"St Paul promises to those who love God not, as we should expect, that they will know Him, but that they will be known by Him (1 Cor. 8:3). It is a strange promise . Does not God know all things at all times? But it is dreadfully reechoed in another passage of the New Testament. There we are warned that it may happen to anyone of us to appear at last before the face of God and hear only the appalling word, "I never knew you. Depart from Me." In some sense, as dark to the intellect as it is unendurable to the feelings, we can be both banished from the presence of Him who is present everywhere and erased from the knowledge of Him who knows all. We can be left utterly and absolutely outside - repelled, exiled, estranged, finally and unspeakably ignored."
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
Lewis turns a little dark in this section of reflection on glory. Continuing with the last reading of glory as recognition and a type of fame, receiving commendation of God, he goes deeper into this idea. If we love God then we are known by God. Let's expand that section of 1 Corinthians:
"Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God" - 1 Corinthians 8:2,3 NIV
Now some manuscripts report this as:
"Those who think they have knowledge do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves truly knows."
So there can be a little discrepancy and in some sense the second reading fits a more literal thinking if your framework is the traditional Christian concept of God (all the omnis). But that does not negate the first reading if we stick with the idea from last time that if we love God and we continue in the service God has placed us in then we are known as "good and faithful servants".
Lewis' second line of thought though is chilling... that an omniscient, omnipresent God could say to someone "Depart from me. I never knew you." Today I am not here to debate the characteristics of God (maybe I'll do that in a later post where I brush the dust off a paper I wrote for a graduate class in the philosophy of religion and debate myself on what I thought then verses what I think now), so I am just taking what is clearly stated in Scripture. Lewis is pulling his line from Matthew 7:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"
- Matthew 7:21 - 23 (ESV)
I think of the list of words that Lewis uses in describing this state the most terrifying is "unspeakably ignored". Those in that state are still there, still able to speak, would be heard, but no response. It's terrible when it happens in human relationships. One of the most hurtful situations is to have someone you think of as a friend to ignore you. I cannot imagine what it would be to ignored by God.
Tuesday, March 07, 2017
Monday, March 06, 2017
Fifth Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
"Salvation is constantly associated with palms, crowns, white robes, thrones, and splendour like the sun and stars... Glory suggests two ideas to me, of which one seems wicked and the other ridiculous. Either glory means to me fame or it means luminosity... But not fame conferred by our fellow creatures - fame with God, approval, or (I might say) "appreciation by God. And then, when I had thought it over, I saw that this view was scriptural; nothing can eliminate from the parable the divine accolade, "Well done, though good and faithful servant."
- C.S. Lewis
After discussing the five groups of promises in Scripture and why there are more promises more than one (that we would be with Christ our savior), Lewis turns to the idea of "glory". I've wrestled with this too, what does "glory" mean and does it mean that for me? It's one thing to give God glory, but what does it mean to have the promise of glory? For the longest time I was stuck in the idea that our "glory" was the promise of heaven, that we would be with Christ in glory (in heaven, wherever his presence is). But Lewis has brought up something that didn't really enter my thinking, that I would earn praise from God for finishing the race, that God could be pleased with ME. Without too much exposition look the Parable of the Bags of Gold and note that the servants who did the right thing with what their master gave them were told "well done... come share in your master's happiness!"
To hear those words from God Almighty, creator or heavens and earth, of all that is seen and unseen would be glory indeed!
Lent is a time to look at things like this. What can I do with my live that would bring me closer to God? What should I eliminate that distracts me from my path OR what could I add to make my path more straight? There is no one magic answer for everything (thank goodness, because while giving up chocolate is easy because I am on the Atkins diet, giving up meat would blow the diet out of the water!) So each of us is called to look at ourselves as God looks at us, as individuals, and ask "What can I do to get closer to You?"
- C.S. Lewis
After discussing the five groups of promises in Scripture and why there are more promises more than one (that we would be with Christ our savior), Lewis turns to the idea of "glory". I've wrestled with this too, what does "glory" mean and does it mean that for me? It's one thing to give God glory, but what does it mean to have the promise of glory? For the longest time I was stuck in the idea that our "glory" was the promise of heaven, that we would be with Christ in glory (in heaven, wherever his presence is). But Lewis has brought up something that didn't really enter my thinking, that I would earn praise from God for finishing the race, that God could be pleased with ME. Without too much exposition look the Parable of the Bags of Gold and note that the servants who did the right thing with what their master gave them were told "well done... come share in your master's happiness!"
To hear those words from God Almighty, creator or heavens and earth, of all that is seen and unseen would be glory indeed!
Lent is a time to look at things like this. What can I do with my live that would bring me closer to God? What should I eliminate that distracts me from my path OR what could I add to make my path more straight? There is no one magic answer for everything (thank goodness, because while giving up chocolate is easy because I am on the Atkins diet, giving up meat would blow the diet out of the water!) So each of us is called to look at ourselves as God looks at us, as individuals, and ask "What can I do to get closer to You?"
Sunday, March 05, 2017
Fourth Post - Lent 2017 with C.S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
"... because God is more than a Person, and lest we should imagine the joy of His presence too exclusively in terms of our present poor experience of personal love, with all its narrowness and strain and monotony, a dozen changing images, correcting and relieving each other, are supplied."
- C.S.Lewis, The Weight of Glory
In this section Lewis starts with list the roughly five categories of promises of scripture:
I don't disagree but will put my own little spin on it. If I think about what I know of the world around the first century, especially the early communities of believers, what would joyful experience mean to me? Maybe rather than be part of a poor, repressed people I would have "glory", I would be special. Maybe rather than being hungry it would mean that I would be fed and never worry about having to do without. Maybe rather than being powerless in my current world system this future hope would mean I have some position, some status. All because being with Christ would mean I would be LIKE Christ. Poor examples I know, but we're trying to communicate something none have experienced and attempted to tell. Oh sure there are some glimpses (the Revelation as described by John, the experience at the Mount of Transfiguration), but no one knows exactly what it means to be with Christ at the end. If I follow my own examples, I wonder what these promises would look like today? What if rather than Christ appearing in the first century Mediterranean area he first appeared in 21st century America? Where would he appear? What would be first people he would go to with his message? And following this passage from Lewis, what would the promises of God look like?
Hmmmm...
