So those of you that are well versed in episodes of The Office will recall the Christmas episode in which Yankee Swap is played so that Michael can ditch the oven mit that Phyllis made for him...
Well this year we thought we'd try our very own Smyczek/Holtz/Bennett Yankee Swap!
The idea is to spend $15/person on a gender neutral gift, and bring to Christmas dinner wrapped. The rules will be explained in greater detail on Christmas.
Can't wait to see everyone!
Love,
Margret (aka: Maggie, Mags...)
Friday, December 17, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Christmas Gifts
Hello all (Y'all)! First of all Happy Birthday George!
So over the Thanksgiving weekend there have been several conversations about Christmas and how frankly the gift giving has gotten a bit out of control. I think we can all agree that buying for everyone is what we'd love to do, but we simply can't afford it. That being said this year we are vowing to stick to only buying for your godchildren as well as the name that has been drawn for you. We drew names last night on HiMount Blvd. The list goes as follows:
Julie buys for Bob
Homer for Chris
Jeanne for Julie
Rex for Homer
Yvonne for Peter
Jim for Dan
Maggie for Lauren
Pete for Jeanne
Lauren for Maggie
Bill for Jim
Bob for Yvonne
Dan for Bill
So, only a few more weeks until we all get together! Can't wait to see everyone!
So over the Thanksgiving weekend there have been several conversations about Christmas and how frankly the gift giving has gotten a bit out of control. I think we can all agree that buying for everyone is what we'd love to do, but we simply can't afford it. That being said this year we are vowing to stick to only buying for your godchildren as well as the name that has been drawn for you. We drew names last night on HiMount Blvd. The list goes as follows:
Julie buys for Bob
Homer for Chris
Jeanne for Julie
Rex for Homer
Yvonne for Peter
Jim for Dan
Maggie for Lauren
Pete for Jeanne
Lauren for Maggie
Bill for Jim
Bob for Yvonne
Dan for Bill
So, only a few more weeks until we all get together! Can't wait to see everyone!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn: A Summary and Review
David Blankenhorn is one of the foremost experts on marriage in the United States. Blankenhorn is a sociologist by trade, and founder and President of the Institute for American Values, an organization devoted to strengthening families and civil society in the U.S. and the world. Blankenhorn is a self-professed liberal but also an outspoken opponent of same-sex "marriage." The Future of Marriage is one of the most important books written to date on the contemporary threats traditional marriage faces in Western Civilization. This book is not written from a Catholic perspective. It is not even written from a particularly Christian perspective. Instead, Blankenhorn writes purely from a sociological standpoint, and offers a cogent defense of marriage in terms even secularists can not ignore.
Blankenhorn's main thesis is that marriage in America today is in danger of becoming "deinstitutionalized." Deinstitutionalization refers to the process of abolishing a practice that has been considered a norm, or reducing the importance, central meaning, and significance of a social institution. Marriage is such a public, social institution. In fact, marriage's public nature is its most important feature. The purpose of marriage, according to Blankenhorn is to ensure, insofar as possible, that the man and woman who make the child through sexual intercourse are there for the child, as social parents, and are there for each other. Marriage brings together biologically unrelated persons to produce the next generation, create fatherhood as a social role for men (which makes civilized society possible), and radically expands the reach and possibility of kinship ties. It brings together the two sexes in such a way that each child is born with two parents, a mother and a father, who are legally and jointly responsible for the child. Civil marriage is a societal endorsement of that monogamous, sexual relationship that exists to bring children into the world and ensure that the children know their parents, and are raised by their parents.
What the institution of marriage aims to regulate is sex, not love or commitment. (In modern society) marriage regulates sex in a wholly non-coercive manner (sex outside of marriage is no longer a crime). Marriage exists to solve a problem that arises between men and women but not from sex between partners of the same gender: what to do about its generativity or procreative power? Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman (even in polygamous marriage) for the same reason that there are two sexes: it takes one of each to produce a child. That doesn't mean marriage is worthwhile only insofar as it yields children, but it means that the institution is oriented toward child-rearing. A healthy marriage culture encourages adults to arrange their lives so that as many children as possible are raised and nurtured by their parents in a common household.
Same-sex marriage is one part of the larger threat to the institution. The other threats to marriage include no-fault or otherwise easy divorce, the proliferation of unwed child-birthing and cohabitation, contraception, and the Western tendency to think of all things in radically private, individualistic terms. Ideas, movements, or technologies that separate marriage from its procreative and public purpose greatly weaken marriage. We could probably deinstitutionalize marriage without adopting gay marriage, but gay marriage clearly presupposes and in some respects requires deinstitutionalization.
