I do not think that word means what you think it means

We’re having a fairly lazy sports-filled Sunday (Illinois basketball and then football playoffs) after a busy Saturday. We went out to eat with Shane and Matt, then headed over for a show at the Morris Center (a Vegas show, The Rat Pack, made its way to South Bend, and it was fantastic), and had a nightcap with them at South Bend Chocolate Cafe. Good times!

While all this was going on, Notre Dame’s men’s basketball team was in the process of defeating the #1 team (20-0 Syracuse), a game that we had tickets to but sold so we could go see The Rat Pack show. Argh! I never wished so much that I had a clone! We were both a little bummed that we weren’t there for the big game, but we enjoyed our evening out and have no regrets.

Newt Gingrich was also busy beating the pants off his opponents (try not to dwell on that image too long) in South Carolina. I’m rather delighted by this outcome, because it means that the Republicans are in complete disarray, and currently many in the base are breaking for Gingrich. Newt Gingrich. It just boggles my mind. Apparently his debate performance Thursday night garnered him a whole bunch of last-minute support from the evangelical base in SC, which also boggles my mind. In discussions with some of my like-minded friends, we speculated that they are digging his belligerence because they think he can really put President Obama “in his place” (which I happens to think is in the White House) in a debate. I guess that whole electability thing doesn’t worry them too much, or Newt’s extremely negative favorability rating, or that he was forced out as Speaker of the House, or that he paid a $300,000 ethics fine, or...well, you get the idea. The guy’s got baggage the size of a small country. No, they just want to see a smackdown in a debate between Gingrich and the President. My mind is still boggled.

[Sidenote: Newt, shut up about your stupid “Lincoln-Douglas style debates” already. If, by some bizarre chance, you end up being the nominee, you’ll get your chance to debate the President, but you don’t get to dictate the terms. The thought of listening to this bloviating garbanzo bean (as columnist Frank Bruni famously called him) ramble on for hours makes my head hurt and my stomach churn. He’s like the hangover of the Republican party...without the previous night’s fun.]

Newt fired them up at the debate with his attack-dog response to moderator John King’s question about his marital woes, and his second wife’s assertion that he asked her for an open marriage. (I won’t go into details, but you can watch the clip here if you haven’t heard about it.) How DARE anyone ask him such a question?! (It reminded me of Will Ferrell yelling “You don’t talk to me like that!” to his family in a skit. I wonder if Newt drives a Dodge Stratus?) You know why John King dared to ask it, Newt? Because you pretended to be some sort of highly moral person when you were leading the impeachment effort against President Clinton, all the while in the midst of a long term affair with a congressional staffer. It’s your hypocrisy that we hate most. Because of that, it was a legitimate question. The way he turned the outrage around and made himself a victim was a sight to behold. The arrogance and self-righteous indignation just oozed out of him.

Anyway, in Newt’s blistering attack on King, he scolded the entire “elite media” for engaging in such tactics, and accused them of protecting President Obama by attacking conservatives. I think that is absurd, but what I want to focus on here is the constant use lately of the word “elite.”

Elite media, liberal elite, east coast elites, Hollywood elites...you name it, they’re tossing around the word left and right (so to speak!). I think it goes without saying that this is a insulting term for them. It seems to be a code word for “not like us.” In other words, all those elites look down on you and think you’re stupid, but hey, I’m not an elite, I’m just like you! (Kindly ignore that part about Newt’s PhD in history, and his million dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s, okay? Thanks.)

I am bothered that this has become a bad word to a certain portion of the population. The Free Dictionary defines ‘elite’ as:

1. a. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: "In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them" (Times Literary Supplement).
b. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team's elite.

This is not a derogatory term, folks. I would hope that anyone who has a job would strive to be among the elites of their profession; this seems a desirable thing to me, rather than a scornful epithet. In my daily dealings, I would love to be able to encounter the elite of those providing service to me, whether it’s a grocery store clerk, a mechanic, or the radiologist reading my mammogram. Elites are good, by their very definition: they are good at what they do. The right wing seems to be portraying them as some sort of foppish dandies who look down their noses at the common people. A clever bit of spin, but highly inaccurate.

Personally, I would like my politicians to be more than a little elite. Not in a monetary sense, but I definitely want the best and brightest leading our country and drafting our laws and deciding our court cases. The next time someone calls you an “elite,” I suggest thanking them for the compliment and for their high regard of you. Maybe it will make them go home and look the word up so they understand exactly what it means and why you didn’t take it as an insult.

