Comments by PolishBear
Page 1 of 1
Posted on August 19 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Michael Reagan insists, "If we start to drill now, sometime in the not too distant future — two, three five or even 10 years from now — America will have all the oil we’ll ever need."
WOW! All the oil we'll EVER need? Forever and ever? At ever-increasing rates of consumption?
Is he NUTS???
Michael Reagan must belong to the Jerome Corsi School of Petroleum Exploration. Corsi once wrote a book called "Black Gold Stranglehold," the inside flap of which reads as follows: "Oil is not a product of decaying dinosaurs and prehistoric forests. Rather, it is a natural product of the earth ... constantly being produced by the earth, far below the planet's surface, and that it is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation."
Astonishing, isn't it?
Michael Reagan's devil-may-care attitude toward gluttonous energy consumption at the expense of the environment is one of the reasons future generations will curse us.
Posted on August 18 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Most people don't think about the true quantity of recyclable materials that go into landfills. At my office (a government agency) there are recycling bins for white paper, but plastic bottles and aluminum cans go to the landfill. Consider the average bar or tavern; with few exceptions all those empty brown beer bottles and aluminum cans go to the landfill. How many people take plastic grocery bags back to the store to be recycled? Even newspaper can be recycled, but for the most part it goes into the waste stream. I'm fortunate that my city has a curbside recycling program, and I make a conscious effort to recycle ALL of the abovementioned materials, but I know that it's practically NOTHING compared to the amount that goes into the landfill overall. I hope as people and businesses become more environmentally aware, they will consider how beneficial an efficient recycling effort could truly be. Of course if most people say "I just don't have the time for it," then I don't have much hope for this planet.
Posted on August 13 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very good commentary. I couldn't care less when people want to pray, in whatever style they prefer, at home, church, school, work, or even in the checkout line at the local grocery store as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's life. But setting aside time for prayer during a public meeting is a waste of the taxpayers' money. What if the person conducting the prayer handed out rugs and instructed those in the room to face Mecca? What if the person conducting the prayer spoke in tongues or sang Hare Krishna? You will never to be able to come up with a generic prayer that is inclusive of ALL beliefs, so better to just be done with it and get on with the work of city council.
Posted on July 31 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As he complains that "our people were led to believe that the homosexual life style is a normal way of life," Harold Kinney trots out the tiresome notion that there is some monolithic "lifestyle" that all Gay people are somehow enslaved by. This is, of course, as absurd as saying there is a heterosexual "lifestyle." People can be celibate, or monogamous, or promiscuous, regardless of sexual orientation. Living on a houseboat is a "lifestyle."
While we all have choices to make in terms of how we conduct our lives, sexual orientation is innate. It is a fundamental part of one's biological and psychological makeup, just like being left-handed is a naturally-occurring variation of manual dexterity. As a right-handed person, writing with my left hand is not "normal" for me. Likewise, as a Gay man, an intimate relationship with someone of the opposite sex is not "normal" for me either ... but that doesn't mean I bear any ill will toward people who are heterosexual. I believe all people, Gay and Straight, are equally deserving of love and fulfillment. I have nothing but the utmost support and respect for my Straight friends, as long as they conduct their lives with decency and humility. And I hope one day Harold Kinney might accord Gay people the same respect.
Posted on July 6 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem with Scott Bute's disapproval of any Gay person's "lifestyle" is that there really is no single, definable "Gay lifestyle," any more than there is a "Straight lifestyle." Living on a houseboat is a lifestyle. But if Scott finds out that someone is Gay, what exactly does he know about his or her "lifestyle?"
I'm reminded of a Republican political candidate here in West Virginia who would purchase hour-long blocks of radio time to host his own talk show as part of his campaign strategy. I called his "show" and told him that, while I found myself becoming increasing conservative as I grew older, I was still dismayed by his disdain for Gay Americans. I said to him, "It's almost as though you're incapable of making a moral and ethical distinction between a monogamous Gay couple and someone who is promiscuous." His response? "One is bad and the other is worse." Case closed.
My question for Scott would be this: Why is it that it's perfectly acceptable, even admirable, for Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples to date, get engaged, get married, and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing ... but for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment. It surely can't do with sexual compatibility, since I would be no more compatible with a Straight woman (or a Straight MAN for that matter) than Scott would be with a Lesbian.
