.
Wrong is wrong and stupid is stupid, no matter which side of an issue you sit on or which political ideal you support. We have to stop making excuses for people in positions of power who do dumb things. They should be held accountable for what they say. People listen…and some of those listeners are not intelligent enough to think for themselves. In the philosophical words of the Spiderman universe, “with great power, comes great responsibility.”
Despite generally being an eloquent speaker, Barack Obama has put his foot in his mouth few times. His comment last year about his bowling skills being equivalent to the “special Olympics” was dumb and thoughtless. If he has any defense, it was that the statement was made off the cuff, without the assistance of his usual teleprompter. He was appropriately raked over the coals for his comment and apologized. Still, it was stupid. He should know better.
Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, might consider a strong piece of duct tape over his lips after his statement in a private meeting calling some liberal activists “f**ing retarded.” He has been barbequed by Fox News, Sarah Palin and others in conservative media for being insensitive to those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Palin, whose son has Down’s syndrome, has demanded his resignation. He too, issued an apology over his poor choice of words.
Unlike a lot of offensive words, the word “retard” had meaning before it became politically incorrect. As a verb, it means: To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede. The term is also used in music, as a means of slowing down the tempo. It’s a word that has meaning and usefulness, if used in the correct context. Although the use of the word as a slang descriptive is definitely considered offensive, I hope we don’t get to the point that a music teacher is reprimanded for using the word in class. Thinking must be done by both those who speak and those who hear.
There also seems to be a double standard among the guardians of political correctness. Sarah Palin posted on Facebook this statement about Rahm Emanuel, "I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts." She continued her attack on various televised interviews, expressing her outrage at his insensitive comment.
Fair enough. If anyone has a right to be upset, she certainly does. A parent should stand up for their child, and if she were consistent in her outrage, it would be commendable. Unfortunately, her response to fellow conservative Rush Limbaugh was rather muted.
Limbaugh, in a strange broadcast in which he almost seemed to be supporting Rahm Emanuel, claimed “Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are looney tunes. And I’m not going to apologize for it, I’m just quoting Emanuel. It’s in the news. I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House. Much like the beer summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge.”
When asked for a comment about Limbaugh’s remarks, a Palin spokesperson said, "Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful." Ouch! That’s a far cry from demanding someone be fired. The next day, when asked to clarify that statement, the Palin camp answered that it was "the same comment they have given reporters for a host of other instances where someone had used the 'r' word and they are not singling out Limbaugh."
Maybe she should write this on her hand, “My child is not a political tool.”
I am curious what her response will be to Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall. Last week, at a press conference opposing the funding of Planned Parenthood, he made the following statement, "The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion who have handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the firstborn of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.”
You might want to read that again to let it sink in. He went on to say, "In the Old Testament, the firstborn of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord," he added. "There's a special punishment Christians would suggest -- and with the knowledge that they have in faith, it's been verified by a study from Virginia Commonwealth University -- first abortions, of a first pregnancy, are much more damaging than later abortions."
After his comments sparked outrage by advocacy groups and parents of disabled children, he issued an apology, explaining that he was taken out of context, “Nevertheless, I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created as to my deep commitment to fighting for these vulnerable children and their families."
We all say stupid things. I’ve apologized many times to my family for slips of the tongue and thoughtlessly hurtful things I have said. Much as I may try, I’m sure it will happen again.
Still, I have not placed myself in front of a microphone. I have not stepped forward as a representative for others. I do not anoint myself worthy of making decisions that will affect the course of our nation and the lives of my fellow Americans. Those who took those steps can accomplish great things or create great damage. Every word they say and every action they take should be weighed against the benefit of the greater good. It’s the price they pay for the choice they have made.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Fatties
.
Recently, there was an incident involving writer-director Kevin Smith and Southwest Airlines. According to Smith, he was seated on a flight, but then asked to leave because he was deemed too large and was making the people on either side of him uncomfortable. Smith freely admits to being overweight, but in following the airlines own guidance regarding being “too fat to fly,” he was well within compliance. The policy states that if you can put the arm-rests down and buckle your seat belt, you are able to fly in one seat. Despite the fact that Smith could do both of those things, he was removed from the flight in an embarrassing scene played out in front of a plane full of passengers.