Chumtossing in the Palmetto state

I watched the Republican debate last night, and I think I’ve finally recovered. That was traumatic (and I’m really not exaggerating...more in a moment).

I find myself bizarrely fascinated by the spectacle of these debates. I watch with a strange combination of horror and hilarity. I find that I need to concentrate on the latter in order to not blow a vein, and I’m usually live tweeting with friends and a handful of journalists I follow. (You can find me on Twitter @Luvrte66.) Sometimes Dan and George make appearances; sometimes Tom; last night it was Ryan. We make some serious points, but throw a few jokes and sarcastic remarks in there, too. The journalists that I usually see on there are David Corn of Mother Jones, Chuck Todd of NBC, and last night Democrat strategist Paul Begala and Time correspondent Michael Scherer were on there. They have some very astute comments and pertinent points. I’d say that they’re generally quite fair, although they’re pretty much on the left side of the aisle, so they express horror at some of the same things that I do.

Last night was especially awful for me because of the South Carolina audience. They were out for blood. They came across as angry and combative. They booed Juan Williams for asking Newt if his remarks about poor kids working as janitors or about food stamps (He offered to go to the NAACP and discuss why jobs are better than food stamps. Yes, he really did.) were racially insensitive. Williams was one of the moderators, people. He was doing his job in asking tough but reasonable questions. They booed Ron Paul when he said that we should really be “doing unto others” when it comes to attacking people...that we carpet bomb these countries and then wonder why people hate us. That’s right. They booed the Golden Rule. They cheered when Perry said that “South Carolina is at war with this federal government and this administration” concerning the Voting Rights Act. This in the state that first seceded from the Union, starting the Civil War, and to add a little double shock powah, on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day! Impressive. They also cheered Perry when he made the incredible statement that because members of the Obama administration condemned the behavior of the Marines who urinated on Taliban corpses, they show “disdain for the military” and are engaging in “over-the-top rhetoric.” Never mind the fact that desecration of corpses not only undermines what we are trying to accomplish there, it is illegal according to military law. But that’s a discussion for another day. When Perry said that the Marines in question should not be charged with a criminal act (again, ignoring that the military considers it exactly that), the crowd cheered.

What really got to me, though, was when one of the moderators asked a question of Romney about immigration, and began his question with the statement that Romney’s father was born in Mexico after many Mormons fled to Mexico to avoid prosecution for polygamy. As soon as the moderator stated that George Romney was born in Mexico, the crowd booed. They BOOED! At the mere mention of the country, which happens to be one of our allies! I still cannot believe that happened. I had a moment of despair and depression, but today I’m channeling it into contempt and anger. Paul Begala tweeted this:

I completely agree with him. I’ve seen the behavior of these crowds—this was definitely the worst yet—and I have just been appalled. Obviously, I’m pretty far to the left, but there are plenty of people who are more in the middle, moderates and independents who are still making up their minds, and I don’t see how any moderate person could see this behavior and think it’s anything short of dangerous and mean-spirited lunacy. It is of some consolation to me that the more the crowds egg them on, the more the candidates attempt to play to them and toss out more and more red meat. It may play well with audiences like that in South Carolina last night, but when it comes to the general election, I’m guessing it won’t be so warmly received. And there is plenty of video to be mined for use this summer and fall.

As for being traumatized? I had a bad dream last night in which the President was shot, and later died. I don’t recall any details about it, probably because it was so disturbing to me. It’s one thing to disagree with this President, but the behavior of the crowd last night was deplorable and downright bloodthirsty in its intolerance. I haven’t been quite so disgusted during this process as I was last night. It also solidified my resolve to do what I can to make sure President Obama has four more years and to keep these pandering cretins out of the White House. (Ron Paul excepted. I don’t want him in the White House, but it’s for other reasons, not because he panders.)

There’s another debate this Thursday, in Charleston. What will happen in that one? Will the audience burn an effigy of the President as the candidates look on with indulgent grins?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Most teabaggin' folks I encounter online seem to react badly to a few things. First is being called a teabagger, although they were the ones who started calling themselves that before someone informed them of the meaning that most of the rest of us already knew about. Second is being called a racist. As Bill Maher said, "There are two things that teabaggers hate. One is being called a racist. The second is black people." Ha!

Another thing I've noticed they don't like is someone saying that they're overly concerned about social issues or value judgments. "Oh no," they protest, "our main concern is with big government and out-of-control spending! That is what we're all about!"