Gay marriage proponents always begin from the premise that marriage is a private contract between consenting adults for the purpose of love and companionship. Unfortunately, most modern Americans view marriage in these private contractual terms as well. Therein lies the most fundamental problem says Blankenhorn. If one accepts this more contemporary view of marriage as a private relationship between two adults for the purpose of love and companionship, ignoring marriage's public function as a societal sanction of a sexual relationship for the purpose of creating and raising children, then same-sex marriage makes perfect sense. And if same-sex "marriage" is legalized, marriage will most certainly continue down this path of deinstitutionalization in which marriage becomes solely and decisively a private contractual arrangement, the form of which is limited only to the imagination of consenting adults. Polygamy could not logically be prohibited, nor could a multitude of different "family" arrangements. A new conception of marriage based on nothing more than "love and companionship" would eviscerate the traditional collective understanding of marriage and change its meaning and objectives forever. Why then, couldn't elderly brothers who take care of each other, or friends who share a house and bills, or boyfriends/girlfriends be marriages? Why shouldn't their relationships be recognized as well? Under the traditional view of marriage, however valuable those relationships are, they are not oriented towards procreation and children, so we do not treat them the same way. Society and governments have traditionally favored the uniquely procreative relationship of 1 man-1 woman, and set it apart with certain rights, privileges (and penalties for breaking this covenant) to ensure the propagation of society and help to ensure that children are brought into this world under the best possible circumstances. But if marriage is reduced to a private arrangement for the purpose of love, companionship, and intimacy, is no longer about creating and raising children, and is open to coupling arrangements that cannot generate new life, society's interest in encouraging, endorsing, and preserving marriage evaporates. Thus, there is a significant danger that over time, it becomes pointless for the state to confer any special marital status at all.
Blankenhorn observes that in the short term, if same-sex marriage becomes legally sanctioned, the legal framework of our society governing families and parenthood will have to be re-written to accommodate this revolution. If this is to happen, our culture and our laws may no longer favor one type of marriage over another--to do so would be akin to discrimination. In fact, criticizing gay "marriage" becomes hate speech. More importantly, our government will have a duty to give equal treatment to all "forms" of marriage, including the resulting changes to what constitutes parenthood. Same-sex marriage necessarily would require us to give greater legal protections to gay couples raising children by essentially creating a completely new definition of what a "parent" is. So a woman in a gay relationship with another woman is automatically the parent of that mother's child. Why? Because she and the mother say that she is. She is not just a caregiver, not just the mother's lover and partner. She is the child's parent. This novel conception of parentage is necessary if we are to put gay "marriage" on equal footing with traditional marriage and accord its participants the same rights and privileges. This threat is not mere alarmist hyperbole. After Canada legalized same-sex "marriage", Canadian law erased the term "natural" parent from its books and replaced it with the term "legal" parent.
This legal accommodation of gay marriage and the rights of gay parents would require us in both law and culture to deny the double origin of the child. It would would require us to withdraw marriage's greatest promise to the child--the promise that, insofar as society can make it possible, the child will be loved and raised by the mother and father who made him. In a gay marriage culture, when one says, "every child deserves a mother and a father," one will be saying something that is not only controversial, but that also conflicts with the law. To accept same-sex marriage, society will have to disregard the notion that a mother and a father is the right of each child and create a legal regime in which natural and heterosexual parents cannot be favored over "legal" parents. Children will no longer have the right to know and be raised by their mother and father (to the extent it is possible). The rights of children will be withdrawn in favor of the rights of (gay) adults. Children become rights of the gay couple, not individuals that possess their own infinite value and rights. The mantra of the gay marriage movement of "we, as consenting adults, have the right to get married and have children" necessarily conflicts with the rights of children to know and be raised by their parents. Thus, if government gets out of the business of marriage (as so many wish it would), then the government essentially declares that it is no longer interested in the welfare of children.
If marriage is weakened, as it would be if government no longer fostered, encouraged, or even recognized traditional marriage, those that are the most vulnerable and the most dependent upon marriage would suffer the most: children. But when marriage as a social institution weakens, government ironically has to get more involved, not less. The government ends up performing many of the functions previously provided by the parents, and courts end up acting as referees to decide issues such as custody, etc. Moreover, marriage exists to make sure that tomorrow exists. It is the best institution ever devised to provide for the generation and care of children (the future of society). So if the government cannot have an interest in marriage and ensuring that society continues, then the government can have no interest in anything.
Finally, many proponents of gay marriage conceptualize marriage in terms of "civil rights." This argument has an element of self-delusion about it, because at the same time, those who propose it deny that same-sex marriage would work a radical change in American law or society, insisting to the contrary that within a few years of its triumph everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about. But its simultaneous insistence that opponents are the moral equivalent of the white supremacists of yesteryear belies these false assurances. Our tolerance for racism is quite limited: the government, while it generally respects the relevant constitutional limits, is active in the cause of marginalizing racists and eradicating racist beliefs and behaviors. Moreover, social sanctions against racism, both overt and implied, are strong. If our society is truly to regard opposition to same-sex marriage as equivalent to racism, it will have to undergo change that would be as dramatic as it would be extensive. Churches that object, for example, will have to be put in the same cultural position as Bob Jones University was in the days when it banned interracial dating, until they too join the consensus. Criticism of gay marriage, will be equivalent to hate speech. Religious organizations that choose not to give benefits to the "spouse" of a gay employee would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit and hefty federal fine, etc., etc., etc.
