By Ruth Blandford (1902-2004), my maternal grandmother's (Lucinda Ann Strong Long) cousin, from her book, Hewn Like Stone: Poems:
Antagonists
My mind and body they are two,
And never have been one.
Animals never fought so hard
Within a tighter cage.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Ruth Blandford: Antagonists
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
getting Massachusetts family law in line with the Bible
Making Marriage Religious
by Mary-Ann Greanier
Since the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled last week that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, many commentators have reiterated their belief that gay and lesbian couples should be excluded from marriage for religious reasons. But why stop there? If marriages recognized by the Commonwealth must be based on biblical principles, then it's clear more changes to the law are needed.
Below are seven suggested amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution that would bring Bay State family law in line with the Bible.
- Because Job and David each had more than one wife, marriage in Massachusetts shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women of his choosing (II Sam. 3:2-5; Gen. 29:17-28).
- A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is found not to be a virgin, "they shall take her to the door of her father's house and her fellow citizens shall stone her to death" (Deut. 22:13-21). (Here, Governor Romney's resurrection of the death penalty will come in handy.)
- As Rehoboam, David, and Solomon all possessed concubines, a married man in Massachusetts shall also have the right to keep concubines in addition to his wife or wives (I Kings 11:3; II Sam. 5:13; II Chron. 11:21).
- When Moses said, "Every one of you must put to death those of his people who have committed themselves to the Baal of Peor," he was forbidding the marriage of a believer to a nonbeliever (Gen. 42:3; Neh. 10:30).
- Christ said, "What God has united, man must not divide." Therefore, neither the Constitution nor any state law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall permit divorce (Deut. 22:19; mark 10:9-12).
- If a married man dies childless, the widow must not marry a stranger outside of the family. Instead, the dead man's brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow or refuses to give her children, the law shall fine him one sandal, and he will be forced to go about wearing one sandal for the rest of his days, and he shall be called the Unshod One of Massachusetts (Deut. 25:5-10; Gen. 38:6-10).
- If there are no acceptable men to be found in the town, a woman shall ply her father with wine and have sex with him in order to produce progeny to carry on the family name (Gen. 19:31-36).
Thursday, January 24, 2008
It's Not About You
from the Last Chance Democracy Cafe:
A letter to three Democrats: it isn’t about you
Let’s take a moment to think about a particularly disconcerting “what if.” What if a Republican wins in November? What if we’re looking at four (probably eight) more years of Bush-like governance? What will that mean? What will it do to progressive dreams? To the nation as a whole?
There’s actually no mystery to the answer. Whatever else one may accuse the Republican candidates of, one thing they’re clean as a whistle on is giving fair notice of the truly radical nature of their agenda (the same radical agenda, of course, we’ve been living under for the past seven years).
What will that mean? Well, here are just a few things:
It will mean a Supreme Court with not just four radical Scalia-style right wing judicial activists (with a fifth justice who usually, but not always, goes along with them), but six, seven or even eight such justices. An ultra-reactionary Supreme Court of a type not seen in this country for 70 years, a Court happy to use principles of federalism to strike down federal legislation designed to protect workers, consumers and the environment, but equally happy to ignore federalism in order to strike down state statutes passed to achieve these same ends.To borrow from Rick in the movie Casablanca, it isn’t hard to see that the desires for high office of three little candidates in this crazy world don’t amount to a hill of beans. Yet, right now, by making this campaign profoundly personal in the pursuit of individual glory, and in the process seeding anger deep into the heart and soul of the base of the Democratic Party, these three candidates are sabotaging our best chance to snuff out this nightmare. And that is nothing less than irresponsibility of historic proportions. It must stop now.
It will mean war without end in Iraq. Year after year of staggering human loss. Year after year of treasure, desperately needed here at home, being thrown into a black hole of stupidity. A waste of resources that will gradually sap this nation of its greatness.
It will mean more wars like Iraq — maybe against Iran, maybe Syria, maybe even North Korea, as the neoconservatives continue to double down on a losing bet.
It will mean an America that gradually grows less free, as we continue to be led by people who see fear as a political opportunity, rather than a common nemesis to be expunged.
