Sunday, April 21

Morning brings...

flurries. Again that stick.
Had to brush off the windshield before 8am Mass. Later it melted on the roads and walks, but continued to flurry.

The poor dog got his spring cut on Tuesday. He looks cute, and more comfortable walking. (He's really a little 17-pounder under all that fur.) Plus, no more wiping the belly and legs that used to get soaked when he went out walking.

He shivers a bit now and then, but I know him well: that dog can act, when it's to his advantage...

Make it a great week ahead, all!

Saturday, April 20

Uff Da... *

Minneapolis got about 5 inches of snow starting mid-day Thursday and into the overnight hours. Stuff that sticks.

A Twin Cities radio announcer said during the storm that it was the kind of day -- even if you were ready to wave the white flag to Mother Nature finally surrendering to this ongoing winter... well, she wouldn't have seen it anyway.

I sat in rush-hour traffic on the freeways for close to 3 hours, after a 16-year-old driver crossed the median at approximately 3p.m. and slid under an oncoming semi trailer. Fatality reports require extensive documentation, and extensive documentation takes time ... God help the family.

In other news,
it's cold but sunny here in Rice Lake this Saturday morning. Just signed up for two plots in the summer church gardens. The ground is uncooperative, but the desire is strong to dirty the hands, get the cold crops in, and let the life cycle renew once more.

For everyone complaining about the ballgames being cancelled this spring -- pretty much the full outside spring sports schedules for the high schools -- or the golf courses losing money being closed, there's a bodyshop guy or a plow truck driver making overtime this year.

---------------

* That's Nordic for Oy Vey ...

Tuesday, April 16

George Strait -- a Father's Love.

Lyrics:
I got sent home from school one day with a shiner on my eye.
Fighting was against the rules and it didn't matter why.
When Dad got home, I told that story just like I'd rehearsed...
then stood there on those trembling knees and waited for the worst.

He said, let me tell you a secret about a father's love.
A secret that my daddy said was just between us.
He said, daddies don't just love their children every now and then.
It's a love without end, Amen.
It's a love without end, Amen.

When I became a father in the spring of '81,
there was no doubt that stubborn boy was just like my father's son.
And when I thought my patience had been tested to the end...
I took my daddy's secret and I passed it on to him.

I said, let me tell you a secret about a father's love.
A secret that my daddy said was just between us.
I said, daddies dont just love their children every now and then.
It's a love without end, Amen.
its a love without end, Amen.

Last night, I dreamed I'd died and stood outside those Pearly Gates.
When suddenly I realized, there must be some mistake.
If they knew half the things I'd done they'd never let me in.
Then somewhere from the other side, I heard these words again:

He said, let me tell you a secret about a Father's love.
A secret that my daddy said was just between us.
He said, daddies dont just love their children every now and then.
It's a love without end, Amen.
It's a love without end, Amen.



Monday, April 15

He said, God is my Father.
He said, I am his Son.
He said, We bring the Spirit.
and
He said, these Three are One.

Saturday, April 13











Chicago @ Miami ... LeBRON.

Sit 'im, or play 'im?

YOU make the call...

--------------

*I'd play 'im. Purely from a Heat strategy standpoint too...

Sportswriter Greg Stoda makes the case otherwise.

MIAMI — The Heat have nothing to prove Sunday.

That’s why – discretion being the better part of valor, and all that – they should play Dwyane Wade minimal minutes … and LeBron James and Chris Bosh not at all when the roughneck Chicago Bulls come calling in AmericanAirlines Arena.

The risk/reward scale is too out of balance to do otherwise.

Or don’t you recall the game in Chicago a little more than two weeks ago when the Bulls –in snapping a 27-game Heat winning streak – employed strong-arm tactics that resulted in James complaining about a couple of incidents that, in his opinion, weren’t “basketball plays” in a roughhouse game?

It doesn’t matter that James came across as a whiner.

What matters is that the Heat – with nothing at stake in terms of playoff seeding with the top spot all theirs – don’t need the aggravation the Bulls unfailingly present. Not with the regular season winding down, they don’t, and not with Chicago in a scrum for middle-of-the-pack seeding position in the Eastern Conference. ...

Women on Course -- Why It Matters.

NYTimes sportswriter Karen Crouse has another better golf story up today:

AUGUSTA, Ga. -- The ladies issue, as Billy Payne, the chairman of Augusta National Golf Club, described it, did not end last August with the admission of the club’s first two female members: Condoleezza Rice, the former United States secretary of state, and Darla Moore, a South Carolina financier.

Their inclusion has been described as symbolic. It is not. It is significant, and here is why: the relationship-building qualities that make golf a popular hobby for many men are lost on a lot of high-powered businesswomen who have been too intimidated to give the game a try. Maybe if they see Rice, resplendent in her green jacket, showing guests around the clubhouse, as she has done during this tournament, white-collar women will feel welcome at their local courses. ...

If we're talking public courses, why just white-collar women?
... At an Executive Women’s Day conference organized by the PGA Tour during its tour stop outside Miami last month, it was startling to hear women who are competitive enough to pursue, and win, the corner office say they avoided golf for the reason that if they could not hit every shot perfectly, they did not want to hit any shot at all, lest they embarrass themselves.
...
When men and women mingle on the golf course, everybody wins. In the mutual battle against the course and the elements, bonds are formed, barriers are broken and understandings are reached. What is beautiful about golf, aside from the scenery, is that the game fosters deeper connections. It is amazing how much one person can learn about another during several hours of battling awkward lies, shifting winds, bad bounces and errant swings.
...
The participants in the 77th Masters have described delightful conversations with Rice, who outside the ropes was seen but not heard. In her 2010 memoir about her family, “Extraordinary, Ordinary People,” Rice addressed racial prejudice in a way that resonates in gender politics.
       