- C.S.Lewis, The Weight of Glory
In this section Lewis starts with list the roughly five categories of promises of scripture:
- We shall be with Christ
- We shall be like Christ
- We shall have "glory"
- We shall in some sense be fed or feasted or entertained
- We shall some sort of position in the universe
I don't disagree but will put my own little spin on it. If I think about what I know of the world around the first century, especially the early communities of believers, what would joyful experience mean to me? Maybe rather than be part of a poor, repressed people I would have "glory", I would be special. Maybe rather than being hungry it would mean that I would be fed and never worry about having to do without. Maybe rather than being powerless in my current world system this future hope would mean I have some position, some status. All because being with Christ would mean I would be LIKE Christ. Poor examples I know, but we're trying to communicate something none have experienced and attempted to tell. Oh sure there are some glimpses (the Revelation as described by John, the experience at the Mount of Transfiguration), but no one knows exactly what it means to be with Christ at the end. If I follow my own examples, I wonder what these promises would look like today? What if rather than Christ appearing in the first century Mediterranean area he first appeared in 21st century America? Where would he appear? What would be first people he would go to with his message? And following this passage from Lewis, what would the promises of God look like?
Hmmmm...
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Third Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
"Our sacred books give us some account of the object [of our transtemporal desire]. It is, of course, a symbolic account. Heaven is, by definition, outside our experience, but all intelligible descriptions must be of things within our experience... heaven is not really full of jewelry any more than it is really the beauty of nature, or a fine piece of music. The difference is that the scriptural imagery has authority. It comes to us from writers who were closer to God than we, and it has stood the test of Christian experience down the centuries. The natural appeal of this authoritative imagery is to me, at first, very small. At first sight it chills, rather than awakens, my desire. And that is just what I ought to expect. If Christianity could tell me no more of the far-off land than my own temperament led me to surmise already, then Christianity would be no higher than myself. If it has more to give, I expect it to be less immediately attractive than "my own stuff."
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
As a Christian I consider my broadly in the conservative camp. I hold the Bible in extremely high regard and that God's message given to us is something we can understand. I do not think that the Bible is all symbolism and full of hidden mystery knowledge (the more Gnostic approach that some take). For me, Lewis reminds me that not everything described is EXACTLY as it is and he makes the case that this is a good thing. If the object of heavenly desire is only what I can create in my own imagination then what I am getting from Christianity is no more than what I already have and the desire is limited only by my desire for what I already have in mind. But heaven is so much more. The writers of scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit are trying to relay information in terms we can understand. In fact, I think think it is more of something like this "Imagine a place where streets are made of gold, gates each made of a single pearl (see for example the passage in Revelation 21). Awesome right, the most precious things on Earth. Well Heaven is more than that." Here I start hearing echoes of Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence ("Now image something greater than anything else that could ever be imagined...").
The important thing is a warning against arrogance. If I believe I can think everything out then what scripture has to tell me is no more than what I can already reason out. But if I realize there are just some things that I cannot work out in my own mind, that is just something that indicates there is more out there than meets the eye. In fact, it is so fantastic that right now I can't even fully imagine what it is, so my desire to find out is inflamed even more.
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
As a Christian I consider my broadly in the conservative camp. I hold the Bible in extremely high regard and that God's message given to us is something we can understand. I do not think that the Bible is all symbolism and full of hidden mystery knowledge (the more Gnostic approach that some take). For me, Lewis reminds me that not everything described is EXACTLY as it is and he makes the case that this is a good thing. If the object of heavenly desire is only what I can create in my own imagination then what I am getting from Christianity is no more than what I already have and the desire is limited only by my desire for what I already have in mind. But heaven is so much more. The writers of scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit are trying to relay information in terms we can understand. In fact, I think think it is more of something like this "Imagine a place where streets are made of gold, gates each made of a single pearl (see for example the passage in Revelation 21). Awesome right, the most precious things on Earth. Well Heaven is more than that." Here I start hearing echoes of Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence ("Now image something greater than anything else that could ever be imagined...").
The important thing is a warning against arrogance. If I believe I can think everything out then what scripture has to tell me is no more than what I can already reason out. But if I realize there are just some things that I cannot work out in my own mind, that is just something that indicates there is more out there than meets the eye. In fact, it is so fantastic that right now I can't even fully imagine what it is, so my desire to find out is inflamed even more.
Friday, March 03, 2017
Second Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
"If a transtemporal, transfinite good is our real destiny, then any other good on which our desire fixes must be in some degree fallacious, must bear at best only a symbolic relation to what will truly satisfy... Almost our whole education has been directed to silence this shy, persistent, inner voice; almost all our modern philosophies have been devised to convince us that the good of man is to be found on this earth. And yet it is a remarkable thing that such philosophies of Progress or Creative Evolution themselves bear witness to the truth that our real goal is elsewhere. When they want to convince you that earth is your home, notice how they set about it. They begin by trying to persuade you that earth can be made into heaven, thus giving a sop to your sense of exile in earth as it is. Next, they tell you that this fortunate event is still a good way off in the future, thus giving a sop to your knowledge that the fatherland is not here and now. Finally, least your longing for the transtemporal should awake and spoil the whole affair, they use any rhetoric that comes to hand to keep out of your mind the recollection that even if all the happiness they promised could come to man on earth, yet still each generation would lose it by death... Do what they will, then, we remain conscious of a desire which no natural happiness will satisfy."
- C. S.Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
There is a lot in this section of Lewis' address which I left out including some examples that, depending on whether or not you have a schoolboy's love for Greek literature, may or may not resonate. I encourage you to read it to see the whole of his thought (you can get a PDF version here).
I want to look at Lewis' idea about destiny and desire. For the Christian it is pretty straightforward, that the experience of salvation creates a transfer of citizenship from earth to heaven (see for example Philippians 3:19-20). If you read that section of scripture though you see more than that change of earthly passport. Those whose citizenship is not heaven have their minds on "earthly things" but we eagerly await the coming of the Savior. Lest we get the idea that this is the ONLY thing though, let's look at the structure of that section of scripture as laid out. It isn't a single proposition but rather a contrast (just like this sentence). "BUT our citizenship is in heaven". Stepping back we see there are two categories in contrast, those who have not as of yet come to a saving relationship with Christ who are described as having their stomach as their god, their shame is their glory, and their mind is set on earthly things. In addressing the believers in Philippi, Paul builds a contrast: BUT OUR citizenship is in heaven. So if those whose citizenship is earth have certain desires this would imply that we should not be this way or as Lewis says "any other good [non-heavenly] must be fallacious". So knowing this what should we do? Here is where we have a tie to the season of Lent.