I think we can put that little delusion to rest right now. Over the weekend, the Family Research Council held their Values Voters Summit. I understand that this was not a Tea Party-sponsored event, but virtually every speaker was kissing some major teabagger ass, so to speak. Many of them mentioned the Tea Party, and teabaggin'-talk abounded. Make no mistake about it. The teabaggers are firmly committed to values voting and social issues. Check it out.

Newt Gingrich:

On the one front, we have a secular socialist machine led by Obama, Pelosi and Reid. And on the other front, we have radical Islamists who would fundamentally change this country into a system none of us in this room would recognize.

This is not about religious liberty, if they want to build that mosque in the South Bronx, frankly they need the jobs. But I am totally opposed to any effort to impose Sharia on the United States, and we should have a federal law that says under no circumstance, in any jurisdiction in the United States, will Sharia be used in any court to apply to any judgment made about American law.

Actually, Newt, there already is a federal law on the books that prohibits the government from promoting Sharia law, or any other religious law. It's called the First Amendment.

Sen. Jim DeMint:

There is a relationship, and I think there is a strong faith component in the Tea Party movement. But it's very different than what I've seen before or of things like the Moral Majority. They're not pushing religion. They're not even pushing morality. They just consider bankruptcy as a moral issue.

They are most definitely pushing religion and their definition of morality. And bankruptcy is a moral issue? I know there are some people that overspend and live beyond their means. But 60% of bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills. I've had relatives who were brought to that point because of their medical bills. DeMint and his cronies are once again painting those who declare bankruptcy or draw unemployment or get food stamps and welfare as lazy and devoid of morals.

More DeMint:

We know what’s happening in this country. We know that this idea that you need to separate your politics from your religion and from your values and from your economics, it just doesn’t work because America is the most prosperous, the most compassionate, the strongest nation in the history of the world because it rests on a set of principles that sit on a foundation of Judeo-Christian values.

Think about what Judeo-Christian values do in that environment. The people that believe that they’re accountable to God, and because of that, they’re honest. They have integrity. They care about others. They practice charity. They’re volunteers. They have a strong work ethic. They’re not only self-controlled and responsible for themselves, but they feel a responsibility for those around them. They’re committed to marriage and family and their church.

Think about a nation where millions of people are like that. They don’t need a big government to control them. These are the people that build our community and build our strength and have the vision for what works in our country. But think about a culture that doesn’t have the values, the restraint of being accountable to God.

We see it all over the world. We don’t have to guess at what it looks like, where your economy works with bribes and corruption. Your politics is completely corrupt because the people have no values and morals. And then you need a bigger and bigger government to control a violent people, a violent and disruptive people.

This is such a huge steaming pile of bullshit that it's difficult to address it all. Let's just say that I know plenty of non-religious people who have integrity and have a strong work ethic, who volunteer and help others, not because they fear the punishment of God, but because it's a good thing to help your fellow human being and your community. I would also like to mention a few "men of God": Jim and Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, Ted Haggard, Benny Hinn, Paul and Jan Crouch...need I go on?

Sen. Jim Inhofe:

I didn't think it'd work at that time, but it did. It was called Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And some of you - if you are gay and you want to serve in the military, they don't ask you about it, you don't tell it, you're not doing it openly so that the problems that we all know about. And I think that they mentioned it in my introduction that I was an Army veteran, and I think any of the veterans in this room - I don't have to tell you the problems that would happen if you have an open gay situation there, where it allows people to use the military as a forum for their liberal agenda.

A forum for their liberal agenda? Oh, you mean gays who sign up for our volunteer military and go overseas to fight and die for their country? Is that the liberal agenda you're talking about, Jimmeh?

This from an NPR reporter interviewing a summit attendee:

Mr. Todd Dexter: I think the truth is, these people care very deeply about pro-life issues, care very deeply about the sanctity of marriage and kind of the moral values that we believe are the foundation of our country.

Reporter: You mean the Tea Party believes that?

Mr. Dexter: I believe so. I believe many do. It may not always be the official position. But those who go to those rallies, they very much embrace that.

Reporter: Dexter has attended Tea Party events. Pollsters bear out his assertion that no matter what slogans the Tea Party vocalizes, a large majority of their members happen to be anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

Former Senator and Internet sensation Rick Santorum:

And what is necessary in our society if we are to be free? Well, our founders had it right. John Adams said, our constitution is made – our constitution is made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other. You see, we can only be free as long as we are virtuous. And we can only be virtuous as look as there are vibrant faiths in the public square.

