Mark's Views, Perhaps — from behind my eyeballs
The elderly man and I stood just outside the fog line on the busy-at-that-time two-lane highway. The strip of pavement between the fog line and the gravel is narrow at that point. The gravel shoulder is itself narrow before sloping down into the shallow, weedy ditch.
We have no crosswalk. We have no Ped Xing sign. We have no caution sign of any sort. We have no diminished speed zone. We have no Read it all
My road.
Phone in hand.
Also their lives.
And mine. And mine. (No, I’m not repeating myself; that’s an optical “illusion.”) Read it all
A week ago today, Kenneth Miller’s legal representative filed a motion to dismiss the case against his client.
I agree.
However, I still am uncomfortable at Read it all
Well, Congress, anyway. 🙄
Still, this is pretty funny.
And telling.
Of how the language continues to suffer twisting.
And of how words yield so easily to…ah…something.
Like vegetables. Read it all
I marked this for comment the morning of September 20.
Then I got busy.
Then I lost interest.
But here is just one excerpt from the story:
Capistrano Couple in Legal Battle for Hosting Bible Study in Home
“We don’t like lawsuits, but we have to stand up for what’s right. It’s not just a personal issue,” Stephanie Fromm said. “Can you imagine anybody in any neighborhood, that one person can call and make it a living hell for someone else? That’s wrong … and it’s just sad.”
They’ve been experiencing a living hell? 😯
Wow. 🙄
Cal Thomas published yesterday,
Intellectually, I understand the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision that the First Amendment protects the most violent of video games.
Well, I don’t understand.
Because I thought the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech.
But I can’t see that it says so expressly:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So we’re “stuck” with going by what it actually says.
I still say the modern-day usage of the First Amendment has become mangled, perverted, and distorted.
And inconsistent. For example, how does the government get away with fining broadcasters for using certain language on the air waves? And for another example, how come imaginary hate speech isn’t protected?
Politics.
Humanity.
Imperfection.
Oh well.
I must say, though, that I’m very thankful for the First Amendment.
And I’ll also say that I agree with Mr. Thomas’ closing statements:
In a perfect world, children would listen to, respect, and obey their parents. But this is far from a perfect world and parents could use occasional help from the state in preventing violent culture from undermining what’s in the best interest of the child, and the country. This ruling by the Supreme Court does not achieve that end.
Feds must stop writing gibberish under new law
One of my first thoughts upon reading that headline: “Yeah, right.”
Reflecting current family realities, another thought wasn’t long in coming: “Where do I apply?”
My thoughts aside, here’s some of what Calvin Woodward had to write for the AP:
The federal government is rolling out a new official language of sorts: plain English.
That’s right: Pursuant to regulations promulgated thereunder and commencing in accordance with a statute signed herein by President Barack Obama, the government shall be precluded from writing the pompous gibberish heretofore evidenced, to the extent practicable.
That sentence contains 11 new language no-nos.
Obama signed the Plain Writing Act last fall after decades of effort by a cadre of passionate grammarians in the civil service to jettison the jargon.
It takes full effect in October, when federal agencies must start writing plainly in all new or substantially revised documents produced for the public.
The government will still be allowed to write nonsensically to itself.
Now that is a funny line. And telling, too. But never mind. Read it all