The Dean of our cathedral talks of Lent as a call to holiness. Now there is a lot to unpack in that little word "holiness" and unfortunately it has come to have a distorted meaning these days. If you want to spend some time a good place to start is here but I'll cut to the chase. Holiness at its core (outside of as applied to God directly) is that of set aside for a special use and in the Judeo-Christian case set aside for the work of God. Admittedly this is a bit of a gloss but it does give us the core. So given our citizenship is in heaven, examining Paul's contrast what we really have is a call to holiness. How do we do that? By not allowing our stomach to be our god (that is, guided simply by base desires), by not having our mind fixed on earthly things. Here again Lewis' words to this point are echos of scripture. Desires in and of themselves are not bad. Desires for heavenly reward or not bad and do not create a mercenary situation. Rather, what are our desires focused on? In settling for here and now we are selling ourselves short because for us there is so much more. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying this world is of no account and that I have no obligations here. There is an old saying where I am from: "Don't be so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good". But being citizens of heavenly and trying to put on the mind of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts our desires have a heavenly connection which should lead us to do good here. The call to holiness then is trying to make sense of all of this and to do it. Desires are not a bad thing in and of themselves and scripture makes statements about God giving us the desires of our heart (with some conditions on how to get there), but looking at totality of the message for Christians it doesn't mean God is a genie granting wishes, rather as we set ourselves apart for service, as we come to make our heavenly citizenship more real, the desires of our heart move toward the desires of God so that there is less and less conflict between OUR desires and God's desires. That is moving towards holiness. It's not giving up things for Lent that add to holiness, but rather trying to look at things in our lives through God's eyes and ask "Is this REALLY what I want to have/do/be?" and if not, why continue in it?
Lewis goes on to talk about how this desire for something else, something "transtemporal, transfinite good" competes with contemporary society and this sets an interesting situation that I don't think he intended to address here but I will take a small stab at it. What about those who aren't Christian? The world structure is set up to try to dissuade people from looking at something other than here. They talk about "heaven is a place on earth", that we just need to wait for people to come around ("heaven can be a place on earth"), and that in the final act go into nihilism and say "well, even if you reach that goal you're still going to die so what's the point in this heaven thing? Just live for now". And yet, even through all of this, there is a desire in humanity for something better. Life can be better. We can treat people better. Better, always better. Things can only be better if there is a standard or goal else how can you make a comparison? But if this desire for better shows up everywhere, how does that happen? Not wanting to debate evolutionary theories here I take what I think would be Lewis' position (probably because it is something I have been thinking about for a while)... the idea of "imago dei", that all mankind bares within the "image of God". Christian and non-Christian alike, we all have this as part of our humanity. It is from here we have this sense of desire for the good, trying to make things better. So even the non-Christian isn't exempt from this sense of longing, this looking for something more in our lives.
- C. S.Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
There is a lot in this section of Lewis' address which I left out including some examples that, depending on whether or not you have a schoolboy's love for Greek literature, may or may not resonate. I encourage you to read it to see the whole of his thought (you can get a PDF version here).
I want to look at Lewis' idea about destiny and desire. For the Christian it is pretty straightforward, that the experience of salvation creates a transfer of citizenship from earth to heaven (see for example Philippians 3:19-20). If you read that section of scripture though you see more than that change of earthly passport. Those whose citizenship is not heaven have their minds on "earthly things" but we eagerly await the coming of the Savior. Lest we get the idea that this is the ONLY thing though, let's look at the structure of that section of scripture as laid out. It isn't a single proposition but rather a contrast (just like this sentence). "BUT our citizenship is in heaven". Stepping back we see there are two categories in contrast, those who have not as of yet come to a saving relationship with Christ who are described as having their stomach as their god, their shame is their glory, and their mind is set on earthly things. In addressing the believers in Philippi, Paul builds a contrast: BUT OUR citizenship is in heaven. So if those whose citizenship is earth have certain desires this would imply that we should not be this way or as Lewis says "any other good [non-heavenly] must be fallacious". So knowing this what should we do? Here is where we have a tie to the season of Lent.
The Dean of our cathedral talks of Lent as a call to holiness. Now there is a lot to unpack in that little word "holiness" and unfortunately it has come to have a distorted meaning these days. If you want to spend some time a good place to start is here but I'll cut to the chase. Holiness at its core (outside of as applied to God directly) is that of set aside for a special use and in the Judeo-Christian case set aside for the work of God. Admittedly this is a bit of a gloss but it does give us the core. So given our citizenship is in heaven, examining Paul's contrast what we really have is a call to holiness. How do we do that? By not allowing our stomach to be our god (that is, guided simply by base desires), by not having our mind fixed on earthly things. Here again Lewis' words to this point are echos of scripture. Desires in and of themselves are not bad. Desires for heavenly reward or not bad and do not create a mercenary situation. Rather, what are our desires focused on? In settling for here and now we are selling ourselves short because for us there is so much more. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying this world is of no account and that I have no obligations here. There is an old saying where I am from: "Don't be so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good". But being citizens of heavenly and trying to put on the mind of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts our desires have a heavenly connection which should lead us to do good here. The call to holiness then is trying to make sense of all of this and to do it. Desires are not a bad thing in and of themselves and scripture makes statements about God giving us the desires of our heart (with some conditions on how to get there), but looking at totality of the message for Christians it doesn't mean God is a genie granting wishes, rather as we set ourselves apart for service, as we come to make our heavenly citizenship more real, the desires of our heart move toward the desires of God so that there is less and less conflict between OUR desires and God's desires. That is moving towards holiness. It's not giving up things for Lent that add to holiness, but rather trying to look at things in our lives through God's eyes and ask "Is this REALLY what I want to have/do/be?" and if not, why continue in it?
Lewis goes on to talk about how this desire for something else, something "transtemporal, transfinite good" competes with contemporary society and this sets an interesting situation that I don't think he intended to address here but I will take a small stab at it. What about those who aren't Christian? The world structure is set up to try to dissuade people from looking at something other than here. They talk about "heaven is a place on earth", that we just need to wait for people to come around ("heaven can be a place on earth"), and that in the final act go into nihilism and say "well, even if you reach that goal you're still going to die so what's the point in this heaven thing? Just live for now". And yet, even through all of this, there is a desire in humanity for something better. Life can be better. We can treat people better. Better, always better. Things can only be better if there is a standard or goal else how can you make a comparison? But if this desire for better shows up everywhere, how does that happen? Not wanting to debate evolutionary theories here I take what I think would be Lewis' position (probably because it is something I have been thinking about for a while)... the idea of "imago dei", that all mankind bares within the "image of God". Christian and non-Christian alike, we all have this as part of our humanity. It is from here we have this sense of desire for the good, trying to make things better. So even the non-Christian isn't exempt from this sense of longing, this looking for something more in our lives.
Thursday, March 02, 2017
First Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
To restart the blog I decided to begin with something simple, recording part of my journey through Lent 2017. I have a morning devotional I am going through that was published by my church. For my evening devotions I am slowly and reading with great attention to something I have read before... "The Weight of Glory" by C. S. Lewis (order here). This is my post (copied from Facebook) on last night's reading:
"...
it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong but too
weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex
and ambition when infinite joy is offered us., like an ignorant child
who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine
what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too
easily pleased."
