Month: July 2005

It's Not All About You

One of my favorite secular commentators is Judith Martin, also known as Miss Manners. Martin often has a wildly hilarious, yet absolutely commonsense take on the details of everyday life. As a Catholic apologist, easily the bulk of the questions I get are on marriage, annulment, and weddings, so this article on planning weddings made me howl with laughter and nod with agreement:

"Have you considered doing something unusual and individualistic at your wedding — not personalizing it?

[…]

"But none of these advantages [mentioned in the column] is the reason Miss Manners urges bridal couples not to think of their weddings as opportunities to showcase themselves. The real reason is that despite what you think, and despite what you have been urged to think by the wedding industry, your wedding is not ‘about you.’

"Your courtship is about you, and your marriage will be about you. And unless you drag all your wedding guests off to an exotic destination, your wedding trip will be about you.

"But a wedding is about your public entrance into the civic and often religious rituals of the society. Its emotional strength comes from long continuity — knowing that you are repeating the steps of those who preceded you and those who will follow.

"It is a shame to trade that rich and momentous step for Madison and Brad’s Day to Show Off."

GET THE STORY. (If bothered by the Evil Registration Requirement, use BugMeNot.com.)

A Catholic might add a bit more to this, such as pointing out, as Fulton Sheen did in his book Three To Get Married, God’s role in the production, but Martin’s basic analysis is definitely spot-on.

It’s Not All About You

One of my favorite secular commentators is Judith Martin, also known as Miss Manners. Martin often has a wildly hilarious, yet absolutely commonsense take on the details of everyday life. As a Catholic apologist, easily the bulk of the questions I get are on marriage, annulment, and weddings, so this article on planning weddings made me howl with laughter and nod with agreement:

"Have you considered doing something unusual and individualistic at your wedding — not personalizing it?

[…]

"But none of these advantages [mentioned in the column] is the reason Miss Manners urges bridal couples not to think of their weddings as opportunities to showcase themselves. The real reason is that despite what you think, and despite what you have been urged to think by the wedding industry, your wedding is not ‘about you.’

"Your courtship is about you, and your marriage will be about you. And unless you drag all your wedding guests off to an exotic destination, your wedding trip will be about you.

"But a wedding is about your public entrance into the civic and often religious rituals of the society. Its emotional strength comes from long continuity — knowing that you are repeating the steps of those who preceded you and those who will follow.

"It is a shame to trade that rich and momentous step for Madison and Brad’s Day to Show Off."

GET THE STORY. (If bothered by the Evil Registration Requirement, use BugMeNot.com.)

A Catholic might add a bit more to this, such as pointing out, as Fulton Sheen did in his book Three To Get Married, God’s role in the production, but Martin’s basic analysis is definitely spot-on.

Amazing Dinosaur Invention: The Bone-Lung!

It appears that dinosaurs (or some dinosaurs) may have had air sacs in their bones, allowing them to circulate the air they breathed into their bones and then back into their lungs again, giving them an extra-efficient breathing system and allowing them to sustain the hot-blooded metabolism that many scientists now think they had.

Turns out, while dinos may have invented this system of utilizing air, they aren’t the only creatures that are known to use it.

Another, very common kind of critter also uses it . . . birds.

GET THE STORY.

British Teachers Want To Ban The "F" Word

Unfortunately, the "F" word is question isn’t the all too common one. That word will likely remain all too common.

No, it seems that many UK teachers are as nutty–excuse me–as barmy as many US teachers.

The "F" word that they want to ban from the classroom is "Fail."

That word could be too traumatic for the wee ones, so instead, the teachers making the proposal wish to speak of students having "deferred success."

GET THE STORY.

It’ll be interesting if this passes and they start to be really rigorous in shielding the children from the "F" word.

It’d mean teaching them that the Nazis had deferred success in their takeover of Europe.

Considering the current state of the European Union, that might not be inaccurate.

British Teachers Want To Ban The “F” Word

Unfortunately, the "F" word is question isn’t the all too common one. That word will likely remain all too common.

No, it seems that many UK teachers are as nutty–excuse me–as barmy as many US teachers.

The "F" word that they want to ban from the classroom is "Fail."

That word could be too traumatic for the wee ones, so instead, the teachers making the proposal wish to speak of students having "deferred success."

GET THE STORY.

It’ll be interesting if this passes and they start to be really rigorous in shielding the children from the "F" word.

It’d mean teaching them that the Nazis had deferred success in their takeover of Europe.

Considering the current state of the European Union, that might not be inaccurate.

Where No Justice Has Gone Before?

Combining the themes of the first two posts today (i.e., the Supreme Court and Star Trek), it’s worth noting that blogger Alan K. Henderson writes:

Kathryn Jean Lopez has a question she wants posed to John Roberts (link via Glenn):

"I’d like to know if Star Trek had an influence on John Roberts and, if so, what that influence was."

Here are some responses I don’t want to hear:

  • "It is a good day to die."
  • "Strength
    is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We
    will add your distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to
    service ours."
  • "My position on Roe? How much latinum is it worth to you?"
  • "Please state the nature of the legal emergency."
  • "From hell’s heart, I stab at thee. For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
  • "Setting dissent on stun."
  • "Don’t push your luck, pinkskin!"
  • "Engaging cloaking device." [dodging a question]
  • "Red alert! Raise shields!" [more dodging]
  • "Beam me out of here!" [yet more dodging]
  • "Really, Mr. Senator, you emotions will become your undoing."

Okay, maybe I do want to hear that last one [SOURCE].

Feel free to add your own inappropriate Star Trek answers in the combox.

Ted Kennedy Is Dangerously Unqualified!

Justice

Yesterday on Today, the senior senator from Massachusetts was holding forth on the subject of Pres. Bush’s new nominee to the Supreme Court and he (i.e., Kennedy) said the following:

    What these hearings are about are really the question and the challenge to make sure that we’re going have someone who stands on the side of working families, the middle class, of ordinary people, when you get right down to it.

    The American people during this process want to know is he [Roberts] going to be on the side of the major corporate interests or is he going to be on the (side of the) consumers’ interest? Will he be on the side of the polluters or will he be on the side of those that believe that the Congress had the right to pass important legislation on the environment? And will he be on the side of workers, or is he going to be on the side of the bosses? [SOURCE.]

Attention Sen. Kennedy! Judges are not supposed to be on the "side" of anybody! They are supposed to be impartial. That is why Justice is supposed to be "blind." If you don’t understand that, you are not qualified to assist the Senate in its "advise and consent" role in the nomination process! You are advocating the idea of judges who dispense justice in a biased manner. That is contrary to the virtue of justice itself.

The fact that Kennedy could say such things in public and expect them to be helpful to him and his Party is a sad commentary on how poorly educated in civics the American public is.