscience, and not according to some misguided notion of popularity.
And last: Again, don't be lazy. I'm a very lazy procrastinator, and yet I can come up with a list of links in five minutes to find out what I feel I need to know about the candidates. Here is a handful that you might find useful:
*Write to Your Representative (search engine for finding your U.S. Rep)
*Contact your Senator
*List of Third Party Presidential Candidates
*Tweet Congress - so you can "follow" your representatives
I'd like to point out to you that I am not 100% behind any of these people myself, and I'm not campaigning for anyone (which would be a violation of the 1939 Hatch Act). But I want my friends and readers to be educated about the possibilities. I am educating myself, too. None of the candidates have fulfilled my wildest dreams, but I have emailed a few of them, and will make up my mind based on their answers. There is nothing stopping you from doing the same. Don't be ignorant; don't be complacent.
Don't be Sheep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)