Changing a public meaning is a public event; the meaning changes for everyone. Changing the definition of marriage would forever change the way we all think about marriage, and will result in deinstitutionalization. And this point cannot be overstated. Re-defining marriage would make the countervailing norms and the public purpose of marriage themselves incoherent, which affects everyone. In fact, as Blankenhorn points out with statistical data, the countries with same sex marriage were also the ones where support for marriage as an institution is weakest--where people tended to accept single parenthood and divorce, for example. Countries with marriage-like civil unions showed more support for marriage; those with only regional recognition of gay marriage showed more support still, and those without either gay marriage or civil unions were most supportive of all of traditional marriage. Same sex marriage may not be the main cause of weak support for marriage, but the two clearly go together. Same sex marriage is not a sign of a strong marriage culture, and adopting same-sex marriage would permanently and fundamentally alter this institution in ways that we have yet to even imagine. Blankenhorn's book is a sobering caution against this social experimentation.
Overall, Blankenhorn offers a robust defense of traditional marriage. Although the book is not a theological work, the topic of Christian teaching does come up occasionally. I noticed a few instances where the author misstated Church teaching and took a few Church fathers' writings out of context; these are fairly inconsequential parts of the book that are not really necessary to his main thesis. In addition, Blankenhorn struck me as a bit naive in overlooking the threat that civil unions would pose to marriage. But I think this position derives from the author's desire to offer a sort of compromise with the gay marriage movement, rather than an oversight. This also, is a very minor criticism of an otherwise excellent book. The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn is a must read for anyone who is serious about the gay marriage debate.
Blankenhorn's main thesis is that marriage in America today is in danger of becoming "deinstitutionalized." Deinstitutionalization refers to the process of abolishing a practice that has been considered a norm, or reducing the importance, central meaning, and significance of a social institution. Marriage is such a public, social institution. In fact, marriage's public nature is its most important feature. The purpose of marriage, according to Blankenhorn is to ensure, insofar as possible, that the man and woman who make the child through sexual intercourse are there for the child, as social parents, and are there for each other. Marriage brings together biologically unrelated persons to produce the next generation, create fatherhood as a social role for men (which makes civilized society possible), and radically expands the reach and possibility of kinship ties. It brings together the two sexes in such a way that each child is born with two parents, a mother and a father, who are legally and jointly responsible for the child. Civil marriage is a societal endorsement of that monogamous, sexual relationship that exists to bring children into the world and ensure that the children know their parents, and are raised by their parents.
What the institution of marriage aims to regulate is sex, not love or commitment. (In modern society) marriage regulates sex in a wholly non-coercive manner (sex outside of marriage is no longer a crime). Marriage exists to solve a problem that arises between men and women but not from sex between partners of the same gender: what to do about its generativity or procreative power? Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman (even in polygamous marriage) for the same reason that there are two sexes: it takes one of each to produce a child. That doesn't mean marriage is worthwhile only insofar as it yields children, but it means that the institution is oriented toward child-rearing. A healthy marriage culture encourages adults to arrange their lives so that as many children as possible are raised and nurtured by their parents in a common household.
Same-sex marriage is one part of the larger threat to the institution. The other threats to marriage include no-fault or otherwise easy divorce, the proliferation of unwed child-birthing and cohabitation, contraception, and the Western tendency to think of all things in radically private, individualistic terms. Ideas, movements, or technologies that separate marriage from its procreative and public purpose greatly weaken marriage. We could probably deinstitutionalize marriage without adopting gay marriage, but gay marriage clearly presupposes and in some respects requires deinstitutionalization.
Gay marriage proponents always begin from the premise that marriage is a private contract between consenting adults for the purpose of love and companionship. Unfortunately, most modern Americans view marriage in these private contractual terms as well. Therein lies the most fundamental problem says Blankenhorn. If one accepts this more contemporary view of marriage as a private relationship between two adults for the purpose of love and companionship, ignoring marriage's public function as a societal sanction of a sexual relationship for the purpose of creating and raising children, then same-sex marriage makes perfect sense. And if same-sex "marriage" is legalized, marriage will most certainly continue down this path of deinstitutionalization in which marriage becomes solely and decisively a private contractual arrangement, the form of which is limited only to the imagination of consenting adults. Polygamy could not logically be prohibited, nor could a multitude of different "family" arrangements. A new conception of marriage based on nothing more than "love and companionship" would eviscerate the traditional collective understanding of marriage and change its meaning and objectives forever. Why then, couldn't elderly brothers who take care of each other, or friends who share a house and bills, or boyfriends/girlfriends be marriages? Why shouldn't their relationships be recognized as well? Under the traditional view of marriage, however valuable those relationships are, they are not oriented towards procreation and children, so we do not treat them the same way. Society and governments have traditionally favored the uniquely procreative relationship of 1 man-1 woman, and set it apart with certain rights, privileges (and penalties for breaking this covenant) to ensure the propagation of society and help to ensure that children are brought into this world under the best possible circumstances. But if marriage is reduced to a private arrangement for the purpose of love, companionship, and intimacy, is no longer about creating and raising children, and is open to coupling arrangements that cannot generate new life, society's interest in encouraging, endorsing, and preserving marriage evaporates. Thus, there is a significant danger that over time, it becomes pointless for the state to confer any special marital status at all.