Scott also perpetuates the notion that people "choose" to be Gay. As for myself, my parents are Straight. My brother and two sisters are Straight. I was raised in a typical suburban Catholic household. I was neither abused, neglected, nor sexually molested as a child. My parent raised me with strong values. And YET, for some unknowable reason, I'm GAY. And to the best of my knowledge I always have been. I never made a conscious decision to be attracted to men rather than women, it has always been a fundamental part of my wiring.
But for Scott, that automatically precludes me from any hope for romance or commitment. Gay people are simply told: Gosh, sorry about that. You make us uncomfortable; acknowledging your existence means we might have to revise what we’ve been teaching all these years - meaning, Whoops! No infallible Magisterium or "literal" Bible ... so you’ll just have to sacrifice your life and any hope of finding somebody to love. Tough luck, kid.
Well I'm sorry, Scott, but if you can't be any more accomodating than that, all your pretentions of "tolerance" are meaningless.
CHUCK ANZIULEWICZ
Posted on June 25 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.
To those people out there who still suggest that social justice must be reached through the legislative process, rather than through the courts, I would point to the history of racial injustice in this country. While I could choose any number of cases to make my point, I'll start with the most obvious - Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. As everyone knows, this is the ruling that essentially reversed the Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" doctrine. Without the decision of the court in Brown v Board, it is impossible to say when the schools of America would have begun to integrate, but I believe it is safe to say it would have been much later. At the time, the Brown v Board decision was just as unpopular with certain segments of the population as a decision today would be that grants Gay couples equal marriage rights. Looking back, I think we can all agree that the unpopularity of the decision did not make it wrong.
When you're dealing with bigotry, a force which runs deeper than many would like to admit, it is often impossible to wait for the "legislative process" to do its work. There is no telling how long it will take a majority of the population to decide, on its own, that it is time to stop discriminating based on sexual orientation. I therefore believe that it is not only the right, but the obligation of the courts to step in and ensure that all citizens are able to enjoy the same rights under the law, as the spirit of the Constitution provides.
Page 1 of 1
Posted on July 24 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DEAR ROGER THOMPSON:
The only thing the Lutheran Church is guilty of is learning to be more discerning and making better value judgments, rather than painting everyone with the same broad "homosexual lifestyle" brush.
I'm reminded of a Republican political candidate here in West Virginia who would purchase hour-long blocks of radio time to host his own talk show as part of his campaign strategy. I called his "show" and told him that, while I found myself becoming increasing conservative as I grew older, I was still dismayed by his disdain for Gay Americans. I said to him, "It's almost as though you're incapable of making a moral and ethical distinction between a monogamous Gay couple and someone who is promiscuous." His response? "One is bad and the other is worse." Case closed.
Please forgive me if this seems confrontational, but my question for you would be this: Why is it that it's perfectly acceptable, even admirable, for Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples to date, get engaged, get married, and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing ... but for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
Consider The Golden Rule: We do unto others as we would have them do unto use. Put all the religious dogma and ritual aside, and this is what our law boil down to. We don't lie or bear false witness because we won't want people to lie to us. We don't steal from other people because we do not want people stealing from us. We don't betray the trust of our spouses because we wouldn't want them doing the same to us. Same goes for killing and a variety of other "bad" behaviors.
And yet somehow there seems to be this sheepish adherence to a double standard for Gay and Straight people. If you're Straight, it's all so wonderful to be able to find a compatible person of the opposite sex, court and get engaged and marry and live happily ever after. But if you're Gay, all of that is completely out of the question. Don't even bother trying to find a compatible person. Lesbians are Gay men are precluded from any hope for romance or commitment. Gay people are simply told: "Gosh, sorry about that. You make us uncomfortable; acknowledging your existence means we might have to revise what we’ve been teaching all these years - meaning, Whoops! No infallible Magisterium or "literal" Bible ... so you’ll just have to sacrifice your life and any hope of finding somebody to love. Tough luck, kid. God said it, I don't necessarily understand it, but there it is."
I wish more Christians would at least TRY to wrap their minds around why this makes so little sense to Gay people.
CHUCK ANZIULEWICZ
On Recommendation is a ‘slippery slope’