3 in the morning. The weatherman says we’re having weather today. He isn’t sure what kind of weather – some chance of rain, some chance of clouds, some chance of seeing the sunshine, some chance of being different than last year, but by tomorrow morning, he’ll be able to tell us more about today’s weather.
In the news, the Republican Party wants to change their image.
Don’t be fooled. They don’t want to change. They just want to wahitewash their image so fool people into thinking they have changed.
*****
If someone abuses an animal, send them to me. I’ll maim them.
*****
A Maize, Kansas couple got their water bill - $ 1,531,630.98. Only $ 499.000 was for water usage. The rest was for fees ad taxes.
Maize is changing over their water bills to a new computer program. There was a clitch in the new sysem.
Gee, you think?
*****
Happy St. Patrick’s Day. May you follow a leprechaun to the end of the rainbow. I need tofind a pot of gold. I’ll dump the gold and take the pot. I want a pot in my front yard so I can plant some geraniums.
Mister Brisket is back in the house, under the bed.I’ll have to dismantle the bed, open a window and coax him out. I can do that later in the day. Right now, I need some coffee. Hey! It’s St Paddy’s day. I could have Irish coffee!
Drinker’s will have to party hardy on Saturday. Sunday means they may have a hangover on Monday. Bummer, that!
Mack is ready to party. He’s got his Erin Go Bragh hat on. His brother, Murphy, is trying to find an Erin Go Bragh-less hat.
The news reports Francis I had a busy day, yesterday. Personally, I don’t care if he wet his bed, or had a pedicure.
I will go to a birthday party tomorrow night. It’s going to be at Whiskey Dicks. (No apostrophe, you notice) Many of the attendees will re-define drinking and hangover. I’ll probably have half a beer or a double Kahlua on the rocks, stay long enough to be sociable, then get home before the police start to stop people to check their blood alcohol level.
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.
Recent Comments