Category Archives: Uncategorized

Puppy Tales, Part 16

puppy

We’re more than a year now into dog ownership and we’ve learned plenty about the emotional and mental differences between dogs and cats.

My wife and I have been lifelong cat owners/lovers. We’ve understood during our many years together that cats can be at the same time lovable while not caring one little bit about anything or anyone else.

Not so with Toby the Dog.

Our puppy possesses a serious streak of jealousy.

You see, my wife takes care of a couple of little boys; one of them just turned 3, the other one is not quite six months of age. The brothers are sweet little boys but as you can imagine, the younger one requires quite a bit of attention.

So does Toby.

My wife has become expert at multi-tasking as it regards the kids and the puppy.

And with Toby following her around like a little four-legged shadow, she needs to be an expert.

Toby does not snap at the little guy. He doesn’t growl at him. He doesn’t make any gestures toward him that are remotely hostile.

Oh, no. Instead, he just insists — relentlessly! — that his “mother” pay him at least as much attention as she pays the little boy.

He demands she throw his toys around the house. He loves to fetch ’em and bring ’em back. He jumps on her lap whenever she is tending to the little guy’s needs. Toby puts his paws on her leg, demanding that she look at him, talk to him, do something — anything — with him to keep him busy.

Our kitty, Mittens? Oh, she keeps a low profile while the boys are here. She might venture out to grab a bite of food or a drink of water — but only when they’re both napping. She’ll look at us as the tiptoes through a room en route to whatever she intends to do. And the look usually is one of “OK, folks, you do what you’re going to do; I’m just going about my business.”

Toby the Dog is another matter. Completely and entirely.

How does he know we love him? We tell him so. Repeatedly.

Why? Because he demands it.

 

 

Landline = lifeline . . . still

Modern black business office telephone with the receiver off the hook isolated on a white background

Another friend of mine has announced he’s cutting himself loose.

He’s my age. A peer. A former colleague. A friend to this day.

He and his wife are cutting the cord, so to speak, by ending their landline telephone service. I guess they’re going to be a cell phone family.

My wife and I have wrestled with that issue for nearly as long as we’ve owned cell phones, which isn’t as long as most of our peers. We’ve waffled and wavered. We just cannot cut the cord ourselves.

Our sons are cell phone-only telecommunications consumers. They like it that way. They take their phones with them wherever they happen to be.

Us? We remain tethered to the landline.

We’ve had them our entire lives. They have become part of who we are, I reckon.

Do we intend to stay tied to the home phone, the landline for the rest of our lives? I doubt it, strongly.

I’ve noted on this blog about our upcoming retirement plans. They include significant amounts of time on the road. We’ll, quite obviously, be spending less time “at home” and more time in our “home away from home,” our fifth wheel.

Thus, it makes little sense for us to keep the landline. Correct?

I get it. My wife gets it. Our sons no doubt snicker at us for being so, oh, wedded to the old way.

Too bad.

For now and for the foreseeable future, we’re going to stay hooked to the landline. I cannot explain precisely why we want it that way. We just do.

When the moment presents itself, when it’s time to cut ourselves free of the telephone line, we’ll know it when it arrives.

 

 

 

 

MLK Jr.’s dream still unfulfilled

gty_march_on_washington_martin_luther_king_ll_130819_16x9_992

Banks are closed today. We won’t get any mail. The nation is observing the birthday of one of our greatest Americans.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be 87 if he were alive today.

His life came to a violent end on April 4, 1968. Yet we remember him today for the message he left behind, which was to seek change through peaceful means.

His greatest moment during his brief time among us? It had to be that speech on Aug. 28, 1963, at the Washington Mall, under the shadow of Abraham Lincoln’s Memorial.

We know it as the “I Have a Dream” speech. It’s been reported before but I want to mention it once again here.

The guts of the speech — the part of it that resonates to this very day — was delivered extemporaneously.

The first two-thirds of Dr. King’s address was fine. It flowed nicely.

Then came the rhetorical riff that stands for all time. The part where he told us of his dream that black children and white children can play together, how the world could sing out “Free at last, thank God almighty, we are free at last!”

Watch it here.

The improvisation came reportedly at the urging of legendary gospel singer Mahalia Jackson, who was on the podium with Dr. King and others that day. “Tell them about your dream, Martin,” she urged the great man.

And he did. He delivered. The world cheered at that moment.

Yes, we’ve made great strides since then. Congress has passed laws guaranteeing all Americans their basic civil rights and the right to vote. We’ve witnessed symbols of racial oppressions taken down from public squares. We have blended public school systems that had been separated by the race of students.

More work remains. Perhaps there will always be work to do.

However, today we remember a young Baptist preacher whose soaring rhetoric took a nation a huge step forward to the day when our dreams indeed will come true.

Happy birthday, Dr. King.

 

Many lessons bigger than a game

102514-SW-Trevonne-Boykin-PI-3.vadapt.620.high.95

The sting from that football game last night is lingering.

The University of Oregon blew a 31-point lead to lose to Texas Christian University in triple overtime 47-41. No need to revisit the second-half collapse of my Ducks.

