Blog Archives

179 Things to Ponder ... (OR, Things That made Me Go Hmmmm....)

6/18/2020

You know how every so often you run across something which just makes you stop and look at something in a way which is totally new and different from how you had thought of it before? It could be anything, from a sign on the street, to an ad on tv, to just something somebody says, or a picture you see. Most of the time, I suspect that none of us really take the time to really take note of such things. However, recently, like many of you, I've had almost nothing but time, so I've actually noticed a few such things that struck me in this way, and I thought I'd share some of them. Perhaps they will strike you as being worth a moment's thought, too.

As an example, I saw this Dustin cartoon a while back and was amused. Then I got to thinking about "truth in advertising" and it made me wonder...

After all, that IS what the ad seems to say....

Sometimes, a photographer gets to take a picture at just the right moment to create an image which is worth a lot more than just a second look. Here's one I found of the moon getting placed in the sky which I liked a lot.

The other night on the news, the President was quoted as having said that "Our testing is so much bigger and more advanced than any other country (we have done a great job on this!) that it shows more cases.  Without testing, or weak testing, we would be showing almost no cases.  Testing is a double-edged sword - Makes us look bad, but good to have!!!"

Now, if the reason we have the most COVID-19 cases is because "Our testing is so much bigger and more advanced than any other country...", then logically, the testing must be causing the disease.  Ergo, if we stop testing then no one will get/be sick, right?  Then, the question becomes why do we continue to test, when that is the source of the problem, or does that just seem too much like consulting an ostrich for the solution to our concerns?  Somehow, I suspect that not looking for a problem doesn't erase its existence, no matter what the Donald says.

Of course, pictures aren't the only things which can make one go "Hmmmmm."  I ran across a whole list of questions a while ago which do exactly that.  Here are some examples:

How come wrong numbers are never busy?

Do people in Australia call the rest of the world 'up over'?

Does killing time damage eternity?

Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?

Why is it called lipstick if you can still move your lips?

Why is it that night falls but day breaks?

Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Why is it that when you're driving and looking for an address, you turn down the radio?

Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor, and dishwashing liquid made with real lemons?

Can you buy an entire chess set in a pawn-shop?

Daylight saving time - why are they saving it and where do they keep it?

Do Roman paramedics refer to IV's as '4's'?

Do you think that when they asked George Washington for ID that he just whipped out a quarter?

Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?

How can there be self-help 'groups'?

Does Queen Elizabeth II really like to play a coin flipping game with her grandchildren called "Tails or me"? (I read somewhere that she really DOES do this, but I wonder...)

If those aren't enough to cost you some sleep, how's this.

The other night on the news, the President was quoted as having said that "Our testing is so much bigger and more advanced than any other country (we have done a great job on this!) that it shows more cases.  Without testing, or weak testing, we would be showing almost no cases.  Testing is a double-edged sword - Makes us look bad, but good to have!!!"

Now, if the reason we have the most COVID-19 cases is because "Our testing is so much bigger and more advanced than any other country...", then logically, the testing must be causing the disease.  Ergo, if we stop testing then no one will get/be sick, right?  Then, the question becomes why do we continue to test, when that is the source of the problem, or does that just seem too much like consulting an ostrich for the solution to our concerns?  Somehow, I suspect that not looking for a problem doesn't erase its existence, no matter what the Donald says.

I saw this just the other day, and it DID make me stop and think for a second.

I see the Trump campaign is insisting that one agree to waive the right to sue it if one goes to a rally and gets COVID-19, in spite of its announced plans to disregard COVID safety precautions as "unnecessary."  I recently saw a discussion online by a lawyer relating to how such "waivers" are, basically, unenforceable and suggesting that theatres, for example, are wasting time and energy in considering using them to "open" theatres.  So, I have to assume that this requirement is just typical "bullying" on Trump's part.  It provides him with an excuse to try to use legal tactics to delay your suit until you either die or give up because it would cost too much to win.  After all, he does have a record of using such tactics.

I also see there is some controversy regarding the fact that "some" people wish to rename military installations which had been named for Confederate generals.  Apparently in response to this Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., wants to rename ALL military bases for Medal of Honor recipients because just changing those named for Confederate generals "picks on the South unfairly."

