Yesterday, I went back through the archive of posts to this blog and discovered that the first post was on August 3, 2007. Happy Belated Birthday to Lunch Box Catechism!
I orginally started the blog as an experiment to see if I could regularly contribute some thoughts to current events. Looking back over a year of posts, I recalled that some posts were really good and some were somewhat of a waste of words. In terms of the content and regularity of the postings, there were dry spells and periods of abundance. Some of the posts have been very "edgy" and some have been pretty bland.
My sources for inspiration are many. I get ideas from newspapers, TV news, radio news, websites and other blogs. However, my best source of inspiration for my best posts have been recollections of people - some whom have gone on to their eternal reward and some who still roam the earth. Like everyone, I have had to endure difficult times in my life. However, I have truly led a charmed life thanks to many of the people that have been the subjects of some of my posts. At some point, I hope to write some type of manuscript that includes many of these people and the impact that they have had on my life. They are truly saints - especially given that, in some manner, they had to put up with me.
Thank you for putting up with me in the "blogosphere".
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Serving as Bishop: A Balancing Act
On August 28th, The Feast of Saint Augustine, Bishop David Ricken was installed as Bishop of The Diocese of Green Bay. It was in this diocese where I spent my formative years. While the last several leaders of this diocese were good men, they never seemed to really "click" with the priests and the people of northeastern Wisconsin. From first appearances, Bishop Ricken seems to have made an initial connection with his flock. During the homily at his installation Mass, he sang some songs, including "Drop Kick Me Jesus Through The Goalpost of Life" - very appropriate in Green Bay given that the Packers were to play their final exhibition game a few hours after the Mass and even fewer miles away from St. Francis Xavier Cathedral.
Perhaps the best sign that Bishop Ricken is one of us came when people from the community greeted him during the Mass. One woman tripped and fell immediately after greeting Bishop Ricken. She fell onto his shepherd's crosier, causing him to lose his balance and fall. Not one to be flustered, he later mentioned that "My people are falling for me already and I am falling for them." May Bishop Ricken bring some fresh and humble air to the flock of shepherds in Wisconsin.
To see a video clip from Fox 11 news that includes Bishop Ricken's singing and falling, go to: http://www.myfoxnewisconsin.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=CC174EB1626759AF6D2E65DBA0B1D5FE?contentId=7311495&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1
Perhaps the best sign that Bishop Ricken is one of us came when people from the community greeted him during the Mass. One woman tripped and fell immediately after greeting Bishop Ricken. She fell onto his shepherd's crosier, causing him to lose his balance and fall. Not one to be flustered, he later mentioned that "My people are falling for me already and I am falling for them." May Bishop Ricken bring some fresh and humble air to the flock of shepherds in Wisconsin.
To see a video clip from Fox 11 news that includes Bishop Ricken's singing and falling, go to: http://www.myfoxnewisconsin.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=CC174EB1626759AF6D2E65DBA0B1D5FE?contentId=7311495&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1
Friday, August 29, 2008
Candidate's Version of Trigonometry
In a post last week, I made mention of Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Barack Obama's choice to be his running mate. Since I claim to be independent when it comes to political partisanship, I had better give equal time to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain's choice to be his running mate.
When I hear earlier today that McCain selected Palin, I knew that I had heard her name before in a manner that is not related to the upcoming election. After spending a few minutes struggling with my middle-aged moment of trying to remember why the name struck me, I enjoyed the relief of an "ah ha" moment.
A few months ago while listening to a religious radio station, I recall hearing a news report about Governor Palin. The report stated that Governor Palin gave birth to a boy with Down Syndrome in April. In December, her physician informed her that tests showed positively that the baby she would give birth to a few months later had Down Syndrome. The medical professionals even mentioned that many parents-to-be make the difficult decision of terminating the pregnancy after hearing such news. Although they had four children at home and the responsibility of her position as Governor of Alaska, the Palins never considered anything other than welcoming the child into their lives. This is a remarkable story of seeing the person rather than the person's condition - even before that person is born.
