{Originally Posted on Clotted Cognition}
When my mother moved back to Dallas in 1989 she bought this town home. It’s a gorgeous place, one that almost takes your breath away when you walk in. The street was one that had been taken over by architecturally designed town homes that were mostly higher end and populated by people without children. In general, the people in those town homes were older, retired, or better off young professionals. It was close-ish to the predominantly gay area in Dallas, so there were several gay couples as well. The street was named Travis Street and it was also the street on which my first home stood, 40 years ago last month.

We used to see one of those gay couples out walking every day. Well, one would walk and push the other in a wheelchair. Their love and devotion to each other was clear and I remember thinking that I hoped I would find that sort of devotion someday, too. Unless you’ve experienced what it’s like to take care of a once healthy partner, I don’t think the sacrifice is truly imaginable. This couple continued to take their walks, to slowly make their way down the street to get a glimpse of the life outside, traveling the street as any couple would who had been together for a long time.

And then, the man in the wheelchair died. This was sad enough and devastating, I am sure, for his partner. But the sadness was not to end to there, nor was the devastation going to be small. Instead of being allowed to grieve in his own home, surrounded by his own memories of times had in loving company, the family of the man who died, the man who owned the home and its contents in legal name only, unceremoniously kicked the grieved partner out onto the street. How could they do such a thing? Easy: with all legal recourse. They didn’t care that the man they were throwing out onto the street has cared for their relative when they were nowhere to be seen; he had assuredly cleaned up after the inevitable failures of the man’s body and had still found a way to push him down the street every single day. They didn’t care that the man they were throwing out had loved their relative as they clearly never had, nor did they care that this man was a human being.

{Originally published by George Kock on Dr. J and Mr. K}

The National Post marked the passing of the giant of human freedom, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, with some excellent commentary, especially this column by Robert Fulford.

But on Sunday evening, when news first came on the CTV of Solzhenitsyn’s death, I said to Mrs. K.: “Bet they get through the whole thing without uttering the word ‘Communism’.” And they did!

The anchor and reporter of course performed the obligatory scolding of “Stalinism” – even as they discussed all the suffering Solzhenitsyn endured in the…60s and 70s.

The news article alongside Fulford’s Tuesday column also mentioned Stalin several times…but never Communism in general. What’s up with that?

If it was all about Stalin, why was Solzhenitsyn such a threat to the Soviet state two decades after the monster’s death? His life is eloquent testimony that there was no such discontinuity in the minds of the perpetrators.

Solzhenitsyn himself travelled on a lengthy intellectual journey – one that would involve untold suffering and superhuman courage – from laying his life on the line for the Soviet Union, to opposing what he initially saw as the “excesses” of Stalin, to the realization that the camps were intrinsic to totalitarianism, that Communism required them, and that Communism itself was utterly destructive of humanity.

Solzhenitsyn learned this lesson on behalf of all humanity. So why have so many of today’s journalists and politicians unlearnt it?

Here’s what Leonid Brezhnev, Soviet top autocrat in the 70s, had to say about Solzhenitsyn (as cited in the Fulford column):

By law, we have every basis for putting him in jail. He has tried to undermine all we
hold sacred: Lenin, the Soviet system, Soviet power – everything dear to us.

If you’re going to trust a Commie thug (albeit one with an eye for Western dollybirds, as the infamous shot of Brezhnev leering at Jill Ireland or Jill St. John attests) on any subject, it’s this one: the brutalities of the predecessors were no outlier, no aberration. They were central: “dear to us.” Who could say it better?

Brezhnev showed a candour over what Solzhenitsyn represented, and of the regime’s continuity with Stalin, that’s lacking in today’s leftists and journalists.

