If you happen to be driving along the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system this Labor Day weekend, you may notice "Safety Break" signs posted at many of the highway rest areas. When you do, please consider taking a moment to drop in. Not only will you benefit from the chance to stretch your legs and take care of a few other necessities, but you may just get an opportunity to help someone else out in the process.
At many of the Safety Break locations you will find complimentary food and drinks being handed out. These sites are staffed by a variety of charitable and public service oriented organizations. Though the food and beverage offerings are not for sale, donations are gratefully accepted - and necessary to keep these facilities operating.
I'm am personally familiar with the logistics of one of these operations as the parent of a Webelos Scout whose Pack and Troop are manning the north bound I-81 rest area near Inwood, West Virginia. From Noon Friday until 6:00 PM Monday scouts are staffing the tables, handing out hot dogs, chili dogs, and a variety of drinks to road weary travelers. Did I mention they are supervised throughout by a team of dedicated Scout leaders and parents? Perhaps committed is a better word to describe the leaders and parents - or in need of being committed?
This weekend, and any time you are traveling and find one of these Safety Breaks in operation, take advantage. Grab a bite to eat and a bit to drink, and drop a little bit in the donation jar. The food will be every bit as good, and you can be certain your funds will be put to a better use and be far more appreciated than they will be by a King or a Clown.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin
Am I the only one who thinks Sarah Palin looked like a clone of Geena Davis in "Commander in Chief" during her introductory speech today?
American Communist Lackey Union?
I know that's not the officially designated meaning of that acronym, but it would be pretty tough to build a compelling argument that naming them the American Communist Lackey Union is inaccurate.
As reported this morning on the WND web site, the ACLU (more properly known as the American Civil Liberties Union) has filed suit in US District Court in Florida on behalf of two high school students who are "offended by the school's policy of allowing prayer at voluntary events and holding Christmas concerts at churches".
Offended? Get over it. I may have missed it and am willing to stand corrected if so, but I'm pretty sure that no part of the Constitution or it's subsequent amendments guarantee we won't suffer the unimaginable trauma of being offended.
Daniel Mach, director of litigation for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Beliefs, "said he believes the school should refrain from endorsing religions". Perhaps Mr. Mach should take a look at his office letterhead and then pull out a dictionary for a bit of remedial education. "Freedom of Religion" is emphatically not the same thing as "Freedom FROM Religion".
Religion exists, in this country and in this world. Religions fit under several broad umbrellas, and each umbrella shelters numerous variations on a particular theme. Even the vast majority of agnostic and atheist individuals subscribe to moral codes and conventions of social comportment that are reflective of those religions they denounce. The only difference is that their chosen lifestyle does not invoke deity as a framework.
That students are permitted to pray does not obligate others to follow along. That attendees at events are asked to stand as a prayer is offered does not obligate them to agree with the prayer any more than a child being asked to stand with his classmates while the Pledge of Allegiance is recited is obligated to believe or even recite the words of the Pledge. It is simply a show of respect and social common courtesy for their peers. That the school cafeteria chooses to serve cheeseburgers on Thursday is neither an indication the Jews are unwelcome or Jimmy Buffet is their hero. Unless conducted within the context of a broader service, concerts given in the month of December in a church are merely taking advantage of an available venue and not inherently religious simply because of the location.
Being exposed to a wide variety of experiences, evaluating those experiences, and discussing them with respected elders in your community - such as parents - is what is required to grow up and become a functional, educated citizen. No single group has a monopoly on what is right, or what should properly be encountered in public. Likewise, no single group is entitled to prevent the public expression of any other viewpoint or lifestyle.
"The government should not be in the business of deciding which religions to promote," [Mach] said in an ACLU statement. "Individuals, families and religious communities should be free to make their own decisions about religion."
How right you are, Mr. Mach. The government should also not be in the business of deciding which viewpoints, religious or otherwise, are to be suppressed.
As reported this morning on the WND web site, the ACLU (more properly known as the American Civil Liberties Union) has filed suit in US District Court in Florida on behalf of two high school students who are "offended by the school's policy of allowing prayer at voluntary events and holding Christmas concerts at churches".
Offended? Get over it. I may have missed it and am willing to stand corrected if so, but I'm pretty sure that no part of the Constitution or it's subsequent amendments guarantee we won't suffer the unimaginable trauma of being offended.
Daniel Mach, director of litigation for the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Beliefs, "said he believes the school should refrain from endorsing religions". Perhaps Mr. Mach should take a look at his office letterhead and then pull out a dictionary for a bit of remedial education. "Freedom of Religion" is emphatically not the same thing as "Freedom FROM Religion".
Religion exists, in this country and in this world. Religions fit under several broad umbrellas, and each umbrella shelters numerous variations on a particular theme. Even the vast majority of agnostic and atheist individuals subscribe to moral codes and conventions of social comportment that are reflective of those religions they denounce. The only difference is that their chosen lifestyle does not invoke deity as a framework.
