IRRESISTIBLE

 

THREE RESTAURANTS

There were three restaurants on the same block. One day one of them put up a large sign that said "The Best Restaurant in the City."

The next day, the largest restaurant on the block put up an even larger sign that said "The Best Restaurant in the World."

On the third day, the smallest restaurant put up a small sign that said "The Best Restaurant on this Block."


Cheers,

Paul (A.)

NOT JUST AN ISSUE, ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN

There you have it. Same-sex marriage is not a particularly controversial issue for the vast majority of the members of the Anglican Communion; their minds are on other things.  Thus the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England must speak against the passage of the bill making its way through Parliament which legalizes same-sex civil marriage in Britain.  I guess there's a kind of logic there, but I can't quite make it out.  Of course, the Church of England is the established church, which complicates the matter in ways I don't fully understand, but I don't see why the opinions of all the members of the churches in the Anglican Communion should affect legislation on civil marriage in Britain.

What about LGTB persons in England?  What does the Primate of All England offer in the way of pastoral care to same-sex couples who are members of the church and would like to be joined in a civil marriage ceremony?  Little in the way of empathy or compassion thus far.  An awareness that marriage equality is not simply an issue, but that the lives of real people will be affected by the legislation seems to be missing from the archbishop's commentary.  Let's hope the path is uphill from here.

Note: The interview took place before the vote in favor of the equal marriage bill in the House of Commons.  

THE ARC OF THE UNIVERSE BENDS TOWARD JUSTICE

As I've followed the struggle for marriage equality for LGTB persons, I see many similarities with the Civil Rights movement for equality for African-Americans here in the United States, which is not at all surprising as the fight for justice for any oppressed group will have parallels with the struggles of other groups.  Here in the US, the movement toward same-sex marriage equality is now state by state.  Gay marriage is legal in nine states: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont,  Washington, and the District of Columbia, with Illinois likely to follow soon.

Thanks to Colin Coward's real-time Facebook reports, I followed the debate in Britain's House of Commons on the bill to allow same-sex civil marriage in Britain preceding the overwhelming vote in favor.  The established Church of England's opposition to the bill, including a statement by the new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, is a puzzlement, but I've addressed the matter briefly elsewhere.

Thanks to Kelvin Holdsworth for the link to quotes and a video of one of the most eloquent speeches in favor of the bill by MP David Lammy from Tottenham.

Separate is not equal. 

But there are still those that say that this is all unnecessary.

“Why do we need Gay Marriage when we already have Civil Partnerships”, they say.

“They are the same - separate but equal”, they claim.
Let me speak frankly.

“Separate but equal” is a fraud.

 “Separate but equal” is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.

“Separate but equal” is the motif that determined that black and white could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets.

 “Separate but equal” are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers – schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty.

It is an excerpt from the phrasebook of the segregationists and the racists.

It is the same statement, the same ideas and the same delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote – but not until they were 30.

It is the same naivety that gave made my dad a citizen in 1956 but refused to condemn the landlords that proclaimed “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.

It entrenched who we were, who our friends could be and what our lives could become.

This was not “Separate but equal” but “Separate AND discriminated”,

 “Separate AND oppressed”.

 “Separate AND browbeaten”.

 “Separate AND subjugated”.

Separate is NOT equal, so let us be rid of it.

Because as long as there is one rule for us and another for them, we allow the barriers to acceptance to stand unchallenged.

Brilliant, heartfelt, and quite moving. 

Here is the link to the entire original speech that David Lammy intended to give but for the four-minute limit on backbench speeches.

UPDATE: France seems to have crossed a major hurdle in its progress toward the approval same-sex marriages. 

FROM A FRIEND IN THE NORTHEAST

 

Spotted on Middle Street in the Historic and Trendy Old Port Section of Portland! 

Why isn't your name FIRST? 

 --Wade

Because "B" comes before "M"? 

What it's all about.

TAKE THE MEDICAID EXPANSION FUNDS, GOVERNOR

From the Baton Rouge Advocate:

A varied group of organizations and individuals on Tuesday urged Gov. Bobby Jindal to agree to the Medicaid expansion included in the federal health care overhaul.

“Medicaid expansion could provide health coverage to 400,000 Louisianians, most of whom are currently uninsured, and bring in billions of new federal dollars. It will benefit Louisiana’s families, businesses, health care providers and the economy — all at little cost to the state budget,” the open letter to Jindal said.

Jindal — like other Republican governors — has consistently declined to embrace the key part of the Affordable Care Act, referred to as Obamacare. He claims it would be too costly for the state in the long run and there is not enough flexibility to design a program that meets state needs.

Jindal did not agree to be interviewed Tuesday, but his press office released a statement saying his position has not changed.

“Medicaid relies on an outdated model that costs taxpayers billions of dollars and produces poor outcomes,” Jindal said in the prepared statement. He said the expansion could cost Louisiana more than $1 billion in 10 years.

Other Republican governors are taking the Medicaid expansion funds because they realize that the money will benefit their people and their states, but Jindal is an idealogue, and the people of Louisiana be damned, Jindal must adhere to his philosophy.

As usual, Jindal is too timid to face the local media, because they might ask him hard questions about "the outdated model" and the "$1 billion in 10 years" cost of expanding Medicaid.  I'm not knowledgeable enough about budget math and charts, but I'd  like to see an independent source investigate whether the $1 billion over 10 years cost claimed by Jindal is accurate.