Blankenhorn observes that in the short term, if same-sex marriage becomes legally sanctioned, the legal framework of our society governing families and parenthood will have to be re-written to accommodate this revolution. If this is to happen, our culture and our laws may no longer favor one type of marriage over another--to do so would be akin to discrimination. In fact, criticizing gay "marriage" becomes hate speech. More importantly, our government will have a duty to give equal treatment to all "forms" of marriage, including the resulting changes to what constitutes parenthood. Same-sex marriage necessarily would require us to give greater legal protections to gay couples raising children by essentially creating a completely new definition of what a "parent" is. So a woman in a gay relationship with another woman is automatically the parent of that mother's child. Why? Because she and the mother say that she is. She is not just a caregiver, not just the mother's lover and partner. She is the child's parent. This novel conception of parentage is necessary if we are to put gay "marriage" on equal footing with traditional marriage and accord its participants the same rights and privileges. This threat is not mere alarmist hyperbole. After Canada legalized same-sex "marriage", Canadian law erased the term "natural" parent from its books and replaced it with the term "legal" parent.
This legal accommodation of gay marriage and the rights of gay parents would require us in both law and culture to deny the double origin of the child. It would would require us to withdraw marriage's greatest promise to the child--the promise that, insofar as society can make it possible, the child will be loved and raised by the mother and father who made him. In a gay marriage culture, when one says, "every child deserves a mother and a father," one will be saying something that is not only controversial, but that also conflicts with the law. To accept same-sex marriage, society will have to disregard the notion that a mother and a father is the right of each child and create a legal regime in which natural and heterosexual parents cannot be favored over "legal" parents. Children will no longer have the right to know and be raised by their mother and father (to the extent it is possible). The rights of children will be withdrawn in favor of the rights of (gay) adults. Children become rights of the gay couple, not individuals that possess their own infinite value and rights. The mantra of the gay marriage movement of "we, as consenting adults, have the right to get married and have children" necessarily conflicts with the rights of children to know and be raised by their parents. Thus, if government gets out of the business of marriage (as so many wish it would), then the government essentially declares that it is no longer interested in the welfare of children.
If marriage is weakened, as it would be if government no longer fostered, encouraged, or even recognized traditional marriage, those that are the most vulnerable and the most dependent upon marriage would suffer the most: children. But when marriage as a social institution weakens, government ironically has to get more involved, not less. The government ends up performing many of the functions previously provided by the parents, and courts end up acting as referees to decide issues such as custody, etc. Moreover, marriage exists to make sure that tomorrow exists. It is the best institution ever devised to provide for the generation and care of children (the future of society). So if the government cannot have an interest in marriage and ensuring that society continues, then the government can have no interest in anything.
Finally, many proponents of gay marriage conceptualize marriage in terms of "civil rights." This argument has an element of self-delusion about it, because at the same time, those who propose it deny that same-sex marriage would work a radical change in American law or society, insisting to the contrary that within a few years of its triumph everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about. But its simultaneous insistence that opponents are the moral equivalent of the white supremacists of yesteryear belies these false assurances. Our tolerance for racism is quite limited: the government, while it generally respects the relevant constitutional limits, is active in the cause of marginalizing racists and eradicating racist beliefs and behaviors. Moreover, social sanctions against racism, both overt and implied, are strong. If our society is truly to regard opposition to same-sex marriage as equivalent to racism, it will have to undergo change that would be as dramatic as it would be extensive. Churches that object, for example, will have to be put in the same cultural position as Bob Jones University was in the days when it banned interracial dating, until they too join the consensus. Criticism of gay marriage, will be equivalent to hate speech. Religious organizations that choose not to give benefits to the "spouse" of a gay employee would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit and hefty federal fine, etc., etc., etc.
Changing a public meaning is a public event; the meaning changes for everyone. Changing the definition of marriage would forever change the way we all think about marriage, and will result in deinstitutionalization. And this point cannot be overstated. Re-defining marriage would make the countervailing norms and the public purpose of marriage themselves incoherent, which affects everyone. In fact, as Blankenhorn points out with statistical data, the countries with same sex marriage were also the ones where support for marriage as an institution is weakest--where people tended to accept single parenthood and divorce, for example. Countries with marriage-like civil unions showed more support for marriage; those with only regional recognition of gay marriage showed more support still, and those without either gay marriage or civil unions were most supportive of all of traditional marriage. Same sex marriage may not be the main cause of weak support for marriage, but the two clearly go together. Same sex marriage is not a sign of a strong marriage culture, and adopting same-sex marriage would permanently and fundamentally alter this institution in ways that we have yet to even imagine. Blankenhorn's book is a sobering caution against this social experimentation.
Overall, Blankenhorn offers a robust defense of traditional marriage. Although the book is not a theological work, the topic of Christian teaching does come up occasionally. I noticed a few instances where the author misstated Church teaching and took a few Church fathers' writings out of context; these are fairly inconsequential parts of the book that are not really necessary to his main thesis. In addition, Blankenhorn struck me as a bit naive in overlooking the threat that civil unions would pose to marriage. But I think this position derives from the author's desire to offer a sort of compromise with the gay marriage movement, rather than an oversight. This also, is a very minor criticism of an otherwise excellent book. The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn is a must read for anyone who is serious about the gay marriage debate.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Hello from Bob
China's interesting. On the one hand, the people I have met so far have been very warm and welcoming. On the other, as I walk down the street in Yingkou, a small Chinese city in the north east and my current city of residence, everybody stares at me. It's uncomfortable, but I'm not perturbed. I'm working for the real estate development company of Mr. Xu (an acquaintance of Dad's). It's pretty fun. Essentially, its my job to critique their business methods from a western perspective. They want to know how we do things in America so that they can better appeal to modern Chinese consumers. It's fun.
