He's only MOSTLY dead

I saw a headline today "Certain health habits can raise your risk of mortality". Hmm. Really. How do you increase the chances that you will die? I mean, as best as I can do the math, the human race has a 100% mortality risk. We all die. It's the only certainty in life behind taxes and the Cubs losing. So, what is it that you can do to increase your mortality risk? Must be some new calculation. Upon checking the link, it was about how eating red meat raised the chances of people dying from cancer and heart attack. So, your heart attack chances and cancer chances have increased- but I would say your mortality risk is probably just about where it was when you started. You will die- when and how are a little more vague, but that you will is certain. One of my friends said she wanted to raise her IMmortality risk. I'm of the mind, that too is pretty yes or no- either you will or you won't- I guess you could argue for a differentiation of immortal life as a ghost, or a cursed pirate, or a zombie, or an angel, or a demon.....wow. That got depressing fast, didn't it? Well, maybe at least the title will make you laugh, as Hollywood obviously ignores the 100% dead rule. I guess I don't feel so bad since I haven't been mostly dead all day. In fact, I've been rather alive, and I like it that way! L'chaim!

Humanity-warning: cyncism ahead

So, I was thinking about some news bits of late- most especially the stem cell legislation by our new president. I was disappointed in that, because they have already figured out how to get skin cells to act like stem cells, so they can get all they need and the necessity of destroying embryos should have been made moot- but for the sake of alacrity and convenience, they want to continue to use embryonic cells, because the process for 'changing' skin cells to stem cells is evidentially more complicated than I know.
And that sort of sums up the American way to me right now- why sacrifice or work harder if you don't have to? Get all the perks and bonuses you can, and why do things differently than we have done in the past 20 years? And, I think connected to that is the concept of immediate gratification and immediate disposal. Our entire ethos and identity can be summed up in the word "consume". Take whatever you can get, pleasure yourself or amass resources for later and continued pleasure, and when you finish with something- simply dispose of it.
As I quoted in my piece from Mr. Mullins, when we see human life as a means to an end, we take all value from it. It is something to be used, consumed, and thrown away when we are finished with it. I guess my cynicism on this has been fed by numerous stories of late- such as the mother who kept her child in a closet for 7 years (story here) or the Texas institute for mentally handicapped folks whose staff set them up in human cockfights (story here) or in the case of the Octo-mom, who needed to have kids to fulfill her own needs (Nadya Suleman was "fixated" on wanting a "huge family" because she wanted "more affection from [her] mother."She volunteered that much of her motivation was about "me projecting my own wants and wishes onto my children."). How about the Austrian father who imprisoned his daughter and repeatedly raped her for 20 plus years? The atrocities of Abu Graib prison in Iraq (and the stories which will come from Guantanamo). The innumerable children enslaved across the world(including the ones in the US sold for drugs) in the sex trade? I could go on and on and on.
I realize there are bright stories of human triumph and caring, of heroics and justice that can counter every headline grabbing negative piece I can come up with. I know that people aren't intrinsically evil, hopelessly selfish and beyond redemption. What my current disappointment rests most in is that I had hoped we would begin to hear from our leadership some appeals to our better angels. One of the most disappointing moments after 9/11 was George Bush telling us to go and shop or the terrorists win. Be a mindless consumer, buy things and live life as normal, or those who oppose us win. With a new administration, two wars and a tough economic time, I really was hoping to hear of some appeals to sacrifice- to give for the common good- some serious butt-kicking and name taking amongst the bloated corporate bonus culture (especially the record breaking profitable Oil industry). I have heard Obama's rhetoric, and it puzzles me why he will not step up on economic and energy issues and push a hard line for reform and sacrifice- giving substance to the claims that Americans are about more than maintaining a cushy, rich, over the top lifestyle. Instead he continues to hold a hard line on those issues which cheapen our value- which say we have as much arrogance as anyone on the planet- and we can decide when life begins, and what is worth keeping and what is not- and for the sake of expediency and simple definition of oneself as everything the past administration was not, will let the ends justify the means- and use federal money to pay for it. And on the money side of things- well, let's stimulate (a very sex-filled term) the economy with bajillions of dollars so things can just keep going as normal- we can keep on our path of selfish pleasure seeking fun. I just want one congressman or senator (or even the president) to say, "Here's half my salary- given the current state of things- I can do without." I mean, seriously, since Obama's meals, housing, transportation, security and all office supplies are paid for, don't you think he could symbolically take a pay cut? Maybe even 10%? But why bring that much change to Washington- wasn't it OK the way it was?