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
I find this an enlightening point of view. Earlier in the passage Lewis talks about how people think self-denial is the right thing to do, but he points out that in scripture self-denial is never posited as an ends unto itself. This is something especially important for Lent. People talk about giving up something for Lent but rarely why they gave that thing up. The purpose is not simply self-denial. Lent is a season of self-examination, a time to reevaluate what we think is important in life and why. We can use it as a time to say "This thing I believe I like really isn't important. In fact I can make my life better by not engaging in it." We can take another look at this in light of the passage from Lewis. Rather than saying "I am giving up X" how about "Instead of doing X I will do Y because it is better for me and my daily walk." Rather than just giving something up to give something up, perhaps we should say "I gave something up to get something better".
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
I find this an enlightening point of view. Earlier in the passage Lewis talks about how people think self-denial is the right thing to do, but he points out that in scripture self-denial is never posited as an ends unto itself. This is something especially important for Lent. People talk about giving up something for Lent but rarely why they gave that thing up. The purpose is not simply self-denial. Lent is a season of self-examination, a time to reevaluate what we think is important in life and why. We can use it as a time to say "This thing I believe I like really isn't important. In fact I can make my life better by not engaging in it." We can take another look at this in light of the passage from Lewis. Rather than saying "I am giving up X" how about "Instead of doing X I will do Y because it is better for me and my daily walk." Rather than just giving something up to give something up, perhaps we should say "I gave something up to get something better".
After all this time...
It's been a LONG while since I have written on this blog. At first I thought I would just start another one but then decided it would be an interesting experiment to see what has changed since the last time I did much regular blogging.
Hopefully I can maintain it again.
Hopefully I can maintain it again.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Rest In Peace Romeo
Last night at 8:40pm my friend and companion for nearly 12 years passed away. Romeo was diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy after suffering a saddle thrombus from which he thankfully recovered. It was simply a matter of time so my partner and I were treating symptoms. He was on Plavix and two diuretics and the last weeks of his life we rented an oxygen concentration unit and created for him a little oxygen tent to help him breath when he suffered an episode but last night the fight was simply too much for him.
It was about 12 years ago when I was living in Sacrament that Romeo found me. It was not the best of time in my life. I was with someone whose favorite past times seemed be either convincing me that I was so lucky to have him because no one else would want me or simply physically abusing me. My self esteem was nonexistent and I was so afraid of being alone because no one would want me that I put up with the mental and physical abuse. Then one day as we were going out I had to run back to the house for something and found this little white fuzzball on the welcome mat. He was so cute and so tiny. I was afraid to do anything at the moment not knowing where his momma was so I told him that if he was still there when I got back I would bring him in. Well four hours later when we returned he was in the same spot so we brought him into the house and found him something we thought he would eat, played with him a bit and then fixed him a little bed on the couch. When I woke up I found him sprawled on my tummy and when I petted him he started purring. I asked my partner if I could keep him and he begrudgingly said yes but it was my responsibility (obviously he was far too busying being a kept man to be bothered taking care of a kitty) so I set up an appointment with a vet in the area and began bonding with my new found friend. When I took him to the vet for a checkup I was asked what his name was and I said "Romeo" because he took to me quickly, always following me around, curling up in my lap, rubbing his face against mine and sleeping with me... in short showing me love.
Not long after meeting Romeo I found the strength to leave my abusive relationship.
Romeo and I had several adventures including traveling throughout the country (he was always a hit with children on the flights). When I partnered up with someone and we moved to San Diego Romeo came with us. Every day when I came home I would see him sitting in the window sill and as soon as I shut the car door he would jump down and run to the door to meet me. Regardless of the other domestic situation I was always greeted by Romeo with a purr and a rub against the leg. He would always look up at me as if to say "Welcome home daddy". Regardless of where I was in the house he would be with me, sleeping on the bed, sitting on the wash basin while I showered, in the kitchen with me when I cooked... always watching after me no matter where I was as if to tell me it would be OK, he was there to take care of me.
After six years my partner left and it was once again just Romeo and me and it seemed that Romeo, ever by my side, was closer than before. He helped me through separation and was once again watching closely anyone I brought home (somewhat embarrassingly during certain intimate moment... I think Romeo had a touch of the voyeur in him). Then I met my current partner who took to Romeo immediately and more importantly Romeo to him. It was a long engagement (well, long in gay years) and not once did Romeo voice disapproval.
After a couple of years of the three of us together and the bonds growing ever tighter Romeo had his traumatic episode where he was diagnosed with suffering the effects of a saddle thrombosis and further investigation showed he suffered from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The prognosis was not good (about 50% of kitties who suffer the thrombosis become paralyzed and are put to sleep). My partner and I went into caregiver mode with medications and special foods, getting an oxygen concentrator for when his breathing became labored, whatever we could though I knew it was simply treating symptoms. During this time Romeo began to pull away a little bit, as if saying he didn't want us to watch him suffer. I also think he was still watching to see how my husband was reacting with me being the emotional wreck I was becoming. Fortunately for me he is made of stronger stuff and loved me even more, always giving me what I needed.
Last night it was fast. His episode didn't seem that bad, I thought I had caught it in its early stages but the medicine and the oxygen didn't seem to help as it had before. I laid on the floor next to his oxygen tend where he could see me and talked to him as he was panting. When he started to "moan" I told my husband through a waterfall of tears that it was time, I couldn't see him suffer any more. We quickly dressed, not more than 5 minutes total time but when we checked on him before taking him to the car he wasn't breathing. I reached in and petted him but there was no response. My friend, my protector, my Romeo was gone.
After bundling him up in his carrier we drove to the ER. It was like being in a funeral procession. I was losing it, my partner silent but his eyes were tearing up. We made it to the ER and after being taken into a private room I lost it. My partner made the arrangements and we said our goodbyes. When we got home we watched videos we had made of Romeo, talking about him and what he meant. Later that night I kept expecting to hear his paws patting on the floor and then feeling the thump on the bed as he joined us as he had for many years. When it didn't happen I cried myself to sleep.
This morning isn't any easier... the empty kitty bed in the living room where he would sometimes lay, the empty shelf in the TV console where he would curl up while we watched television, the kitty carrier, the food dish, all of the physical things showing me that he really was here and it wasn't all a dream or my imagination. These I have to deal with. I'll talk to his vet about the possibility of donating his personal effects to kitties less fortunate... I think he would like that.
In A Grief Observed the Christian writer C. S. Lewis provides us insight into his own hellish grief he experienced during the time following the death of his wife. As in the death of my own father I again with Lewis as things like
"Not that I am (I think) in much danger of ceasing to believe in God. The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him. The conclusion I dread is not 'So there's no God after all,' but 'So this is what God's really like. Deceive yourself no longer.'