I believe that I am the only westerner in Yingkou, though it has a population of 1.2 million. I can't really do anything by myself as menus in restaurants are written exclusively in Chinese and the number of English speakers in the city can be counted on one hand. Having a personal translator, as the company has provided me, is of little consolation. He knows about as much English as I know Chinese. His name is Meng Di and he is 23 like myself. However, both of his parents died when he was 17 and now he lives in government housing. Before acquiring his job as my translator, he was an unemployed college graduate and had no idea of what he wanted to do in life. He wears the same clothes every day and is reluctant to spend any amount of money. I'm pretty sure he's under fed. Even worse, he told me that without parents, he has no chance of gainful employment, as everyone in Yingkou gets their job through their parents connections. I've decided that I am going to do my best to help him learn our language so that he can find a job as a Chinese/English translator and make a decent living. I spoke with him about my idea and he seems genuinely excited about the prospects. He's a very nice kid and works hard to study English in his free time. Coming from a economically stable and loving family, I feel it's the least that I can do to help him. Larry Li and Mr. Xu have given me several thousand Chinese Yuan for my own expenses, but I think I will buy him another pair of clothes first. I have also been given a bike to travel to and from work. Meng Di has a pretty crappy bike from the 80's. It's rusted to shit and the pedals are falling off. When I leave Yingkou in a little more than two months from now, I'll give the bike to him if I have the option.
I will write again when I have pictures and more to say.
Best,
Bob
I believe that I am the only westerner in Yingkou, though it has a population of 1.2 million. I can't really do anything by myself as menus in restaurants are written exclusively in Chinese and the number of English speakers in the city can be counted on one hand. Having a personal translator, as the company has provided me, is of little consolation. He knows about as much English as I know Chinese. His name is Meng Di and he is 23 like myself. However, both of his parents died when he was 17 and now he lives in government housing. Before acquiring his job as my translator, he was an unemployed college graduate and had no idea of what he wanted to do in life. He wears the same clothes every day and is reluctant to spend any amount of money. I'm pretty sure he's under fed. Even worse, he told me that without parents, he has no chance of gainful employment, as everyone in Yingkou gets their job through their parents connections. I've decided that I am going to do my best to help him learn our language so that he can find a job as a Chinese/English translator and make a decent living. I spoke with him about my idea and he seems genuinely excited about the prospects. He's a very nice kid and works hard to study English in his free time. Coming from a economically stable and loving family, I feel it's the least that I can do to help him. Larry Li and Mr. Xu have given me several thousand Chinese Yuan for my own expenses, but I think I will buy him another pair of clothes first. I have also been given a bike to travel to and from work. Meng Di has a pretty crappy bike from the 80's. It's rusted to shit and the pedals are falling off. When I leave Yingkou in a little more than two months from now, I'll give the bike to him if I have the option.
I will write again when I have pictures and more to say.
Best,
Bob
Friday, September 3, 2010
Greeting from Tucson AZ
Hello all,
I just wanted to update everyone on how U of A has been for me so far. The weather is perfect everyday (I think we only get a few days of rain every year) and winter time is going to be like autumn in Milwaukee. I'm really enjoying all of my classes, especially Programming and Psychology. My professors are all very nice and I've been getting to know them all.
Taylor has been a pretty good room mate. He does have his moments though.
And I'm happy to announce that I won't be gaining the "freshman 15". I run just about every other day. So don't worry.
I've attached a couple pictures of my desk and dorm.
Bye for now.
Monday, August 16, 2010
More Birthdays!
Happy Birthday to Amanda today!
Happy Birthday to Chris and Bob tomorrow!
We enjoyed seeing you this weekend and look forward to seeing you all again soon. Hope you have wonderful birthdays!
Happy Birthday to Chris and Bob tomorrow!
We enjoyed seeing you this weekend and look forward to seeing you all again soon. Hope you have wonderful birthdays!
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
My YouTube Video
Here is the youtube video that Chris and I put together a couple of days ago, enjoy.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Thoughts Today
"Don't worry, brother's coming, Char!" Words that warm my heart and strike fear in the heart of the 9 month old.
P.S.--at 10 a.m. it was 100 degrees with a 107 degree heat index. Happy Summer!
P.S.--at 10 a.m. it was 100 degrees with a 107 degree heat index. Happy Summer!