{Originally posted on EyeJunkie.com}

Cultural Context:
A tradition dating to the ancient Greek games which calls for a halt to fighting during the Olympic games, ensuring the athletes’ safe passage to and from the events. Olympic gold medalist Joey Cheek (speedskating, 2006) has called for the tradition to be revived with a cease fire in the Darfur region during this summer’s Beijing games. He also founded an organization called Team Darfur which encourages athletes to play a part in raising awareness and bringing an end to the crisis.

On August 5, the Chinese government revoked Cheek’s previously issued visa, preventing him from attending the Olympic games in Beijing just one week before he was scheduled to arrive. Although the government was not required to state the reasons for disallowing Cheek, it is widely believed the decision was in response to his work for peace in Darfur and his criticism of China’s lack of action in the region. Team Darfur has expressed concerns that other athletes are being discouraged from expressing views about the issues as well. Read the AP article here.

Sad.

{Originally published on greeblemonkey}

Basically, here’s the deal. Seeing as June and July have been a complete BLUR, I have really not paid any attention to my family, much less the news till right about, oh, 60 seconds ago. So, when Bryan brought up the South Carolina license plate controversy, he got a big. fat. blank. stare.

After the obligatory Fill-Aimee-In-On-The-Stuff-She-Has-Been-Missing Conversation, and a few Google searches, I started to get mad. REALLY mad. In a nutshell, South Carolina has authorized a vanity license plate with the words “I Believe” plus the image of a stained glass window and a CROSS over top of it. Clearly an indication that “I Believe” in Jesus Christ. CLEARLY a violation of the separation of church and state.

Have they lost their minds?

But before I go any further with my indignation over this situation, whatever happened to the POINT of a license plate in the first place? WHY does every state have 15,000 variations of design? I know this sounds crazy coming from a graphic designer, but here lies the place where my design sensibilities hit the road, Jack. The PURPOSE of a license plate is for you, me and any random police officer to IDENTIFY a car at a glance. How am I supposed to do that when someone can purchase their own oh-so-special Buffy The Vampire Slayer license plates? What happened to ONE STATE, ONE PLATE? This *is* like an official testament from the holy mother of all departmental clusterfracks, the Department of Motor Vehicles, right? So, not only are you going to make it harder for me to identify the person who just sideswiped me, you are also going to make it harder for me to get through that everlasting line because Granny Smith can’t decide between the University of Florida or Florida State University - you see, she has a grandson at both schools, don’t you know! And maybe she could just get one plate from each and put them at either end of the car??? Wouldn’t that be special!? OH, SHUT UP.

One state, one plate.

And NONE of them should be religious.

{Originally Published on The Dr. Laura Blog}

I am extremely disappointed in the choice of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate of the Republican Party. I will still vote for Senator McCain, because I am very concerned about having a fundamental leftist, especially one who is a marvelous orator, as President.

At first, I thought it amusing that McCain picked a pretty, smart, and tough female to counter the racist/sexist accusations going back and forth between parties. I remember how Oprah Winfrey got caught in the cross-fire as she stepped up to the political table to support Obama with pride that a black man could rise to such heights in the USA, only to get slammed by feminists who told her it was gender, not race, that she should back. Understandably, Ms. Winfrey pulled back from it all.

Forget gender and race. I’m frankly and sadly caught in the dilemma of having to balance policy versus example in touting a candidate for the office of the First Family. I was ferociously attacked (what’s new?) when I spoke out strongly against Bill Clinton’s dalliances in the Oval Office. That situation quickly turned into a debate whether “private has anything to do with public.” Nonsense.

Role models are very important. Children and young adults look to those who are visible and successful as a road map of what is acceptable behavior and emulate those actions over the morals and values their parents and churches have taught and tried to reinforce. It’s a tough go these days, when the “bad that men or women do” is used for entertainment purposes without judgment, or is excused because of political or financial considerations.

I’m stunned - couldn’t the Republican Party find one competent female with adult children to run for Vice President with McCain?