Our elders submitted and said, 'Thy will be done.' How often had bitter resentment been stifled through sheer terror and an act of love — yes, in every sense, an act — put on to hide the operation?
Of course it's easy enough to say that God seems absent at our greatest need because He is absent — non-existent. But then why does He seem so present when, to put it frankly, we don't ask for Him? "
And...
"But I find that this question, however important it may be in itself, is not after all very important in relation to grief. Suppose that the earthly lives she and I shared for a few years are in reality only the basis for, or prelude to, or earthly appearance of, two unimaginable, supercosmic, eternal somethings. Those somethings could be pictures as spheres or globes. Where the plane of Nature cuts through them — that is, in earthly life — they appear as two circles (circles are slices of spheres). Two circles that touched. But those two circles, above all the point at which they touched, are the very thing I am mourning for, homesick for, famished for. You tell me, 'she goes on.' But my heart and body are crying out, come back, come back. Be a circle, touching my circle on the plane of Nature. But I know this is impossible. I know that the thing I want is exactly the thing I can never get. The old life, the jokes, the drinks, the arguments, the lovemaking, the tiny, heartbreaking commonplace. On any view whatever, to say, 'H. is dead,' is to say, 'All that is gone.' It is a part of the past. And the past is the past and that is what time means, and time itself is one more name for death, and Heaven itself is a state where 'the former things have passed away.'
Talk to me about the truth of religion and I'll listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I'll listen submissively. But don't come talking to me about the consolations of religion or I shall suspect that you don't understand. "
But in the end the experiences of having loved, been show what love is like, learning through the relationship becomes evident and we have an even greater strength to make it through life than we had before. If you haven't read it I suggest you do, it is powerful and moving.
Personally (and no I can't support it with any amount of theological certitude) I think Romeo knew he could pass on the job to talking care of me to my husband. Romeo was sent to me when I most needed someone to love me. He was always with me, seemingly closer when times were harder. He was the one who always watched for me, the one happy to have me around. After two and a half years with my partner I think Romeo knew I had finally found someone who loved me as unconditionally as he did, someone he could trust to watch over me, to care for me and protect me. He was confident that he would lay his weary and sickly body down and go to his reward knowing that I would continue to be surround by love.
I miss you my friend and if my best wishes come true I will see you again. Until then I will see you in my mind's eye strong and bright eyed, chasing butterflies and resting in God's light purring with contentment.
It was about 12 years ago when I was living in Sacrament that Romeo found me. It was not the best of time in my life. I was with someone whose favorite past times seemed be either convincing me that I was so lucky to have him because no one else would want me or simply physically abusing me. My self esteem was nonexistent and I was so afraid of being alone because no one would want me that I put up with the mental and physical abuse. Then one day as we were going out I had to run back to the house for something and found this little white fuzzball on the welcome mat. He was so cute and so tiny. I was afraid to do anything at the moment not knowing where his momma was so I told him that if he was still there when I got back I would bring him in. Well four hours later when we returned he was in the same spot so we brought him into the house and found him something we thought he would eat, played with him a bit and then fixed him a little bed on the couch. When I woke up I found him sprawled on my tummy and when I petted him he started purring. I asked my partner if I could keep him and he begrudgingly said yes but it was my responsibility (obviously he was far too busying being a kept man to be bothered taking care of a kitty) so I set up an appointment with a vet in the area and began bonding with my new found friend. When I took him to the vet for a checkup I was asked what his name was and I said "Romeo" because he took to me quickly, always following me around, curling up in my lap, rubbing his face against mine and sleeping with me... in short showing me love.
Not long after meeting Romeo I found the strength to leave my abusive relationship.
Romeo and I had several adventures including traveling throughout the country (he was always a hit with children on the flights). When I partnered up with someone and we moved to San Diego Romeo came with us. Every day when I came home I would see him sitting in the window sill and as soon as I shut the car door he would jump down and run to the door to meet me. Regardless of the other domestic situation I was always greeted by Romeo with a purr and a rub against the leg. He would always look up at me as if to say "Welcome home daddy". Regardless of where I was in the house he would be with me, sleeping on the bed, sitting on the wash basin while I showered, in the kitchen with me when I cooked... always watching after me no matter where I was as if to tell me it would be OK, he was there to take care of me.
After six years my partner left and it was once again just Romeo and me and it seemed that Romeo, ever by my side, was closer than before. He helped me through separation and was once again watching closely anyone I brought home (somewhat embarrassingly during certain intimate moment... I think Romeo had a touch of the voyeur in him). Then I met my current partner who took to Romeo immediately and more importantly Romeo to him. It was a long engagement (well, long in gay years) and not once did Romeo voice disapproval.
After a couple of years of the three of us together and the bonds growing ever tighter Romeo had his traumatic episode where he was diagnosed with suffering the effects of a saddle thrombosis and further investigation showed he suffered from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The prognosis was not good (about 50% of kitties who suffer the thrombosis become paralyzed and are put to sleep). My partner and I went into caregiver mode with medications and special foods, getting an oxygen concentrator for when his breathing became labored, whatever we could though I knew it was simply treating symptoms. During this time Romeo began to pull away a little bit, as if saying he didn't want us to watch him suffer. I also think he was still watching to see how my husband was reacting with me being the emotional wreck I was becoming. Fortunately for me he is made of stronger stuff and loved me even more, always giving me what I needed.
Last night it was fast. His episode didn't seem that bad, I thought I had caught it in its early stages but the medicine and the oxygen didn't seem to help as it had before. I laid on the floor next to his oxygen tend where he could see me and talked to him as he was panting. When he started to "moan" I told my husband through a waterfall of tears that it was time, I couldn't see him suffer any more. We quickly dressed, not more than 5 minutes total time but when we checked on him before taking him to the car he wasn't breathing. I reached in and petted him but there was no response. My friend, my protector, my Romeo was gone.
After bundling him up in his carrier we drove to the ER. It was like being in a funeral procession. I was losing it, my partner silent but his eyes were tearing up. We made it to the ER and after being taken into a private room I lost it. My partner made the arrangements and we said our goodbyes. When we got home we watched videos we had made of Romeo, talking about him and what he meant. Later that night I kept expecting to hear his paws patting on the floor and then feeling the thump on the bed as he joined us as he had for many years. When it didn't happen I cried myself to sleep.
This morning isn't any easier... the empty kitty bed in the living room where he would sometimes lay, the empty shelf in the TV console where he would curl up while we watched television, the kitty carrier, the food dish, all of the physical things showing me that he really was here and it wasn't all a dream or my imagination. These I have to deal with. I'll talk to his vet about the possibility of donating his personal effects to kitties less fortunate... I think he would like that.