Go into the neighborhoods in America where there is a lack of virtue. What will you find? Two things. You will find no families, no mothers and fathers together in marriage and you will find government everywhere. Police, social service agencies, why? Because without faith, family and virtue, government takes over.

I would like to know his definitions of morality and virtue. Apparently it does not include anyone who is not religious, and it does not include single parents. And darn those pesky police and social services meddling in the people's business!

Batshit crazy Rep. Michele Bachmann:

I think the one thing that these high-and-mighty types, part of the ruling class here in Washington, D.C., just don’t seem to understand – they live at the wine-and-cheese parties, you know, here in D.C. As for me, I prefer tea parties, just so you know.

No social agenda in that quote, but it shows her embrace of the teabaggers. It also highlights a recurrent theme in this summit, the "Washington elites," the "high-and-mighty types," attendin' their wine and cheese parties, actin' all high-falutin' and fancy. Like an education is a bad thing. I suppose for some of these people it is, because it makes them realize their inadequacies. That's one of the worst things, in my opinion, to have come out of this peculiar movement: the idea that it's a bad thing to be an intellectual, or to rely on logic and education rather than instincts and a religious text.

Mike Huckabee:

The basic idea is that there is no such thing as a person who is more valuable than another, that all of us have the same intrinsic worth. that no person is worth more because of his last name, or land ownership, or occupation, or who his father was or grandfather was. Or what city he came from, or what color he is, or what gender he or she may be.

We know that every life is important before God and to each other. And we know that marriage matters. We know that marriage hasn't changed, that it still means what it means.

Note the glaring omission of sexual orientation. In the Huckster's world, I guess there are no homosexuals, and if there are, they aren't deserving of the same rights, and they don't have the same "intrinsic worth" as the rest of us.

Then there is Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, who won the straw poll for the Republican nominee in 2012:

A political party that would govern this great nation must be able to handle more than one issue at a time. We must focus on our fiscal crisis and support our troops. We must work to create jobs and protect innocent human life and defend traditional marriage. To those who say that marriage is not relevant to our budget crisis, I say you would not be able to print enough money in a thousand years to pay for the government that you would need if the family continues to collapse.

To those who say we should focus on cutting spending, I say, okay. Let’s start by denying all federal funding for abortion at home and abroad. You want to find savings? Let's cut funding to research that destroys human embryos in the name of science and let’s deny any and all funding to Planned Parenthood of America.

That is all horrible, but I find his desire to end funding for Planned Parenthood especially egregious. The vast majority of clinics do not perform abortions; Planned Parenthood provides basic health care including Pap smears and family planning for millions of women. It also works hard to educate young women about birth control and STI prevention. Calling for no funds for Planned Parenthood is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. So to speak.

As if all of these things didn't make it clear that the teabaggers are all about the social issues, not just about being anti-government, part of the straw poll included a question about what issue is most important to them:

1. Abortion
2. Government spending
3. Repeal of “Obamacare”
4. Protection of religious liberty
5. National Security

I think that says it all right there. I also wonder why "protection of religious liberty" is in the top five. No one--no one--is trying to stop anyone from worshiping the way they wish to. Unless it's these people who would stop a cultural center being built a couple of blocks away from the Ground Zero site because someone of a different religion is building it. Keeping this group's fundamental religious beliefs--I'm talking about the teabaggers here--out of our government does not constitute persecution. They do not get to dictate what the rest of us must believe. They do not get to legislate based on the ten commandments or anything else in the Bible. They do not get to decide what is moral and what isn't, based upon their religious beliefs.

This reminds me of Jerry Falwell's creation of the Moral Majority in the '80's, and Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition in the '90's. There is nothing wrong with anyone and everyone getting involved in politics, but these groups would insert their religion into the political landscape, and I have a problem with that. Their religion is not everyone's religion. They cannot and must not speak for all in this country. We've been through this before; they are offering nothing new.

For any teabagger who says it's not about religion and social issues, that it's all about economics...I beg to differ. The GOP is obviously courting the teabaggers, and in the process, they are taking us back to the culture wars of the '80s and '90s. The problem is that they would be the deciders on everyone's morality, not just their own.

This country is no longer the domain of rich white Republican men. We are a diverse nation, and will not and cannot return to how these people would define us. We are more than that, much more. I don't want these teabaggers running my country and discriminating against my friends because they love someone these people think it is wrong to love. I don't want them hating my friends because they look different. I don't want them censoring me because I don't believe the way they do, or dictating how I and my female friends deal with our bodies.