While I have no problem with naming bases for Medal of Honor winners, perhaps someone should point out to Sen. Kennedy that the Constitution (in Article III, Section 3) states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”1  This would appear to make it quite clear that these generals committed treason. After all, leading troops against Federal forces would appear to be "..levying War against" the United States. Somehow, it only seems reasonable that they shouldn't be rewarded by naming US military bases after them.  Or is that too subtle a concept for him to understand?  1Excerpt From: United States. “The Constitution of the United States of America.” iBooks. https://books.apple.com/us/book/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america/id985765595

Perhaps we should name a base in honor of General Benedict Arnold, that outstanding Revolutionary War general from Connecticut who joined the British Army and led soldiers against the very troops which he had previously commanded for the rebellious colonials of George Washington? Should we have a Fort Benedict Arnold located in, say, Louisiana? Would that make Sen. Kennedy happy?

I'm very fond of the cartoon Non Sequitur, but I rarely post the Sunday strips, because they are pretty big.  I couldn't resist this one, however.

I suppose that now is the time to admit that reading has been my main method of dealing with the COVID lockdown. I HAVE been out a few times, but they have been rare and almost exclusively to go to medical appointments, etc. After all, there's more than COVID that can affect one's health.

On the other hand, I've also been watching too much news, and given what's being reported, that's probably not good for us (me, anyway). Still, I have mixed emotions about this Pearls Before Swine strip.

This son of a librarian isn't sure whether he should laugh, or cry at that.

Oh, well, that's probably enough for now. If there are things which you have noticed which have made you go "hmmmmmm," I'd love it if you'd send them to me.

I'll be back in a couple of weeks. In the meantime,

LLAP,

Dr. B

0 Comments

178 Racism, Bigotry & Justice -- A Special Post

6/9/2020

0 Comments

Although I have touched on the subject of racism before on occasion, the deaths, riots, demonstrations, etc., of the last couple of weeks have upset me to the point that I have decided to break my "no politics" rule and get some things off of my chest.  I think that it's high time that we, as a nation, "put on our 'big boy' pants" and made at least some serious efforts to deal with our racist heritage.  And, make no bones about it, racism has been alive and well in every part of our country since before we were a country.  I'm too old to march, but, maybe, I can get some people to think.  And, maybe, that can do something about changing this sad legacy, before yet another generation has to deal with its horrific effects.

I have purposely lumped "racism" and "bigotry" together for purposes of this discussion because I see them to be, largely, related factors in the total picture.  According to my dictionary: "Racism" is defined as: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."  The dictionary defines "Bigotry" as: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."  As I see it (this MAY be an oversimplification) racism is, in essence, just bigotry based on racial differences, but is really little different from religious and/or political differences, which are also of concern.

Now, I am NOT an American History scholar, but I am quite certain that one can trace religious bigotry back to the earliest of colonial times when different colonies were established, in part, to create a "safe" place for groups to worship their way, and to keep out those "other guys" who didn't worship properly and shouldn't be allowed to spoil OUR "city on the hill."  I do know that the Massachusetts Bay Colony (I had ancestors there) had little tolerance for more traditional Anglicans, Baptists, Anabaptists, Quakers, and others who did not follow THEIR religious practices.  They also had little tolerance for people of different skin colors except for them to be slaves or to be forcibly driven off of land they had occupied for centuries because they were in the way of "us" fulfilling our destiny to create a "perfect" society on the land God (and the King of England) had given us for that purpose.

(Note: Yes, there WERE slaves in New England at this time.  Tituba, the first person accused in the Salem Witch Trials, was the slave of Samuel Parris, the pastor of the Salem Village Church.  She was, apparently, a South American Indian by birth and was sold to Parris in Barbados.)

I confess that I know a bit more about New England than I do about the other colonies, but I think that it's safe to suggest that notions of racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance really never were all that common in most of the colonies, nor did they improve much with time, even after the Revolution.  I do not believe that the Civil War was fought just over slavery so much as it was concerned with the right of the individual states to do as they pleased in many areas, thus weakening the national government in favor of letting most authority and power to reside in the states, as it had under the failed Articles of Confederation.