In A Grief Observed the Christian writer C. S. Lewis provides us insight into his own hellish grief he experienced during the time following the death of his wife. As in the death of my own father I again with Lewis as things like
"Not that I am (I think) in much danger of ceasing to believe in God. The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him. The conclusion I dread is not 'So there's no God after all,' but 'So this is what God's really like. Deceive yourself no longer.'
Our elders submitted and said, 'Thy will be done.' How often had bitter resentment been stifled through sheer terror and an act of love — yes, in every sense, an act — put on to hide the operation?
Of course it's easy enough to say that God seems absent at our greatest need because He is absent — non-existent. But then why does He seem so present when, to put it frankly, we don't ask for Him? "
And...
"But I find that this question, however important it may be in itself, is not after all very important in relation to grief. Suppose that the earthly lives she and I shared for a few years are in reality only the basis for, or prelude to, or earthly appearance of, two unimaginable, supercosmic, eternal somethings. Those somethings could be pictures as spheres or globes. Where the plane of Nature cuts through them — that is, in earthly life — they appear as two circles (circles are slices of spheres). Two circles that touched. But those two circles, above all the point at which they touched, are the very thing I am mourning for, homesick for, famished for. You tell me, 'she goes on.' But my heart and body are crying out, come back, come back. Be a circle, touching my circle on the plane of Nature. But I know this is impossible. I know that the thing I want is exactly the thing I can never get. The old life, the jokes, the drinks, the arguments, the lovemaking, the tiny, heartbreaking commonplace. On any view whatever, to say, 'H. is dead,' is to say, 'All that is gone.' It is a part of the past. And the past is the past and that is what time means, and time itself is one more name for death, and Heaven itself is a state where 'the former things have passed away.'
Talk to me about the truth of religion and I'll listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I'll listen submissively. But don't come talking to me about the consolations of religion or I shall suspect that you don't understand. "
But in the end the experiences of having loved, been show what love is like, learning through the relationship becomes evident and we have an even greater strength to make it through life than we had before. If you haven't read it I suggest you do, it is powerful and moving.
Personally (and no I can't support it with any amount of theological certitude) I think Romeo knew he could pass on the job to talking care of me to my husband. Romeo was sent to me when I most needed someone to love me. He was always with me, seemingly closer when times were harder. He was the one who always watched for me, the one happy to have me around. After two and a half years with my partner I think Romeo knew I had finally found someone who loved me as unconditionally as he did, someone he could trust to watch over me, to care for me and protect me. He was confident that he would lay his weary and sickly body down and go to his reward knowing that I would continue to be surround by love.
I miss you my friend and if my best wishes come true I will see you again. Until then I will see you in my mind's eye strong and bright eyed, chasing butterflies and resting in God's light purring with contentment.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The Passing Of My Father
This morning my father breathed his final breath and departed this world. For those of us who believe Scripture and who do not "in this life only... hope in Christ" (1 Cor. 15:19a) he is in a better place. Even the most secular minded among us can say that he no longer suffers, but the placing of his, and my own, faith in puts the outcome immeasurably better than the simple cessation of pain and struggle. His passing is one of a change of address. That which really is my father is simply no longer housed in the body that I have known for 47 years, but is with the one who made the body of Adam from dust. He is enjoying the presence of his Lord and Savior. I don't view him as "gone" but rather he has stepped away for a while but I will see him again some day. I don't say "adieu" but rather "au revoir" (though I suppose in one technical sense "adieu" fits if one takes its literal translation of "to God"... but enough of my Sheldon side for the moment).
I haven't cried, even when I returned to pick up his remaining personal items after my mom and sister had left and I kissed him goodbye. I feel sad but no tears. I kept expecting to see him breathe again, thinking that it was simply a pause of breathing caused by the morphine. When I reached a 10 count I came back to reality knowing that he indeed passed. I called my partner and talked to him. I didn't cry and he did his best to comfort me but I didn't really feel like I needed comforting. I wrote an email to my boss and told her I would be taking bereavement leave and since my family home is out of cell coverage I would not be able to work. I didn't cry.
Honestly, at the moment, I don't feel "sad". I don't feel a sense of loss. I worry about my mother and my sister, my two young nephews (one of whom I know does not fully understand what happened tonight so part of my duty now is to help him through this), but I do not cry. I know it is coming, but now is not my time. It was the same way wither Jerry when after a long battle with AIDS he ceased his struggles and passed away in my arms. I didn't cry then. I had responsibilities that precluded succumbing to emotional despondency but it did come (so do not worry about me, I know there is still some part of me that is human). Probably after I return to San Diego a time will come when I walk down to the beach and do my own impression of Demosthenes though rather than simply practice oration there will come a cry from me that will shake the foundations of the palace of Poseidon in ways it has not seen since the war with the Titans.
What will take time will be getting used to the idea that I cannot call poppa to talk about Mizzou sports or make fun of Democrats. I can't call to tell him of the little triumphs I will have or to seek his advice. When I talk to mom I will have to catch myself before I blurt out "you and dad" or "tell poppa I said 'hi'".
It's 2:43 AM and my mind is weary yet amazing in what it pulls up from its depths in times like this. Rather than try to make sense of it I will close with the following quotes (I may butcher parts so please excuse the typing and punctuation):
"If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the first-fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." - 1 Corinthians 15: 19 - 26
Thy name is not among the great, as some count greatness,
Neither pen nor sword have brought thee glory,
No man called thee lord, with press of lackeys fawning at they gate.
...
Thine was a loftier dower — a nobler fate.
And tribute shall be paid in hearts, not gold.
And of such kind we pay thee of our best.
Let Caesars take their homage as of old.
They have their pleasure,leave to God the rest.
Content thee, if through ages yet untold,
The little children rise and call thee blest.
- Alsager Hay Hill
The Road goes ever on and on
Out from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
Let others follow it who can.
Let them a journey new begin.
But I at last with weary feet
Will turn towards the lighted inn,
My evening-rest and sleep to meet.
- Bilbo Baggins (JRRT)
Good night poppa.
I haven't cried, even when I returned to pick up his remaining personal items after my mom and sister had left and I kissed him goodbye. I feel sad but no tears. I kept expecting to see him breathe again, thinking that it was simply a pause of breathing caused by the morphine. When I reached a 10 count I came back to reality knowing that he indeed passed. I called my partner and talked to him. I didn't cry and he did his best to comfort me but I didn't really feel like I needed comforting. I wrote an email to my boss and told her I would be taking bereavement leave and since my family home is out of cell coverage I would not be able to work. I didn't cry.