Rice wrote: “No one can doubt that years of racial prejudice produced underrepresentation of minorities and women in all aspects of American life. Corporate boardrooms, management suites and elite university faculties and student bodies have for our entire history failed to reflect even roughly the ethnic mix of the country. That is not acceptable in America, which is the world’s greatest multiethnic democracy.”
      
The ladies issue at the Masters matters because the more Rice and Moore roam among the old guard on the manicured grounds of Augusta National, the less the men whose company they keep there will be able to hold on to their tired stereotypes of women as dawdling golfers or boardroom party crashers or dull conversationalists. They will seem to them as they are: just like them.
Even if one rejects the trite conclusion,
there's no doubting that people mix better together when there is a solid foundation of respect for others assumed.

Playing by the Rules -- part 2.

When a newspaper publishes a story online that others rely on for their analysis, it ought to be noted when a correction is appended.

Here, this

On the hole in question, a 530-yard par 5, Woods laid up. His approach clanked off the flagstick and caromed into the water. He took a drop two yards behind his original divot and hit his approach to inside three feet. In his comments after his round, he seemed to incriminate himself when he explained his thought process on the drop.

The rules state that a golfer should play his ball “as nearly as possible” at the spot from which the original ball was played. Woods did not sound like someone who was making the drop as close to the original spot as possible when he said: “Well, I went down to the drop area, that wasn’t going to be a good spot, because obviously it’s into the grain, it’s really grainy there. And it was a little bit wet. So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but two yards further back, and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit.”
becomes this
On the hole in question, a 530-yard par 5, Woods laid up. His approach shot clanked off the flagstick and caromed into the water. After taking a one-stroke penalty, Woods dropped his ball in the fairway, a few feet behind his original divot, and hit a wedge shot to within three feet and made the putt for a bogey 6. After the ruling, his score was changed to an 8.

When choosing to drop near one’s divot, a golfer should play his ball “as nearly as possible” at the spot from which the original ball was last played. After his round, Woods said he purposely dropped the ball two yards from his first divot.

He said: “Well, I went down to the drop area, that wasn’t going to be a good spot, because obviously it’s into the grain, it’s really grainy there. And it was a little bit wet. So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but two yards further back, and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit.”

The committee’s decision not to disqualify Woods, a 77-time winner on the PGA Tour, reinforced how the rules of golf, once clear, have grown blurry.
which invalidates this
Tiger Woods incriminates himself: "Well, I went down to the drop area, that wasn’t going to be a good spot..."

"... because obviously it’s into the grain, it’s really grainy there. And it was a little bit wet. So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but two yards further back, and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit. And that should land me short of the flag and not have it either hit the flag or skip over the back.... I felt that that was going to be the right decision to take off four right there. And I did. It worked out perfectly."

Penalized 2 strokes for breaking a rule. Ironically, he had just yesterday opined "Well, rules are rules" when asked about the 1-stroke penalty given to Guan Tianlang — the 14-year-old who made the cut at the Masters — for slow play.
Posted by Ann Althouse.
which led to this
AllenS said...
He cannot be disqualified because he's half black. Those are the rules.
4/13/13, 11:20 AM

Slow down and get it right the first time, people... or note your corrections.

Something about trying to put a horse back in the barn...

Playing by the Rules.

Yesterday at the Masters, it was the Chinese teen who had a stroke added to his score for playing too slow. Today, the rules enforcers assessed Tiger Woods a two-stroke penalty for incorrectly placing his ball yesterday, after it hit the flag and jumped back into the water.

Karen Crouse, formerly of the PBPost now with the NYTimes, makes it sound a bit worse than it was. Here's her description:

On the hole in question, a 530-yard par 5, Woods laid up. His approach clanked off the flagstick and caromed into the water. He took a drop two yards behind his original divot and hit his approach to inside three feet. In his comments after his round, he seemed to incriminate himself when he explained his thought process on the drop.

The rules state that a golfer should play his ball “as nearly as possible” at the spot from which the original ball was played. Woods did not sound like someone who was making the drop as close to the original spot as possible when he said: “Well, I went down to the drop area, that wasn’t going to be a good spot, because obviously it’s into the grain, it’s really grainy there. And it was a little bit wet. So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but two yards further back, and I took, tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit.”

Here's another at the Sporting News :
The possible violation involves Woods' play on the par-5 15th hole. He dropped a ball in the fairway after his approach shot on 15 hit the flagstick and rolled into a water hazard. By rule, Woods should have either dropped the ball in a designated drop area near the green; on a line between the flag and where the ball entered the water; or as close to the spot of the initial shot as possible.

Woods chose the third option, but he admitted after the round that he dropped the ball about two yards behind the original spot. Woods also appeared to drop the ball to the left.

"I went down to the drop area, that wasn't going to be a good spot, because obviously it's into the grain and it was a little bit wet," he said, according to a transcript published by ASAPsports.com. "So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards farther back and I tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit."