Post-Civil War Reconstruction was, unfortunately, largely a disaster, which did little but force the "conquered" South into begrudging acceptance of the national government.  Discrimination remained, or soon returned, with "Jim Crow" laws, the KKK, lynching, and political division within the country which was "worked around," largely by ignoring "voter qualification tests," poll taxes, and other forms of voter suppression throughout the South.  Since it was widely accepted that "some" people were congenitally unable to learn to read, write, or be the intellectual equal of "white people" and, since nobody really wanted to pay for schools, etc. for "those" people, even in the North, "colored" people were kept in poverty by only being allowed low class/pay employment, being forced to live in second (third?) class housing, and being denied educational opportunities which even approached those available to others.

Of course, it was also during the latter half of the Nineteenth Century and the early Twentieth Century when the US had vast waves of immigration from Europe.  This helped fuel the Industrial Revolution, and would, eventually, allow those who worked in factories (especially those of European extraction) some prospect of achieving "middle class status," but that, mostly came after WWII.

During this same period, one doesn't have to look very hard to see that the "white" Americans were forcing the "Native" Americans onto reservations where their traditional cultures and languages were being abolished and no real efforts were being made to even view them as people, just as part of the American "burden."  This also contributed to them being viewed as inferior and "dependent."  The discovery of oil on "Indian Territory" in Oklahoma about 1859, created major problems with this policy, leading to various schemes to steal the land back from the "Indians" who, actually, owned it, but those efforts succeeded because the tribes had few people educated on the law and fewer who came to their assistance.

I don't believe I should have to go into the real discrimination faced by Irish, Italian, German and Eastern European immigrants referred to above, nor the migration of Negroes from the cotton fields of the South to the industrial slums of the North to meet the needs of factories, nor the fact that, in the long run, the "white" immigrants were eventually able to move into the mainstream economy more easily than their black counterparts, because discrimination in housing and employment was less severe for "whites" than for "Blacks."  The "Coloreds" didn't even have the option to get real jobs and/or training in the military as that was officially segregated until 1948.  Schools were "separate and unequal" in most places until at least the 1950's.  Then, when that was outlawed, private, "white," "religious" schools were often created, and "white flight" into the suburbs was increased so that "white children wouldn't have to even go to school with "those" people.

So "busing" was put into place in a valiant, but I think vain, attempt to improve things (over MUCH protestation by "white" parents in all parts of the country).  And, since school districts are usually defined by municipalities, big city (Black) kids couldn't be bused into suburban (white) schools and, intentionally or not, those bused could never really be a part of the school community, as they arrived just before school started and left as soon as it was over.  (It's easy to not invite "those" children from your kids' school to come to a birthday party, especially when transportation is likely to be a problem, or they might not have the "proper" clothes or money to afford "proper" presents.  So, it, often, didn't happen.)

And, it's true that discrimination in housing was commonplace.  Real estate agents simply accepted "redlining" in neighborhoods, so "unofficial" segregation continued, even when outlawed.  It is said that some property owners required rental agents to indicate if a potential renter was "C for Colored" on the application for rental properties, so a way could be found to deny THAT person access to a rental property in "unsuitable" buildings.

Jews faced (sometimes still do) all sorts of religious bigotry, as did immigrant Catholics and, later, Muslims and those of other religions.  And, even among Protestant Christians, I suspect that it is still true that Sunday morning remains the most thoroughly segregated time of the week as people of different races (NOT just creeds) can only practice their religion in racially divided spaces.

So, what does all this have to do with the events of the last week, or so?  A good deal, I think.  I am certainly in favor of "Equal Justice Under Law," which IS a central component of the U. S. Constitution and is emblazoned on the pediment of the Supreme Court Building.  However, I'm afraid that too many people don't wish to accept the idea that that principle is now supposed to apply to ALL people of ALL races, ALL religions and ALL ethnic origins (even WOMEN, gasp) as deserving equal treatment in the eyes of the law.

