Maybe Papa Frank will have an edict to stop child abuse, prosecute priets who screw (figuratively and factually) with kids, endorse gay marriage, birth control, listen to the nuns, divest the church of some of their riches to actually help the poor  ... and maybe Rand Paul will turn into assholes and shit himself to death.

*****

The following letter to the editor speaks for itself. I'd have written it myself, had I had the insight.

A recent Opinion Line contributor asked, “Why are you liberals so afraid of us Christians?”

The reader made two assumptions that need to be addressed before answering the question. The first assumption is that liberals are non-Christians. It is true that some liberals are atheists, agnostics and members of other religions. But I’m willing to guess that the majority of liberals in America identify themselves as Christian.

As a liberal, I believe that it is our – meaning the people of the United States – responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves. One of the reasons that liberals believe in helping those less fortunate is that you never know when you may become a member of that group. Oddly enough, Christ taught the same thing.

The second assumption the reader made is that liberals are afraid of “Christians.” I don’t believe that liberals are afraid of Christians. What I would say is that the liberals don’t trust people who profess to be “good Christians” and then act as if they’ve never read the New Testament.

Regarding the person’s question, the answer is simple: Liberals aren’t afraid of Christians. What we are afraid of is an intolerant majority that feels it is free to force its views upon the people without the consideration of the minority situation.

Burt Unruh, Wichita, KS

 

Supreme Court Shouldn’t Re-define Marriage,

Cal Thomas, as published in the Wichita Eagle, March 13, 2013

Given his track record on marital fidelity, former President Clinton is not the person I would consult about “committed, loving relationships.” Clinton used those words in a Washington Post commentary last week. He was urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman and which he signed into law.

In his commentary, Clinton said that 1996 “was a very different time.” No state recognized same-sex marriage and supporters of DOMA “believed that its passage ‘would diffuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.’” Clinton says he now supports same-sex marriage based on justice, equality and the Constitution.

All of the arguments for and against same-sex marriage have been heard and will be heard again on March 26 and 27 when lawyers on both sides of the issue argue two key cases regarding same-sex marriages before the Supreme Court. The justices are expected to rule in June. It will be the court’s most important social and cultural ruling since its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

What advocates for same-sex marriage should be asked is whether they consider any other human relationship worthy of similar constitutional protection, and based on what standard. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to marry. States, not the federal government, issue marriage licenses. Current laws restrict “underage” marriage as well as polygamy. If same-sex marriage is approved, what’s to stop polygamists from demanding legal protection and cultural acceptance?

Justice Antonin Scalia predicted as much in 2003 in his dissent of the Lawrence v. Texas case, in which the court struck down the sodomy law in Texas. So I ask, if “fairness” and “equality” are the standard, isn’t it also “unfair” to “discriminate” against polygamists who wish to live in “loving” and “committed” relationships?

Since we are rapidly discarding the rules for living and social order set down in a book found in most motel-room drawers, what is to replace it? Opinion polls? Clever legal arguments? Fairness? What exactly does “fairness” mean and who decides what’s fair? Many things may seem “unfair,” but not all can or should be addressed by courts.

Last week in Sacramento, Calif., Justice Anthony Kennedy lamented that the Supreme Court is asked to settle too many politically charged issues. Responding to reporters, Kennedy said, “A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say. And I think it’s of tremendous importance for our political system to show the rest of the world – and we have to show ourselves first – that democracy works because we can reach agreement on a principle basis.”

The states, or Congress, should be allowed to sort out how they wish to define and license marriage, not the Supreme Court.

But if, as I suspect, the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, it will be the inevitable result of an increasing number of Americans abandoning the Source of morality and goodness. As Calvin Coolidge said of our Declaration of Independence, “We cannot continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.”

 

*****

After reading this column, submitted my comments to the Editor of the Wichita Eagle.

Cal Thomas, once again proving that he is sharper than the business end of a baseball bat, says the Supreme Court shouldn’t redefine marriage. He would have such matters decided at the State level. Why not return the matter of slavery to the state level? The Supreme Court obviously shouldn’t make decisions about equality. Beyond that, Mr. Thomas leads with a reminder of Bill Clinton’s infidelities, saying that because of them, Clinton isn’t the person he would consult about “committed loving relationships.” Perhaps one should only ask a celibate priest about marriage? The Clintons have been married since 1975. In 1981, Kansas Governor John Carlin, U. S. Senators Bob Dole and Nancy Landon Kassebaum, both representing the State of Kansas, and President Ronald Reagan were in office. Each of those four individuals had at some point in their life been divorced. Is it improper for a divorced person to address the subject of committed and loving relationships? Justice Clarence Thomas has been divorced. Can he be entrusted with adjudicating on a matter that involves a definition of marriage or committed loving relationships? Perhaps Cal Thomas’ personal stance on what constitutes morality is in conflict with the U. S. Constitution’s ultimate - if sometimes begrudging and snail-paced - goal to support equality for all.

*****

Today’s letters to the editor included one person’s comments about a female physician who will be performing abortions, in Wichita, at Dr. George Tiller’s old office. She had chosen not to publicize her name.