For an article on this story from WorldNetDaily, go to: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64876
When I hear earlier today that McCain selected Palin, I knew that I had heard her name before in a manner that is not related to the upcoming election. After spending a few minutes struggling with my middle-aged moment of trying to remember why the name struck me, I enjoyed the relief of an "ah ha" moment.
A few months ago while listening to a religious radio station, I recall hearing a news report about Governor Palin. The report stated that Governor Palin gave birth to a boy with Down Syndrome in April. In December, her physician informed her that tests showed positively that the baby she would give birth to a few months later had Down Syndrome. The medical professionals even mentioned that many parents-to-be make the difficult decision of terminating the pregnancy after hearing such news. Although they had four children at home and the responsibility of her position as Governor of Alaska, the Palins never considered anything other than welcoming the child into their lives. This is a remarkable story of seeing the person rather than the person's condition - even before that person is born.
For an article on this story from WorldNetDaily, go to: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64876
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Conventional Wisdom
On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama has selected Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. The Obama campaign likely had a list of several potential running mates that they "vetted" to make sure there were no "surprises in the closet" that could harm Obama's chance in the November election. Although John McCain has yet to announce his running mate, be assured that the McCain campaigin is also "vetting" a list of potential choices.
I am old enough to remember when the national pary conventions meant something. Platforms were developed. Difference making speaches were delivered. Unfortunately, the national conventions have evolved from being proactive to being reactive. The conventions no longer put our best candidates forward. The goal of the Democratice National Convention is not to put forth the reasons to vote for Obama and the Democratic platform. The goal is to make John McCain and the Republican platform look as poor as possible so that the undecided voters will, by default, vote for Obama. The same goals, with the parties reversed, will apply to the Rebublican National Convention.
The millions of readers of this blog know that I pay a fair amount of attention to Catholic media. I just finished reading a "conservative" Catholic weekly newspaper that had many letters to the editor stating that the only Catholic option is to vote for McCain over Obama. These arguments seem to be an attempt to put a small bandage on a severed limb. Perhaps we should focus on the reasons why so many well-qualified candidates cannot run for major public office because they are not willing to bow to the wishes of well-funded special interest groups. The successful candidates are the ones that have learned how to play the special interest money game. As individual citizens, our choices for President are determined by the special interests. Thus, there are increasing numbers of citizens like me that are rarely pleased with the choices that we have. So, we have become accustomed to voting for the candidate we feel will do the least amount of damage. The political conventions feed into this.
I am old enough to remember when the national pary conventions meant something. Platforms were developed. Difference making speaches were delivered. Unfortunately, the national conventions have evolved from being proactive to being reactive. The conventions no longer put our best candidates forward. The goal of the Democratice National Convention is not to put forth the reasons to vote for Obama and the Democratic platform. The goal is to make John McCain and the Republican platform look as poor as possible so that the undecided voters will, by default, vote for Obama. The same goals, with the parties reversed, will apply to the Rebublican National Convention.
The millions of readers of this blog know that I pay a fair amount of attention to Catholic media. I just finished reading a "conservative" Catholic weekly newspaper that had many letters to the editor stating that the only Catholic option is to vote for McCain over Obama. These arguments seem to be an attempt to put a small bandage on a severed limb. Perhaps we should focus on the reasons why so many well-qualified candidates cannot run for major public office because they are not willing to bow to the wishes of well-funded special interest groups. The successful candidates are the ones that have learned how to play the special interest money game. As individual citizens, our choices for President are determined by the special interests. Thus, there are increasing numbers of citizens like me that are rarely pleased with the choices that we have. So, we have become accustomed to voting for the candidate we feel will do the least amount of damage. The political conventions feed into this.
Friday, August 22, 2008
A Whale of a Tale
Imagine if Saints Peter and Andews would have used Barbie fishing poles intead of boats and nets. Perhaps they did use Barbie fishing poles - that would help explain the miracle of the loaves and fishes.
What am I talking about? Recently, a man caught a record channel catfish in North Carolina. His means of landing this behemoth of a fish was a Barbie fishing pole. While fishing with his young granddaughter, she mentioned that she needed to use the restroom. The man took over his granddaughter's Barbie fishing pole while she was away. He noticed that there was a fish on her line. After a fierce battle, he was able to pull in the record fish. For details, go to the related article in the Raleigh-Durham News & Observer at: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1186067.html.