Last year, the conclusion to a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reads as follows:

Conclusion

Contrary to claims made by some of the Medicaid expansion’s critics, the expansion does not impose substantial financial burdens on states. The additional state Medicaid spending that CBO expects to result from the expansion equals 2.8 percent of what states would have spent on Medicaid in the absence of health reform; this estimate includes the cost of covering individuals who are currently eligible but not enrolled. Estimates from other respected independent sources are similar or even lower — and both those estimates and CBO’s reflect state costs before factoring in state savings in areas such as uncompensated care costs and mental health services.

CBO expects that the expansion will result in 17 million more people being covered, which will significantly reduce state costs for uncompensated care and related programs and offset some or potentially all of the increase in state Medicaid costs.

In short, the federal government will pick up the overwhelming share of the costs of the Medicaid expansion, making it an extremely favorable deal both for states, as well as for their low-income uninsured residents.

The Medicaid expansion would come at a modest cost to the state with the federal government initially paying 100 percent for the first three years and then a small portion after that — never more than 10 percent, proponents wrote.

What I'd like to see is a breakdown by an independent source on why Medicaid expansion would be such a bad deal for Louisiana, when it appears to be advantageous to other states in ways that even Republican governors who don't like Obamacare can understand.

Among the groups and individuals who sent the letter to Jindal are the following:

AARP, the Advocacy Center, the Greater New Orleans American Association of University Women, Louisiana AIDS Advocacy Network, the Louisiana Budget Project, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (Mid South Division), and the National Association of Social Workers, Louisiana Chapter.

THE LONGEST PASSWORD EVER...

We laugh - but her I.D. is safe.

 

During a recent password audit by a company, it was found that an employee was using the following password:

"MickeyMinniePlutoHueyLouieDeweyDonaldGoofySacramento"

When asked why she had such a long password, she rolled her eyes and said: "Hello!  It has to be at least 8 characters and include at least one capital."

Thanks to Ann.

LITTLE BO-PEEP HAS LOST HER SHEEP

 

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LIKELY TO BECOME LAW IN BRITAIN

The good news:

Parliament took a historic step towards embracing full equality for gay people when MPs voted on Tuesday overwhelmingly in favour of equal marriage at the end of a charged Commons debate that exposed the deep rift over David Cameron's modernising agenda at the heart of the Conservative party.

The 225-vote majority, greeted with rare applause in the public gallery, was marred for the prime minister, who suffered a humiliating rebuff when more than half of the Conservative parliamentary party declined to support the government on an issue he has personally invested in.

The Church of England lags behind the secular government and the people of the country in its response to "Equal Civil Marriage". 

The Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable ―all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.

Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history.

Note that the church's response is to civil marriage.  If, as is likely, the bill passes in the House of Lords and goes to the PM, no authority will force any church or clergy to officiate at same-sex marriages, but churches that wish to do so may move forward.  In fact, as an added protection, the law would ban the Church of England and the Church in Wales from performing same-sex marriages.

The statement that "the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman" is "enshrined in human institutions throughout history" is nonsense.  Throughout history, marriage has had many different expressions, even in the Scriptures.

The further explanation of the church's position includes the following:

The Church‟s understanding of marriage

1. In common with almost all other Churches, the Church of England holds, as a matter of  doctrine and derived from the teaching of Christ himself, that marriage in general – and not just the marriage of Christians – is, in its nature, a lifelong union of one man with one woman.

As Molly Ivins would say, "You can't make this stuff up!"  The church allows divorce.  Maybe the explanation should be corrected to only one man and one woman at a time.  I favor the acceptance by the church of divorce and remarriage in certain circumstances for pastoral reasons, but to use the teaching of Jesus on marriage as a "lifelong union of one man with one woman" in order to condemn same-sex marriage, about which Jesus never said a word, is less than honest and not at all pastoral.

The new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby weighed in with his opinion:

Speaking about the vote, the 57-year-old archbishop said: "I stand, as I have always stood over the last few months, with the statement I made at the announcement of my appointment, which is that I support the Church of England's position on this.

"We have made many statements about this and I stick with that."

What else could he say?  I guess...  Archbishop Justin said earlier, he will "listen to the voice of the LGBT communities and examine my own thinking."  One can only hope he has not given up on the plan.  The position of Archbishop of Canterbury is a bully pulpit.

MY SUPER BOWL SUNDAY

Yesterday afternoon, while the rest of the country was in breathless anticipation of the Super Bowl, I began to watch the first of two episodes of the HBO series, Treme, which takes place in post-Katrina-and-the-federal-flood New Orleans.  At game time, I continued on with the next episode of the series.  The story turned sad in quite a surprising way to me, so startling that, for a while, I could not believe what had happened.  I don't want to spoil the story, because I hope some of you will consider watching the series, since it is the best expression of the soul of the city of New Orleans that I have ever seen in a movie or TV drama.

Spoiler alert!  Once again, I made the wrenching transition from New Orleans to  Downton Abbey and post-World-War-I England.  Of course, the Crawley family is still grieving the death of Lady Sybil, and there's a row about the baptism, with Tom Branson wanting his child baptized Catholic.  Poor Lord Grantham seems to be out of touch with the rest of the family on just about every level.  It seems only Carson stands with him to maintain traditional values.  The Crawley ladies won't follow him when he appears at a ladies luncheon at Mrs Isobel Crawley's house and orders them out because the cook, Ethel, is a former prostitute, and he doesn't want their reputations besmirched.  Says the Dowager Countess of Grantham:  "It seems a pity to miss such a good pudding."  And that settles the matter,  Lord Grantham leaves alone.

The good news is that the tedious story of Bates in prison for a crime he didn't commit has come to an end, and he will be return to his post as Lord Grantham's valet.  Unrequited love abounds amongst the younger staff in the servant quarters, and the times they are a-changin' for the family and the staff.