That Dinky Video

I mentioned somewhere that I would at some point put up a little phone video of myself playing a little ditty.  Well, it’s below the fold.  It’s an exercise from my Mel Bay Modern Guitar Method Grade 1 book – “Home on the Range”.  I should mention that I am using my Yamaha acoustic for this one because it’s Home on the Range.  I’ll put it below the fold.

Continue reading

My Precious

I started playing guitar again a few weeks ago.  I mostly use the Yamaha acoustic that I bought 13 years ago, but my dad gave me his old Guild Starfire III because he wasn’t playing it anymore.  He originally got it in the 60s and has played the hell out of it between teaching guitar and playing in several groups.  It was being a little wonky when I tried using it, sometimes playing, sometimes not.  I think I’m just going to take it to a shop that can service it (we have a licensed Guild dealer nearby).

Continue reading

It Kinda Did Redefine “Traditional” Marriage

This post on TPMd by Amanda Marcotte really opened my eyes about why conservatives made such a big deal about “traditional” marriage being destroyed but never really supported that conclusion with any kind of premise that made sense.

In reality, however, there was a subterranean argument that actually is logical and makes perfect sense. It was never just about man-woman marriages. The tradition that is disappearing is the belief that marriage is a duty, especially for women. As Douthat argues, Americans are rejecting “the old rules, its own hopes of joy and happiness to chase.”

Progressives had a wrong, or incomplete, definition of “traditional”.  The complaints about birth control and whether women should have control over their own bodies are all part of the same belief — that women should be under the thumb of a man and the hell with happiness and free choice and personal liberty.  That kind of marriage should die in a fire.

Reading Douthat, you do get a better idea of why conservatives see same-sex marriage as a threat to traditional marriage. It’s not because straight people won’t want to get married if gays are doing it, too. It’s because it redefines marriage as an institution of love instead of oppression.

This is the whole ball of wax right here.

Not a Presidential Issue?

So apparently, Mike Huckabee, running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, has decided that a symbol of racism is not an issue for a candidate who wants to be President of the United States needs to address.

 

“For those of us running for president, everyone’s being baited with this question as if somehow that has anything to do whatsoever with running for president, and my position is it most certainly does not,” Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and Baptist preacher, told NBC News on Sunday.

 

I have to wonder, though, if the racism symbolized by flying the flag of the traitors and armed insurrectionists who were in favor of keeping fellow human beings as property might be worthy of some sort of comment from someone who claims to have the correct morals to be president.

 

“If the state government of South Carolina wishes to address an issue in their state, that’s fine,” Huckabee continued Sunday. “If you can point me to an article and section in the Constitution in which a United States president ought to weigh in on what states use as symbols, then please refresh my memory on that.”

 

How about the Preamble, where we made the Constitution in order to promote the general welfare?  Or Provide for the common defense?  Or maybe, right there in the beginning, where we are hoping to form a more perfect union?  Is it really a more perfect union when a state government endorses a symbol that says, “We wish you were all still slaves” to a large part of its constituency?  How does that promote the general welfare of the people?

I’m guessing you have no problem condemning the swastika as a symbol of anyone not blonde-haired and blue-eyed being less than human.  Why can’t you say the same thing for the symbol of southern racism?

Baltimore

It has taken me a bit to get myself together over the latest episode of the police killing an unarmed black man.  And it turns out that Ta-Nehisi Coates said it far better than I ever could.

I think that this quote:

When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse.

covers the whole thing perfectly.

Religious Freedom 01

Guess what, people.  You get to practice your religion up to the point where you infringe on someone else’s life.  That’s it.  That’s the cut off.  That is as far as you can push your religion.  (In fact, that is as far as you can push anything you want to do.)  That’s all “religious liberty” means.  Because if you can force your religion onto someone else, then they don’t get to take part in this “Freeedom of Religion” the Framers thought so important that they put it into the very First Amendment.

Guess what else, people.  “Religious liberty” is not under assault.  Not in any way shape or form.  What is “under assault” — a horribly inaccurate term if there ever was one — is the privilege Christians have had until recently to force their religion on other people.  It really is as simple as that, and I dare someone to prove otherwise.

Continue reading

Economics and Budgets

I am not an economist.  I was a software engineer who decided to become a stay-at-home dad/Household Manager.  I had no course on Econ while in college.  I had a high school understanding of supply and demand.  A few months ago, I picked up “An Idiot’s Guide to Economics”.

Continue reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers