Hey, Wayne!

Here's a question for you and your NRA cohorts:
What's to be done with that 9-year-old alleged shooter in Washington?
Only criminals with have handguns, right?
Nice job, guys.
[tagname]

Sphere: Related Content

Sly Puss

Technorati Tags: Glenn Greenwald,Tim Russert,journalism,Salon.com,humor

It’s too good to let pass.

In writing about Topic X, authors often manage to slip in a little elbow about Topic Y to the ribs of the body politic; and those little nuggets should be identified and celebrated.

To wit:  In Salon.com you will find an article by Glenn Greenwald discussing Iran as the source of some discomfort, alright—evil—and you will also find this:  “while the Face of American Meritocracy, NBC News‘ Luke Russert…”

Think about it. Meritocracy, rising on the merits of one’s efforts; and Luke Russert, elevated to a job with a major news organization upon the death of his father, Tim.

Also think about using upper case: Face of American Meritocracy.

Then dedicate an appreciative chuckle to Greenwald.

You’re welcome.

Sphere: Related Content

Um…well, I guess…

Technorati Tags: Religion&Ethics,Kevorkian,Hitchens,Religion,Spirituality

Here’s a little surprise; guess who’s included in this year’s Religion & Ethics Newsletter’s “In Memoriam 2011?”

Jack Kevorkian and Christopher Hitchens.

Along with unsavories, or, at least, once unsavories, such as Cardinal Foley—maybe he found God, or at least heard the snapping of growling watchdogs and contributors after his AIDS comments—we find these two who aren’t usually listed in the category of “Prominent Religious.”

Although, upon reflection, they both were certainly spiritual, and, in their own ways, pastoral. There’s also an environmentalist listed, probably the most spiritual of them all.

There’s also a Jewish songwriter, which is a nice gesture, because songwriters are also quite spiritual.

The others are/were (?) luminaries of various Christian sects. And now they know whether Hitchens was/is (?) correct, don’t they?

Sphere: Related Content

Um…Not really

Technorati Tags: Hank Williams,Jr,ESPN,U.S. Constitution,Free Speech

The Hank Williams, Jr./ESPN brouhaha is mildly diverting on a few levels, but it is also a sad commentary on one: understanding the Constitutional right to free speech.

Williams’ Constitutional rights were not affected by ESPN’s action. The Constitution is silent on the right of company censorship of employees’ speech.

“Congress shall make no laws…” is the way the First Amendment begins. There is nothing in it which limits any other instance of speech restrictions. Most states also limit “freedom on speech” similarly in their state constitutions.

Williams should know better. We all should know better.

Sorry, Mr. Williams, Jr., your Constitutional free speech rights were not offended, and you have none otherwise.

Sphere: Related Content

Silliness

“Reverse racism” is such a silly phrase.

What could it possibly mean?

A racist is a racist, regardless of skin color, and “reverse racism” is just an example of unthinking writers who waste electronic ink.

Sphere: Related Content

Fraternal Quip

This from my older brother: Yesterday we could not spell third-world country; today we are one.

(I wonder if it’s a joke which has been going around. Regardless, I like it.)

Sphere: Related Content

So, I’m a smart ass…So sue me

Technorati Tags: Sexual orientation,Sexual preference,Language

:

Not really…the suing part.

The local newspaper, The Desert Sun had a piece today indicating disapproval of those protesting Chaz Bono’s upcoming appearance on “Dancing with the Stars.”

I liked it except for the use of “sexual preference.”  Now, since I am of the opinion that virtually everyone who is protesting against Mr. Bono’s appearance has participated in his sexual preference activities in one way or another, I doubt very seriously they are protesting that/those preference(s).

So I wrote the following to the “Community Conversations Editor” at the paper. I got carried away.

It was such fun and became so silly that I thought I’d share it.  Have fun.

xoxox

Dear Mr. X:

Today your editorial page gave a well-deserved “Thumbs Down” to those who are protesting against Chaz Bono’s appearance on “Dancing with the Stars.”

There would be disagreement only from those who are unwilling to learn.

There is, however, one phrase with which others might quibble; it is “sexual preference.” It might be good to take a few moments to educate your writer about the more accurate “sexual orientation” for use in this type of discussion.

To personalize the point, Sir, might I suggest that your sexual preference is what you prefer to do during sexual incidents. Everyone has sexual preferences which are unique and of no concern to others.

Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is how you “lean” when choosing a partner with whom to participate in mutual sexual preferences.

Absent a declaration from a person, sexual preference is unknowable; sexual orientation is somewhat easier to discern. Since most of the protesters against Mr Bono themselves probably engage in whatever sexual activities they might imagine he participates, they are more than likely protesting his orientation than his preference.

Please discuss this with your writer.

Sincerely,

gene touchet

Sphere: Related Content