Ok, I admit it...I'm a Gleek. I really enjoy watching Glee. It is a guilty pleasure for me, because I disagree with lots of the behavior on the show, but I realize it's a farce. It is a farce, isn't it? I mean one school with so many, well, extreme characters...never mind, it's fun, it's not real and I really enjoy the music.
Except for this week. I was really uncomfortable, irritated, indignant - and it wasn't just the Lady Gaga stuff, even though I am not a fan. In fact the only reason I know anything at all about her is because I taped a replay of the Video Music Awards last year so I could see that silly thing Kanye West did over Taylor Swift's award.
I was really angry at the way they portrayed the situation between Kurt and Finn. (Yes, I know it is fiction, just for fun, but what we watch says something about how we think....) Kurt is one of my favorite characters. He is smart, funny, talented and struggling to be himself as a gay teen. I like Finn too. He's a jock, but not one of the arrogant bully types. He tries to do the right thing, like when he stood by his girlfriend, Quinn, when she got pregnant and told him he was the father even though he had respected her wishes not to have sex - but those determined little sperms swimming around in the hot tub, they were to blame! Finn is nice but a little clueless, and I did say the show is a bit of a farce. Finn has defended Kurt more than once and Kurt unfortunately has quite the crush on him. Unfortunately, because Finn is straight, straight, straight.
Kurt lives with his dad, who is doing a great job of supporting his son. Finn lives with his mom. Kurt manages to get the two parents together; they date for a little while and then decide to combine their families by moving in together (not by getting married, I might point out, but that is very out of style on tv.) And, of course, Kurt and Finn have to share a room. Finn gets a little bent out of shape, but Kurt's dad makes it all better by giving him $300 to remodel the room, which Kurt immediately snatches out of his hand, essentially saying that he will take care of it. When he presents the remodel to Finn, Finn loses it. He dumps all over Kurt, saying how he has to change in the bathroom and how uncomfortable he is with Kurt staring at him in the locker room...then he calls some of the decor "faggy" and that is when Kurt's dad comes in and comes down on Finn like a ton of bricks. He won't have that kind of talk about his son in his house. "Not in my house. Not in my house," he says.
What I want to know is, where is Finn's house then? He is still a kid, maybe 17 years old and his mother moves in with a guy who has a gay son who is hot for him. He is expected to share a room that has been decorated like a bordello with a guy who would really like to have a romantic, sexual relationship with him and isn't shy about making that known. Why is Finn made to look like the bad guy here? He did not ask for this situation! Let's say Finn was a girl and she knew Kurt was gay, but she saw this as an opportunity to get alone with Kurt and hope he would fall in love with her...or say Kurt was straight and in love with the female Finn - would these clueless parents force them to share a room and get mad at Finn for not being more understanding of Kurt?
This show just made me uncomfortable in so many ways but mostly about the way some parents don't think about how the people they bring into their kids lives and homes will affect them. And how we parents often expect way more maturity from our kids than is reasonable. And how the writers somehow think this episode made Kurt's situation more sympathetic?
And when Finn showed up at school in his bright red Lady Gaga dress I couldn't help feeling just like I did when Sandy in Grease dressed as a, well, less than virtuous woman so that she could hang on to Danny Zuko...
But the show is a farce, just for fun...it doesn't really mean anything, right?
Right....
---Katie
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
America's New Culture War: Free Enterprise vs. Government Control
This is the best explanation of the state of our economy I have read to date.
America's new culture war: Free enterprise vs. government control
By Arthur C. Brooks
The Washington Post
Sunday, May 23, 2010
America faces a new culture war.
This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new struggle between two competing visions of the country's future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise -- limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose.
PLEASE click on the title and read the rest. It is worth it.
Note - statism did not start with our current administration. As much as I respect George W. Bush, he is a statist as well, and statism will ruin the prosperity we have enjoyed in our country.
---Katie
America's new culture war: Free enterprise vs. government control
By Arthur C. Brooks
The Washington Post
Sunday, May 23, 2010
America faces a new culture war.
This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new struggle between two competing visions of the country's future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise -- limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose.
PLEASE click on the title and read the rest. It is worth it.
Note - statism did not start with our current administration. As much as I respect George W. Bush, he is a statist as well, and statism will ruin the prosperity we have enjoyed in our country.
---Katie
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Home School, Sweet Home School
Thank you Mr. Murchison!
Home School, Sweet Home School
By William Murchison · Tuesday, May 18, 2010
As I addressed a home school graduation exercise the other day, I thought -- more than once -- ah, good old human nature at work once more.
It's what happens when institutions fail or give the distinct impression they're about to. Customers head for the exits: not all of them, maybe just a handful. Yet those who do flee, taking their hopes and their children with them, tend to be people of sharp and quick perception; the kind you want around as much and as long as possible. Their departure evacuates the institution in considerable degree of priceless qualities -- sense of mission, dedication to task, willingness to work and to sacrifice.
The public schools can't hold such people? More shame for those schools. Once upon a time, the great majority of us attended them. In the 21st century, their widely advertised shortcomings and deficiencies are driving out, or keeping away altogether, people whose presence in the classroom every half-sensible educator should crave.