Honestly, at the moment, I don't feel "sad". I don't feel a sense of loss. I worry about my mother and my sister, my two young nephews (one of whom I know does not fully understand what happened tonight so part of my duty now is to help him through this), but I do not cry. I know it is coming, but now is not my time. It was the same way wither Jerry when after a long battle with AIDS he ceased his struggles and passed away in my arms. I didn't cry then. I had responsibilities that precluded succumbing to emotional despondency but it did come (so do not worry about me, I know there is still some part of me that is human). Probably after I return to San Diego a time will come when I walk down to the beach and do my own impression of Demosthenes though rather than simply practice oration there will come a cry from me that will shake the foundations of the palace of Poseidon in ways it has not seen since the war with the Titans.
What will take time will be getting used to the idea that I cannot call poppa to talk about Mizzou sports or make fun of Democrats. I can't call to tell him of the little triumphs I will have or to seek his advice. When I talk to mom I will have to catch myself before I blurt out "you and dad" or "tell poppa I said 'hi'".
It's 2:43 AM and my mind is weary yet amazing in what it pulls up from its depths in times like this. Rather than try to make sense of it I will close with the following quotes (I may butcher parts so please excuse the typing and punctuation):
"If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the first-fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." - 1 Corinthians 15: 19 - 26
Thy name is not among the great, as some count greatness,
Neither pen nor sword have brought thee glory,
No man called thee lord, with press of lackeys fawning at they gate.
...
Thine was a loftier dower — a nobler fate.
And tribute shall be paid in hearts, not gold.
And of such kind we pay thee of our best.
Let Caesars take their homage as of old.
They have their pleasure,leave to God the rest.
Content thee, if through ages yet untold,
The little children rise and call thee blest.
- Alsager Hay Hill
The Road goes ever on and on
Out from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
Let others follow it who can.
Let them a journey new begin.
But I at last with weary feet
Will turn towards the lighted inn,
My evening-rest and sleep to meet.
- Bilbo Baggins (JRRT)
Good night poppa.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Ban Stands
This just in...
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California's supreme court backed a ban on gay marriage on Tuesday, ruling six-to-one that a voter-approved proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman could stand.
The court, which last year unexpectedly opened the door to same-sex unions in the most populous U.S. state, bowed to the rule of the majority of California voters who passed the ban known as Proposition 8 last November.
But the court also said the roughly 18,000 marriages that took place in the state before the November ban remained valid since the ban was not retroactive.
(You can read the full report here)
How sad, but I knew this would be the outcome. Now two fights will brew over the next campaign cycle, one from each side... one, to reverse Prop 8 (that is, another California constitutional amendment), and two, to nullify the existing gay marriages that have been allowed to stand since California does not recognize marriage outside of the heterosexual definition.
Think of what this has created in a supposedly "liberal" state. California is not liberal in any known sense of the word. As I said at the BBQ Sunday, California is not liberal, it's loony. We have Prop 13 but then we have communities with Mello-Roos attached to get around Prop 13. We now have a set of circumstances where a small subset of same-sex couples are married but no more can be. We have married gays in this state, but the state does not acknowledge same-sex marriage from any other state. This isn't liberal, this is split-personality if not outright schizophrenia.
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California's supreme court backed a ban on gay marriage on Tuesday, ruling six-to-one that a voter-approved proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman could stand.
The court, which last year unexpectedly opened the door to same-sex unions in the most populous U.S. state, bowed to the rule of the majority of California voters who passed the ban known as Proposition 8 last November.
But the court also said the roughly 18,000 marriages that took place in the state before the November ban remained valid since the ban was not retroactive.
(You can read the full report here)
How sad, but I knew this would be the outcome. Now two fights will brew over the next campaign cycle, one from each side... one, to reverse Prop 8 (that is, another California constitutional amendment), and two, to nullify the existing gay marriages that have been allowed to stand since California does not recognize marriage outside of the heterosexual definition.
Think of what this has created in a supposedly "liberal" state. California is not liberal in any known sense of the word. As I said at the BBQ Sunday, California is not liberal, it's loony. We have Prop 13 but then we have communities with Mello-Roos attached to get around Prop 13. We now have a set of circumstances where a small subset of same-sex couples are married but no more can be. We have married gays in this state, but the state does not acknowledge same-sex marriage from any other state. This isn't liberal, this is split-personality if not outright schizophrenia.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
I Agree
In all the flak over the Miss U.S.A. competition where Perez Hilton was a "judge", I honestly feel that Ms Prejean came out the better. Though I disagree with her, she simply stated what she believed was right in the matter of allowing same-sex marriage. Mr. Hilton simply showed how classless he is with his rabid retort which I was saying he did primarily to promote his own "celebrity". I was feeling rather alone in my assessment as proponents of each side of the issue took what they wanted and attacked like starving dogs over a bone. I was glad to read this editorial. I may be in the minority but at least I am not alone :-)
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Braggin' Again
My oldest nephew was given honorable mention for All District Honors in basketball, quite an honor when you consider it was voting by the entire district as well as the regional sports press.
The similarities between him and myself are obvious. :-)
The similarities between him and myself are obvious. :-)
Monday, March 23, 2009
If You Go To Baja Betty's...
THE TAP PROJECT
WORLD WATER WEEK MARCH 22-28, 2009
BAJA BETTY'S IS PROUD TO BE SUPPORTING UNICEF'S TAP PROJECT--AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR CUSTOMERS TO DONATE $1.00 OR MORE FOR THE TAP WATER THEY USUALLY ENJOY FOR FREE.
ALL FUNDS RAISED SUPPORT UNICEF'S EFFORTS TO BRING CLEAN AND ACCESSIBLE WATER TO MLLIONS OF CHILDREN AROUND THE WORLD. NEARLY 900 MILLION PEOPLE WORLDWIDE LACK aCCESS TO CLEAN WATER. LACK OF CLEAN WATER IS THE SECOND LARGEST KILLER OF CHILDREN UNDER FIVE. EVERY DAY, 4200 CHILDREN DIE OF WATER RELATED DISEASES.
BY PARTICIPATING IN THE TAP PROJECT, YOU ARE HELPING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NEEDLESS DEATHS TO ZERO--JUST ONE SINGLE DOLLAR RAISED CAN PROVIDE A CHILD WITH SAFE DRINKING WATER FOR 40 DAYS.
HELP US MAKE A DIFFERENCE
COME DINE WITH US DURING WORLD WATER WEEK, MARCH 22-28, 2009.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Gotta Brag
This morning I received the following IM from my sister regarding my nephew who is in the first grade:
the school sent H*****'s progress report. Straight A's but they also sent testing results. He is at 4th grade 4th month in reading & scored a 99% which stated that only 1% of kids his age in the NATION (sic) scored higher. He was at 2nd grade 9th month on math & a 94% on the test. Teacher said that was the highest reading score she has ever had!
the school sent H*****'s progress report. Straight A's but they also sent testing results. He is at 4th grade 4th month in reading & scored a 99% which stated that only 1% of kids his age in the NATION (sic) scored higher. He was at 2nd grade 9th month on math & a 94% on the test. Teacher said that was the highest reading score she has ever had!