The analogy? Just as a small Barbie fishing pole can bring in the largest of fish, so can a meek son of a carpenter be the ultimate fisher of men and their souls.
What am I talking about? Recently, a man caught a record channel catfish in North Carolina. His means of landing this behemoth of a fish was a Barbie fishing pole. While fishing with his young granddaughter, she mentioned that she needed to use the restroom. The man took over his granddaughter's Barbie fishing pole while she was away. He noticed that there was a fish on her line. After a fierce battle, he was able to pull in the record fish. For details, go to the related article in the Raleigh-Durham News & Observer at: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1186067.html.
The analogy? Just as a small Barbie fishing pole can bring in the largest of fish, so can a meek son of a carpenter be the ultimate fisher of men and their souls.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Stuck in Quicksand
This morning, I heard numerous news reports on the comments made by John McCain and Barack Obama during their joint appearance at a "megachurch" over the weekend. Most of the news reports focused on the candidates' perspectives on abortion. I heard one report on a local religious station blasting Barack Obama for not immediately wanting to ban all abortions (they even recognized his statement that he wants to work to reduce the number of abortions). Last week, this same station had a news report blasting Barack Obama for wanting to withdraw troops from Iraq very very quickly. The program hosts argued that such a quick withdrawal would be dangerous to the stability and safety of Iraq.
Here is my problem with the "news" reports described above. As usual, it comes down to consistency. Barack Obama is blasted because he wants to remove troops from Iraq fairly quickly. The religious radio hosts recognize that it was a mistake to attack Iraq and force the need to maintain a military presence. The hosts argue that chaos would erupt if the troops left too quickly. The hosts share Obama's goal of achieving a position in Iraq that does not require a military presence by an outside entity. They just differ in the timeline to achieve that goal.
It seems to me that these radio hosts and Obama also share the same goal when it comes to eliminating abortion. Obama has stated that he would like to see they day when there are no abortions. However, he doesn't feel that simply outlawing abortion will achieve that goal and that society needs to address the reasons why women choose or are forced to choose to have an abortion. He also argues that outlawing abortion would lead to "back street" abortions that are often lethal. He argues that trying to eliminate abortions quickly will create chaos.
Why is it that the religious radio hosts chide Obama for wanting to get out of Iraq quickly and argue that doing so will lead to chaos but do not chide themselves for wanting to eliminate abortion quickly when doing so will also lead to chaos?
Here is my problem with the "news" reports described above. As usual, it comes down to consistency. Barack Obama is blasted because he wants to remove troops from Iraq fairly quickly. The religious radio hosts recognize that it was a mistake to attack Iraq and force the need to maintain a military presence. The hosts argue that chaos would erupt if the troops left too quickly. The hosts share Obama's goal of achieving a position in Iraq that does not require a military presence by an outside entity. They just differ in the timeline to achieve that goal.
It seems to me that these radio hosts and Obama also share the same goal when it comes to eliminating abortion. Obama has stated that he would like to see they day when there are no abortions. However, he doesn't feel that simply outlawing abortion will achieve that goal and that society needs to address the reasons why women choose or are forced to choose to have an abortion. He also argues that outlawing abortion would lead to "back street" abortions that are often lethal. He argues that trying to eliminate abortions quickly will create chaos.
Why is it that the religious radio hosts chide Obama for wanting to get out of Iraq quickly and argue that doing so will lead to chaos but do not chide themselves for wanting to eliminate abortion quickly when doing so will also lead to chaos?
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
A Rose By Any Other Name
The movie "Tropic Thunder" opens tomorrow. There is a fair amount of controversy surrounding the film. One of the storylines is that an actor, played by Ben Stiller, is known primarily for his portrayal of Simple Jack, a man with developmental disabilities that has a "soup bowl" haircut, large front teeth and is referred to as "Retard". The disability advocacy community, of which I am part, plans to boycott the film in an effort to educate the general public about the appropriate words used to refer to people with disabilities. (Hint to Hollywood: "Retard" isn't one of those words).
