How Embarrassing

For those of you who live outside the Old Dominion, I should first identify the guy with the odd apparel in the photo off to the left. That would be our governor, Mark Warner. He was photographed after leaving the hospital, the unscheduled visit to which was brought about by his having gone headfirst over the handlebars of his bicycle, landing on the hard roadbed, and breaking some bones in his right hand.

Apparently he will survive.

Warner goes home after hand surgery

Richmond Times-Dispatch

Gov. Mark R. Warner was released yesterday from VCU Medical Center after undergoing surgery for two broken bones in his right hand.

In the successful two-hour operation, a specialist used plates and screws to repair bones broken in a bicycle fall Monday morning during a promotional ride near Lexington.

The surgery took place Monday night, and Warner spent the night in the hospital in downtown Richmond.

Warner, now on the mend, returned late yesterday morning to the Executive Mansion, a short distance from the downtown medical center. Despite some discomfort, he is eager to resume his public schedule today. (link)

I am not in a position to make fun of this.

You may have read my chilling account the other day of a motorcycle accident I had several years ago that resulted in some rather serious injuries and a number of broken bones. I had to reproduce this photo of Governor Warner in full-bandage only because he looks much like I looked back then.

I was given a rib belt to wear (Did you know they can't reset broken ribs? Crushed ribs are allowed to heal on their own, whatever that means.) as well as an unwieldy upper body harness to keep my shoulders immobile (Broken collar bone and shoulder blade.)

I remember how embarrassing it was to have to walk around in public (I took five days off from work and then reported for duty with all this paraphernalia worn over my suit.) and to have to repeat - ad nauseum - the circumstances that brought about the new look. Warner must be feeling the same kind of embarrassment about now.

The only difference between his situation and mine was that, since my accident was brought about by my having slammed a motorcycle into the side of a house, I had to endure an emergency room admitting nurse's lecture about how dangerous motorcycles are and was asked if I knew how many others had been hauled in to her emergency room on stretchers that very weekend after having been hurt in similar accidents.

I didn't know.

I didn't care.

I wasn't paying attention.

I wanted drugs.

I do have a message for Governor Warner. The pain will subside and you'll be able - eventually - to shelve the embarrassment resulting from the accident. So don't fret about that.

It's the shirt you're wearing that you're going to have to live down for many years to come, I'm afraid.

Bad Choice Of Words

I think we should be more careful with the words we choose to describe our potential 2008 presidential contenders. This is not nice:

Clinton, McCain '800-pound gorillas' of 2008 presidential race (link)

It brings back memories of Hillary Clinton and her husband vacationing several years ago on a beach somewhere in the Caribbean. I'm sure you remember this; they even allowed themselves to be filmed doing some kind of embarrassing Arkansas slow-dance, pretending to be enraptured by each other's company. As I recall, they even dragged Chelsea along to make the photo-op look well-rounded. Familial.

What I recall most vividly about the occasion was that Hillary was filmed in a one-piece bathing suit that - to be kind - was unflattering.

To put it another way - and to be less than kind - the swimsuit made her butt look as big as a barn. And I lost count the number of thighs that I saw.

I still occasionally wake up in a cold sweat having had that recurring nightmare of Hillary in that bathing suit.

So, please. Be a little more careful with the descriptive nouns. The word, "gorilla" causes me to pause. And reflect.

How about something less demeaning?

Like "heifer."

Connect The Dots, People

The Roanoke Times has an editorial this morning addressing the apparent incongruities in the Supreme Court's Ten Commandments decisions. The editorial staff has determined that the rulings, one of which allows a Ten Commandments display in Texas to stand while another similar one in Kentucky is to be removed, make good sense and represent the perfect "balancing mechanism" for a confused and otherwise unbalanced America.

In that insight, they, among all the enlightened pundits in the land, are alone. Stupefaction and ridicule seem to be the reaction to the rulings in all other circles.

But the Times, in "A Split Decision on the Ten Commandments," seems at least accepting of the rulings.

No doubt the twin decisions will be used to mark the outer boundaries in maneuvering for the next attempt to impose specific religious tenets upon public places.

But the ruling in the Texas case, though not the outcome we would prefer, at least reveals a subtle attempt by the court to avoid a notion of hostility against public religious expression. (link)

There are two clues to the mindset that has brought the editorialists to their acceptance of what is unarguably a muddled message from the highest court in the land. The first appears in that last sentence. Turned around, it reads, "The court avoided a notion of hostility against public religious expression, and the ruling was not the outcome we prefer." To me, this is clear. The Roanoke Times is perfectly accepting of the government's ever-expanding hostility toward religion.

The other clue comes in the last paragraph of the editorial.

Perhaps [Justice Steven] Breyer sought to act on the scriptural exhortation "Blessed are the peacemakers." The efforts of those in recent years determined to install their God in the public realm suggests Breyer should have relied strictly on the Constitution to guide his opinion.

I'll save the "God has, since the country was founded and until recent times, been celebrated in the public realm and the nation was better off for it" subject for another day. What's revealing about the author(s) frame of reference is in the fact that they try to belittle Christians by saying the latter wanted Breyer to strictly rely "on the Constitution to guide his opinion." Isn't that exactly what we pay Breyer and the other tottering old dolts on the court to do?

The Times provided a sensible and well-articulated admonition to the court in an editorial yesterday regarding the court's (criminal) legalization of government confiscation of private property for private use. They, like the rest of America, saw the court as being loose with the law and acting irrationally. The staff doesn't seem to be able to connect the dots.

The Supreme Court is making all this up as they go. If there is a source for their "wisdom," it is painfully obvious that the Constitution is not it. My guess is they read The New Yorker.

That should scare the beejeebers out of you.