Monday, March 16, 2009
That Was An Argument?
In the Sunday edition of the San Diego Union Tribune retired Navy Captain J. F. Kelly, Jr. submitted an op-ed supporting the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT). If only all opponents to DADT were so weak-minded, this issue would have been concluded years ago and gay men and women would be serving openly. Here is my letter to the editor that I submitted (whether or not it goes beyond this blog I don't know):
That was supposed to be a reasoned argument for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Please. The entire opinion piece can be broken down into three parts each of which are easily refuted: First, gays shouldn't serve because "a large proportion of the population and a number o f mainstream religions and cultures find [gay behavior] immortal and abhorrent". Please, "Tailhook" wasn't a gay scandal. Large numbers of people and religions and cultures find divorce abhorrent but how many people in the military are divorced? Bad road to travel down Mr. Kelly. Second, the privacy issue. Mr. Kelly talks about the military having to separate genders and such actions are too costly to do for gays serving openly. How about why we had to create separate quarters. Societal proprieties demanded it, but it was also to protect the women from the men! Are you saying we would need to protect the few gays who would serve openly from the vast majority of heterosexual men? How silly Mr. Kelly. Even sillier would be the notion of our fighting force having men (and women) of such delicate sensibilities as to be intimidated by being in the same shower/bathroom/berthing with gays (which they already do Mr. Kelly). Finally, Mr. Kelly states that the military does discriminate and provides a list, yet does not says why the military discriminates so I will provide the proper commentary for some of them: overweight (because they can't physically do the job), physically impaired (because they can't physically do the job), mentally impaired (because they can't mentally do the job), those with limited intelligence (because they can't mentally do the job). Their inability to do the job makes them unsuited for such positions. How, Mr. Kelly, does being gay make one physically or mentally unable to do the job at hand?
Reading crap like this makes my blood boil. They have the right to make a case against DADT, but if they can't do any better than this then they really need to keep quiet because they simply make their cause look silly. They're much better off saying gays can't serve because we don't like the idea of f*ggots and be done with it.
That was supposed to be a reasoned argument for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Please. The entire opinion piece can be broken down into three parts each of which are easily refuted: First, gays shouldn't serve because "a large proportion of the population and a number o f mainstream religions and cultures find [gay behavior] immortal and abhorrent". Please, "Tailhook" wasn't a gay scandal. Large numbers of people and religions and cultures find divorce abhorrent but how many people in the military are divorced? Bad road to travel down Mr. Kelly. Second, the privacy issue. Mr. Kelly talks about the military having to separate genders and such actions are too costly to do for gays serving openly. How about why we had to create separate quarters. Societal proprieties demanded it, but it was also to protect the women from the men! Are you saying we would need to protect the few gays who would serve openly from the vast majority of heterosexual men? How silly Mr. Kelly. Even sillier would be the notion of our fighting force having men (and women) of such delicate sensibilities as to be intimidated by being in the same shower/bathroom/berthing with gays (which they already do Mr. Kelly). Finally, Mr. Kelly states that the military does discriminate and provides a list, yet does not says why the military discriminates so I will provide the proper commentary for some of them: overweight (because they can't physically do the job), physically impaired (because they can't physically do the job), mentally impaired (because they can't mentally do the job), those with limited intelligence (because they can't mentally do the job). Their inability to do the job makes them unsuited for such positions. How, Mr. Kelly, does being gay make one physically or mentally unable to do the job at hand?
Reading crap like this makes my blood boil. They have the right to make a case against DADT, but if they can't do any better than this then they really need to keep quiet because they simply make their cause look silly. They're much better off saying gays can't serve because we don't like the idea of f*ggots and be done with it.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Same Crap, Different Pile
Here's the opening to an article titled Obama decries earmarks, signs law with 9000 of them:
WASHINGTON — As a candidate, Barack Obama once said that a president has to be able to do more than one thing at a time. Wednesday he proved it, though not in the way he had in mind.
He criticized pork barrel spending in the form of "earmarks," urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress .
"Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability," Obama said.
He said, however, that it was crucial for him to sign the $410 billion bill as soon as it arrived at the White House from Congress because it's needed to finance much of the government for the rest of this fiscal year. It was largely written last year but was held back while Republican George W. Bush was president because he opposed it.
...
Must mark an end? If this man had any real fortitude he would not have signed it and said "This piece of legislation is from the old way of doing business. As we are now in a new era of responsibility and accountability I will not sign it. Congress must do better in affirming this pledge to the American People" (or at least something to that effect). Two things to note from the article (besides Obama showing how he is no different than any other politician):
Some of his own staff were responsible for some of the earmarks. Lovely. So much for his pristine, hand-chosen cabinet.
This piece was held back from Bush because he opposed it. Interesting. If Bush was part of the "old way of doing business" and he opposed pork at this level while Obama who signs it is the "new era", I think I would rather have the old way back.
WASHINGTON — As a candidate, Barack Obama once said that a president has to be able to do more than one thing at a time. Wednesday he proved it, though not in the way he had in mind.
He criticized pork barrel spending in the form of "earmarks," urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress .
"Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability," Obama said.
He said, however, that it was crucial for him to sign the $410 billion bill as soon as it arrived at the White House from Congress because it's needed to finance much of the government for the rest of this fiscal year. It was largely written last year but was held back while Republican George W. Bush was president because he opposed it.
...
Must mark an end? If this man had any real fortitude he would not have signed it and said "This piece of legislation is from the old way of doing business. As we are now in a new era of responsibility and accountability I will not sign it. Congress must do better in affirming this pledge to the American People" (or at least something to that effect). Two things to note from the article (besides Obama showing how he is no different than any other politician):
Friday, March 06, 2009
Who Else Would You Expect?
You Are Most Like Ronald Reagan |
 People tend to think you're a god - or that you almost ruined the country. But even if people do disagree with you, they still fall victim to your charms! |
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Tough Words Of Common Sense
"The loss of confidence is pervasive. There isn't any magic bullet here that's going to save Citi or Bank of America. The only thing that might save them is if the government comes in and sponsors a bankruptcy," said John Schloegel, a vice president of Capital Cities Asset Management in Austin, Texas.
"Until we have some meaningful discussion about doing the right things instead of just throwing money at things like AIG and General Motors, we're not going to solve the crisis we're in."
About $170 billion into AIG so far. To quote Leon from Blade Runner, "Wake up! Time to die!"
"Until we have some meaningful discussion about doing the right things instead of just throwing money at things like AIG and General Motors, we're not going to solve the crisis we're in."
About $170 billion into AIG so far. To quote Leon from Blade Runner, "Wake up! Time to die!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)