What does it mean to be human?

I have been reminded of this piece several times in the past few weeks (more on that later). Rich Mullins recited this as a quasi-robotic neo-electronic sounding intro to his song about the wisdom of God versus our arrogance of "higher education". It is a profound insight from 1989 that makes me continue to miss Rich Mullins.

“What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to be human? I cannot help but suspect that at one time in the history of thinking that people believed that it meant that we were spiritual and that we could make choices and were capable of aspiring to higher ideals... like maybe loyalty or maybe faith... or maybe even love. But now we are told by people who think they know, that we vary from amoeba only in the complexity of our makeup and not in what we essentially are. They would have us think as Dysart said that we are forever bound up in certain genetic reigns - that we are merely products of the way things are and not free – not free to be the people who make them that way. They would have us see ourselves as products so that we could believe that we were something to be made -something to be used and then something to be disposed of. Used in their wars - used for their gains and then set aside when we get in their way. Well, who are they? They are the few who sit at the top of the heap - dung heap though it is – and who say it is better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven. Well, I do not know that we can have a Heaven here on earth, but I am sure we need not have a Hell either. What does it mean to be human? I cannot help but believe that it means we are spiritual - that we are responsible and that we are free - that we are responsible to be free.”

Fun with geometry

So, I ran across this unique visual humorist (?) for lack of a better title- Jessica Hagy- many may already know her and have seen this, but as we approach Lent, and the Great Litany next week (reminds me way to much of the opening scene of Monty Python's Holy Grail with the monks whacking themselves on the head with boards) I thought a little 7 deadly sins humor was in order- enjoy! (here's the link if you want it). Also, her blogsite- thisisindexed

made me laugh

On Phineas and Ferb:
dad:"Did you hear they found a cure for antidisestablishmentarianism?"
mom:" Oh good, I can finally stop wearing this puce ribbon."

This is followed by the "Squirrels in my Pants" dance by Candace.

Hee, hee.

I hope this doesn't mean he wants to join a cult

So we've all seen, laughed at, heckled and chuckled at the Snuggie- the blanket with sleeves (who evidently is getting some hard competition from the sleeved blanket- or Slanket!). It's not the idea so much- you know- stay warm under the blanket and still have hands free to knit, type, update your blog. As a concerned blanket thermodynamic equilibrium manager myself, I appreciate the idea of not allowing cold air into your cocoon while still being able to interact with the world. No, what moved this product from OK idea into every late night comedian's object of derision was the TV ads which showed people moving the snuggie from its rightful place on the couch to several unsuitable and inappropriate locations such as around the family marshmallow firepit, or in front of a cozy fire with two grown adults playing games, or the favorite: the family of four in matching snuggies at a football game standing and cheering in their ultra-dorky, matching, monastic somewhat cult-like snuggies- and looking happy while they're at it.

Well, advertising is a powerful medium, and my sons have been completely taken in by the snuggie- particularly Josh, who loves pillows, blankets and the whole concept of snuggling. He has been angling for a Snuggie- to which I replied I thought it would be a waste of good Christmas money, for he would have to buy such items on his own, as I would not be taken in. But again, I heard him watching the commercial tonight and lamenting that to buy the Snuggie, and pay shipping and handling would deplete his holiday savings- but maybe he would do it. Inspiration struck. I went into my closet, dug into an old box of clothes and came out with a very large terrycloth thick robe given to my mom on a conference retreat and embroidered with her initials on the sleeve (JBS). I came out and told Josh I had a Snuggie for him- had him stand up and proceeded to put it on him backwards- he was ecstatic! He was amazed! Where had I found that marvelous thing? I must be magic! He wasn't even put off when I explained it was just a robe turned backwards! He immediately settled in on the recliner and proceeded to use his Snuggie in proper lounging fashion. He was even more impressed when I pointed out it had pockets! He modeled it proudly for his big brother when Burke got home-and even remarked, "Now it comes in grey!" Lastly, we have appropriated the intials to stand for "Josh's Best Snuggie". So- for all who want a cheap solution to your snuggie dilemma, please find an old robe and wear it backwards. It won't stimulate the economy- but maybe it will keep you from thinking you can get away with wearing it in public!

Everyone, get on the floor...