The ceremony at which I spoke featured two -- count 'em -- two young men, supported by scores of parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, fellow church members and well-wishers in general. A public high school principal might shrug at the loss of a mere two students from his rolls. Too bad. C'est la vie.
The two in question, nevertheless -- Eagles Scouts soon to take flight, accomplished debaters, tireless readers, international lawyers in the making -- are the sort who clearly adorn whatever company they keep. The public schools want more such, not fewer. Yet fewer and fewer they get, as more and more Americans express their distrust of the public schools' ability to impart an education such as was fairly common up to the '60s.
Click on the title to hear the rest...be prepared for kudos to home schoolers and, well, not kudos to government schooling!
---Katie
Home School, Sweet Home School
By William Murchison · Tuesday, May 18, 2010
As I addressed a home school graduation exercise the other day, I thought -- more than once -- ah, good old human nature at work once more.
It's what happens when institutions fail or give the distinct impression they're about to. Customers head for the exits: not all of them, maybe just a handful. Yet those who do flee, taking their hopes and their children with them, tend to be people of sharp and quick perception; the kind you want around as much and as long as possible. Their departure evacuates the institution in considerable degree of priceless qualities -- sense of mission, dedication to task, willingness to work and to sacrifice.
The public schools can't hold such people? More shame for those schools. Once upon a time, the great majority of us attended them. In the 21st century, their widely advertised shortcomings and deficiencies are driving out, or keeping away altogether, people whose presence in the classroom every half-sensible educator should crave.
The ceremony at which I spoke featured two -- count 'em -- two young men, supported by scores of parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, fellow church members and well-wishers in general. A public high school principal might shrug at the loss of a mere two students from his rolls. Too bad. C'est la vie.
The two in question, nevertheless -- Eagles Scouts soon to take flight, accomplished debaters, tireless readers, international lawyers in the making -- are the sort who clearly adorn whatever company they keep. The public schools want more such, not fewer. Yet fewer and fewer they get, as more and more Americans express their distrust of the public schools' ability to impart an education such as was fairly common up to the '60s.
Click on the title to hear the rest...be prepared for kudos to home schoolers and, well, not kudos to government schooling!
---Katie
Hipocrisy in the Liberal Establishment
The left wants us to believe that the Tea Party is made up of racist white men. Why else would their minions bet the snot out of this man?
(by Armstrong Williams)
The Tea Party movement has been front and center in the news lately. Stories abound of how they are pushing hard against establishment Democrats and Republicans alike. As the media would have you believe it, these tea party members are strong, both in will and physical stature, and virtually untouchable. But what is often not reported is the ridicule and constant assaulting these patriots receive, and how the Left’s media operation allows the perpetrators to get away with it.
One story is particularly alarming. Attending a tea party-led assembly in St. Louis last August, Mr. Kenneth Gladney was protesting a health care forum hosted by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), handing out Don’t Tread on Me flags and voicing his opposition. Then out of the blue, Gladney was attacked and horrifically beaten by members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). These thugs didn’t like what Gladney had to say nor why he was protesting a provision their Bosses deemed was worthy, so they hunted him down and taught him a lesson he won’t soon forget.
Was Gladney a white, redneck racist as some commentators such as MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann have characterized all tea party members? Hardly. Gladney is African American. And the SEIU thugs reminded him of his color as they beat him to a pulp, using the N word repeatedly.
Click on the title to read the rest!
I'd like to point out that the author of this article is an African American as well.
---Katie
(by Armstrong Williams)
The Tea Party movement has been front and center in the news lately. Stories abound of how they are pushing hard against establishment Democrats and Republicans alike. As the media would have you believe it, these tea party members are strong, both in will and physical stature, and virtually untouchable. But what is often not reported is the ridicule and constant assaulting these patriots receive, and how the Left’s media operation allows the perpetrators to get away with it.
One story is particularly alarming. Attending a tea party-led assembly in St. Louis last August, Mr. Kenneth Gladney was protesting a health care forum hosted by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), handing out Don’t Tread on Me flags and voicing his opposition. Then out of the blue, Gladney was attacked and horrifically beaten by members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). These thugs didn’t like what Gladney had to say nor why he was protesting a provision their Bosses deemed was worthy, so they hunted him down and taught him a lesson he won’t soon forget.
Was Gladney a white, redneck racist as some commentators such as MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann have characterized all tea party members? Hardly. Gladney is African American. And the SEIU thugs reminded him of his color as they beat him to a pulp, using the N word repeatedly.
Click on the title to read the rest!
I'd like to point out that the author of this article is an African American as well.
---Katie
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Women and Minorities: Just CORE's Consorts!
Dr. Jon Pahl is standing by his anti-CORE screed....apparently someone has pointed out to him that there are quite a few members of CORE who are not white, or male....no matter. They are just the white males' consorts!
The movement is led (largely) by white males (and their consorts) frightened of losing privilege,
Click on the title to check it out!