The letter says: “I guess abortion really is a private matter between a woman and hr physician, as some claim. It’s so private that the doctor doesn’t even want her patients to know who she is. Of course, if you’re ashamed of your work, anonymity is understandable.”

Well, Dr. Tiller wasn’t anonymous. His practice was under constant attack from his a opponents, often causing traffic jams while protesting outside his office. His office had been vandalized several times. He home phone received many harassing calls. His staff was ostracized and ill-treated. He was shot in the arm once, and he was assassinated inside his church by a person who was a divorced man , a negligent parent, and un-employed,- but he claimed to be a Christian who knew what his god expected him to kill Dr. Tiller.

Mayhap, anonymity may be a necessity, not a matter of shame, when so-called Christian nut-jobs are on the loose.

If they get a new pope on St. Patrick's Day, will they use green smoke to inform the world?

An opinion in the local paper asked why liberals hate Christians. What a peculiar idea. What an incorrect assumption.

A cute young TV news reporter siad on the morning news that a new pope might be elected very soon, that no papal election in this century had tasken more than 5 days. WTF? There has only been one papal election in this century. That was the election of Pope Benedict XVI.

Why is a pope elcted, anyway? Why doesn't God just open the sky and announce who He has selected? As it is, it takes 77 out of 115 Cardinals to elect a new pope, when a single word from the sky daddy would settle the issue rather quickly. 

*****

An opinion in today's Wichita Eagle says that if President obama were to walk on water, his critics would complain that he led with the wrong foot.

*****

Chris Kobach is happy that the Kansas legislature is closer to crafting and enacting a voter fraud law. After asll, there were 11 cases of voter fraud in the 2010 elction. That is almost an avalanche of fraud f the kind that could totally corrupt an election.

*****

On Saturday, a friend posted the essence of a dream he’d had the night before. I won’t repeat the dream, not here, not now. I will say that it was an interesting dream, related in a way that I could easily close my eyes and see what my friend had seen. His words became my eyes. There was some sense of suspense, a subtle hint foreboding, set in a near-monochromatic milieu.

I remember when Katherine Anne Porter (1890-1980)came to visit Wichita State University. She was one of America’s premier story tellers. Her address that evening was a defense of Circe.

Porter’s single novel, A Ship of Fools, took her almost 30 years to complete. Published in 1962, it was made into a movie in 1965. It is still worth watching.

One of Porter’s short stories was called, The Grave. In the south, where land is often soggy, many graveyards have small mausoleums or elevated graves. The story is about a young girl and her younger brother who discover that the door to a mausoleum is unlocked. They enter and soon Paul, finds a small, thin gold ring. Miranda discovers a small silver dove. The girl, covetous of the ring, cajoles her brother into exchanging his ring for her dove. That is the essence of the plot.

At her lecture, I listened as Katherine Anne Porter explained how one critic, in reviewing the short story, had glowing words about what a wonderful allegory this was - a golden ring, the symbol of eternal and never ending love, and the dove, a symbol of peace, came to represent love between a brother and a sister; as well as love between all mankind should be.

Katherine said it was one of the best reviews she ever received, but it was wrong. Her story was actually a true life tale of an event in her young life, when she and her brother had actually entered a open mausoleum, found those two objects and exchanged them, and then went home. Period.

Now I return to my friend’s dream. There are those who claim they can interpret dreams. Perhaps they can. I can’t. And yet, I did try to tell my friend what I could weave from the whole-cloth he proffered in his post.

My fried is an engineer. He is also an architect. He has no formal training as an architect, but his engineering designs and concepts have to be constructed, first in his mind, then on paper, then transferred into a concrete, material object.

We are all architects. We are that from the moment we take alphabet blocks and form simple words - cat, dog, owl. We are that when he use Lego’s or Lincoln Logs. We are hat when we play something like SimCity. We are that when we write and make letters into words, then phrases, then make into stories, poems, songs, novels.

I would love to see my friend’s dream produced as a short film by some university students or Indy film makers. I’d like to have him hand out his dream, in written form, to other people, with a request that they interpret the dream, or create a scenario using his words as a basis for a poem or a short story.

My friend could design a rocket ship that could go to Saturn and back, but beyond his professional gifts lies a man with visions, and romance, and compassion. What a great conversation starter - “Please, will you read this and tell me what you think? I’d like to know what you think.”

In a word going far a field from connectivity by using text abbreviations and bumper sticker phrases, conversation is becoming a lost art. Sharing ideas and concepts seems less important than seeking instant inclusion with a clique of cookie cutter people with cliché responses and insincere affectations.

In that world, my friend has more important things to offer than mere conformity.

I can’t make more of my friend’s dream than knowing he dreamed it.

That said, I can mold his words into a creation of my own. Others can do the same - use his words to create their own interpretation. But, in the process there is the link to the man himself. In the simple question - what do you make of this?” - there is an invitation to cross the threshold into a multifaceted realm of limitless opportunities.

What do I know, anyway. I’m old. Maybe the human race no longer needs love, compassion, kindness. Maybe we need only travel on the surface, ignoring depths where hearts and brains dwell. “Do you fancy a fuck, or another Jagermeister shot? And how about those 49-ers? Hell of game, that!”