We've been there and done that, and I'll take progress over regress any day.

The muezzin was a-standin’ on the radiator grill

Before I get to my main topic, I wanted to mention the quote I put up the other day.

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people.

I want to wait a little longer before I write about it, because I'm curious to see how many people agree with this point of view, and to see if I get any more guesses on who said it. I'm sure you already know how I feel; I believe that religious instruction has no place in public schools. I'll write more about that in a couple of days.

Now, let's get to it, shall we? I wrote about the Ground Zero community center over two months ago, but it is once again very much in the news.

First, please note that I did not call it the "Ground Zero mosque," which is usually how it is being referred to. It is a community center with one room to be designated as a prayer room, if I understand correctly.

Second, it is not being built right on Ground Zero. It is two or three blocks away, with plenty of intervening buildings—very TALL buildings...have you been to New York?—so it's not like it's going to be in the face of anyone who visits Ground Zero.

Okay, I got those pertinent points out of the way. I think they are important, because they seem to be being ignored by many at the moment.

New York City's Mayor Bloomberg has already stated in a speech that he supports the project on the basis of religious tolerance. A group of forty religious leaders (including Catholics, evangelicals, Jews, and Muslims) released a statement condemning the "inflammatory statements" of people like Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and FoxNews. They called for civil dialogue and the upholding of our treasured diversity and high ideals as a country. The story garnering the most attention at the moment is President Obama's speech at a Friday night dinner in observance of Ramadan, in which he stated:

Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.

That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.

Of course, he was attacked for saying such a thing, he cares nothing about the victims or their families, he sympathizes with Muslims, he IS a Muslim, blahbitty blah blah blah. On Saturday, he said this about his comments:

I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. My intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.

In accordance with the law. That is a very key phrase, and I think we need to keep it in mind. As a friend in New York put it, they value their diversity and treasure it; so should we all. I also get the impression that New Yorkers are becoming a little weary of everyone weighing in on this drama taking place in their city. I understand that, but I think they also understand that all of us own a bit of Ground Zero. Most of us weren't there on that day, but you know that we were all with you in spirit. So we can't help but get ourselves into a dither about this!

Anyway, I truly believe that those who oppose this (and I understand that the majority do--I'm in the minority on this one) are looking at this on a purely emotional level. Yes, of course I get emotional when I think of that day. However, I also believe that it is of the utmost importance that we preserve our constitutional liberties and guarantees of the right to worship or not worship as every individual sees fit. It's what we were founded upon, folks, and that is very much worth preserving. As I stated a couple of months ago, I would prefer that no place of worship be built there. Frankly, I'd rather see a library or school where people could educate themselves rather than another indoctrination center. I also think it's important to keep in mind that those who perpetrated this act were extremists, and not typical of every person of that faith. We cannot vilify an entire group of people because of the acts of a few.

I'm with those religious leaders—I can't believe that just came out of my mouth—in believing that the intense rhetoric coming from people like Gingrich and Palin is divisive and inflammatory and based on a quest for political gain. It serves no purpose in uniting our country or celebrating our diversity, and does nothing to preserve our founding principles laid out by the framers of the Constitution. I realize that it is a highly emotional issue, but there are times when we have to set emotion aside and look at things logically and rationally. We need to remember that our nation was founded upon tolerance and acceptance of all faiths. I choose to do that, and I wish that more of my fellow Americans would make that same, logical choice.

I'll end on a happy note with a video from The Only Band That Matters. I posted this on Facebook and said that if the new community center rocks as much as the Clash, that would be really awesome! That would be a cool neighborhood addition!

The slippery slope

Let me say right off the bat that I'm very glad the Underpants Bomber failed in his attempt to blow up a plane. I also believe that we need to do as much as we can to prevent such attempts.

However, the rightwingers immediately began clamoring for profiling based on ethnicity and religion...and sometimes even because of names. Radio host Mike Gallagher (ugh...wingtard) said, “There should be a separate line to scrutinize anybody with the name Abdul or Ahmed or Mohammed.” New York Congressman Peter King said, “100 percent of the Islamic terrorists are Muslim, and that is our main enemy today. So why we should not be profiling people because of their religion?” [italics mine] My personal favorite comes from Newt Gingrich, who called for ethnic profiling and wrote:

Today, because our elites fear politically incorrect honesty, they believe that it is better to harass the innocent, delay the harmless, and risk the lives of every American than to do the obvious, the effective, and the necessary.

I just love how they toss the word "elite" around as an epithet. It's so cute.