When the Constitution was written, of course, only white, property-owning males were considered "citizens" (slaves only counted as three/fifths of a person even in the census).  Women were counted in the census, of course, but, since they didn't own property, they were not citizens, nor were men who didn't own property.  This has, of course, been changed over the years.  Even American Indians have been accepted as "people" under law, due to a court ruling in 1877 (Note: a hundred years after the Revolution).

If all people, even non-citizens, are supposed to be granted equal justice under the law, then it is intolerable when anyone is denied this.  Two recent cases come to mind which touch on these issues.  One, of course, is that of George Floyd.  Mr. Floyd died while in the custody of four police officers on a street in Minneapolis on May 25th.

One doesn't have to see the widely circulated video many times to understand that there does not appear to be a reason for three of the four officers involved to actively restrain the handcuffed prisoner.  Yes, Floyd WAS accused of a crime, but just accused.  That should have led to his detention, investigation of his actions and/or his arrest.  To see him lying on his face in the gutter, not engaging in any visible, physical actions by having two officers kneeling on his back and legs, while another one has his knee firmly placed on Floyd's neck (an action which almost certainly lead to his death), does NOT feel like Justice.  Since Floyd appears to be well controlled and handcuffed, appropriate investigation of his possible criminal actions should have followed.  That would resemble JUSTICE!

On the other hand, the video certainly shows that this did not happen and appears to show his death while in custody.  Justice would require investigation of the actions of the officers involved, and, if they are ultimately judged to be guilty of improper actions (which APPEAR to be indicated), they should be convicted, and punished, for the appropriate level of murder.  That would resemble JUSTICE!

The second case which comes to my mind was the death of a 22-year-old man in Omaha during a scuffle which arose during a confrontation during a late evening demonstration demanding "justice" for George Floyd on Saturday, May 30.  I have to admit that the video which I have seen on TV appears quite unclear and is not long enough to show anything like the complete context of the confrontation.  It does seem evident that there was some pushing and shoving, apparently leading to a white man pulling a gun and shooting it, over his shoulder at a black man who appears to have jumped on his back, knocking the white guy down.  The local county attorney says that he studied the video many times and decided that it looked to him like a legitimate case of self-defense on the part of the white guy to him.  But, in these emotional times, that's not "acceptable Justice."  So, under significant political pressure, he has called for the case to be examined by a Grand Jury.  I support that notion.  However, it's worth noting that most of the pressure has consisted of calls for "Justice for James Scurlock," the victim.  This appears to assume that the victim must be blameless because he was the victim.  In my book, a black guy jumping on a white guy's back during a confrontation might constitute assault.  I regret his death, but I don't know enough to be able to argue as to whether, or not, "Justice" has actually been served in this case.

I suspect that a lack of adequate gun safety laws, etc., is at least a factor in this mess, especially since the shooter's concealed carry permit had expired.  But I believe that JUSTICE provides for the possible innocence of an accused (which should apply in BOTH of these cases.).  I don't know enough to be able to make a call here, but it appears to me that there is plenty of blame to go around, especially if it is true that Scurlock had jumped on the shooter's back and the fatal shot(s?) were fired over the shooter's shoulder.  That does NOT sound like "responsible gun ownership and use" to me, but it could be an unhappy, but legal cause for firing a weapon.  That could also be "JUSTICE."

Still, situations like this suggest that a great deal must be done, and quickly, to resolve the fact that, all too often, it seems, too many people, including police officers, may respond too emotionally and violently to situations, especially involving men of color.  But the answer to that problem, however, is NOT to abolish police forces, as some seem to think would be a good thing, but to foster an attitude that "To Serve and Protect" applies to ALL citizens, of any color and that force must ALWAYS be justified whenever it is used.  All social issues are NOT criminal in nature.  Police are supposed to deal with CRIMINAL actors.

But the root cause of these problems is the systemic racism built into the social fabric of our society which taints our schools, churches, housing, jobs, health care, etc.  WE MUST create a society which does not tolerate these inequities.  That is NOT a call for Socialism, but a demand that ALL people should have decent schools, access to good health care, fair housing practices, fair access to jobs which will allow them to earn a living, etc.  Will that be easy?  I doubt it.  Is it necessary?  YES!  Will it mean that we all have to accept that even we (the GOOD people) may have contributed to the racism and bigotry which has bred these conditions.  Almost certainly!