According to The Golf Channel's Jason Sobel on Twitter, playing pros told him that Woods violated the rule, but that rules officials (Sobel didn't say whether they were Masters officials) said Woods didn't.

If Masters officials determine today that Woods did break the rule, he would be assesessed the penalty and his second-round score would change to 73. Because Woods claimed a 71 after his round Friday, he would be DQ'd for signing for the wrong score.

Woods' former swing coach Hank Haney said via Twitter that he doesn't believe Woods knowingly violated the rule, but he added that it's very possible that Woods is in trouble. "When he said he dropped 2 yards back i thought he had a problem," Haney wrote.
So in rejecting the drop area as being too muddy to play, he wasn't rejecting the two-yard forward spot where he had originally played it from, but the official designated drop area near the green. Instead he went back and simply was two yards off the spot, which also violates the rules as Haney noted...

Crouse explains why Woods signing the score card with the wrong score, before the penalty was assessed, was not an automatic disqualification:
Woods, 37, could have been disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard. But after reviewing the incident with Woods, the rules committee at Augusta National chose to add two strokes to Woods’s score and allow him to play the weekend. The ruling was first reported by Golf Channel’s Steve Sands.

The committee invoked a rule, 33-7, which allows a penalty of disqualification to be waived or modified in exceptional cases. The rule was added in 2011 to address the issue of armchair rules officials calling in or posting to Twitter violations that were clearly inadvertent.
Having Woods continue to compete this weekend is defintely an exceptional case, one could argue -- especially when it was such a great shot to begin with (hockey's equivalent of hitting the pipes...) and the placement was a bit more benign than Crouse's description perhaps suggests.

------
* I am curious to see if with the penalty, Tiger now tees off earlier today than originally scheduled with the lower score...


ADDED: I hope the NYTimes clarifies Crouse's language, as the way she led into the quote leads readers to possible misinterpretation...

WaPo's Barry Svrluga is clearer about what Tiger was talking about:
After his ball entered the water at the 15th, Woods could have played his next shot from a designated “drop zone,” a circular area from which players who hit shots into the water may continue play. Woods, though, said in remarks that were later televised that the drop area was “a little bit wet, so it was muddy and not a good spot to drop.”

In such an instance, according to Rule 26-1 in the “Rules of Golf,” he had two remaining options. He could have dropped a new ball “as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played.” Or he could have dropped “keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped.”

Wednesday, April 10

Rand Paul 'Drops In' at Howard University...*

Props to him for doing the necessary outreach to extend his message of freedom to the masses.

Toni Morrison said, “If there is a book you really want to read but it hasn’t been written yet, then you must write it.” I can recite books that have been written, or I can plunge into the arena and stumble and maybe fall but at least I will have striven. What I am about is a philosophy that leaves YOU to fill in the blanks. I am not black. I am not Latino. I am not Asian American. I am like many Americans, not definably of any one origin.
...
“No Republican questions or disputes civil rights. I have never wavered in my support for civil rights or the Civil Rights Act. The dispute, if there is one, has always been about how much of the remedy should come under federal or state or private purview.”
...
Our federal mandatory minimum sentences are simply heavy-handed and arbitrary. They can affect anyone at any time, though they disproportionately affect those without the means to fight them. We should stand and loudly proclaim enough is enough. We should not have laws that ruin the lives of young men and women who have committed no violence. That’s why I have introduced a bill to repeal federal mandatory minimum sentences. We should not have drug laws or a court system that disproportionately punishes the black community.

Let's see if the hostility towards the white messenger blunts the impact of his message...

---------------
*... beats dropping out.

Tennessee Coates today:
One of the problems with the idea that America needs a "Conversation On Race" is that it presumes that "America" has something intelligent to say about race. All you need do is look at how American history is taught in this country to realize that that is basically impossible.
...
So we retreat to mushy, moist talk about who "feelings," "intentions," "good people" and "loving fathers." The great Jay Smooth once said that we need to move from a "what you are" conversation ("you are a racist") to a "what you are doing" conversation. Unfortunately this presumes a groundwork of honesty and good faith. No such good faith exists because we are ignorant, and deep down inside, we know it and are ashamed of it.

Even within those confines, it did not have to be this way. Paisley could have reached out and had a conversation with an artist who might actually challenge his worldview. He could have engaged Mos Def and walked through Brooklyn. He might have engaged Common, walked the South Side and read about the forces that made it so. He might have talked to Kendrick Lamar and walked through Compton. He could have visited the jails and thought about why they are heaving with black men, and wondered what connections that heaving has with the past.
So, American history as seen through the eyes of 'rappers'...

No thanks.
Signed,
American Bitch/Ho.

Tuesday, April 9

Bubba.

From what I’ve seen of him, he’s long, and a lot of times it doesn’t have a zip code on it.”

With last night's excitement behind us,
PBPost sportswriter Brian Biggane looks ahead to the Masters, and how last year's champion Bubba Watson beat Louis Oosthuizen.
------------------------

... On the second hole of a playoff with Oosthuizen after both had finished at 10-under-par 278, Watson put his drive into a thicket of trees. The left-hander then miraculously hooked a wedge shot over a sand trap and onto the green before two-putting for a par and the title.

“I hit my gap wedge, hooked it about 40 yards, hit it about 15 feet off the ground until it got under the tree and started rising,” Watson said later. “Pretty easy.”