The title makes me giggle..."When a Theologian Enters the Fray!" Um, there have been theologians involved in this discussion for quite some time. I guess this one is more credible because he is willing to demonize his opponents....
---Katie
The movement is led (largely) by white males (and their consorts) frightened of losing privilege,
Click on the title to check it out!
The title makes me giggle..."When a Theologian Enters the Fray!" Um, there have been theologians involved in this discussion for quite some time. I guess this one is more credible because he is willing to demonize his opponents....
---Katie
Y'all Do Know You Won, Don't You?
I wasn't going to post this because, frankly, I have trouble getting through it without my eyes freezing crossed.....
Here is an excerpt, and you know you can click on the title for the entire article:
All in all, the core of Lutheran CORE is rotten. One can get more than a whiff of Docetism, Donatism, and Pelagianism — heresies all — in the doctrinal formulations of the various groups represented in the coalition. Lutheran CORE represents, in its demographic and historical contours, a largely white, heterosexual, male backlash against the supposedly evil changes in gender roles, sexual mores, and participatory democracy that marked the 1960s. At the same time, the leaders of the movement also ironically embrace many of the least savory aspects of the sixties rhetoric of adolescent resentment and entitlement. Most fundamentally, the leaders of Lutheran CORE have come to the brink of dividing the church in an attempt to hold onto (or to carve out) some power. (Jon Pahl, PhD)
Unfortunately this mean-spirited screed is making the rounds on the Lutheran blogs and message boards, so I thought I would at least call it to your attention. What I don't understand about Dr. Pahl's supposedly scholarly article is why he felt a need to write it and why the Journal of Lutheran Ethics thought that this article would contribute positively to the conversation. Y'all won, folks! You got what you wanted! There is no reason to keep discussing it, because, despite the wishes of some in the ELCA, the changes have little to no chance of being rolled back. The people who would push for that are leaving - the ELCA is yours to do with as you wish! Be as progressive as you want to be. There are not enough traditionalists left to stop you!
Yet, the FL/Bahamas synod council felt a need to bring a resolution to the floor of their recent assembly praising the Church Council of the ELCA for its work and encouraging it to "stay the course." And Dr. Pahl takes members and supporters of Lutheran CORE to task for not simply accepting the decision of a very politicized CWA in 2009. Is this rubbing salt in the wounds, or what? Many of us feel that we have lost our church - could we ask for a little compassion - a little patience? Many of the revisionists say they want the traditionalists to stay, but things like this convince me of the opposite. In fact, it makes me want to ask, are the traditionalists not getting out fast enough to suit you?
You won. You got the church you want. Now let people go do what they need to do.
Here is an excerpt, and you know you can click on the title for the entire article:
All in all, the core of Lutheran CORE is rotten. One can get more than a whiff of Docetism, Donatism, and Pelagianism — heresies all — in the doctrinal formulations of the various groups represented in the coalition. Lutheran CORE represents, in its demographic and historical contours, a largely white, heterosexual, male backlash against the supposedly evil changes in gender roles, sexual mores, and participatory democracy that marked the 1960s. At the same time, the leaders of the movement also ironically embrace many of the least savory aspects of the sixties rhetoric of adolescent resentment and entitlement. Most fundamentally, the leaders of Lutheran CORE have come to the brink of dividing the church in an attempt to hold onto (or to carve out) some power. (Jon Pahl, PhD)
Unfortunately this mean-spirited screed is making the rounds on the Lutheran blogs and message boards, so I thought I would at least call it to your attention. What I don't understand about Dr. Pahl's supposedly scholarly article is why he felt a need to write it and why the Journal of Lutheran Ethics thought that this article would contribute positively to the conversation. Y'all won, folks! You got what you wanted! There is no reason to keep discussing it, because, despite the wishes of some in the ELCA, the changes have little to no chance of being rolled back. The people who would push for that are leaving - the ELCA is yours to do with as you wish! Be as progressive as you want to be. There are not enough traditionalists left to stop you!
Yet, the FL/Bahamas synod council felt a need to bring a resolution to the floor of their recent assembly praising the Church Council of the ELCA for its work and encouraging it to "stay the course." And Dr. Pahl takes members and supporters of Lutheran CORE to task for not simply accepting the decision of a very politicized CWA in 2009. Is this rubbing salt in the wounds, or what? Many of us feel that we have lost our church - could we ask for a little compassion - a little patience? Many of the revisionists say they want the traditionalists to stay, but things like this convince me of the opposite. In fact, it makes me want to ask, are the traditionalists not getting out fast enough to suit you?
You won. You got the church you want. Now let people go do what they need to do.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Ummm.....
AFP photo by Paul J. Richards
I am not a fashion maven by any stretch of the imagination...but who is dressing our first lady? Not only does the dress look bad, it looks like it must really hurt there under her armpit!
And, really, can we stop comparing her to Jackie Kennedy? There is just no comparison!
----Katie
Are your convictions strong enough to give up cheap electricity, LA?
Text of letter from Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa after Los Angeles City Council approved boycott of Arizona because of its new immigration law:
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.”
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.”
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)