Instead, I want to say something good about TCU head coach Gary Patterson, who made a decision two days before the game that was both difficult and easy at the same time.

His all-Universe quarterback Trevone Boykin got into a bar fight in San Antonio and then took a swing at a police officer. He was arrested, taken to jail and then released on bail.

Patterson had a decision to make: let the kid play or suspend him from the game. He chose the latter. On one hand, he could have let the kid play the game pending a “full review” of the incident; on the other hand, he had set down a set of principles and rules of conduct for his players to obey and he couldn’t possibly let any of them — including his star quarterback — abide by a different set of rules.

The outcome of the Alamo Bowl contest has little to do with this commentary here. Patterson made the correct call and in the process, it is my hope that he taught his young quarterback a life lesson that he’ll take with him as he proceeds farther into adulthood.

Someone said  prior to the game that Boykin blew it by night-clubbing and then swinging at the cop just two days before the big game. No, the timing of the incident had nothing to do with anything. Boykin should have behaved like a responsible adult regardless of his standing as a star quarterback for a nationally ranked college football team.

Boykin issued what I believe is a heartfelt apology to his teammates, to the university and to the Horned Frogs’ fans who — I am quite certain — thought it would be curtains for their team as they took the field against the Ducks.

It didn’t turn out that way.

My hope now for Boykin is that he’s learned his lesson. And my hat goes off to Coach Patterson for making a decision that well might save a young man from further shame.

 

Yes, Mr. Justice, ‘religious neutrality’ is in the Constitution

No-religious-test-of-office-320x1241

I am about to do something that gives me the heebie-jeebies. I am going to challenge a premise by one of the nine people who serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia told a group of high school students this weekend in New Orleans that the U.S. Constitution does not compel “religious neutrality.”

Well, Mr. Justice, I believe it does.

Scalia, a deeply religious Roman Catholic, told the students that the Constitution prohibits government from adhering to a specific religion, but it does not compel government to ban references to religion in general.

He said it’s all right for government officials to invoke God in public.

Sure it is. Presidents of both parties have been ending public speeches for as long as I can remember — and that goes back a ways — with the words ” . . .  and may God bless the United States of America.”

But I have been reading the Constitution since I was old enough to read anything and I can find precisely two uses of the word “religion” or “religious” in that document. It’s in Article VI, where it says there shall be “no religious test” required of any individual seeking any public office at any level in the United States of America; and it’s also in the very First Amendment, where it says Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ”

The rest of it is secular by design.

I agree with Justice Scalia that “God has been good to us” as a nation. But he seems to be getting a bit ahead of himself when he implies that “religious neutrality” seems intended to deprive Americans the right — or the desire — to worship as they see fit.

The individuals who founded this nation knew exactly what they were doing when they created the Constitution. They meant for it to be free of religious dogma. Yes, some have taken that intent too far by suggesting that we should remove “In God We Trust” from courtroom walls or from our currency.

However, I happen to quite comfortable with “religious neutrality” as it relates to our government.

I’m still free to go to church and pray to God. I will do so again today.

 

Back home safe; no errors

park

This is the latest in an occasional series of blog posts commenting on upcoming retirement.

I am happy to report that my wife and are now measuring — partially at least — the success of our fifth wheel trips by the absence of rookie errors.

We’re still fairly new in this RV traveling experience, but we’re finding it easier as we undergo the growing pains associated with this new lifestyle.

We have just concluded an eight-day jaunt through much of north and central Texas. We spent Christmas evening with our son, daughter-in-law and grandkids in Allen; and, oh yeah, we had those hideous tornadoes to contend with the next night.

We got through it all, had a wonderful time, saw “Star Wars” with our son, played with our granddaughter who’s starting to refer to us as something that sounds vaguely like “Ma-Maw” and “Pa-Paw.”

But, hey, Emma is not yet 3, so that’ll likely change. We’ll settle on whatever she wants to call us . . . just as long as she calls, you know?

Then it was off to San Marcos, which is roughly halfway between San Antonio and Austin, where we visited with one of our nieces, her husband, their two daughters and my wife’s brother,  all of whom live in or right near Austin.

After three nights there, we headed toward home and spent another night at San Angelo State Park. We cooled our jets, got a good night’s sleep and rolled onto the Texas Tundra, where we discovered someone had plowed the snow off our street — and into a large pile right in front of our home.

We’re learning out way through this RV business. It’s getting easier each time out, although we’ve learned not to take anything for granted.

I’m not sure when we’ll become experts at it. Frankly, I like being forced to think about ensuring we don’t cut corners too tightly, or making sure we put the wastewater cap back before we shove off.

But we’ve already begun thinking about the next excursion.

And, of course, the next big adventure.

 

 

Daughter followed Dad into legendary status

HOLLYWOOD, CA - MAY 31:  Singer Natalie Cole attends a ceremony honoring David Foster with the 2,499th star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on May 31, 2013 in Hollywood, California.  (Photo by Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images)

It’s rare when the child of a legendary performer becomes a legend in her own right.

When the news broke today of the death of Natalie Cole, I kept reading the word “legendary” to describe the singer’s career.