A self-described country boy from the Florida Panhandle who enjoys video games and wakeboarding, Watson, 34, returns to this year’s Masters as one of the most unlikely champions in recent years. But for all the struggles the four-time winner has endured in his eight years on the PGA Tour, he shouldn’t be crossed off the list of contenders when the tournament begins Thursday at Augusta National.

“He’s a great fit to play well around this place,” said Matt Kuchar, who finished in a tie for third last year. “As far as he hits it, as high as he hits it … he’s a good fit, and a guy who, if you’re in a pool, you’d be glad to have him as your guy with a chance to win.”

Added Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee: “Looking back on it now, it’s not as big of a shock that he won. He’s the type of player who does well at Augusta: His swing is upright, he hits the ball high and long, and can shape it in both directions. He can do things nobody else in this field can do.”

During his early years on tour, Watson wasn’t known for much more than his prodigious drives. As Arnold Palmer put it at Bay Hill last month,
“From what I’ve seen of him, he’s long, and a lot of times it doesn’t have a zip code on it.”
While Watson’s driving average of 301.5 yards ranks seventh on tour, his driving accuracy of 53.9 percent fairways hit is 155th.

But Augusta’s wide, forgiving fairways last year offered Watson the opportunity to play aggressively, and his length put him in position to make birdies. Chamblee said it was on the par-5 13th hole on Saturday that he began to see the potential for Watson to make the Masters his first major win.

“He drove it to an area that I thought was inaccessible,” he said. “I can never remember seeing anybody get to where he was, partly because if you’re right-handed it would be so hard to hook a ball down to where he got it, which was around the corner on the flat.

“From there he had an 8-iron to a front pin. It was close enough to where he could stop it, and he did. He got it to 8 feet for an easy birdie.

“The old Tiger (Woods) could do that, but Tiger’s not that long anymore and he probably wouldn’t take that risk anymore. Nobody else could do what he did.”


Sunday, April 7

Getting in Deep, but Leashed.

 or, "Don't Wake the Bears, Buddy..."

Saturday, April 6

Do not walk in front of me...


I might not follow.

Do not walk behind me...
I might not lead..

Walk beside me,
and be my Buddy...


ADDED: Over the Hills and Far Away...

Oh DarlingDarlingDarling
walk a while with me...
you've got so much.

Winter: the End is Near...

You Are Here ...

"Whose Glove?"
























"Whose Glove?" prelude.


Sunday, March 31

*Rejoice -- Alleluia*

Acts 2:24-28
But God raised him from the dead,
freeing him from the agony of death,
because it was impossible for death
to keep its hold on him...

David said about him:
‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’
--------------------

Imagine Mary on that early Easter morning, her feet damp with the dew, the first to trod the path to the tomb's entrance that day.  Lo and behold: the boulder is rolled aside, the body gone missing...

She rushes away to gather friends, who return with her this time, to see what she has seen.  But then again they leave the scene; what a frightening few days for them it must have been ...

----------------------------------
Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"
 
"They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him."At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."

Jesus said to her, "Mary."
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).
 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.





----------------------------------

Rob Bell, the founding pastor and preacher at Mars Hill Church in Grandville, MI brings this marvelous thought to this story for this morning.  ...
Here is Rob Bell’s important observation. "It must be such a letdown to rise from the dead and not have your friends recognize you."

And Jesus, whom she thinks is the gardener, said to her, "Mary."

And she replies, "Rabbouni."

Pythagoras said, in 500 BC, "The beauty of music isn't created by the notes, but in the spaces between the notes." That is also the real secret of Jazz. It is also the painful reality of singing in a choir. Paying attention to the rests in a sheet of music can be maddening. But the genius of music is just there in the pauses. At least that’s what members of our Band of Praise tell me. I’m always ignoring the rests. I always come in too early or too late.

So it is that the genius of comedy exists in a sense of timing–a dramatic pause between words at the end of a joke. So is the genius of story-telling.

And now to the point: there must have been an extraordinary pause between the two words, "Mary" and "Rabbouni."

It just couldn’t have been as quick as the text seems to make it sound. "Mary/Rabbouni."

Like two businessmen had met in the hallway. "John!" "Bill! How are things? The kids? The wife?"

There are no
stage directions in the Gospel text. There had to have been a pause there, and into that pause we could fit an entire universe of meaning and hope.
"Mary"

A long moment of distant recognition. Mary is not looking at the Gardener, I think. Her eyes are filled again with tears. She’s looking at the grass under her feet. She hears this voice uttering her name. "Mary."

She looks up at a point between the grass and the face of the gardener. Pauses there to consider the uttering of her name.

Confused at first.

Disoriented. The recognition has to take some time.
 
In that moment, she has to reconsider her theory that the body has been stolen as she stares at that middle space between the grass at her feet and the face of the Gardener. She has to rethink all the next steps she needs to take in order to give her friend Jesus an honorable resting place. Can you grasp for a moment all the "stuff" that had to have gone into that instant between those two words, "Mary" and "Rabbouni"?

She looks at the gardener, stares deeply into those eyes; lets her own eyes clear and then says perhaps more as a question than a statement, "Rabbouni?"

I just think that this is one of the great moments in Gospel history. [ed.: emphasis mine.]

The space between the words "Mary" and "Rabbouni" could account for

every heartbreak,

every disappointment,

every terror of the human heart resolved in the uttering of a name.