I’ve read several articles about this, and personally believe that Southwest made a huge mistake. Not only did they disregard their own policy, they humiliated a customer who happened to have the capability to make their behavior very public. Kevin Smith is not the sort of person to turn his back on a fight. He has used his blog and huge Tweet fan-base to demand an apology from the airline, while calling them on each new falsehood they released while trying to twist the story in their favor.
As a consistent flier and a fellow member of the “overweight” camp, I have been fascinated by this story. Like Smith, I can fit in the narrow seats of coach class while allowing the arm rests to lower. I can also fasten my seatbelt without the aid of an extension. Despite that, I am still self-conscious when someone is sitting beside me and worry that I am taking up too much space. I cross my arms tightly and try to take up as little space as possible, to the point of my own discomfort.
I’ve also sat next to people that could not lower the arm rest or fasten their belt without additional help. Their hips, stomach and arms have crossed over into my allotted space where I had little to spare. It’s not pleasant, and I can feel their awkwardness and shame. The doughy pressing of flesh is uncomfortable for us both, and any chance of polite conversation is smothered by our overwhelming mutual embarrassment.
But I digress…
One of the evils of internet articles and blogs is the ability for any person with a computer to make comments. As I’ve said before, I find myself drawn to the comments, much like we are drawn to the sound of sirens, to gauge just how bad things are. Although I seek the rare nuggets of wisdom and logic, I am usually disappointed and often disgusted by the lack of insight and gleeful mean-spiritedness.
Here are some select (unedited) comments from various websites on the “Smith-Southwest” situation:
Stop catering to the fatties of the world!
Airlines should have a 'pay by weight' deal. The fatter you are (up to fitting into a seat, not a smidge more), you should PAY more. Same deal with clothes. It takes yards more to make something for a fat pig than (what SHOULD BE) an average sized person (waist size under 32 inches).
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Lose weight you tub of lard.
I hate fat people.
No one wants your fat disgusting rolls intruding on the seat they paid for.
I've sat next to more than one fatty in my travels. And nothing is worse than their hot sweaty fat rolls pushing their way under the armrest, which they never lower, into the seat I paid for and press against me for the entire flight.
Fat people on planes are a safety hazard, I agree to that. They need to be tasered in the parking lot.
They suck too much oxygen out of the air. If the plane crashes, all that extra fat is more likely to be combustible, creating an inferno of blubberish foggy smoke. Children will have nightmares for years, if they even survive! People won't be able to see where to go for safety. Think about THAT next time some fat porker gets in line at the airport deli! That greasy plate of cheeseburger, fries, pop and pie is going to create one hell of a fireball!
Fat people need to wake up - YOU made yourself fat, no one else. I don't wanna sit next to you on a plane or anywhere else. It turns my stomach upside down.
Start eating right, exercise, get your head out of the KFC bucket and stop DRIVING MY HEALTH INSURANCE UP, you fat pieces of crap!
Put him in the cargo area. I think he should fit there
I think that’s enough of that for now. I didn’t post these to defend the lifestyle of the overweight. I’d say most overweight people aren’t very happy about the fact that they are overweight. What amazes me is the spectacular viciousness of these comments…and trust me, there are lots and lots more. On one website I counted over 100 disturbingly ugly comments before I got to one that responded in a sympathetic, Christian manner.
This is the sad state of our nation. Cold, callous and self-righteous; we look down our nose at anyone who is not just different, but doesn’t fit our particular image of what is “perfect.” Who are the “beautiful” people, and who told them that they were?
I admit that I have my moments when I can’t help but ask how God could make one man look like Brad Pitt, with a face and body that men envy and women desire, and then another to look like Kevin Smith (or me), with low metabolism and addictive tendencies toward fast food and pasta? It hardly seems fair, but that was never a promise to us anyway. Just ask any family dealing with birth defects or any number of life changing situations that seem to fall upon some but not others. Life is not about “fair.”