She was the daughter of one of American music’s greatest singers . . . ever! Nat “King” Cole died in 1965 at a much-too-young age.

His daughter, Natalie, who Dad once said “had it” as a youngster, would outlive her father by a good bit.

She was troubled by issues of her own: drug abuse that produced hepatitis C. She died today of complications from hep C.

It saddens beyond measure to hear of this latest loss.

Then again, I am proud that Natalie Cole stood tall in the face of her struggles. She had been sober for many years. She fought back. She continued to dazzle audiences with her magnificent voice.

What’s more, she never backed down from what troubled her. She spoke openly about her difficulty with drugs. In that context, Natalie Cole became a role model.

This 65-year-old woman did not bask in her father’s reflected glory. She left her own giant footprint in an entertainment industry that demands much of the children of great entertainers.

Natalie Cole delivered.

 

Taking aim at … political correctness

Pc

Political correctness has become Public Enemy No. 1 . . . if you’re a Republican Party presidential candidate.

Those GOP debates have featured full frontal attacks from the candidates on that nefarious character called political correctness.

It gives them license, I suppose, to say whatever they want regardless of its offensiveness, ignorance or stupidity.

I want to take up for political correctness as it’s been defined by those who blame it for every national ailment under the sun.

I know. You’re surprised beyond belief.

Political correctness is not the bogeyman that candidates have identified as the enemy. Yes, there are times when PC language can go too far, when people who use it do so because they are afraid of committing the slightest offense.

But the anti-PC rhetoric we’re hearing on the campaign trail is aimed at candidates who insist that there should be nuance when talking about international diplomacy. They level their verbal fire at candidates — and current officeholders — who decline to use certain language to describe the enemies with whom we are at war. They seek to attach the PC label simply to those who choose to disagree with them, with their gratuitously harsh language.

So, the enemy now becomes political correctness.

The audiences who hear the candidates lambaste those who prefer to speak more precisely cheer them on. They like what they consider to be “bold” rhetoric; others of us watching and listening from the political peanut gallery would describe it more as “reckless.”

From where I sit, reckless rhetoric can — and quite often does — lead to consequences that produce lots of collateral damage in places where it’s hard to repair.

So, when I hear presidential candidates lampoon political correctness from their opponents, I am going to presume for the rest of this election cycle that those who support them accept the bluster that pours out of the candidates’ mouths.

However, will they accept the potential consequences that it produces?

 

Austin needs a new interstate highway

traffic-austin

SAN MARCOS, Texas — The drive from north of Dallas to just south of the state’s capital city went virtually without a hitch.

Until we got to Austin.

We spent four glorious days in Allen with our granddaughter Emma, her parents and her brothers. Then we headed south for some more Christmas vacation time. In the next day or so we’ll gather with our nieces, one of our niece’s husband, our two great-nieces and my wife’s brother.

Then we’ll head home.

I intend fully to avoid Austin on the way home. Coming through the city this afternoon was no picnic.

Don’t misunderstand: We had no mishaps. We didn’t come to a complete stop at any point on our journey through what’s known in Texas as “The People’s Republic of Austin”; hey, this last Lone Star bastion of liberal politics needs a term of endearment.

But it was around 2 p.m. as we entered the city. It’s the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day. The traffic isn’t supposed to be this clogged; aren’t many millions of Americans supposed to be taking some time off — at home?

I’ve concluded that Austin needs another interstate highway, an east-west thoroughfare to take some of the stress off that demolition derby track aka Interstate 35.

I read somewhere not long ago that Austin (population that exceeds 800,000 residents) is the largest city in America with just a single interstate highway coarsing through it. I-35 runs north-and-south through the city. There ain’t one that runs perpendicular through Austin, which as most of us know is going through some serious growing pains. Everyone seems to want to live there.

Even though Austin is enduring this growth spurt and with traffic bound to get only worse as more people migrate there, the city is faced with this political reality: It is a Democratic bastion in a heavily Republican state; what’s more, Congress is controlled by Republicans, which would seem to make it problematic if the city hopes to acquire federal highway money to route an interstate highway spur through Austin.

Infrastructure improvements — you know, highways and other things like that — used to be above and beyond politics.

That was then, which of course bears little resemblance to the here and now.

 

Governor allows clerks to hide their names

AP_kim_davis_mm_150901_4x3_992

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin took office and immediately issued a series of executive orders. Let’s look at one of them.

It no longer requires county clerks to put their names on marriage licenses. Can we hear an “amen!” from Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk who refused to do her job as required by law, and her oath, on the grounds that issuing such licenses to gay couples violated her religious beliefs?

Bevin’s order intends to protect the religious rights of county clerks who object to issuing the licenses on religious grounds.

I believe the main issue here is whether county clerks — who take an oath to protect and defend their state and federal constitutions — are obligated to marry anyone who seeks a license. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that all citizens are guaranteed equal rights and protection under the law and it makes no stipulations about their sexual orientation.

If Gov. Bevin’s order now guarantees that all Kentucky residents can now seek and receive legal marriage licenses, without regard to whom they are marrying, then he’s done the right thing.