It would be a stretch to say that I am offended by the movie. However, the portrayal of people with disabilities makes me uncomfortable. I think it was somewhat foolish for the producers of the movie to think that nobody would be offended by their portrayal of people with disabilities. Maybe that is their hope as part of an effort to generate publicity. However, rather than trying to offend people that are oppressed by society, I would hope that Hollywood would put forth more effort to offend people that oppress others.
I have often heard young people use the phrase "that's so retarded" to describe what they consider to be an unusual/unacceptable behavior or event. Part of the problem is that we fail to recognize that words are not offensive - they way we use the words are. Not too many years ago, retarded was simply a medical term used to describe a low IQ. Our society has taken the term and used it to describe much more. The term "mental retardation" has been replaced by "developmental disability" and/or "intellectual disability". My guess is that, ten years from now, young people that now use the term "that's so retarded" will be using the terms "that's so DD" or "that's so ID".
It might be true that sticks and stones may break our bones, but words will never hurt us. However, the way in which we use words certainly can be hurtful to others.
It would be a stretch to say that I am offended by the movie. However, the portrayal of people with disabilities makes me uncomfortable. I think it was somewhat foolish for the producers of the movie to think that nobody would be offended by their portrayal of people with disabilities. Maybe that is their hope as part of an effort to generate publicity. However, rather than trying to offend people that are oppressed by society, I would hope that Hollywood would put forth more effort to offend people that oppress others.
I have often heard young people use the phrase "that's so retarded" to describe what they consider to be an unusual/unacceptable behavior or event. Part of the problem is that we fail to recognize that words are not offensive - they way we use the words are. Not too many years ago, retarded was simply a medical term used to describe a low IQ. Our society has taken the term and used it to describe much more. The term "mental retardation" has been replaced by "developmental disability" and/or "intellectual disability". My guess is that, ten years from now, young people that now use the term "that's so retarded" will be using the terms "that's so DD" or "that's so ID".
It might be true that sticks and stones may break our bones, but words will never hurt us. However, the way in which we use words certainly can be hurtful to others.
Friday, August 8, 2008
The Second Great Schism
While some might have hoped that Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers could stay together for the sake of the kids, the divorce is final. Brett Favre was traded to the New York Jets and the Packers are moving onto the "post-Favre" era.
As a Packer fan, I am glad that the saga is over. I was sick of hearing something about the Favre-Packer divorce whenever I turned on the radio or television for the past month. For the next several weeks, we will have to endure the pundits discussing and arguing about who bears the most blame for the divorce.
I see many analogies to the real Great Schism. Through no fault of either entity, the Favre-Packer divorce seemed to be inevitable. Things seem to be falling together in a manner that made it difficult for the relationship between Favre and the Packers to continue as it has. Yes, both parties of the divorce likely initiated some questionable actions. There could have been far better communication. Things were really messy.
Once the divorce became final - when Favre was traded to the New York Jets - it seemed that everyone could finally breathe a sigh of relief. The Packers can move on and so can Favre. The situation seems to have had an "OK" resolution with both sides, while a bit wounded, being able to sincerely wish the other side well.
I'll keep cheering for the Packers and for Brett Favre (except for when the Packers play the Jets).
As a Packer fan, I am glad that the saga is over. I was sick of hearing something about the Favre-Packer divorce whenever I turned on the radio or television for the past month. For the next several weeks, we will have to endure the pundits discussing and arguing about who bears the most blame for the divorce.
I see many analogies to the real Great Schism. Through no fault of either entity, the Favre-Packer divorce seemed to be inevitable. Things seem to be falling together in a manner that made it difficult for the relationship between Favre and the Packers to continue as it has. Yes, both parties of the divorce likely initiated some questionable actions. There could have been far better communication. Things were really messy.
Once the divorce became final - when Favre was traded to the New York Jets - it seemed that everyone could finally breathe a sigh of relief. The Packers can move on and so can Favre. The situation seems to have had an "OK" resolution with both sides, while a bit wounded, being able to sincerely wish the other side well.
I'll keep cheering for the Packers and for Brett Favre (except for when the Packers play the Jets).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)