Everyone has a different path and the obstacles laid before us are not the same.
I would consider myself pretty fortunate if the worst of my faults is that I’m just fat. I prefer that to being one of those who sit back and judge…who seem to have been given the perfect life and the perfect body…because the day will come when they will be forced to look at the reflection of who they really are, and it just might be too late to change.
.
Recently, there was an incident involving writer-director Kevin Smith and Southwest Airlines. According to Smith, he was seated on a flight, but then asked to leave because he was deemed too large and was making the people on either side of him uncomfortable. Smith freely admits to being overweight, but in following the airlines own guidance regarding being “too fat to fly,” he was well within compliance. The policy states that if you can put the arm-rests down and buckle your seat belt, you are able to fly in one seat. Despite the fact that Smith could do both of those things, he was removed from the flight in an embarrassing scene played out in front of a plane full of passengers.
I’ve read several articles about this, and personally believe that Southwest made a huge mistake. Not only did they disregard their own policy, they humiliated a customer who happened to have the capability to make their behavior very public. Kevin Smith is not the sort of person to turn his back on a fight. He has used his blog and huge Tweet fan-base to demand an apology from the airline, while calling them on each new falsehood they released while trying to twist the story in their favor.
As a consistent flier and a fellow member of the “overweight” camp, I have been fascinated by this story. Like Smith, I can fit in the narrow seats of coach class while allowing the arm rests to lower. I can also fasten my seatbelt without the aid of an extension. Despite that, I am still self-conscious when someone is sitting beside me and worry that I am taking up too much space. I cross my arms tightly and try to take up as little space as possible, to the point of my own discomfort.
I’ve also sat next to people that could not lower the arm rest or fasten their belt without additional help. Their hips, stomach and arms have crossed over into my allotted space where I had little to spare. It’s not pleasant, and I can feel their awkwardness and shame. The doughy pressing of flesh is uncomfortable for us both, and any chance of polite conversation is smothered by our overwhelming mutual embarrassment.
But I digress…
One of the evils of internet articles and blogs is the ability for any person with a computer to make comments. As I’ve said before, I find myself drawn to the comments, much like we are drawn to the sound of sirens, to gauge just how bad things are. Although I seek the rare nuggets of wisdom and logic, I am usually disappointed and often disgusted by the lack of insight and gleeful mean-spiritedness.
Here are some select (unedited) comments from various websites on the “Smith-Southwest” situation:
Stop catering to the fatties of the world!
Airlines should have a 'pay by weight' deal. The fatter you are (up to fitting into a seat, not a smidge more), you should PAY more. Same deal with clothes. It takes yards more to make something for a fat pig than (what SHOULD BE) an average sized person (waist size under 32 inches).
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Lose weight you tub of lard.
I hate fat people.
No one wants your fat disgusting rolls intruding on the seat they paid for.
I've sat next to more than one fatty in my travels. And nothing is worse than their hot sweaty fat rolls pushing their way under the armrest, which they never lower, into the seat I paid for and press against me for the entire flight.
Fat people on planes are a safety hazard, I agree to that. They need to be tasered in the parking lot.
They suck too much oxygen out of the air. If the plane crashes, all that extra fat is more likely to be combustible, creating an inferno of blubberish foggy smoke. Children will have nightmares for years, if they even survive! People won't be able to see where to go for safety. Think about THAT next time some fat porker gets in line at the airport deli! That greasy plate of cheeseburger, fries, pop and pie is going to create one hell of a fireball!
Fat people need to wake up - YOU made yourself fat, no one else. I don't wanna sit next to you on a plane or anywhere else. It turns my stomach upside down.
Start eating right, exercise, get your head out of the KFC bucket and stop DRIVING MY HEALTH INSURANCE UP, you fat pieces of crap!
Put him in the cargo area. I think he should fit there
I think that’s enough of that for now. I didn’t post these to defend the lifestyle of the overweight. I’d say most overweight people aren’t very happy about the fact that they are overweight. What amazes me is the spectacular viciousness of these comments…and trust me, there are lots and lots more. On one website I counted over 100 disturbingly ugly comments before I got to one that responded in a sympathetic, Christian manner.
