I took my ten stomach staples and wife out to the drinking club late yesterday afternoon. Yup, that's me: too ill to work but well enough to drink. My Uncle Joe is in town. I used to see him anywhere from four to 100 times a year (I lived with him for one summer and lived a mile from him during another summer). Now that he's retired and living in Florida, I see him only twice a year. I didn't feel like drinking yesterday, but wanted to see my uncle and he felt like going to the drinking club, so I went out and ordered a tall amber, then a short one. The tall one went down well, the short one pushed me a bit. I committed the cardinal sin and left it on the table, unfinished. I came home and went to bed early.
These cases are getting old, but new ones will keep cropping up: An Illinois high school student is in federal court seeking the right to wear T-shirts that declare sentiments such as "Be happy, not gay." The homosexual world view is simply an opposite of the Judeo-Christian. A Christian can't be pro-gay anymore than he can be pro-Nazi. As long as the world views continue to collide, there can be no accommodation, and these conflicts will keep cropping up.
To the homosexual, children should be encouraged to act on their homosexuality [later addendum: or to affirm their homosexuality]. To teach them otherwise (e.g., to teach them that sodomy is bad) is a form of child abuse. I'm not making this up. They believe homosexuality is a good thing, not a cross to be borne. If they're right and homosexuality is a good thing and some people are born with that good thing, it's wrong to take it away from them, it's wrong to allow them to be harassed in a public environment that protects other people and their special interests, and it's wrong to allow discrimination in public accommodation (assuming, of course, that things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are a good thing).
No strong opinion on this yet:
Houston state Sen. Dan Patrick wants the state to pay $500 to women who give their babies up for adoption instead of aborting them, an idea some say borders on baby selling.
I lean in favor of it. Put aside the question of whether the state should be involved in such things. Five hundred dollars won't act as an incentive for women to get pregnant. It's not baby selling (after the baby is saved, it'll go through normal adoptive procedures). It'll prevent murders. I'm not sure it'll be a great incentive, but $500 for a life saved? Seems like a fairly small cost, and it sends the right "life message."
I won't show this to my addict sons:
U.S. researchers have found that playing is actually good for your eyes, and despite all those dire warnings from your parents, it won't make you blind.
A study by the University of Rochester showed that people who played action video games for a few hours a day over the course of a month improved their vision by about 20 percent.
The sit-down urinators cometh: More "men" are taking their wives's last name. I guarantee you this: These marriages have a higher chance of failing. Mock if you like my gross generalization, but I'm tellin' ya: They're inherently unstable . . . the men and the marriages. I'm sure there are exceptions, but any guy who takes his wife's last name and abandons his own is either (i) missing something in the virility category or (ii) such a free-thinker that he doesn't believe in anything, including, I have a hunch, the obligation to stay with his wife forever.