Time to walk the llamas! This is the second year Burke's cub scout group has gotten the 'honor' of leading a group of llamas in the Travelers Rest Christmas parade. Like the many other wonderful small town parades in the US for Christmas time- TR has a great 1 mile long route lined with every variety of humanity and involving all sorts of floats and convertible parade participants. Josh's den and the rest of the troop rode on the back of a large farm trailer decorated with a tent and a christmas tree. It was quite a show... here are some pics...

Oh Ro-oo-bb

I have this way of hearing or seeing people and thinking they remind me of someone, and this morning while listening to NPR I had this revelation. They were doing an interview with Sec. of State Condolezza Rice and as she spoke I was suddenly hearing Laura Petrie's voice from the Dick Van Dyke show! They had the same inflection and tone, and while the content was assuredly different, they sounded much alike. And as I thought about it, I realized that with her 'Condi-flip' hair style- Sec. Rice actually looks like Mary Tyler Moore's character in the 60's (of course, minus some pigmentation). So, I googled some pictures so you can see for yourself and decide if I'm onto something or need to go sleep in my own twin bed tonight.

And I couldn't resist putting these in, although the resemblence isn't quite as strong- I still like the juxtaposition of strong educated woman with a goofy comedian behind her...

Why is that such a bad thing?

So, another burr in my saddle lately has been this amazing tactic by the Republican party at the end of the campaign to label Obama a socialist. You remember, Joe the Plumber, spread the wealth, all that jazz? What was so bothersome to me about it was that this was said with the venom of labeling someone a godless pagan child sacrificer. The Republicans wanted to claim their place as the mouthpiece of God- as the standard bearers of the Christian Gospel- the protectors of all that is right and good and holy and that can't include Socialism. The reason it can't include Socialism is a two-fold error in my opinion.
First, all socialism is immediately and forever associated with godless socialism, or communism- most especially socialism as it was/is found in the USSR, China and despite the presence of some amazing and beautiful cathedrals, France. These countries had experiments with socialism that turned into communism and either forbid religion or make it out to be a social ill. Marx did say religion was the opiate of the masses, but the totalitarian governments of Mao and Stalin were the ones who made it criminal. I am horrified at the way these countries have treated people because of their faith. (And yet, most Christians in America must not have too much trouble with how their brethren in China are treated as long as we can continue to get cheap Chinese goods for a low price at Wal-mart et al. ) In some ways it has been a way to define ourselves against those countries- The US is democratic, Christian and believes in individual property. The others are socialist/communist with dictators and politburos and everything is owned communally. So, since our historical and world knowledge tends to be limited, we equate all socialist activities with the godless communist type. A definite misunderstanding of the basic definition of socialism.
Secondly, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity. Yep. you read that right. The party of the religious right is wrong in this regard. Now, its only wrong if you take a fairly literal reading of the scriptures. Literal. Not ambiguous. Take the scriptures at face value. Like this one:
"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had." Acts 2:32 (followed by the object lesson of Ananias and Sapphira who were struck dead because they failed to fully participate in communal living).
or how about this one:
"the land must not be sold permanently because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants" Leviticus 25:23 in God's instructions to the Israelites about their promised land.
How about from Mark 10:
"One thing you lack' he said 'Go, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Jesus' instructions to the rich man, who couldn't do it.
or "therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers" Galatians 6:10
and lastly
"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share." 1 Tim 6:17-18

Over and over again, I read the scriptures and find the instruction to be about letting go of belongings, money and stuff and instead to take care of others, to focus on God, to worship by having a lifestyle of sacrifice and sharing- not accumulating as much stuff as possible and guarding it by not having it taxed or 'spread' around to those who need it more than me. I find that God constantly reminds us that it's not our stuff in the first place, it's his- and we are given blessings so that we can then be his agents of blessing for others. It's my interpretation of course, but I can't help but think that those who claim to be both righteous Christians and completely anti-socialist haven't been reading their scriptures the same way I have. I'm not ready to change my party affiliation to socialist, nor do I think the US needs to become a socialist country. But like my previous post on inconsistency- don't say you're representing God's worldview and then speak something that is fairly antithetical to scripture- since when is protectionist greed the way of God? I am thankful we live in a country that allows me the right to say this- and someone else the right to completely disagree. But in the end, I think that to advocate 'spreading the wealth' from those who have too much to those in need- well to me that sounds like a really Christian thing to say, socialist or not.

Advent Conspiracy

Spend less. Give more. I'm going to try hard to do this very thing.

Rhetorically speaking....