Such profiling only serves to alienate an entire group of people, it's dangerous, and it's stupid. It's stupid because then you'd be leaving out people like Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski. Those guys blew shit up and killed people and amazingly enough, they were white (and although I don't know if they identified themselves as Christians, I'm certain they didn't consider themselves Muslim).

Why is it dangerous? Do we really want to walk down that pathway? The one where we target a specific group and create enmity and distrust against all who belong to it? The one that creates hatred because of someone's skin color, religion, or what we perceive as a "funny name?" I'm talking about the pathway that led to Japanese internment camps during World War II, right here in our own country. At the risk of Godwinning myself, it is also the pathway that led to the Final Solution and six million dead Jews.

I was discussing this with a friend online the other day, and while I agree that we need to do what we can in order to stop such terrorist attempts, there is a very fine line between safety and respect for other cultures and religions. You can't just target someone because of their religion! That goes against everything we stand for as a country. I speculated above as to whether or not Timothy McVeigh called himself a Christian. If he did, how do you think it would have gone over to have people calling for the heightened scrutiny of anyone who designates themselves as Christian, based on the actions of one disenfranchised lunatic? If you call yourself a Christian, how would you appreciate going into any federal building in your city and being directed to a different line for special screening?

I'm guessing you wouldn't care for it too much, and would probably start raising holy hell (so to speak) about being persecuted for your religious beliefs. That is exactly what these fucktards are wanting to do to an entire group of people. If you don't speak out against it, there may come a time when someone really tries to do it to you, and you can believe that I would speak out against that, too. The internment of Japanese-Americans in the 40's is roundly condemned now. My friend noted that there were probably one or two saboteurs among those who were rounded up. I agreed, said I wouldn't doubt it...but that is no justification for removing an entire ethnic group (or religious group) from their homes and confining them to a camp. We must learn from the mistakes of our past and not repeat them. (By the way, I think we mostly agreed on this issue. It was just a matter of playing devil's advocate.)

On a related note, I watched "District 9" last night, and found it very pertinent to this discussion. I won't give anything away, but it involved a spaceship full of aliens basically stalling out over Johannesburg, and their subsequent treatment at the hands of humans. It was a classic science fiction theme, in which the aliens are immediately distrusted and despised because of their "otherness." (Also a very interesting take on the theme, because of the Johannesburg setting. I recommend the movie highly. Some cool Brundlefly moments, too.) I keep hoping that someday the xenophobia will fade, but we seem to have a penchant for hating anyone and anything that is different from us. Klaatu barada nikto, my ass. I'm guessing most people would want to shoot first and ask questions later.

Different is not bad. It's just different. Sometimes you can manage to learn a few things if you can get past your fear and distrust. My cousin was married to a Japanese woman for several years. His father (my uncle, a member of the WWII generation) hated her because the Japanese were still the enemy, even years later. I spent time with them, had a wonderful time learning about her culture, was pen pals with her niece in Japan for a while, and learned to love Sukiyaki, even dipping the meat and vegetables into raw egg yolk. For a small town junior high girl, it was eye-opening, fascinating, and made me want to learn more about other people and cultures in the world.

Our planet is not Americacentric, you know. I believe we do important things (at least when we're led by someone other than a low-wattage bulb), but there are a lot more non-Christians than Christians, non-whites than Caucasians, and I question the self-righteous superiority of those who would call for profiling based on the fact that there are people who look or believe differently from some of us. I don't question the need to track terrorist activity or to screen more thoroughly at airports. Hey, bring it on. Screen everybody. I'll stand in front of one of those full-body scanners and show you my hoo-ha. I'll let Bruno the Bombsniffing Dog have a sniff at my crotch. But don't target a group because of the way they look, how they believe, or because you don't care for their name.

We can't operate that way. It's wrong. It's just...wrong.

New arrivals

I'm starting to see young birds of various types now, and it's always funny to watch them. They just look sort of clueless. The other day there was a young robin (Holy Audubon, Batman!) on the deck, and he hopped onto the little fireplace we have out there, and just looked around and chirped. I imagined him thinking, "Okay, here I am. Now what do I do?"

Today, there were several young starlings and their parents raising a ruckus on the deck--man, they're loud! One youngster was hopping on top of the squirrel baffle and pecking at it as he slid down its slope. I watched him for a while, wondering when he'd figure out that the suet feeder was underneath the baffle. He finally did figure it out, and I felt absurdly proud of him.