Originally published on Bang the Drum

This has been my theme since last week when I attended the funeral of our friends’ daughter, a bright shining star who suffered from Cystic Fibrosis, diagnosed at age two. I talk at length about her on Newsgang (8/20), so I won’t go into too much detail here.

What I took away from the funeral of a girl who managed to live with a debilitating illness yet still graduate with honors from USC, get her masters in Montreal, and be weeks away from her doctorate at Penn State while traveling and speaking as much as she could is that she did not let one day pass without doing every single thing she could to reach her goals and did not allow herself the luxury of being distracted with anything that could bog her down, whether breathing treatments or self-pity.

She was remarkable. And inspiring. Even though I knew her, had seen her every week, worked alongside her for a couple of years, I didn’t know her at all.

(click title for more)

Originally Published on the Pondering Penguin

When my husband and I purchased our first home, in 1985, the mortgage
was financed by Countrywide Financial. That name may sound familiar to
you now, given the recent news coverage of the sub-prime mortgage
‘crisis’. Allegedly, according to politicians like Barack Obama
remarking on the campaign trail about Countrywide Financial CEO, Angelo
Mozilo, the company takes advantage of “ignorant borrowers to make subprime loans it knew wouldn’t be paid off and then selling the loans
to the quasi-governmental Fannie Mae mortgage agency.” That from
Investor’s Business Day on June 17, 2008.

Obama, the candidate
of change, continues to surround himself with mouthpieces of the past.
In particular, Jim Johnson, the man selected by the candidate of change
to head up Obama’s vice-presidential search committee, is a long time
Democrate insider and, more importantly, money-man, had to leave the
campaign as the scandal develops and Johnson’s dealings with Mozilo and
Countrywide are exposed.

Two high ranking Democrat Senators,
Christopher Dodd who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, along with
the tag of former Presidential candidate and now supporter of Obama,
and Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota who chairs the Finance
Committee and sits on the Budget Committee, have fallen into the net
cast in by investigators.

Both Senators denied any sweetheart
deals and as recently as last month, Dodd had the chutzpah to rant on,
blaming President Bush for the subprime mortgage mess, as he was
praising a $400 billion bail out for the industry, including his buddy
Angelo. Yes, it’s Bush’s fault, it’s always Bush’s fault.

(click title for more)

Originally Published on June Cleaver Nirvana

Holly has been doing a lot of thinking. Holly has been doing extensive
investigating. Holly finds that the best solution to her problem may be
installing one of these:

Holly has decided that a porta-potty, johnnie-on-the-spot, porta-john may be her only option.

She has decided that this is the location for her new purchase:

Why would Holly who lives in a lovely suburban neighborhood in a house that could (but doesn’t) have a white picket fence with complete indoor plumbing choose to install a porta-potty, johnnie-on-the-spot, porta-john?

(click title for more)

Originally Published on Blue Like You: Conservative Musings

Today on Canada Day, the Toronto Sun features a debate between Lorrie Goldstein and Paul Berton titled Whoa Canada, which discusses possible reasons for a supposed lack of patriotism among some Canadian demographics.

However, a recent Harris-Decima poll found that a clear majority of Canadians are very proud of their country:

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey asking Canadians
to rank their pride in Canada on a scale of one to 10 found 57 per cent
gave it the highest mark.

Another 25 per cent gave it an eight or a nine, while just 3 per cent ranked their pride lower than a five.

Personally, I can’t think of a country I’d rather live in. However,
there are concerns bubbling under the surface that require our
attention. Jeffrey Simpson’s Globe editorial hones in on some issues that seem to be taboo in Canadian society today:

…Is it boredom, political correctness, entrenched
self-interest, self-satisfaction or moral superiority that creates so
many no-fly zones for debate in this curious country?

(click title for more)

Originally Published on Dr. J and Mr. K

The discussion in my last post about how the political left
advocates change of every sort yet appears terrified of any change in
the environment – or has adopted such a pose, at any rate – left the
environmental portion for another day.

(click title for more)