Mostly for Peter and Lauren, but worth a read by everyone
http://simchafisher.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/7-quick-takes-snappy-answers-to-stupid-questions-edition/
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Kids Say the Funniest Things
So as we were having dinner tonight, I was telling Lauren a story about a guy I work with, and I happened to mention that he and his wife don't have any children. As I was continuing on with my story, Katie interrupted me and asked me why they didn't have any babies. I told Katie that sometimes God doesn't give some mommies and daddies babies. Katie then replied, "maybe she took a pill." I nearly choked on my dinner as Lauren and I looked at each other with a look that bordered somewhere between shock, bewilderment, and muted laughter. I then asked Katie what she meant by that, to which she responded, "sometimes mommies take these pills, they eat them, and then they don't have any babies. But that's like telling God you don't want any babies." We didn't know quite how to respond to that, other than to tell her that's pretty much correct, and then explain to her why that was wrong, but caution that we don't talk about that kind of thing. (We also told her that we don't know if the woman took a pill or not).
We had a good laugh after that.
We had a good laugh after that.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Sheriff Joe
Below is a report about sheriff Joe that has been circulating in emails for a year or more now but I think many readers here will enjoy reading it. Snopes has confirmed it as factually accurate, though you could almost hear the teeth grinding as they did so. They have a particular devotion to poking holes in anything that encourages conservatism
You all remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona , who painted the jail cells pink and made the inmates wear pink prison garb. Well…. there’s MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe!
Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take the department over, and the County Supervisors said okay.
The animal shelters are now all staffed and operated by prisoners. They feed and care for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who’d like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows.
The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa Countyshelter two years ago. He was neutered, and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78.
The prisoners get the benefit of about $0.28 an hour for working, but most would work for free, just to be out of their cells for the day. Most of his budget is for utilities, building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals.
I have long wondered when the rest of the country would take a look at the way he runs the jail system, and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county years ago, where inmates can work, and they grow most of their own fresh vegetables and food, doing all the work and harvesting by hand.
He has a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat, and fertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and you can buy a living Christmas tree for $6 – $8 for the Holidays, and plant it later. We have six trees in our yard from the Prison.
Yup, he was reelected last year with 83% of the vote.
Now he’s in trouble with the ACLU again. He painted all his buses and vehicles with a mural, that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and report suspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn’t doing enough in his eyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specifically for enforcing immigration laws, started up his hotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He’s kind of a ‘Git-R Dun’ kind of Sheriff.
TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO
HE IS THE MARICOPA ARIZONA COUNTY SHERIFF
AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER
THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY:
Sheriff Joe Arpaio (In Arizona ) who created the ‘ Tent City Jail’:
He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.
He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights Cut off all but ‘G’ movies.
He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.
Then He Started Chain Gangs For Women So He Wouldn’t Get Sued For Discrimination.
He took away cable TV Until he found out there was A Federal Court Order that Required Cable TV For Jails So He Hooked Up The Cable TV Again Only Let In The Disney Channel And The Weather Channel.
When asked why the weather channel He Replied, So They Will Know How Hot It’s Gonna Be While They Are Working on My Chain Gangs.
He Cut Off Coffee Since It Has Zero Nutritional Value.
When the inmates complained, he told them, ‘This Isn’t The Ritz/Carlton……If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Come Back.’
More On The Arizona Sheriff:
With Temperatures Being Even Hotter Than Usual In Phoenix in the summer of 2003 (116 Degrees Just Set A New Record), the Associated Press Reports:
About 2,000 Inmates Living In A Barbed-Wire-Surrounded Tent Encampment At The Maricopa County Jail Have Been Given Permission To Strip Down To Their Government-Issued Pink Boxer Shorts.
On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 Degrees Inside The Week Before.
Many Were Also Swathed In Wet, Pink Towels As Sweat Collected On Their Chests And Dripped Down To Their PINK SOCKS.
‘It Feels Like We Are In A Furnace,’ Said James Zanzot, An Inmate Who Has Lived In The TENTS for 1 year. ‘It’s Inhumane.’
Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: ‘It’s 120 Degrees In Iraq And Our Soldiers Are Living In Tents Too, And They Have To Wear Full Battle Gear, But They Didn’t Commit Any Crimes,So Shut Your Mouths!’
Way To Go, Sheriff!
Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes – not live in luxury until it’s time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can’t afford to have for themselves.
Monday, June 21, 2010
I really should be packing but no one is here to make me...
This article is pretty interesting. The author thinks that it doesn't matter how you parent your kids, the way they turn out is dependent on their genetics, and now I am going to go beat my children.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313201221533826.html
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Thanks in advance, plus warning
I am really excited about everyone coming to Yorktown, and I am super appreciative to those who will be helping me with this move. I also want to apologize if there are any sightings of a she-devil in my house this weekend. She is not invited, but she may make an appearance nonetheless. You may be acquainted with her already. I just hope the brand new sister-in-law does not have to encounter her. (Juella De Vil)
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Outrage of the Day
This is one of the most outrageous things I've ever read:
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/06/how_do_you_like_it_white_boy.html
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/06/how_do_you_like_it_white_boy.html
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Choosing Life
In the 2010 Draft, the Brewers #1 pick was a RHP from a high school in California named Dylan Covey. "In his senior season, Covey went 7-1 with a 0.40 ERA and three saves with 138 strikeouts compared to 20 walks in 70 2/3 innings pitched for Maranatha High School." Extremely solid numbers. Could be another Gallardo.