In that space between Mary and Rabbouni is everything we believe.

In that space between Mary and Rabbouni is this extraordinary claim of the Christian faith.

That all that we thought of as the way things are have been undone. The old order of things has been broken. Our cynicism about life is dramatically reassessed. Things don’t have to be this way. Empty tombs don’t have to be explained by stolen bodies.

Maybe God is somehow at work to make all things new!

Maybe what we have become adjusted to doesn’t have to be the end of the story.

Maybe justice
can be done for the poor and the broken after all.

Maybe the proud have been scattered in the imaginations of their hearts after all.

It may well be that the powerful have been brought down from their high thrones and those of low estate have been lifted up.

Maybe the hungry have been filled with good things and the rich have been sent away empty.

Maybe all of this Gospel story is true after all!..

And it is in this silence between "Mary" and "Rabbouni" that we are given to think about all these extraordinary things.

----------------------------------

Finally, let me close my Easter morning blog post with a nod to our new Catholic pope, who has   chosen to emulate St. Francis of  Assisi, another accessible life story .

Make me an channel of your peace ...
Where there is hatred, let me bring your love.
Where there is injury, your pardon, Lord; and
Where there is doubt, true faith in you.
 
Make me an channel of your peace ...
Where there is despair in life, let me bring hope;
Where there is darkness, only light; and
Where there is sadness, ever joy.
Lord Master, grant that I may never seek ...
so much to be consoled, as to console.
To be understood, as to understand...
to be loved, as to love with all my soul.
 
Make me an channel of your peace ....
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
In giving of ourselves that we receive.
and in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Lord Master, grant that I may never seek ...
so much to be consoled, as to console.
To be understood, as to understand...
to be loved, as to love with all my soul.

From the Easter morning in-box:

All I need to know

I learned from the Easter Bunny:

LOVE THE LORD THY GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART!

Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Everyone needs a friend who is all ears.

There's no such thing as too much candy.

All work and no play can make you a basket case.

A cute tail attracts a lot of attention.

Everyone is entitled to a bad hare day.

Let happy thoughts multiply like rabbits.

Some body parts should be floppy.

Keep your paws off of other people's jelly beans.

Good things come in small, sugar coated packages.

The grass is always greener in someone else's basket.

To show your true colors, you have to come out of the shell.

The best things in life are still sweet and gooey.

May the joy of the season fill your heart.

AND MAY GOD BLESS YOU!

Happy Easter!


Tuesday, March 26

Leveling the Playing Field.

Why not... just limit the number of marital licenses granted annually in this country, similar to the way liquor licenses are regulated in plenty of communities?  Two-person, non-related "teams" of adult age would then compete for the more rare and highly desired civil license.

 (Religious denominations could continue to perform the sacrament of marriage under their own rules with no numerical restrictions on private licensing, and these unions would continue to be recognized by family, friends, and the larger community, but with no accompanying civil benefits or official recognition unless that right was won in the overall competition, open to all two-person non-related teams of adult age.)

If you win a civil license to marry but then later choose to void it, there's no getting back in line as part of another team to recompete...

If you come from a long line of happily married folks, you might get a slight credit -- legacy points -- to up your score, presuming you know how the game is played in its ups and downs.  But not so many points to disadvantage those who were not raised in stable, two-parent homes from competing honestly themselves....

Some of the challenges in the competition could involve child-rearing -- it's 3a.m., the non-talking  baby is sick and running a fever, will NOT settle down... what do the two of you, working realistically together, do?  (points deducted for wasting time verbally or physically expressing natural frustrations, and not working together in the best interests of the sick child...)

Toss in a few financial hardship questions  (not even the rich are immune in these too-big-to-fail days) and a few 'this is not how we planned it' tests when the ideals don't match up to the realities, and you might get a decent idea of who is gonna make ... we'll find out... in the long run ...

The winners of the coveted civil prizes could live with their spouses whereever they wanted -- secure in their rights -- and would have an obligation to live up to their highly coveted 'married' status.  As in the Hunger Games, former winners could mentor future competitors to help them up their games.

Physical and sexual competitions could also be part of the game, but not so much that simple studding means a marital license.  Afterall, plenty of people can rut and reproduce, but that doesn't mean their offspring is necessarily a net contributor to society, especially where the State has to step in -- pre birth -- to fund said offspring.

Some say, more is better.
More children = more future taxpayers. 
Hmmm... hypothetically, yes.
More marital licenses = more choices, more pursuits of happiness.
Ditto.

But what if we've got it all backwards, and less is more.
If civil marriage recognitions were limited, the product would be seen as more desired and valued accordingly, one would think...

With some good honest competition -- governed by set scoring rules; none of this popularity voting skewing legitimacy -- perhaps the institution would fall into favor again and we'd begin to grow a healthier society.  What we're doing now seems not to be breeding success...

Nevermind the Constitutionality of such a plan: 
if it works in reality, it's cool. 
Everyone will just be asked to play along patiently as we limit the licenses, and study the results.

There will also be an opportunity to change the competitions as society's needs/roles evolve, as well as the opportunity to vote thumbs up or down on whether the current crop of scoring judges continue on in that role.

'No confidence'* can mean an ouster or two, and nobody gets to rest on his or her laurels. 

---------------------

* “Same-sex couples have every other right,” Chief Justice Roberts said, sounding inane for a big brain. “It’s just about the label in this case.” He continued, “If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, ‘This is my friend,’ but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.”