We also have other youngsters making an appearance. As I sat here last night, I heard some of the wind chimes tinkling, although the wind was minimal. They hang from a hook on the deck railing, and if I hear them on a still night, it's a sure sign we've got a critter of some sort out there. I flipped on the light and saw this:

Yes, three baby raccoons. They were in a tight little pack, walking on each other and pushing against each other.

They didn't seem too disturbed by me, so I took my camera out onto the deck and walked right up to them. I could have reached out and picked one up. They were adorable enough that I kind of thought about reaching out to touch one...but Mama didn't raise no fools, and I know that no matter how cute, they are still wild animals and not to be messed with. For their own protection as much as mine.

I love the above picture, because see that third guy sticking his head up over the railing? When I walked out, he scrambled down the railing to the deck floor, but after a bit, he made his way back up. I just kind of hung out and watched them for a while (braved a couple of mosquitoes to do it, too), until they decided it was time to move on. They formed an orderly line and the three of them made their way down the deck railing to the other part of the deck. I wonder if they'll be back tonight? The seed feeders are empty, as they were last night, so there are no goodies for them, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them again.

I like to name our critters, and Moe, Larry, and Curly would be a natural, but the baby groundhogs got that a few years ago. I think I'll name them after one of my favorite trios, The Police. Guys, your names are now Gordon, Stewart, and Andy. Wish I could tell you three apart! By the way, I know that one of you (is it Rebecca?) does not care for glowing-eye animal pictures. My apologies...it was not intentional, and I couldn't avoid it.

I might be scarce for the next few days. I'm in full reading mode (finished one book, a couple of mags to get through, then another book to start), plus I'll be out getting plants into the garden this week, if the weather cooperates--it sounds like Friday should be a nice day. Yay!

Wait! I'm not done! I have to comment on something I heard on the news. Maybe I should just not watch. Hahaha! Of course, I can't do that.

In a speech at a Republican fundraiser last night, Newt Gingrich riffed on President Obama's comment last year that he is a citizen of the world. Newt said:

I am not a citizen of the world. I think the whole concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous.

[sigh] Really, Newt? Really? (with a tip of the hat to Seth Myers) You think that isolationism is a solution to what ails us? I've been preaching writing here for some time now that we are inextricably part of the global economy. Beyond that, we are part of the world because we are part of humankind. At least I am. Last I checked, I was still an earthling. This sort of narrow thinking and inability to see the long view is what disturbs me the most about people like Gingrich. Chest thumping nationalism and jingoism is much of what got us into the trouble we're currently in on the world stage, and led us to the point where there are many around the globe who harbor extreme hatred for our country.

Wanting to be a part of the global citizenry, Newt, is neither nonsense nor dangerous. It's being human. "Intellectual nonsense"...I maintain that the lack of intellectual curiosity that you seem to possess (the same as that of your party affiliate, Sarah Palin, with her anti-fruit fly bias--that one was for Milwaukee Dan #1) about our world, other nationalities and cultures, and other religions, is the true danger in our midst. Knowledge is power, Newt. The rest of the world isn't going to just go away. There is a reason that companies and governments teach their employees and agents about customs in other countries. We need to be respectful of their cultures in our business and diplomatic dealings with them, and we are all ambassadors. Gingrich makes me think of some sort of mad Ptolemy of the political solar system, believing that the U.S. is the center of everything, that no one else matters. As Stephen King wrote, the world has moved on. Try to keep up, Newt.

I'm Beth, and I am a citizen of the world. You're welcome to join us anytime, Newt. It's a pretty big tent.

So far, I prefer this sort of tweet

I like you, Oreo. Twitter, not so much!

I'm feeling the same way I felt when I joined Facebook...for the love of God, what have I done? But the allure of reading tweets from people like Sarah Palin (Did you know that wild Alaskan seafood can help combat world hunger?), John McCain (Did you know that he thinks closing the U.S./Mexico border might be necessary if the flu outbreak worsens? Hahaha!), and the lunatic fringe ramblings of people like Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich is just too strong to resist. The humor factor for me could be huge! Meghan McCain is hilarious...she was planning on having a Whopper at the airport Burger King, because that's the way she rolls...and she wrote "OMFG!" about a story she'd read. She’s pretty cool.

The plan is to not spend too much time on there (yeah, right...but I have been spending less time on Facebook, so it could happen), but it looks like it might be fun. You can find me under my screen name, Luvrte66. If you see me following people like Palin and Newt, don't panic. It's just for giggles. I haven't decided if I'm going to follow them, though...not sure I want to get constant updates like that.