It will mean ever increasing inequality between the rich and the poor, with ever fewer Americans enjoying a standard of living that falls between the two extremes.
It will mean Americans living in an increasingly undemocratic society as the growing wealth inequality carries with it increasing political inequality.
It will mean the end of reproductive choice for women.
It will mean a United States that continues to sabotage efforts to address global warming until, quite possibly, it will be too late to prevent an almost unthinkable worst case scenario (assuming it isn’t already too late).
And no, I don’t think the three major candidates bear equal blame. Anyone who has been reading my posts knows where I think the majority of the blame lies, even if none of the three have been angels.
But you know, as a litigation lawyer I’ve seen a lot of tragic outcomes. And at the end of the day, regardless of which driver, for example, was at fault in a fatal accident, everyone is still as dead.
And in case you think I’m exaggerating the danger here, let me tell you what set me off on this rant. About an hour ago a good friend of mine came to visit: he’s a longtime Democrat, of the hard-boiled school. He likes a good fight — the sort of person who can admire the skill behind of an expertly placed political knife in the back.
Here’s what this hard-boiled politico said to me: “Steve, when the nomination is settled, you need to take me aside to remind me of why I have to vote Democratic. Because I’ve got to tell you, right now I can’t see how I can vote for Hillary Clinton. I just don’t like her. I used to, but after the debate, I just don’t anymore.”
I have no doubt whatsoever that conversations just like this are happening all across the country. Sometimes the object of the anger is Hillary Clinton, sometimes it’s Barack Obama. In the case of Edwards’s supporters, I’m sure sometimes it’s both of the above.
This campaign has gone past the point of people taking it personally. It’s becoming the kind of taking something personally that engenders anger that will still be with many people come the general election. And have no doubt: that is precisely the sort of thing that could put a Bush-style Republican back into the White House. And if you don’t think so, you’re not paying attention.
God damn it, at the end of the day, this isn’t about any of these three candidates. It’s about leading America back onto the path of greatness. And to the extent that all three of the leading candidates have made it about them at a personal level, they’ve all already failed the party, not to mention the nation.
The time to step back from the brink is now. Once the nomination has been settled, it will be way too late.
Update: I need to add something. Many commentators, in defending the current epidemic of Democratic primary hardball politics, point out that if the three leading candidates in general — and Obama in particular — can’t handle intra-party attacks — then it’s unlikely they’ll (or he’ll) be able to handle the much more ferocious attacks sure to come from the other side in the general election. This is true, but it’s also beside the point to what I’m saying.
The problem here isn’t that the candidates are being abused; it’s that many of their supporters are becoming irreconcilably angry at the other candidates, one of whom may be the nominee. That, obviously, won’t be a concern in the general election. We don’t care how angry our people get at the GOP nominee.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Ruth Blandford: Like Stone
By Ruth Blandford (1902-2004), my maternal grandmother's (Lucinda Ann Strong Long) cousin, from her book, Hewn Like Stone: Poems:
Like Stone
The mind is such a private place.
Its thoughts are all its own.
Before I dare to cast one out
It must be hewn like stone.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Book of Counted Sorrows
We have a weight to carry
and a distance we must go.
We have a weight to carry,
a destination we can't know.
We have a weight to carry
and can put it down nowhere.
We are the weight we carry
from there to here to there.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Ceiling Cat proof
Thees awgooments ar in ur computer, teechin ur mind bout teh Ceiling Cat. They ar gud.
Antropik Prinsipul
Teh howse is jus riet for us kittehs. Is not too cowd or too hot. Is jus niec an warm an cuddlee. Teh hoomins gif us fud wen we ask an scrach us wen we mew coot. We gets to slepe anywhar an teh hoomins even gif us warm piels of cleen close to lay on. How awesoem!
If Ceiling Cat dint ecksist how cud all of dis happun? If teh howse wus too cowd we wud be ded kittehs wif ice! If teh howse wus too hot we wud be ded kittehs wif crispees! If hoomins not der to feed us we wud be reely skinneh and ded kittehs. If Ceiling Cat dint maek hoomins for us sleepin anywhar wud not be fun! An no cleen close to slepe on!