There was an interesting tidbit buried in this story about Covey. Apparently, Dylan has 2 older brothers. Dylan's mom was going to stop having kids after her first 2 sons and so she got a hysterectomy. Dylan wasn't supposed to have been born. For reasons not explained in the story, Dylan's mom had the procedure reversed. She gave birth to Dylan on July 19, 1991, and now he is headed to the major leagues with a $1.7 million signing bonus and a very promising future (assuming he signs, which he is expected to do).
There was an interesting tidbit buried in this story about Covey. Apparently, Dylan has 2 older brothers. Dylan's mom was going to stop having kids after her first 2 sons and so she got a hysterectomy. Dylan wasn't supposed to have been born. For reasons not explained in the story, Dylan's mom had the procedure reversed. She gave birth to Dylan on July 19, 1991, and now he is headed to the major leagues with a $1.7 million signing bonus and a very promising future (assuming he signs, which he is expected to do).
Friday, June 4, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Travel Plans
Just FYI- Lauren, I and the kids will be coming back to Milwaukee for the 4th of July. Get your drinking hats ready!
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Don't F*** With Texas!
In what has become a politically-charged national debate over education, the Texas Board of Education finally approved the high school and k-8 curriculum for the state's public schools. Among their most "controversial" decisions, the board:
-rejected language to modernize the classification of historic periods to B.C.E. and C.E. from the traditional B.C. and A.D.;
-they required that public school students in Texas evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty;
-they strengthened the requirements on teaching the role of Judeo-Christianity in the founding of this country; and
-students will be required to study the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.
Oh the horror!
Reason 879 to home school your children: if these kinds of things are controversial in a state like Texas, imagine what your kids are learning in Wisconsin!
To see the full story on FOXNews.com click here.
-rejected language to modernize the classification of historic periods to B.C.E. and C.E. from the traditional B.C. and A.D.;
-they required that public school students in Texas evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty;
-they strengthened the requirements on teaching the role of Judeo-Christianity in the founding of this country; and
-students will be required to study the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.
Oh the horror!
Reason 879 to home school your children: if these kinds of things are controversial in a state like Texas, imagine what your kids are learning in Wisconsin!
To see the full story on FOXNews.com click here.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Happy Anniversary
So rumor on the street is 5 years ago today Pete and Lauren got married! Congrats you 2! Hope you have a wonderful evening.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
It's Official!
Dad is now a Polish citizen!
He still has several steps to take before he can get his passport, but he is now officially a Polack!
Barry's BS Bingo
This is what Dad meant to post:
Rules for Bullshit Bingo:
1. Before Barrack Obama's next televised speech, print your "Bullshit Bingo".
2. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words/phrases.
3. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"
Bullshit Bingo
Print this and be ready to share with your friends for his next speech.
Rules for Bullshit Bingo:
1. Before Barrack Obama's next televised speech, print your "Bullshit Bingo".
2. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words/phrases.
3. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"
Rules for Bullshit Bingo:
1. Before Barrack Obama's next televised speech, print your "Bullshit Bingo".
2. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words/phrases.
3. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"
CBO's Game Sheet
Print this and be ready to share with your friends for his next speech.
Rules for Bullshit Bingo:
1. Before Barrack Obama's next televised speech, print your "Bullshit Bingo".
2. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words/phrases.
3. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"
Monday, May 17, 2010
Birthday Party-think about it.
Hi Everyone, I know you are aware that Grandma's 90th Berfday Party is coming up. If you are going to buy a plane ticket, or make dad buy you a plane ticket, the time to take action is now. The party is in 33 days, or something like that. I would sort of like to know who is coming for planning purposes, and if you are able to stay and load all of our stuff into the moving truck. I know dad is going to force some of you to do it (I will pay you a meager wage), so if you know you are one of the chosen, please tell me. Dad will probably not tell me until 2 hours before the flight lands. Love you all!
Friday, May 14, 2010
Wayne
Well in case you all (or y'all) haven't heard Wayne is in fact a Wayne! So another male Smyczek is on deck. Jim of course is already thinking about getting him into hockey! In just 4 short months he'll be here...time sure does fly. We hope all of you are well, and we look forward to getting to see you this summer.
Love,
Maggie, Jim (and Wayne)
Love,
Maggie, Jim (and Wayne)
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Great Article on the US Trade Deficit
Some basic info on the US trade deficit and its negative effect on the overall economy. Very interesting!
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Speaking of Debt
A great article in the Atlantic about how, when you add in the debt of Freddie and Fannie (not even including all of our future unfunded liabilities), the U.S. current debt levels are about equal to Greece's. Frightening.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
South Park and Censorship
Comedy Central has decided to censor Muhammed, and all mentions of him, from an episode of South Park. This decision is notable for several reasons, not the least of which because Comedy Central would never censor anything else. (Amazingly, the writers of South Park were careful not to actually depict Muhammed at all to begin with- he was always covered up by a truck or a bear costume).
There's a great op-ed that was published in Sunday's New York Times about the implications of this troubling decision. The article ends up being a critique of American culture, and shows how this censure is actually a small indication of a culture in decline.