This is the sad state of our nation. Cold, callous and self-righteous; we look down our nose at anyone who is not just different, but doesn’t fit our particular image of what is “perfect.” Who are the “beautiful” people, and who told them that they were?
I admit that I have my moments when I can’t help but ask how God could make one man look like Brad Pitt, with a face and body that men envy and women desire, and then another to look like Kevin Smith (or me), with low metabolism and addictive tendencies toward fast food and pasta? It hardly seems fair, but that was never a promise to us anyway. Just ask any family dealing with birth defects or any number of life changing situations that seem to fall upon some but not others. Life is not about “fair.”
Everyone has a different path and the obstacles laid before us are not the same.
I would consider myself pretty fortunate if the worst of my faults is that I’m just fat. I prefer that to being one of those who sit back and judge…who seem to have been given the perfect life and the perfect body…because the day will come when they will be forced to look at the reflection of who they really are, and it just might be too late to change.
.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Cowboys
I try to respect the opinion of anyone who is open minded enough to respect the opinion of someone else. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with them, or them with me, but it means that there is a potential to find some common ground. Anyone who believes that they are 100% right on any given subject (and that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is an idiot) cannot be reasoned with. That’s where the term “unreasonable” comes from. I don’t want to be considered “unreasonable,” nor do I want to deal with “unreasonable” people.
Last week there were two school shootings, one in Alabama and one in Knoxville, not far from my home. Leaving three dead and several injured, these shootings remind us once again how quickly our lives could change at the hands of an unstable person. How and why these two teachers committed these crimes will be debated for some time, but the sad truth is that these weren’t the first and won’t be the last time something like this happens.
I don’t know why I do it, because I always end up upset, but I have a tendency to read comments submitted to online news articles. If you want to gauge the level of “crazy” in our country, take a gander at some of the statements made on some of these articles. It’s pretty frightening.
While reading some comments posted on an article about the Knoxville shooting, a man stated that “if the other people in the room had been carrying guns, the shooter could have been killed before hurting anyone.” This was followed by a chorus of approval posts and more statements about how “liberals” and “socialists” were trying to destroy our nation and submit us to danger by taking our guns (at some point, all of these postings turn into a political debate, usually involving name calling from both sides).
I thought about the man’s suggestion. What if everyone carried a gun? Like the old west days, we’d strap on our holster and pearl handled 45 each morning before work. How cool would that be? I played that game as a kid. I was Marshall Matt Dillon, protecting my backyard with my silver cap gun. No one would come near my home and family without facing the cold plastic of my pistol and the loud pop and smoky smell of its discharge. I imagined a world where I could carry a gun all the time. I thought it would be awesome.
But I was a child.
As an adult, I do not want to carry a gun. I’m pretty sure I would use it on the first morning I take my kids to school and I am cut-off in the drop-off line. (Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t shoot anyone…but I can see myself taking out some tires and shattering some windshields). I don’t think I’m alone either. People are too tense; between work, finances, family and other issues, we all seem on the edge of breaking at any given time. Do we really want a gun on our hip when we are pushed to our limit?
So what do people think when they make these statements? Does this man really think it would be a good idea for everyone to be openly carrying a gun? Does he think that there would be less shootings? Does he think that only the “bad” people are going to get shot? I’m trying to give him (and those who agree with him) the benefit of the doubt that they might not have thought this all the way through.
On the other hand, I have a friend who insists that his wife carry a small gun (legally registered, of course) when she drives long distances alone to her family home out of state. His concern for her is justified, and when I think about it, I can’t help but agree. It’s a dangerous world, with lots of crazy people. If I weren’t kind of annoying, I’d think about buying one for my wife.
So what am I saying? Am I “pro-gun” or not? Like almost everything, it’s not that simple.