Evewythin in howse is riet for kitteh and dat is how we kno Ceiling Cat is reel, srsly.
Fiwst Cawse
Evewythin need a cawse, cuz, um, dat is how it is. We mew an hoomins gif us fud. Hoomins go in noysy box an go awayz an dey com bak wif fud. Dis is cawse an effekt. Who gifs teh hoomins fud? Oder hoomins cant gif hoomins fud so Ceiling Cat mus be givin dem fud for us and dem. See, Ceiling Cat bless teh hoomins wif fud for feedin us, how niec of Ceiling Cat! Hoomins must be pettin him awl teh tiem!
Ceiling Cat maed teh fiwst mew, an he maed fud for awl hoomins and kittehs. Der be no utta way to maek fud, srsly. So Ceiling Cat stawteded it awl!
Ontologikewl
Ceiling Cat pwns yu all. If Ceiling Cat wus in ur head, he wud not be pwning yu awl. If Ceiling Cat wus reel, he wud be, so Ceiling Cat is reel. STFU n00b.
Srsly.
Telljunt Dezynr
Can says "Oh Hai"? Liek who maik teh littrboxz? Liek who putin niec smelly new littr? Sum catz, riet? Nawt jus anny catz, riet? Reeeeeel smarty catz, meeee-oooowww! Can has rubs bellie? Nawt jus anny catz, riet? Niec rubs can has Ceiling Cat. Ceiling Cat has niec littrboxz first anna clumpy littr. Tehn youse catz can has one. Youse skratch, youse sqwat, den youse pee, den youse cover. Niec skratch.
Oh Hai, lookey here! Nawt jus anny littr clump. Who can has maded this niec clumpy pee? Nawt jus anny catz, riet? Must be reeeeel smarty catz, riet? See? Lookey? Sniffz. Clumpz. Taht splanes it. Ceiling Cat teh Telljunt Dezynr uv reel niec clumpy pee. Ceiling Cat sez so. Srsly. K'Thnxbai.
Pascal's Wagar
Pascal wus clever kitteh hu wus laik: "I am not knoin if teh Ceiling Cat is reel." Oh noes! But Pascal was thinkin an thinkin, an he wus laik "If I is beleefin in teh Ceiling Cat, and he is reel, I will be gettin cheezburger. But if I has no beleefin in teh Ceiling Cat, and he is reel, I will be getting pwned. I think I is beleefin in teh Ceiling Cat."
Morals
All teh kittehs are knowing wut is gud and wut is not so gud. Cheezburgers be good, and pwnin ur eminies is not so gud. How ar we knowing these tings if Ceiling Cat has not tuwd us?! Ceiling Cat tells all teh kittehs wut is gud and wut is not so good, so we knows wut to do.
Awgooments not for Ceiling Cat
Awgooment from No Has Cheezburger
If Ceiling Cat be existing, then He is good kitty and has power to pwn all. But if Ceiling Cat is good kitty, then He want all kittehs to has cheezburger. And if Ceiling Cat has power to pwn all, then He has power to gives all kittehs cheezburger. But some kittehs no has cheezburger. :'( So Ceiling Cat not be existing.
(Some n00bs say this is becoz Ceiling Cat gives us Free Will, and real reason some kittehs no has cheezburger is becoz other kittehs use Free Will to steal cheezburger and eaten it--not Ceiling Cat's fault! But this splaination not plausibling: everycat knowz that cheezburger is better than Free Will. kthxbye)
Ceiling Cat prayer
Dis is found in teh Book of Matthew 6 an in teh Book of Luke 11, srsly. Dis beez teh Ceiling Cat Prayer.
Praise Ceiling Cat, who be watchin yu, may him has a cheezburger.
Wut yu want, yu gets, srsly.
Giv us dis day our dalee cheezburger.
And furgiv us for makin yu a cookie, but eateding it.
An leed us not into teh showa, but deliver us from teh wawter.
Ceiling Cat pwns all. Him pwns teh ceiling an flor an walls too. Amen.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
God
God is merely part of the human brain, an evolutionary coping mechanism that developed to make bearable our awareness of our own deaths.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)