With God utterly absent from American public life, moral relativism has given rise to a crass, nihilistic free-for-all completely void of Christian morality. America is no longer confident in itself, as American culture is more than happy to mock its own history, past, and traditions. Just look how de rigueur it is to mock Tea
Partiers and other uneducated hicks who haven't yet figured out that it's not cool to be proud of America.
Not able to stand up for itself, the once proud, free people of America begin to cower in the face of a now resurgent Islam.
As Douthat puts it:
"In ours, though, even Parker’s and Stone’s wildest outrages often just blur into the scenery. In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.
"Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.
"This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that “bravely” trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force.
You can read the whole article here.
There's a great op-ed that was published in Sunday's New York Times about the implications of this troubling decision. The article ends up being a critique of American culture, and shows how this censure is actually a small indication of a culture in decline.
With God utterly absent from American public life, moral relativism has given rise to a crass, nihilistic free-for-all completely void of Christian morality. America is no longer confident in itself, as American culture is more than happy to mock its own history, past, and traditions. Just look how de rigueur it is to mock Tea
Partiers and other uneducated hicks who haven't yet figured out that it's not cool to be proud of America.
Not able to stand up for itself, the once proud, free people of America begin to cower in the face of a now resurgent Islam.
As Douthat puts it:
"In ours, though, even Parker’s and Stone’s wildest outrages often just blur into the scenery. In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.
"Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.
"This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that “bravely” trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force.
You can read the whole article here.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Making Wishes Come True
We celebrated Katie's 4th birthday last Saturday, although her b'day was really on the 12th--she was confused for most of the week, actually...
Anyway, we invited all of her friends and then invited Cinderella to grace us with her presence! Katie was speechless, which is very uncommon for her, but she warmed up quickly and was so excited.
Cinderella came in her "work" clothes and gathered all of the kids around her. She began to tell them her story and let the kids fill in the parts they knew. Of course Katie knew EVERYTHING even before Cinderella could say it! Then she said that since her Fairy Godmother couldn't be with her that day, she would have to get ready for the ball like the rest of us, and she dashed off to change her clothes. When she returned everyone danced like they were at the ball and everyone had a picture taken with the princess. It was a lot of fun!
This is a picture with as many kids as we could get together. There were a whole lot more running around, who could have cared less that Cinderella was there. (Note: George admonishing his friend, Samantha! He gets his bossiness from his big sister)
This is Katie and one of her best friends, Jace, with the Cinderella birthday cake I made at the request of the birthday girl.
I promise that not all of my posts will be about the kids, but I thought I'd share Katie's birthday surprise with all of you since you could not be there. If you want to see more pics, let me know and I can email them, we have a ton and they're really cute!
My Hockey Season DVD
Hello all,
I recently was given my 2010 USM Hockey Highlight DVD. Its really good and I've watched it twice already. If anyone wants a copy of it mailed to them, I would be happy to do that. Let me know if you are interested.
-Dan
I recently was given my 2010 USM Hockey Highlight DVD. Its really good and I've watched it twice already. If anyone wants a copy of it mailed to them, I would be happy to do that. Let me know if you are interested.
-Dan
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Smyczek Family Blog
Greetings everyone,
I want to invite you all to the Smyczek Family Blog, or "Fat Kid Soup." Given the fact that we have Smyczeks in Wisconsin, Minnesota (beginning this summer), Illinois, Washington D.C. (for the time being), and Alabama, I thought it might be a good idea to create a family blog that will better facilitate family contact in one centralized location (as opposed to email and facebook which is very decentralized) for announcements, articles on politics, culture, family, religion, and just anything else that folks would like to share with everyone.
I am sure most of you are familiar with what a blog is, but for the benefit of mainly Mom & Dad, a blog is essentially a website that allows users to share or "post" articles and opinions, and discuss various topics in the form of an online journal, while readers may comment on those posts. Entries typically appear in reverse chronological order, and each entry is called a "post" or an "entry" (duh). It's kind of like one of those cork bulletin boards you see in places like on a college campus, but it's online.
I decided to limit the people who can post on the blog to Mom & Dad, their kids, and the kids' spouses, which by my count is 14. Anyone else in the world can post comments to the blog entries, which appear at the bottom of a blog post, and are accessible through a link labeled "comments." But only the 14 of us can post blog entries on the main page. Any more than 14 and it just becomes too unwieldy and hard to manage.
Just a few quick notes. Because blogs are publicly available on the internet, they are technically open to the whole world (not that I expect anyone outside of our family and close circle of friends to want to go to our blog), so that means do not post any information that is private or personal in nature. In addition because this is on the internets, I know I don't need to say this to the vast majority of you, but please refrain from posting things that reflect poorly on the Smyczek family.
And one final note, for those of you who did not grow up on Hi Mount, Fat Kid Soup was the nickname given (by Bob or Dan I think) to that unique combination of cardboard noodles and crappy artificial chicken broth, also known as "Ramen Noodles", that was a staple of every lunch on Saturday afternoons. Most everyone can remember that bloated feeling of ecstasy that only high doses of sodium and MSG can give you. I hope this blog can become a soup of humorous, serious, interesting, and relevant discussions for the family.
I hope everyone enjoys the blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)