I had this strange memory pop up today. When I was a youth minister in Winston Salem, our rector of 31 years retired. He was a great pastor, a pretty hard line traditionalist and ran a tight staff that he demanded a reasonable amount from. He managed vestries and building projects and diocesan policies pretty well considering. But he was a bad preacher. Not horrible, certainly not heretical or anything- just sort of short and folksy tidbits about the gospel and life. After an 18 month interim, we installed a new rector- a young fellow, bold, bright, and a fabulous preacher and writer- he had a real gift for wordcraft. But he was a horrible pastor and a mediocre administrator. He spent a good deal of money on what most considered frivolous items, and didn't respond to people's honest concerns- somewhat aloof and elite. He lasted 18 months and then we were again in the search process.
This has always been a great illustration to me of how people, and especially institutions respond to what is wrong by replacing it with the opposite. It made me quite depressed to think that maybe this election was simply about replacing a folksy, poorly spoken 'decider' with a well spoken but out of touch elitist. But then I revisited one of the earliest speeches that Obama made- and regardless of what happens, I am convinced that this will go down as one of the top speeches in history- and I was reminded that what has been missing for so long is someone to lead- not administrate- someone to lay out a vision and capture our imaginations and get us working together and to remember all that is good and possible in the US- not to hunker us down in a fear bunker and limits our hope to simply surviving the current crisis. There is power in words, and if I have to endure political rhetoric, at least this is the type I'd rather listen to.

That's what I'm talking about

I've been trying to reconcile some reading I've done on empires and the Christian church- especially as to how it relates to the USA and the American church- and how do you express those ideas without seeming unamerican or a far left socialist liberal? Here's a good attempt:
Oliver Thomas USAToday article.

Check it out and let me know what you think.

and another thing

I'll just start by saying that since noone ever comments on my posts, I have no filters and no feeling of censoring what I write about- I'm either a)too wordy and nobody reads the whole thing b) too boring or c)way too out there for anyone to throw me a lifeline. I suspect it's A, but its hard to tell. Anyway, since noone comments, I must not be ticking too many people off, or knowing the blogosphere, I'm sure I'd hear about it- although that is making the haughty assumption that ANYone reads this but me! Whatever the case, I'm having fun and noone else seems to want to join the ride on my crazy train so off I go!

The last few days I've been struck by a few of those inconsistency issues. Inconsistency is my hobgoblin. I dislike it. It seems to get worse around election season, and no wonder, what with candidates trying so hard to be all things to at least 51% of the people (in the right states). First is my observation that SOME of those who disagree with the assertion that climate change is man-made also happen to ascribe to the literal timeline of creation (6,000 years give or take). Now, how is it that in one argument you can say that the world is only 6,000 years old and that the fossil record and so forth are up for debate, and in the other argument say that we can't blame global warming in human activity when it can be scientifically be proven the earth has been warm in eons past. Yes, its true that the world has been warmer in eons past- when all the midwest was one giant carribean ocean, and loads of dinosaurs ate the swampy grass matter (and each other) in this humid (but also equitorial) environment. This is pre-ice age, and is dated to be over 100,000 years ago and more so! Which is impossible if the world is only 6,000 years old. So, if you're going to be consistent, you will have to admit that the current temperature quotients are the highest they've ever been in the last 6,000 years. So, since man came into the picture, the globe has gotten warmer. You can't have it both ways!

My second incosistency has to do with the Episcopal church (national) which is doing it's damnest (and I think that's the perfect word here) to fulfill the UN's millenial Development Goals, and do social outreach and all sorts of good 'work' to help those oppressed by our systemic sinful governments and empires while at the same time is so very quiet about two huge uses of money that they are involved with. One is the ongoing lawsuits and legal wrangling to hold onto property and assets and things of this world- as dioceses and parishes remove themselves from the church- "You can't have it- it's MINE!" There is also no response to many calls for financial transperancy on this matter nor any divulgence of exactly how much money is being spent to pay legal and lawyer fees. Secondly, they have been mute in regards to the Wall Street meltdown and corporate greed that is threatening to take down the world financial markets. Why? I think its because they own Wall Street- literally- because Trinity Church, Wall Street owns their whole block and rents it out to those self-same corporations involved with this sub-prime mortgage credit crunch asset CEO bonus oil rich meltdown of a mess we're in. That church and the national church (also in NYC) gain amazing amounts of wealth from their own stocks, money markets, mutual funds and so forth. Trinity even has its own parish conference center in Connecticut. How much money do we need to simply sustain our pretty buildings? A lot I guess, to pay the lawyers. But meanwhile we dare to call the government of say, Germany, out on their reluctance to relinguish 3rd world debt? The last I read it, Jesus said to go and sell all you own and follow him. But I guess that's a little unclear in these uncertain times.