However, we must never lose sight of the fact that "JUSTICE" is impartial, logical, reasonable.  The personification of justice is usually a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword.  This, I believe, is intended to show that justice treats all fairly.  As much as possible, she weighs the best evidence she can obtain on the scales to determine guilt or innocence, and executes justice with the sword, when necessary.

I take this to mean that ALL lives are supposed to matter to our society.  That DOES include "Black" ones, but also "Brown," "Yellow," "Red," and, even, "White."  So, I say to my friends who support the "Black Lives Matter" group, "Of course Black Lives matter!"  But saying that does not mean that I should think that "Non-Black" lives don't matter, too.  I've been watching the struggle to try to establish a more just society for the better part of my 75 years.  I hope that we may be on the verge of actually accomplishing something along the lines of actually creating "Equal Justice Under Law."  But we will NOT do that, if we think we can improve justice for ANYONE by taking the right to equal treatment under law away from someone else.  Nor by assuming that the police are the best "final solution."

I'd like to think that I have never behaved in a racist manner.  I recognize that some may disagree, and they MAY be correct.  If that is the case, I am truly sorry.  Yes, as a teacher, I was hard on my students of color.  I believe (and it has been supported by testimony by former students) that I was hard on my other students, as well.  I expected ALL of my students to produce their best work for my classes and was not afraid to let them know when I didn't feel that they had met my (hopefully demanding, but appropriate), standards.  But I don't believe that those standards varied (at least much) from student to student, regardless of that student's talent, sex, color, etc.  I will confess that I attempted to insure fairness of treatment by taking efforts not to know whose paper or test I was grading until after I had completed work on it and by grading all responses to one question on tests, then shuffling the test papers before going on to the next question, etc.  Life is tough enough when we all play by the same rules, but we CAN try to make it fair.  I would argue that anyone who thinks they should receive special treatment is wrong.  I don't think you deserve special treatment over anybody else any more than I do.  But you deserve equal treatment, and so do I!  I believe that that's what the Constitution is all about, now let's go make it work!

That means voting for people who support these principles, regardless of sex, color, religion, or party affiliation.  In the long run, a well thought out vote is worth more than a bit of worn shoe leather.  Think about it, then DO it!

LLAP,

Dr. B

P.S.      I'll be back soon with some more usual material.  I just felt a need to express my feelings or explode. RSB

0 Comments

177 So We Had This Wedding!

6/3/2020

0 Comments

In my last post (#176 in the archives) I made passing reference to the fact that I had been "... helping with daughter #2 (Maggi)'s wedding (held on our back porch with me officiating!) ...."  I suppose that I should take some time to explain what I meant by that and what it meant to me.  Unfortunately, it's something of a longish story....

I believe that I have mentioned before that Maggi was engaged to Brian and that a wedding was planned for this spring.  The happy couple were both quite desirous of having a SPRING wedding because virtually every other "close" family celebration on BOTH sides occurs between Labor Day and the end of the year, and, of course, so does Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Eve.  They both really wanted to be able to celebrate their anniversary at a time when it wouldn't get lost in the mad shuffle of other events.  I confess that Bonnie and I supported that idea wholeheartedly as our anniversary (Dec. 27) is normally lost in the holiday shuffle, so we understood the concern.

So, the wedding was planned for May 16 (to try to avoid Mother's Day and Graduation time as much as possible, and still allow for flowers to be blooming, etc.  The venue was to be "Joslyn Castle," a Scottish baronial style mansion built by George and Sarah Joslyn in 1903.  After belonging to the City of Omaha and the State of Nebraska, it has become an Omaha Landmark Historic Structure and is on the National Register of Historic Places for its national significance.  The grounds are part of the Nebraska Statewide Arboretum and a trust has been established which is restoring the building to something like its original grandeur.  I think it can be best described as having some resemblance to the Biltmore House, which IS from about the same timeframe, but on a smaller scale and Scottish, not French influenced.  It is a lovely place and we were all looking forward to having the wedding there.  See picture of the exterior below:

Then COVID-19 happened!  THAT, of course, changed everything.  With "social distancing" and the other steps being taken to try to avoid dying from this pandemic, it quickly became obvious that having a public wedding with family and friends coming in from out of town, a big party, etc., etc., etc., was simply unwise, unsafe and not practical.  This led to a good deal of questioning as to how long to postpone the planned occasion, how to deal with bakeries, florists, caterers, the folks at the Castle, itself, postponing the honeymoon trip to Europe, and on, and on....  Of course, Maggi and Brian still really WANTED a spring wedding, so the question became what to do about that.