The NRA and gun lobbyists have turned the debate over gun control into an all or nothing deal. Try to discuss the restriction of automatic weapons and they quickly turn it into a second amendment debate which frightens every hunter into believing that they will have to turn in their 30/30 and burn down their deer stands. Americans need to start thinking for themselves and take off their camo-colored glasses. There is a lot of gray area in the gun debate.
There’s a big difference between wanting to defend yourself and being “defensive.” I hear a lot of people who seem to be offended that they have to wait on background checks or go through legal channels to get their guns. They make the excuse that if the criminals have guns, why shouldn’t they? Sorry, but that’s not rational.
If you are a law abiding citizen, why would you not want to have a background check run in order to legally possess a gun? Are you in a hurry to have your new gun? If so, I’d have to wonder why. People who plan so poorly might not have the temperament to carry a weapon.
Considering that so many lives are potentially at stake, shouldn’t the manufacture, sale and ownership of guns be even MORE strictly regulated? I understand that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” but no one can argue that it’s much easier to kill with a gun than with bare hands or a knife.
Sure, the regulations won’t stop everyone. The shooter in Alabama had “borrowed” a 9mm handgun and had no permit or registration. But, if we had more severe penalties for those who improperly sale, trade or “loan” guns to others, then we might stop a few tragedies. Wouldn’t it be worth it to save even one life?
.
Last week there were two school shootings, one in Alabama and one in Knoxville, not far from my home. Leaving three dead and several injured, these shootings remind us once again how quickly our lives could change at the hands of an unstable person. How and why these two teachers committed these crimes will be debated for some time, but the sad truth is that these weren’t the first and won’t be the last time something like this happens.
I don’t know why I do it, because I always end up upset, but I have a tendency to read comments submitted to online news articles. If you want to gauge the level of “crazy” in our country, take a gander at some of the statements made on some of these articles. It’s pretty frightening.
While reading some comments posted on an article about the Knoxville shooting, a man stated that “if the other people in the room had been carrying guns, the shooter could have been killed before hurting anyone.” This was followed by a chorus of approval posts and more statements about how “liberals” and “socialists” were trying to destroy our nation and submit us to danger by taking our guns (at some point, all of these postings turn into a political debate, usually involving name calling from both sides).
I thought about the man’s suggestion. What if everyone carried a gun? Like the old west days, we’d strap on our holster and pearl handled 45 each morning before work. How cool would that be? I played that game as a kid. I was Marshall Matt Dillon, protecting my backyard with my silver cap gun. No one would come near my home and family without facing the cold plastic of my pistol and the loud pop and smoky smell of its discharge. I imagined a world where I could carry a gun all the time. I thought it would be awesome.
But I was a child.
As an adult, I do not want to carry a gun. I’m pretty sure I would use it on the first morning I take my kids to school and I am cut-off in the drop-off line. (Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t shoot anyone…but I can see myself taking out some tires and shattering some windshields). I don’t think I’m alone either. People are too tense; between work, finances, family and other issues, we all seem on the edge of breaking at any given time. Do we really want a gun on our hip when we are pushed to our limit?
So what do people think when they make these statements? Does this man really think it would be a good idea for everyone to be openly carrying a gun? Does he think that there would be less shootings? Does he think that only the “bad” people are going to get shot? I’m trying to give him (and those who agree with him) the benefit of the doubt that they might not have thought this all the way through.
On the other hand, I have a friend who insists that his wife carry a small gun (legally registered, of course) when she drives long distances alone to her family home out of state. His concern for her is justified, and when I think about it, I can’t help but agree. It’s a dangerous world, with lots of crazy people. If I weren’t kind of annoying, I’d think about buying one for my wife.
So what am I saying? Am I “pro-gun” or not? Like almost everything, it’s not that simple.
The NRA and gun lobbyists have turned the debate over gun control into an all or nothing deal. Try to discuss the restriction of automatic weapons and they quickly turn it into a second amendment debate which frightens every hunter into believing that they will have to turn in their 30/30 and burn down their deer stands. Americans need to start thinking for themselves and take off their camo-colored glasses. There is a lot of gray area in the gun debate.