Cynically yours and longing for consistency- Smitty

OK maybe I'm not so crazy

Here's a link to an article about Wachovia turning into a subsidiary of Citigroup. Why? Because their bad risks and debt were too much. A global financial meltdown... a couple of weeks ago that was just crazy talk. Now- well- anyone know the best way to stash money in a mattress?

On a tangent to that- I am reminded of the proverb "The love of money is the root of all evil." Maybe the church and Christians need to remind themselves of what it means to be subjects of a heavenly kingdom, and that Capitalism, or even Democracy, are not synonymous with Christianity. I give big props to my friend Lindsay who said "Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a govenor." Hmm. Now I'm not just a prophet of doom, but a fledgling socialist to boot. And I'm just trying to be a faihful follower of Jesus.

Bring it on.

I'm further out than I need to be, but...

See, back when I was doing some research about Wal Mart, I came across some information that was a little arcane and obscure for most regular cocktail party rants I might make about the retail behemoth's shortcomings (in my mind). It is my usual anti-Wal-mart fare to talk about their under-insured workers, or forced overtime or discrimination towards women and so forth. No, this is a little more indepth and even bordered on conspiracy theory radical. See, what I found out while looking up info on the Securities and Exchange website, is that while Wal-mart is a publically traded company, all of its holdings are off-shore. They have not 1, not 2, but at least 5 offshore banks. Mostly Cayman island accounts- one in Euros, one in British Sterling, one in gold. You get the picture. Or do you? None of their money is in US banks. This is where my paranoia crept in and came up with a possible, although not so probable at the time, theory.
What if, I said, there was some sort of financial meltdown, and somehow China and Japan and several other countries, called in the debt. You know- that 5 trillion dollar thing that has grown into being since 2000. The same debt that is being bought up and serviced by countries like China (well over 50% is owned in treasury bills by foreign countries). I mean, what are the chances really? What, besides an entire global crisis, or the chance to own our resources and land, and people, would make China do such a thing? And let's say for the sake of argument they do call in this chunk of change- where does the US government turn to pay the bill? I mean, will China take "we're bankrupt" for an answer? So, the US turns to its banks for the cash. Whoops. They have extended so many bad mortgages and credit lines that they too are out of cash! So, let's go to the largest, most profitable industries and companies to loan the US the cash they need- in fact, let's assume they are unwilling, and for the sake of keeping us from having to turn over the deed to Alaska, we take action to actually seize some of their assets. Guess what? We can't touch most of those funds (which would be substantial) because they are held off shore. So, while Wal-mart (and their friends who do the same things) will have all the money they can make by continuing to inflate the trade deficit by consuming Chinese products, they may not have a country in which to continue their enterprise. Although, maybe communist China will change their stance on private enterprise when they own us.
NOW, before you all give me great instructive comments on how that can't really happen, and I am woefully ignorant on my international trade knowledge, please keep in mind that I am talking far out "what-ifs", and I already said it is improbable. I am just spinning a larger hyperbolic narrative to say that sometimes we should pay attention to little details like where the largest US private employer keeps its money. And, which of the two possible next administrations is likely to change how that happens, and which is likely to pretend there is no problem while pushing its cart down the mega-store aisle.

great video on outdoor learning

OK- so I haven't really kept up with everything out there, but apparantly, there is a bill in congress right now called "No child left Inside" to encourage outdoor learning and ecological education. It is supposed to be up for a vote this week- but here is a link with a cool video:
video

and here is the link to show its current status- due up for a vote on Thursday Sept 11th. Neocons decry it saying it will take away from traditional teaching time- which in my world translates into less worksheets for my kids to mindlessly fill out. I'm not usually given to tree-hugging liberalism, but I am definitely in support of this initiative.

HR 3036. Its a start.

Live from the RNC.....it's ??

Given Sarah Palin's remarkable resemblance to former SNL anchor Tina Fey, it took me awhile during her speech at the Republican Convention to take Gov. Palin seriously. For much of the speech, which was well delivered and well paced(she is a charismatic speaker, regardless of content), I kept taking in the hyperbole waiting for it to finally crest over the top. You know how it goes on an SNL political spoof, they start by talking basic ideals and thoughts, making more and more outlandish statements until they are finally saying things like "I think we should all run naked on the lawn." or "All broccoli will now be outlawed." You know.