At some point, I forget exactly when, they decided that they were going to go ahead and get married at our house (probably on our, covered, back deck) on the planned day and deal with the reception-party stuff after things settled down and they could have the get together with family and friends that they really wanted.  They thought that they might even do a "dramatic reenactment" of the wedding ceremony on that occasion.  So now, THIS, new, event had to be planned.

We "menfolk" could just get by with wearing suits, but the women still needed "appropriate" dresses and the originally planned wedding dress was really not "right" for a "backyard" wedding.  Oddly enough, even I agreed with that.  Bonnie had something appropriately "mother-of-the-brideish" which she could make work, but Maggi really didn't have a "proper" dress for this, changed, occasion.  So, after considerably more shopping than I thought advisable, they found an "inexpensive" wedding dress which could be made to fit and adapted to suit with a good deal of work by Bonnie.  So, the dress was bought, and the work began.  This would, ultimately, take several weeks of massive work on Bonnie's part in order to: 1.) make the dress fit properly, and; 2.) decorate it with embroidered flowers and butterflies so that it wouldn't be so plain and would make both mother and daughter happy.  Here's a picture of the dress which doesn't really do it justice, but it does show the dress and some of the embroidery.

In the meantime, of course, COIVID-19 was continuing to spread and all of the other stuff with which we are all too aware was going on.  Still, the plan, modified as it was, seemed to be progressing.

M & B had arranged for a friend to "officiate" for their wedding, since they weren't having a "traditional church" wedding in a church, since they are not really into traditional religious practices, and having a friend made the whole thing more personal and special.  So, things were proceeding....  Both the Officiant and the planned attendants were concerned about COVID-19 because of family considerations, but all were trying their best to make it work. Eventually, only one of the "attendants" was able to make it, but late in the game, I think it was the evening of May 7, the Officiant decided that she just couldn't risk getting sick or passing it along to her children.  I must confess, while that was a disappointment to Maggi and Brian, none of us really blamed her.  But someone to officiate was needed and the wedding was only nine days away.  This was a potential difficulty.

Now Maggi knew that it was possible to be "ordained" online (I believe that that's how the planned Officiant was ordained) and I had heard of that idea, although I hadn't ever really looked into it.  But I was not going to let my daughter down.  If I had to get ordained and perform the ceremony myself, so be it.  I was NOT going to let the coronavirus force them to wait until some unknown future timeframe.  This was MY daughter and her fiancé.  If they wished to get married, I was going to see that it happened!

So, I went online and discovered the "Universal Life Church."  I think I have mentioned before that, as a child, I attended the Unitarian Church Sunday school while my folks attended services, and that I later joined a Methodist Church in Evanston as a teenager, but I have not been an active churchgoer for a long time, mostly because I have never felt comfortable with the idea that it was okay for any religion to argue that their beliefs should be dominant or be made into law.  I'm unconvinced that any, specific, religion has an absolute corner on Truth.  So, when I found the Universal Life Church online, I recognized it as being unlike anything I had previously encountered as a "religion." It also would ordain folks instantly and espoused beliefs which I could support.  They state that:

"The Universal Life Church was founded on the basic belief that we are all children of the same universe and, derived from that basic belief, has established two core tenets by which it expects its ministers to conduct themselves:

Do only that which is right.
Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the government’s laws.

"We have made it our mission to actualize these tenets in the world by empowering millions of ministers, whether they come to us from a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Shinto, Agnostic, Atheist, Pagan, Wiccan, or Druid tradition, to speak their own truth to power." https://www.themonastery.org/aboutUs

I strongly agree with both of these ideas , so I had no problem in ascribing to them. I suppose that one could argue that this is not really a religion, but a "freedom of religion" organization. Still, constitutionally, it does qualify as a "religion," at least to the extent that it can ordain "ministers" who can carry out ministerial practices within the legal restrictions of the vast majority of states (and probably should be able to do so in all states, etc.). I confess that I also really like the motto/emblem of the ULC shown below.