There’s a big difference between wanting to defend yourself and being “defensive.” I hear a lot of people who seem to be offended that they have to wait on background checks or go through legal channels to get their guns. They make the excuse that if the criminals have guns, why shouldn’t they? Sorry, but that’s not rational.
If you are a law abiding citizen, why would you not want to have a background check run in order to legally possess a gun? Are you in a hurry to have your new gun? If so, I’d have to wonder why. People who plan so poorly might not have the temperament to carry a weapon.
Considering that so many lives are potentially at stake, shouldn’t the manufacture, sale and ownership of guns be even MORE strictly regulated? I understand that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” but no one can argue that it’s much easier to kill with a gun than with bare hands or a knife.
Sure, the regulations won’t stop everyone. The shooter in Alabama had “borrowed” a 9mm handgun and had no permit or registration. But, if we had more severe penalties for those who improperly sale, trade or “loan” guns to others, then we might stop a few tragedies. Wouldn’t it be worth it to save even one life?
.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Getting Snowed
I’ve heard a lot of concern on the network news this week about the cost of shutting down the Federal Government due to weather. Since the early dismissal last Friday, the estimated tab has grown to over $450,000. Oh, wait…no…it’s 450 MILLION dollars. (Sorry, I got my numbers confused…450 thousand is what they spent on toilet paper for the third floor bathroom of the Senate office building).
So anyway, thousands of federal government workers stayed home for most of the week and our nation fell apart as a result. Roads crumbled, bridges fell, school buses ran out of gas stranding children in the desert…it was anarchy.
Or maybe not…
I have to ask, did you still have food? Did you lose power, phone reception, and television? Did the sky fall? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
What’s funny to me is that they’ve put a price tag on the Federal Government shutdown, as if we’re not paying that price day in and day out anyway. The number I would really like to see is what we might have saved. Here’s my theory: With the government basically stuck at home under a heavy blanket of snow, they couldn’t spend MORE MONEY.
That’s right, since the government doesn’t actually “produce” anything, but is in the primary business of “spending” our tax dollars; we probably SAVED a ton of money by those workers not going to the office. I think we should push for several days each month for them to stay at home. Give them a three day work week, but pay them for five. It will be a bargain.
Maybe within a year, we could balance the budget. In two years, we could afford National Health Care. By the third year, college tuition would be free for everyone. Finally, our government would be working for us.
So anyway, thousands of federal government workers stayed home for most of the week and our nation fell apart as a result. Roads crumbled, bridges fell, school buses ran out of gas stranding children in the desert…it was anarchy.
Or maybe not…
I have to ask, did you still have food? Did you lose power, phone reception, and television? Did the sky fall? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
What’s funny to me is that they’ve put a price tag on the Federal Government shutdown, as if we’re not paying that price day in and day out anyway. The number I would really like to see is what we might have saved. Here’s my theory: With the government basically stuck at home under a heavy blanket of snow, they couldn’t spend MORE MONEY.
That’s right, since the government doesn’t actually “produce” anything, but is in the primary business of “spending” our tax dollars; we probably SAVED a ton of money by those workers not going to the office. I think we should push for several days each month for them to stay at home. Give them a three day work week, but pay them for five. It will be a bargain.
Maybe within a year, we could balance the budget. In two years, we could afford National Health Care. By the third year, college tuition would be free for everyone. Finally, our government would be working for us.
Divided we fall...
The problem with almost any ideological movement is that you have to choose one particular viewpoint and then assume, with complete faith and steadfastness, that you are absolutely correct. Not only are you on the side of all that is right and good, but anyone who believes differently must therefore be either irredeemably misguided or pure evil. There is no middle ground. There is no gray area.
Although it is almost always an admirable quality to stand up for your convictions, it’s also very important to make sure that they are actually “your” convictions, not what you’ve been convinced to believe by others. Taking what anyone on television, radio, the internet or in newspapers has to say at face value is not just foolish, but dangerous as well. Consider the fact that they have had a considerable amount of time to craft their message for maximum impact. Often these news outlets, commentators and talk show hosts have agendas that are bought and paid for by lobbyists who do not have the best interest of the general public at heart. However, they know the words to say that will incite public outrage and guide them the direction that they want them to go. Like lambs to the slaughter.