Saturday, March 9

Spring Ahead...

* The faster we're carried, the less time we have to spare.

Old times, not a bit. When old times are gone, they're not old...
they're dead.
There aren't any times
 but new times...*

~  The Magnificent Ambersons.

Thursday, March 7

~ 30 ~

Rubin:
[F]aux media critics are not critics at all. They are, I am sorry to say, as much facilitators of the mainstream media’s hypocrisy as anyone. If they were really doing their jobs, they’d be saying something, if not focusing full-time, on the complete breakdown of an independent watchdog media.

And so it’s come to this: Rand Paul talking all by himself on the Senate floor. On one level, it shows the power of a single senator to make a difference. On the other hand, it is a very sad statement on the intellectual collapse of both the right and the left — and most especially of the media, whose first impulse in this administration is to circle the wagons around the White House.

The Presumption of Liberty.

Rand Paul tried
This is America, not Israel. 
I don't believe our educated people here will ever accept the need to live in an armed police state, where our Constitution protects individual rights and we don't have a history of scaring easily.

The Obama administration, like Cheney/Bush, believes it can rewrite those rules via fearmongering.  Plus the racial aspect -- that old document that counted black people as but a fraction of the white man's worth?  Pfft.

Rand Paul read Randy Barnett's Restoring the Lost Constitution.*

Over on the Volokh Conspiracy, early this morning, Law Professor Barnett -- originally hailing from Calumet City, Illinois -- excerpts Rand Paul's reference to his work in the now-ended filibuster.

Worth reading, the entire book, even if you think this whole Constitution thing -- what got the country this far -- is but a joke, just pretty words on paper by white racists...

Ours wasn’t perfect. Our founders allowed and left slavery to occur. Interestingly, if you read the Constitution, I think they were embarrassed by it. You know, the word “slave” doesn’t occur in our Constitution and, in fact, there were many writers, many abolitionist writers – there was a writer by the name of Lysander Spooner, who was an abolitionist, and he actually wrote about the unconstitutionality of slavery before the war. And, really, if you read the Constitution and you leave out or acknowledge that there is no word in there, slavery, and nothing that really says you have to be consigned to slavery, there are things in there that say you can’t be kept without being presented with charges. Habeas Corpus means “present the body.” In the old days in England and in different monarchies, they’d just snatch you up. If you were next in line to be king or they made you mad, they snatched you up and put you in the tower. And so they came up with the right of Habeas Corpus, you had to present the body, you had to say, he’s been arrested and these are the charges against him. We kind of have gotten, you know, to where there’s some concern in our country about that, but we had that right all along.

So Lysander Spooner wrote and said, well, you know, why shouldn’t a slave come forward and say, this guy’s keeping me, he’s telling me that I have to work for him, but I haven’t been charged with anything. What is my crime? Eventually one court case did come forward and it was ruled incorrectly. And I’m not sure how the arguments were, but in Dred Scott they ruled you can’t make the argument. But I don’t know if habeas corpus was part of that case or not but it should have been. What I’m trying to say, though, is that the rights of the Constitution, the rights of the individual that were enshrined in the Constitution are important things that democracies can’t overturn. So when you get to the Lochner case, the Lochner case in 1905. The majority rules 5-4 that the right to make a contract is part of your due process. Someone can’t deprive you of determining how long your working hours are without due process. So President Obama’s a big opponent to this, but I would ask him, among the other things I’m asking him today, to rethink the Lochner case. Because the Lochner case is really what precedes and what the – the case Buchanan v. Warley is predicated upon. Buchannan v. Worley is a case from 1917. Interestingly, it comes from my state, from Louisville, Ky. There’s a young African-American attorney by the name of William Warley. He’s a Republican, like most African-Americans were in Louisville in those days. He was the founder of the NAACP. And like most founders of the NAACP, a republican. And so what they do in 1914 is they sue because the Kentucky legislature, by majority rule, by Democratic action, passes a law saying a white person can’t sell to a black person in a white section of town or vice versa.

So this is the first case the NAACP brings up. Morefield story was the famous – I think he was the first President of the NAACP famous attorney. Him and an attorney by the name of, I think Clinton blankey. But they go forward with this case and they win the case. It actually passes overwhelmingly. But interestingly, this case to end Jim Crow is based on the Lochner decision. So those who don’t like the Lochner decision, I’d say, go back, we need to reassess Lochner In fact, there’s a good book by Bernstein from George Mason talking about rehabilitating Lochner. The thing is, is that with majority rule, if you say we’re going to give deference to majority rule or we’re going to have judicial restraint and we’re going to say, well, whatever the majority wants is fine, you set yourself up for a diminishment of rights.

I go back to the – the discussion of the Constitution limits power that is given to Congress but it doesn’t limit rights. The powers are enumerated, your rights are unenumerated. The powers given to the government are few and defined. The freedoms left to you are many and undefined. And that’s important. And what does this have to do with Lochner? The case in Lochner is whether a majority rule, a state legislature can take away your due process, your due process to contract. Can they take away your life and liberty without due process. And the court rules, no. I think it’s a wonderful decision. It expands the Fourth Amendment and says to the people that you have unenumerated rights.