That students are permitted to pray does not obligate others to follow along. That attendees at events are asked to stand as a prayer is offered does not obligate them to agree with the prayer any more than a child being asked to stand with his classmates while the Pledge of Allegiance is recited is obligated to believe or even recite the words of the Pledge. It is simply a show of respect and social common courtesy for their peers. That the school cafeteria chooses to serve cheeseburgers on Thursday is neither an indication the Jews are unwelcome or Jimmy Buffet is their hero. Unless conducted within the context of a broader service, concerts given in the month of December in a church are merely taking advantage of an available venue and not inherently religious simply because of the location.
Being exposed to a wide variety of experiences, evaluating those experiences, and discussing them with respected elders in your community - such as parents - is what is required to grow up and become a functional, educated citizen. No single group has a monopoly on what is right, or what should properly be encountered in public. Likewise, no single group is entitled to prevent the public expression of any other viewpoint or lifestyle.
"The government should not be in the business of deciding which religions to promote," [Mach] said in an ACLU statement. "Individuals, families and religious communities should be free to make their own decisions about religion."
How right you are, Mr. Mach. The government should also not be in the business of deciding which viewpoints, religious or otherwise, are to be suppressed.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
HRC and WJC
No one who spends more than about three seconds with me when a conversation concerning The Clintons erupts will ever mistake me for a partisan of their particular brand of politics. The social and financial constraints they and their ilk wish to inflict on this nation are irrational at best, and downright dangerous at worst from both a fiscal and national security standpoint.
And yet.
And yet, I have truly enjoyed the past two nights of the Democrat Convention.
Tuesday night I listened to Hillary Clinton. Revisionist history aside, I found myself appreciating her speech. Some of the details and interpretations of her experiences in the 1990s don't agree with the days I lived through at that time, but I've come to expect and accept that I will be hearing those fairy tales when listening to these people speak.
What impressed me the most was how she delivered the speech. There were times Tuesday night when I heard echoes of former Texas governor Anne Richards giving her famous "silver foot in his mouth" keynote address at the 1988 convention. With the tonality and pacing, there were several points I kept waiting for Hillary to deliver the line. More than that though, I was truly amazed at just how far the junior Senator from New York has come during the past eighteen months that have been this campaign. The lady at that podium was composed, confident, and poised to a degree that the shrill voiced cackler never could have pulled off.
I still couldn't find much to agree with her about. She did a great job of selling Hillary, which was to be expected. She endorsed Barack Obama, which was required, though it came across sounding more like "since you screwed up and didn't pick me, Barack Obama is at least a whole lot better than that McCain guy."
On a side note, Chelsea really needs to go back to the day job. She is definitely not film narrator material, as she proved during the introductory video for her mother.
Then came Wednesday night.
William Jefferson Clinton took the stage and it was clear that he had come home. He not only looked like he was in his element, he clearly reveled in the adulation. Sure, he made a pretense of trying to get everyone quiet and back in their seats, but he didn't resent a minute of the time they spent worshiping him.
And then he finally began to speak. First, he is to be commended for giving a truly unequivocal endorsement of Barack Obama as a strong leader ready and capable of assuming the mantle of responsibility that comes with the Oval Office. Whether he was sincere in expressing those words or not, Bill Clinton sounded like he meant them. The anointing of Barack Obama was far stronger than many pundits believed would be the case before Clinton spoke.
Listening to Bill Clinton speak, I could not help but be impressed. Much of the time I was loudly disagreeing with him from the couch, pointing out lies and inconsistencies much to the consternation of my wife who was not nearly as personally invested in the evening as I was. And yet, I also found myself liking hearing him deliver the speech and on some levels wanting to believe what he was saying.
In that respect, I was transported back to the days of Ronald Reagan. Even for those who disagreed with what he might be saying, it was almost impossible to not feel good hearing Reagan say it. Bill Clinton possesses that same oratorical capacity to make his audience want to be on his side. I found myself thinking much the same thing when reading Clinton's autobiography. The section on the presidential years was mostly tedious since it was so well known and predictably self serving. Even so, the narrative voice of Bill Clinton was unquestionably appealing. From the earliest pages, he was the stereotypical Elder Southern Gentleman telling a tale. Anyone would be excited to sit out on the wrap around front porch with him, sipping lemonade beneath the slowly spinning ceiling fan while Clinton spins whatever entertaining yarn he wants you to hear.
Politically The Clintons and I have fewer points of commonality than disagreement. Even so, while I don't think I'll ever want to knock back a bourbon with Hillary, Bill Clinton is one of the few politicians of either party I would truly enjoy spending an evening with, having a couple of beers and maybe watching the West Virginia Mountaineers or Maryland Terrapins steamroll the Arkansas Razorbacks.
And yet.
And yet, I have truly enjoyed the past two nights of the Democrat Convention.
Tuesday night I listened to Hillary Clinton. Revisionist history aside, I found myself appreciating her speech. Some of the details and interpretations of her experiences in the 1990s don't agree with the days I lived through at that time, but I've come to expect and accept that I will be hearing those fairy tales when listening to these people speak.