I'm none too pleased with Twitter at the moment, though, because I thought it would be neat to change my background a bit, maybe use my cool formica pattern that I use in the header here, and every time I tried, it would not take me to that screen. Anger, frustration, and irritation! I am stepping away from it for the moment, and I shall re-engage at a later time.

I’ll think happy thoughts, like about how easy I am to please. We went to Staples today to get nametag holders for Ken's PMI meeting later this week, and I found a tiny little keychain calculator for 99 cents. No more trying to do long division on the back of my grocery list at the grocery store! I can punch away with abandon on my cute little keychain calc! All that paper, all those pens and notebooks, and I walked out of there only 99 cents lighter. Ken called me a spendthrift, and I said, "It could have been much worse. Believe me."

The Story That Wouldn’t Die

It's not me fueling the fire, either. This baby is sprouting legs and crawling out of the primordial ooze.

I'm talking about President Obama speaking at Notre Dame's commencement. The Notre Dame student paper published an excellent editorial on the subject, and it also appeared in our local paper this morning. It's worth a read, if you'd like to see the students' side of it. The seniors who will be graduating are overwhelmingly in support of the President speaking at their commencement.

A group called the Cardinal Newman Society calls for greater orthodoxy on Catholic college campuses and has set up a website and started a petition. The group isn't affiliated with Notre Dame, and none of its seven employees are Notre Dame alumni, but they've gone after Rev. Jenkins in the past for his decision to allow a student production of "The Vagina Monologues," and his decision to allow the Notre Dame Queer Film Festival to take place. Rev. Jenkins wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal in 2008 and mentioned this group. He wrote, "The Newman Society has no ecclesiastical standing and no academic standing. For me, it resembles nothing more than a political action committee." I am really liking Father Jenkins—this guy kicks ass!--and I believe he's going to stand his ground on this one. There are a couple of other petitions circulating out there in support of his decision, and I was happy to sign them.

Oh, and that fine upstanding Christian, Newt Gingrich, even weighed in on it, on his Twitter page:

It is sad to see notre dame invite president obama to give the commencement address Since his policies are so anti catholic values 1:26 AM Mar 24th from TwitterBerry

Hey Newt, let's ask your first wife how she feels about it. Remember her? The one who you visited while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer, still coming out of anesthesia, and you tried to get her to sign off on your divorce demands? Yeah, that one. Not the second one, who you also divorced. I guess all is forgiven, though, because Newt is getting ready to convert to Catholicism.

There are voices of reason, too. Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit and senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University said, "The controversy over commencement speakers at Catholic universities pops up every spring along with the tulips," and called the brouhaha over the President giving the speech "absurd." He went on to say, "If Cardinal Edward Egan of New York can invite Obama to speak at the Al Smith dinner in October of 2008 when he was only a presidential candidate, then there is certainly nothing wrong with Notre Dame having the president speak at a commencement."

Unfortunately, there's a whole other level of crazy that has latched onto this like a tick onto a dog. Randall Terry has made his way to town. This is the guy who founded Operation Rescue, the anti-abortion group, back in the 80's. He spent some time in jail because he sent a fetus in a jar to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton. I've got no problem with people using civil disobedience to forward their causes, but this guy is and always has been about hatred and intolerance. In 1993, he was quoted in the Fort Wayne, Indiana newspaper as saying this:

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.

After his jail time and his divorce, he was ousted from Operation Rescue, and the new head of the organization released a statement saying, "...he has completely disqualified himself from any leadership position in the Christian community through his unwillingness to be held accountable for his adultery, theft, lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, perjury, failing to provide for his first wife and children, and evasion of church discipline." Terry was also censured by his church at the time, Landmark, for several reasons, one of which was "a pattern of repeated and sinful relationships and conversations with both single and married women."

Both of his adopted daughters became pregnant outside of marriage and one converted to Islam.

In 2004, his adopted son Jamiel revealed that he was homosexual. Terry disowned him.

In 2005, he converted to Catholicism. I guess when one religion doesn't want you, you try another one.

"Hate is good."

This A-hole is not a good person. He is not a nice person. And he's camping out in my town. He has vowed to stay here, and is setting up a base of operations, until the invitation to the President is withdrawn or the President says he will not attend. Stand tall, Notre Dame, hang tough, Father Jenkins, and do not negotiate with terrorists. This creep is a terrorist and as far as I'm concerned, he can get the hell out of Dodge South Bend.