I chose the name for my blog because I heard a protester proclaim on television (barely a week after the inauguration of Barack Obama) that our great nation was going to “hell in a handbasket.” At that point if was far too early to ascertain what direction our new leader would take us, but this gentleman had already made up his mind. He spoke passionately about his wish to “impeach” the president, and I think he threw in the most terrifying word in America: Socialist.
Considering that Obama had not been in the White House long enough to unpack his underwear, let alone do anything worthy of impeachment, this protester came across as a bit of a lunatic (at least to me. I’m sure there were plenty of others who raised their fists in solidarity and praised him for his insight and bravery). The word that came to my mind as I listened to him rant about the dangers of our new president was not “socialist” but “racist.”
So, you’re thinking, “this blog is going to be all about praising Obama and bashing conservatives!” No, that’s not my plan. I just want to call them as I see them. I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin…but I’m also not a fan of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or big government. Primarily, I do not like the division of the political parties or the wall built between conservatives and liberals. I think that a difference of opinion can be healthy if both sides can respect each other and attempt to find a common solution.
The historical reference for “in a handbasket” goes back to the days of the guillotine and the method for catching the severed heads. It’s mentioned in Samuel Sewell’s 1714 diary that the Governor said that he would “give his head in a Handbasket as soon as he would pass” an unpopular resolution.
Today, I’m not quite sure whose head is on the chopping block. Is it some leaders, who are trying to pass unpopular (but possibly needed) resolutions? Or others who stand in the way of those resolutions? My fear is that it might be our great nation itself who has fallen asleep beneath the big blade. We have allowed petty differences and political posturing to chip away at the one thing that has been our greatest national asset: our unity.
Although it is almost always an admirable quality to stand up for your convictions, it’s also very important to make sure that they are actually “your” convictions, not what you’ve been convinced to believe by others. Taking what anyone on television, radio, the internet or in newspapers has to say at face value is not just foolish, but dangerous as well. Consider the fact that they have had a considerable amount of time to craft their message for maximum impact. Often these news outlets, commentators and talk show hosts have agendas that are bought and paid for by lobbyists who do not have the best interest of the general public at heart. However, they know the words to say that will incite public outrage and guide them the direction that they want them to go. Like lambs to the slaughter.
I chose the name for my blog because I heard a protester proclaim on television (barely a week after the inauguration of Barack Obama) that our great nation was going to “hell in a handbasket.” At that point if was far too early to ascertain what direction our new leader would take us, but this gentleman had already made up his mind. He spoke passionately about his wish to “impeach” the president, and I think he threw in the most terrifying word in America: Socialist.
Considering that Obama had not been in the White House long enough to unpack his underwear, let alone do anything worthy of impeachment, this protester came across as a bit of a lunatic (at least to me. I’m sure there were plenty of others who raised their fists in solidarity and praised him for his insight and bravery). The word that came to my mind as I listened to him rant about the dangers of our new president was not “socialist” but “racist.”
So, you’re thinking, “this blog is going to be all about praising Obama and bashing conservatives!” No, that’s not my plan. I just want to call them as I see them. I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin…but I’m also not a fan of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or big government. Primarily, I do not like the division of the political parties or the wall built between conservatives and liberals. I think that a difference of opinion can be healthy if both sides can respect each other and attempt to find a common solution.
The historical reference for “in a handbasket” goes back to the days of the guillotine and the method for catching the severed heads. It’s mentioned in Samuel Sewell’s 1714 diary that the Governor said that he would “give his head in a Handbasket as soon as he would pass” an unpopular resolution.
Today, I’m not quite sure whose head is on the chopping block. Is it some leaders, who are trying to pass unpopular (but possibly needed) resolutions? Or others who stand in the way of those resolutions? My fear is that it might be our great nation itself who has fallen asleep beneath the big blade. We have allowed petty differences and political posturing to chip away at the one thing that has been our greatest national asset: our unity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)