Now, there’s some dissension on how we look at these cases, but when you go forward to Buchannan v. Worley, yes, the case about Jim Crow laws and housing segregation, one of the people who was going to dissent – and I think he thought better of it when he thought about he would be the first justice in probably 70-some-odd years to say that he believed in the Jim Crow laws and was upholding Jim Crow laws – was Oliver Wendell Holmes. He actually writes an opinion that has been found but was never presented to the court and he ended up voting to get rid of the Jim Crow laws. But the interesting thing is, he actually wrote an opinion in favor because he believed so strongly in majority rule.

I don’t think these questions – some may think these are idle questions. I don’t think it’s an idle question whether or not you have a democracy or a republic. I think that these questions from – that these questions from Lochner, from Buchanan v. Warley all the way to the present are important. Last year and the last couple years we had two cases on gun rights, the second amendment. These are called Heller and McDonald. Both of them I think can be seen as – once again an expansion of the Fourth Amendment to say, your privileges and immunities, which are part of the Fourth Amendment, include the Second Amendment and they include certain rights. In fact, I think any power or any right not given up to the government or limited by the enumerated powers is yours. So when they say the privileges and immunities of the Fourth Amendment, I believe that means everything else. What does that mean? It means I believe in a very circumscribed view for government.

Now, one of the side benefits of having a circumscribed view of the government would be a government that’s not allowed to do much wouldn’t get in many problems. For example, if your government wasn’t allowed to spend money that it didn’t – that it didn’t have or if your money wasn’t – your government wasn’t allowed to spend money on programs that were not enumerated as being within the purview of the federal government, you wouldn’t have these massive deficits. We would have never gotten in this fix if we believed in a republic and not a democracy.

Now what proof do I have that the current officials believe in democracy versus republic? When Obamacare came forward – you know, the – the comments from then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were, a majority passed this. You know? We passed this by a majority. It’s the law. Why would anybody question the Constitutionality? The President said the same thing. The President said, look, a majority passed this. What right has the court to overturn this?

The question has been written about by many I think brilliant scholars who have – have looked at the Constitution and looked at what it means. Some of this has to do with whether or not you presume liberty – Randy Barnett’s written about this, “Restoring the Constitution,” – whether you have a presumption of liberty or whether you have a presumption of Constitutionality. And that may sound a little esoteric. What does that mean? It’s whether or not when they pass a law up here, you just presume it’s fine because it’s the law and the judges should give deference to it because it was a law. So this is kind of confusing because you think, oh, I’m arguing for judicial activism. In a way, I kind of am. Because if the Congress usurps the Constitution, if the Congress takes away from your rights, the judges should stop them in their tracks. I’m not arguing for deference to the legislature. I’m arguing for deference to the Constitution.

And so I’m also arguing that there is a presumption of liberty. This goes back to the – the – the way we want to look at the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment says that we have unenumerated rights. It says that basically, you know, or – I guess by extension, when you go from the Fourth Amendment to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is the best way to look at this. The Fourth Amendment talks about privileges and immunities and then when you look at what the Ninth and Tenth Amendments do, they say, you know, those powers not given to government, those freedoms you didn’t relinquish or those powers you didn’t give to the government are left to the states and the people respectively. And it says they’re not to be disparaged. I’ve always – always loved the way that was worded. Not to be disparaged. Not only is the federal government not to trample on your rights, they are not to be disparaged. But these rights are unlimited. They’re yours. You got them from your creator. These are natural born rights and no democracy should be able to take these away from you.
 
------------------------
*Book description:
The U.S. Constitution found in school textbooks and under glass in Washington is not the one enforced today by the Supreme Court. In Restoring the Lost Constitution, Randy Barnett argues that since the nation's founding, but especially since the 1930s, the courts have been cutting holes in the original Constitution and its amendments to eliminate the parts that protect liberty from the power of government. From the Commerce Clause, to the Necessary and Proper Clause, to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has rendered each of these provisions toothless. In the process, the written Constitution has been lost.

Barnett establishes the original meaning of these lost clauses and offers a practical way to restore them to their central role in constraining government: adopting a "presumption of liberty" to give the benefit of the doubt to citizens when laws restrict their rightful exercises of liberty. He also provides a new, realistic and philosophically rigorous theory of constitutional legitimacy that justifies both interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning and, where that meaning is vague or open-ended, construing it so as to better protect the rights retained by the people.

As clearly argued as it is insightful and provocative, Restoring the Lost Constitution forcefully disputes the conventional wisdom, posing a powerful challenge to which others must now respond.

Wednesday, March 6

Poseur Alert.

Let me just say,
I'm always wary of those who claim to be voracious readers, but are poor spellers.  Something just doesn't add up ...

Being a physically big man, soft spoken perhaps, and able to populate an anonymous comments community on a blog perhaps seems like something big -- but will real readers read uncritically?   Is  there really such a dearth of well educated and professionally trained black reporters, journalists and writers on the job market these days?

Something doesn't add up to me*, on hearing reading that the NYT offered this gentleman a twice-weekly, column-writing gig, based solely on his blog, "long form" work, and guest columns. 

Hmm...  what am I missing here?

 
-----------------------

At 37, Mr. Coates is the single best writer on the subject of race in the United States. His Atlantic essays, guest columns for The New York Times and blog posts are defined by a distinct blend of eloquence, authenticity and nuance. And he has been picking up fans in very high places.
Nelson Fernandez, Jim Fallows, Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Fans like Rachel Maddow, who tweeted: “Don’t know, if in US commentary, there is a more beautiful writer than Ta-Nehisi Coates.”