I ride a single grain of sand upon the sands of time. I’ll be gone before the end of time. For now, I need to pamper my cats.

****

Albert Camus:

"Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Do not walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend."

On the morning news, just as I was opening the front door to take food to the feral cats outside, a prelate of the Catholic Church was explaing that he didn't know who might become the next pope. He said that he hadn't received any clear message from god.

How inconsiderate of a non-existening entity not to have supplied a clear message. It's shocking, I tell you. Shocking!

Sunday morning, since I set my clocks before going to bed, I was awakened by M8iss Dolly around three in the morning - by the clock - which only the day before would have informed I was awakened by Miss Dolly at two in the morning

I remained awake. I finished reading the book I‘d been nursing for several days. Intermittingly, I played with Miss Dolly and Miss Pumpkin. Marshmallow remained on the kitchen floor, in a ball, unmindful of the antics going on in others parts of the house.

It was after six when I got coffee at the MacDonald’s down the street, three blocks west. After a time, a gentleman asked if he could sit down at my table. I welcomed the company. Larry, my new acquaintance, is 85, a widower, retired farmer, retired Air Force flier, and retired lawyer. I’ve seen him before. He drives his 1928 Ford Model A on most days. It is painted John Deere green. He is fond of Model A’s. He had a 1926 model when he was in college at Kansas State, in 1946. His mother loaned him $ 100 so he could get that car. He could get four couples in that car, two pair in front, two pair in back. His fraternity brothers ‘tipped’ him to turn corners in such a manner that they would careen into their dates.

We talked for an hour and a half. Well, he talked, I listened. A farm kid. Catholic. Tenth child in a brood of eleven. Four older brothers went to war. Larry was too young to go to World War II.

His saga got us to the end of the Korean war. He and his wife, Alice, lived there. Because the war was over, and he was married with one child, he could obtain an early, and honorable, discharge. He took it. That’s when I to say goodbye. I had to go meet my regular Sunday coffee crowd at another coffee house.

I hope I get more “ear” time with Larry. This is “living” history at its best.

At the other coffee house, my dear friend, Larry - a different Larry, of course - and my friend, Melodee, showed up early. Mel’s father died early morning on the 8^th. I’d seen her each morning for three days. In such times, we seek out our closest friends. Larry’s wife died in 2005. We met for coffee as usual, the next morning. It was July 5, his wife had died on the 4^th. When my father died, I went home with my mother, sister and a cousin. I slept for a few hours, then went to the train station to say goodbye to my friend Tom. He was off to boot camp. It was December 19, 1960. As it is wife humans, life goes on. Grief - personal - can be shared unashamedly with close friends.

The world has noise aplenty. People have opinions. I know I do. We are complimented when people pay attention to us. Knowing this, I try hard to be a good listener.

Just walked the neighbor's dogs. The wind is damp, strong, harsh and cold; sub-freezing cold.

The wind went through every layer of my clothing and gave me nipples of steel. it was all I could do to keep the dogs from peeing on a metal fence pole and getting seam welded to it in the process.

The dogs have coats with hoodies. The hoodies sometimes slip and cover their eyes. It certainly helps to divert my attention from the wind when I watch the dogs prancing along secure in their snugly suits.

I am soooo ready for spring weather.

It is 6:34 in the morning.

Actually, it's 5:34 for Day Light Savings Time deniers. (Denyers, if one prefers)

And, if there is a god, he's chortling at us at the moment. That's what I call that thunder I'm hearing in the distance.

Snow this afternoon. Spring is ten days away; March 20.

My mother and step father were married 50 years ago today.

A dear friend of mine lost her dad to cancer. He died about 1:30 yesterday morning.

I watched Tuesdays With Morrie, yesterday afternoon. I'm now re-reading the book.

Roma Downey and hubby Mark Burnett are going to rake in the big bucks with thir presentation of the bible. They looked for the perfect guy to play Jesus. Why not just get the real Jesus. He's alive, according to many. He's due back, according to many. What a coup if he came back now!

Ain't gonna happen. What's going to happen is a slick production to perpetuate myth. Cute dogs sell us tacos. Lizards and pigs sell us insurance. If you get Cox in your area, an immature father in a dysfunctional family tries to convince people to sign up for the only cable group in town. And once again, a sexy male figure in movie will try to keep Christian myth alive. Oh for the days of Tab Hunter, shaved armpits and all, the all-American pretty boy Jesus.

Can't Roma and Mark at least make this a 3D movie? Jesus popping off the cross, or all those fantastic  fantasy images from the Book of Revelation  looking like the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz,  only in 3D. Too man Messaianic characters are dead, Jim Jones, David Karesh and others. Charles Manson is still alive. Why not let him get the role? Sure, he's old, but Jesus is now the 2,000 year old man, so Manson at 78, with a wild-eyed demeanor, might be able to pull it off.

BUT FOR WHOM HAS THE ECONOMY IMPROVED?

Sometimes the line between an activist judge and an asshole is non-existent