And so, on May 8, I became a Minister.

Then, I had to figure out how to perform a wedding which would suit my daughter and her fiancé. Quick investigation revealed that all that was technically required (at least in Nebraska, and, I think, most places) is what is called the Declaration of Intent by both parties ("Do you, NAME, take OTHER NAME etc." followed by "I do," or the equivalent); and the Pronouncement "I now declare you etc." by the Officiant, and that there be witnesses to sign the paperwork. Most weddings, of course, are a bit more complicated than that, but, from a legal point of view, that's all that's actually needed. So, I started working on a simple ceremony.

Since folks, including Brian's parents, couldn't come to Omaha (COVID again), M & B decided to stage the wedding on Zoom, so that more than the roughly 6-8 people on the back deck could "attend." That meant that the deck had to have a bit more of a suitable "wedding" set," we had to have a "script" (which I was working on), I needed a suitable "costume" (the others had theirs and I wanted to be able to differentiate between "Father of the Bride" and "Officiant"). So, flowers were purchased and arranged, a suitable "script" was drafted, including a "prologue" to explain what I was doing and why I was doing it, etc. It took several drafts to get it all worked out, but, by Saturday morning (a couple of hours before the ceremony) we had a text we all liked, my academic gown would serve as "ministerial robes" (they ARE much the same) with the addition of a stole Bonnie made for the occasion, and the deck was decorated. The actual ceremony was short; but covered both the legalities and their desires. And so, they were married.

This is not a great picture of the couple; but considering that it started pouring rain as the ceremony was ending, we're lucky to have any pictures before the ones from the official photographer are available.

Following the ceremony, we had a small cake cutting and toasting and then the rain shower pretty much stopped. This was good, since M & B had invited friends to do a "drive-by wedding parade," if they wished and Bonnie had invited some of her friends from her book club, etc. to join in. We had set up a canopy in our driveway to provide some shelter for the wedding party in case of rain (which was anticipated), and the "parade" was, perhaps, more "drive-by" than "parade," but I do believe that a good time was had by all. Even the rain quickly tapered off to just a little drizzle.

I must confess that I'm not going to take being a "minister" too seriously, so I'm really not going to go into the "minister" business, but I was glad to be able to make Maggi and Brian happy, even if it meant that I had to do more than just to walk my daughter down the aisle.  Of course, under these circumstances we didn't even have an aisle, so that would not have been possible in any event.

All in all, it was quite a celebration and, as I (as "Officiant") said at the time, "'celebration' is the right term, I think, because a ceremony, such as this, does not create a marriage, it acknowledges that such a relationship exists."  A ceremony may be required to satisfy legal requirements, but I've been watching Maggi (and Brian) for a good while now and I firmly believe that in every sense but legally, they have been married for some time.  Their relationship clearly makes them both happier and more complete than they were before and I, for one, am very happy that they found each other.

So, now I am a Minister with nothing much to do and little real interest in "ministering."  I guess my payoff for this (other than seeing the joy on Maggi's face) was having both of my daughters refer to me as "Reverend Doctor Daddy."  I confess that that is something that I would never have predicted, and it still makes me smile.  I guess if you live long enough....

I'll be back in a couple of weeks with something more normal, I expect.  Of course, these days, one never knows ....

LLAP,

Dr. B

P.S. I will also confess that the whole experience was a bit like having a flashback to playing the Stage Manager in Our Town, but with fewer lines and no rehearsal.  Not like when Kate and Ty were married and all I had to do was put on a tux and walk her down the aisle.  Still, both experiences are quite special for me, and always will be.

RSB

0 Comments

179 Things to Ponder ... (OR, Things That made Me Go Hmmmm....)

​178 Racism, Bigotry & Justice -- A Special Post

177 So We Had This Wedding!

Archives

Categories

178 Racism, Bigotry & Justice -- A Special Post