The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg described him as “one of the most elegant and sharp observers of race in America,” when announcing that Mr. Coates had won the 2012 prize for commentary from The Sidney Hillman Foundation.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, who recently hosted a book reading at MIT with Mr. Coates, a visiting professor at the school, said that “he is as fine a nonfiction writer as anyone working today.”

Without a Ph.D., Mr. Coates is an uncommon visiting professor at MIT. In fact, he doesn’t even have a college degree, having dropped out of Howard University, failing both British and American literature. Before that, he failed 11th-grade English.

“If you had told me he would be a big deal, I would have said, ‘Get real,’” said Times media critic David Carr. Mr. Coates’s first writing gig was at the Washington City Paper, where Mr. Carr was his editor. “He needed work. He was not a great speller. He wasn’t terrific with names. And he wasn’t all that ambitious.”

Indeed, it was an inauspicious beginning.

The article that launched Mr. Coates toward stardom, his first for The Atlantic, came on the heels of his departure from Time. In that piece, “This Is How We Lost to the White Man,” Mr. Coates situated Bill Cosby’s attention-getting criticisms of black men within the tradition of African-American self-help conservatism championed by Booker T. Washington.

Published in 2008, the article was well-received and eventually included in the collection Best African American Essays 2010. And yet, it almost was never printed. Mr. Coates had started working on the piece the previous year, when he was at Time, and it was rejected by several publications before Mr. Coates asked Mr. Carr if he knew of a home for it. The Atlantic editor James Bennet was receptive.

“I’m very grateful to both those guys,” said Mr. Coates, who was inked to a blog deal by The Atlantic soon after the article came out, “but it shows the power of that networking. I couldn’t help notice that it was one well-placed white dude talking to another well-placed white dude to get it published.”

Ideas about race and racial identity have always been with Mr. Coates. He was introduced to the writing world by his father, a former Black Panther and Vietnam vet who ran an Afrocentric publishing house out of the family’s home in West Baltimore. “I was surrounded by books and ideas. We literally had the machinery for creating books in our basement,” said Mr. Coates, who is tall but carries himself casually. (In his Atlantic author photo, he sports thick black-framed glasses and a driving cap, which is what he wore on the day we met as well.)
...
And while it must be said that Mr. Coates’s memoir, The Beautiful Struggle, fails in pulling off the delicate balance between remembrance and braggadocio, the book does advance a theme that has underscored much of his work—that the dismissal of hip-hop as merely “a symbol of the decline of the West if ever there was one,” as the National Review recently argued, is only a subtler form of the same lazy ignorance that runs through centuries of racist stereotypes of young black men.

“I learned about writing from hip-hop,” he said.
...
The Times asked him to become a regular columnist, but Mr. Coates rejected the most coveted real estate in American journalism. He would not comment on the matter, but recently wrote on his blog about the difficulties of writing a twice-a-week Times op-ed column. He suggested that he would be taxed writing so frequently at such length, and feared his writing would suffer.

“I won’t go so far as to say I’d fail,” he wrote. “But I strongly suspect that the same people who were convinced this would be a perfect marriage, would—inside of a year—be tweeting, ‘Remember when that dude could actually write?’”
I was really taken aback by the praise and appreciation
in this article. Writing is not like performing. There's no one else there with you. I type into a box, and if I am lucky, some number of people--most of whom I will never meet--read it. I hope they like what they see. But for the most part, I'll never know, so I don't much think about it. But when prominent praise does come, it is nice and it does feels good to be acknowledged.
...
This is not false modesty. I think I am fine writer. And when I am done I hope they put the sword on my chest and send me off to Valhalla. (Mad mixed metaphors and mythology. Work with me here.) But I came up reading people do this thing in all kinds of wondrous ways. If you like what you see here. If you think it's the best writing "on the subject of race," I would encourage you read more "on the subject of race," and particularly read more black writers period.
I hope this doesn't come off as disrespect or even chiding for Jordan Michael Smith. He was the consumate professional. Just consider this a footnote.


------------------
* Then again, I'm still surprised that Ross Douthat is the best representative they could turn up to represent young conservative / Catholic thinking in the country today.

If Coates' calling -- to me -- seems better suited to an oral, call-in, 'hot topics' specialty radio/cable t.v. format, then Douthat would seem to be more at home in an obscure, pretentious academic journal.  His words don't sing; his analysis of issues is usually a weeks-old repicking of other, better writers and thinkers...

And anyone calling Coates' written craft 'beautiful' is kinda demonstrating her lack of familiarity with the topic.

I suspect what these media folk actually excel at is ... networking.
Plugging themselves, and their careers, over just doing the job -- a high-quality job -- with freshness, originality, and a broad life background on which to structure their crafts.

 Think ... Andrew Sullivan.
An outstanding entrepreneur perhaps, profiting as he jumps around various publications and synthesizes, but whose written work  is wildly inconsistent and will not stand up to the test of time.

posted by Mary at 5:40 PM

Ask not for whom the Bell Tolls ...


...
There was a contention as far as a suit (in which both piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled), which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined, that they should ring first that rose earliest. If we understand aright the dignity of this bell that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as his, whose indeed it is.

The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that this occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world?

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction.

If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: if by this consideration of another's danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security.
 

posted by Mary at 10:45 AM