What impressed me the most was how she delivered the speech. There were times Tuesday night when I heard echoes of former Texas governor Anne Richards giving her famous "silver foot in his mouth" keynote address at the 1988 convention. With the tonality and pacing, there were several points I kept waiting for Hillary to deliver the line. More than that though, I was truly amazed at just how far the junior Senator from New York has come during the past eighteen months that have been this campaign. The lady at that podium was composed, confident, and poised to a degree that the shrill voiced cackler never could have pulled off.
I still couldn't find much to agree with her about. She did a great job of selling Hillary, which was to be expected. She endorsed Barack Obama, which was required, though it came across sounding more like "since you screwed up and didn't pick me, Barack Obama is at least a whole lot better than that McCain guy."
On a side note, Chelsea really needs to go back to the day job. She is definitely not film narrator material, as she proved during the introductory video for her mother.
Then came Wednesday night.
William Jefferson Clinton took the stage and it was clear that he had come home. He not only looked like he was in his element, he clearly reveled in the adulation. Sure, he made a pretense of trying to get everyone quiet and back in their seats, but he didn't resent a minute of the time they spent worshiping him.
And then he finally began to speak. First, he is to be commended for giving a truly unequivocal endorsement of Barack Obama as a strong leader ready and capable of assuming the mantle of responsibility that comes with the Oval Office. Whether he was sincere in expressing those words or not, Bill Clinton sounded like he meant them. The anointing of Barack Obama was far stronger than many pundits believed would be the case before Clinton spoke.
Listening to Bill Clinton speak, I could not help but be impressed. Much of the time I was loudly disagreeing with him from the couch, pointing out lies and inconsistencies much to the consternation of my wife who was not nearly as personally invested in the evening as I was. And yet, I also found myself liking hearing him deliver the speech and on some levels wanting to believe what he was saying.
In that respect, I was transported back to the days of Ronald Reagan. Even for those who disagreed with what he might be saying, it was almost impossible to not feel good hearing Reagan say it. Bill Clinton possesses that same oratorical capacity to make his audience want to be on his side. I found myself thinking much the same thing when reading Clinton's autobiography. The section on the presidential years was mostly tedious since it was so well known and predictably self serving. Even so, the narrative voice of Bill Clinton was unquestionably appealing. From the earliest pages, he was the stereotypical Elder Southern Gentleman telling a tale. Anyone would be excited to sit out on the wrap around front porch with him, sipping lemonade beneath the slowly spinning ceiling fan while Clinton spins whatever entertaining yarn he wants you to hear.
Politically The Clintons and I have fewer points of commonality than disagreement. Even so, while I don't think I'll ever want to knock back a bourbon with Hillary, Bill Clinton is one of the few politicians of either party I would truly enjoy spending an evening with, having a couple of beers and maybe watching the West Virginia Mountaineers or Maryland Terrapins steamroll the Arkansas Razorbacks.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Perhaps Green Isn't So Bad After All
It's amazing what you can run into wandering around the internet. Take this article found on treehugger.com for example.
Given the sheltered existence I lead, I have never heard of the LUSH chain of "fresh, handmade cosmetics" stores. From what I can tell, the big draw is that these guys are very environmentally friendly - natural ingredients, recycled materials, and an absolute minimum of packaging.
A practice they have apparently chosen to extend to their in store staff as well. In order to help educate the public about how much wasteful packaging exists on nearly every product sold, LUSH is asking their US employees to show up for work in nothing but their aprons today. Which, from the accompanying YouTube video, seem to be on a par with hospital gowns but not quite as effective at concealing the wearer.
Less packaging is a good thing. At least while the weather holds. I'd even consider making a special trip down to the Washington, DC, area to purchase minimally packaged products from minimally packaged purveyors.
For those who asked I would claim it was because of my newly found commitment to a Greener Lifestyle. The half tank of gas or more spent on each trip would probably more than offset any carbon credit eco-points I might earn as an ecologically sensitive consumer though.
Given the sheltered existence I lead, I have never heard of the LUSH chain of "fresh, handmade cosmetics" stores. From what I can tell, the big draw is that these guys are very environmentally friendly - natural ingredients, recycled materials, and an absolute minimum of packaging.
A practice they have apparently chosen to extend to their in store staff as well. In order to help educate the public about how much wasteful packaging exists on nearly every product sold, LUSH is asking their US employees to show up for work in nothing but their aprons today. Which, from the accompanying YouTube video, seem to be on a par with hospital gowns but not quite as effective at concealing the wearer.
Less packaging is a good thing. At least while the weather holds. I'd even consider making a special trip down to the Washington, DC, area to purchase minimally packaged products from minimally packaged purveyors.
For those who asked I would claim it was because of my newly found commitment to a Greener Lifestyle. The half tank of gas or more spent on each trip would probably more than offset any carbon credit eco-points I might earn as an ecologically sensitive consumer though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)