So as Sarah Palin spoke first about her family and upbringing, I followed along- anticipating where we were going with this. Then came the support statements for McCain- OK, now we're building- and then finally, when we hit the attacks on the opposition, I almost wanted to start laughing. I say almost, because it was obvious there were many people who were absolutely supporting this line of thinking- this was no send-up of politics, this was the actual thing. And don't get me wrong, I am not belittling Palin or the RNC or its delegates- they happen to share some of my ideals. And yes, I know, there is more than enough political hyberbole for both sides to use and skew- and they do- early and often. Still, I am ready to turn off the TV now, and tune out until November. Because whether or not it feels like it should be a humorous sketch- it has stopped being amusing.

Never be Mine

It happens a couple of times of year. Sometimes I think it is brought on because of a conversation, a random thought, or because the cool magazine came in the mail. Somehow I am reminded of Sewanee, or The University of the South, and I usually end up having a dream about how I am back there trying to finish up. See, I started off at Sewanee- a small liberal arts Episcopal college in Tennessee. 10,000 acres with a gothic/Oxford inspired campus nestled on a remote part of the Cumberland Plateau. I went there sight unseen. A college visit had not ever worked itself out, so based on their slick photos and the testimony of one of my best friends, Mike, who was also headed there- off I went. Despite the student enforced dress code of coats and ties for men and skirts and dresses for women, I was still drawn to the amazing blend of natural surroundings and major liberal arts emphasis. I thouroughly enjoyed my time there- and was just on the verge of getting my gown, when my Dad insisted I transfer. It was a no-brainer for him when you compared the cost of that small school's tuition with the cost and opportunity offered by the in-state options of UNC and the like.

Don't get me wrong, God had other plans for me, and my transfer to UNC worked out in really amazing ways. I doubt my life would have taken the same path of youth ministry and camp work without having been back in NC. I had the opportunity to major in something that fit me well (speech communications) and take some classes that wouldn't have happened as an English major at Sewanee. I really did move on and embrace life as it came. I don't spend a great amount of time thinking I should have stayed, or regretting that I tranferred. I also managed to avoid some destructive behaviors I was being drawn towards as well- so that was a definite positive. Plus, I gained a sports team to pull for!

Still, a couple of times a year I have this dream about being back at Sewanee and trying to finish- sometimes I am college aged, sometimes I am the age I am now. Sometimes I am married, sometimes I am not. Sometimes I have my gown and I'm getting ready to take my comps! (I actually didn't mind not having to do those). Whatever the case, it's unfinished business in some way- something I will never get to complete. So, since the big alumni magazine came in the mail today (how I am considered an alum is still kind of curious to me) and since I was reviewing my days of canoe racing while thinking of Olympic paddling events, and since I wrote this blog, I'll expect one of those unfinished dreams soon!

We went west with the young men!

vacation photos-Colorado, Utah, New Mexico

Old MacDonald had a what?

OK- so my kids sometimes watch this show called Barnyard- its a spin off from the movie of the same title. Computer animated farm animals have a secret life of pizza orders, movies, joyrides in the farmer's truck. They usually walk on 2 legs when the humans aren't around- lots of plot lines revolving around not getting exposed as talking rational animals. I have a couple of issues with it though. The first is just a silly thing- but goes back to my point about how far removed from an agrarian lifestyle we've come. The main character on the show is a cow named Otis- its a male cow, or as some might call him a bull, or if he's had some modifications, a steer. He's definitely a male- male name, male pronouns, has boys' nights out, whole show about being a long lost son of another cow etc. He also happens to have an udder. You know- large pink round thing with nipples sticking out of it- cow's udder. Only female cows have udders- males have other appendages in that area. No one seems to care. Probably most kids wouldn't recognize him as a cow if he didn't have an udder- all cows have udders, right? Wrong. But obviously not an issue for the Japanese animators. (maybe cows are different there?)
Second complaint has to do with a ferret who is best friends with a chicken. Obvious carnivore/herbivore conflict there- but he has chosen the alternative lifestyle of being a vegetarian and he and his 'best friend' live in the same barn stall together happily. Do we really need to push the PC barriers so far? I mean this is way over kids' heads, but I think most adults would get the idea of acceptance for psuedo gay stall mates and gender-bending cows.
Most people would say, "its just a cartoon show- get over it" and for the most part I am- just felt like venting, because when its on and I tell my kids to try and find something else to watch, they wouldn't understand these dilemmas I have. This is why I have a blog- to get this stuff out of my head. You can go back to your regularly scheduled programs now.