The Voice of Treason

Okay. I just have to take some time to address the issue of f*ck. On 5/20, I said to the President and CEO of PepsiCo: “F*ck you.” All right, not to her face, of course, but that’s what I wrote in my response to her comments about my country. If you notice, at the top of my blog, I have famous quotes from various sources and one, to paraphrase, is: “Saying ‘my country right or wrong’ is like saying my mother drunk or sober.”

The actual line is from G. K. Chesterton’s first book of essays The Defendant (1901) from the chapter, “A Defence of Patriotism”:

“‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’”

Take that any way you wish, but I interpret it this way: “I love my country and I love my mother. I just don’t have to like them all the time.” I feel I’m a bit of a nationalist - only because my ancestors fled their native countries to come here and improve their lots in life. My father’s family, from what I understand, came here from England (I’ve heard they were on the Mayflower, but I have my doubts), settled in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia, mixed with the Dutch, and raised horses. My mother’s family came much later - at a time when the only people in America who were happy to see the Italians were the Irish.

There are several countries I would like to visit - fewer now that I’m older - but even fewer that I’d be willing to move to. America is flawed. Terribly flawed. I have no trouble recognizing her people’s faults. But I daresay that this country is pretty damned fantastic. As a native Chicagoan, I always hated New York City. Those 1969 Mets practically destroyed my childhood. New Yorkers always looked at Chicago as a second rate city - a New York wannabe. As a Midwestern town, Chicago lacked class and stature. How could it compete with the great metropolis of New York? It would always be second.

So I despised New York. I’d never been there, but I hated it. Chicago was my kind of town, and no matter how long I lived outside of it, it would always be home. Chicagoans can always spot fellow Chicagoans and they’re quick to share stories about the Cubs, the Loop, Italian beef sandwiches, and Riverview Park. It’s a great city.

But a few years ago I went to New York. I even went to Shea Stadium. The city is flawed, but who cares? It has The Carnegie Deli and just about everything else a person could ask for - good and bad. It is a marvel. I love New York. It has everything - except reporter Arthur Chi’en of WCBS. He thought his microphone was off, so when he finished his live report from a subway station, after being heckled throughout by two punks, he turned and shouted to them:

“What the f*ck is your problem?!”

He has been fired. And I just have to say that I don’t support that decision. It’s just a word. An interesting word, of course, but a word. Freedom of expression, of speech, of the press - why is one word standing in the way of this man’s employment?

To me, it’s not always the word that’s offensive. Without sounding too much like an EST graduate, f*ck is just a word. Like spaghetti. But in a certain context, and in a certain tone, it can be devastating. I think in Arthur’s case, it was justified. He should be commended for keeping his cool throughout his report. It’s a shame his microphone was still on.

What is the issue with f*ck, anyway? I submit for evidence two Robert DeNiro films. The first: Raging Bull. I love Martin Scorsese. The man is one of the most brilliant film directors of all time. In this film, f*ck is a character. It has a huge role. Every time the word shows up, the audience cringes. A powerful film, a powerful use of a word.

Next we have Martin Brest’s Midnight Run. There’s DeNiro, Farina, Pantoliano, and F*ck - another big player in the film. I’ve seen Midnight Run countless times and I always plan to count the number of times F*ck appears in the film. But I quickly lose count after the first few scenes. I adore F*ck in this film. Few of F*ck’s performances have been this…well, funny. Hysterical. And somehow completely inoffensive. The film was blasted for its language but I can’t imagine this movie without it. The word does become a character of its own - and it practically steals the film. I wasn’t shocked. I wasn’t offended.

Is this the slippery slope? Have I become desensitized? Has the word lost its impact? No. I just have to watch Raging Bull again and I’m reminded of what a horrible word f*ck can be.

But it shouldn’t put Arthur Chi’en on unemployment.

The Pepsi generation is at it again. Columbia’s Business School commencement address was the topic of conversation this week because guest speaker, PepsiCo president/CFO Indra K. Nooyi, flipped off the U.S. Wizbang (www.wizbangblog.com) describes the incident so well that I won’t even attempt to paraphrase.

Columbia MBA graduate, Wes Martin, summarizes the incident:

“Ms. Nooyi began to compare the world and its five major continents (excluding Antarctica and Australia) to the human hand. First was Africa - the pinky finger - small and somewhat insignificant, but when hurt, the entire hand hurt with it. Next was Asia - the thumb - strong and powerful, yearning to become a bigger player on the world stage. Third was Europe - the index finger - pointing the way. Fourth was South America - the ring finger - the finger which symbolizes love and sensualness. Finally, the U.S. (not Canada mind you) - yes, you guessed it - the middle finger. She then launched into a diatribe about how the U.S. is seen as the middle finger to the rest of the world. The rest of the world sees us as an overbearing, insensitive and disrespectful nation that gives the middle finger to the rest of the world. According to Ms. Nooyi, we cause the other finger nations to cower under our presence. But it is our responsibility, she continues, to change the current state of world opinion of the U.S. It is our responsibility to make the other fingers rise in unison with us as we move forward. She then goes on to give a personal anecdote about some disrespectful U.S. businesswomen in an Asian country and how that is typical of Americans overseas. No talk of what the U.S. has done for the world throughout its history. No discussion about the ills that have been cured and the rights that have been wronged by the U.S. Just how wrong we are for the way we are perceived and how right they are in their own perceptions of the United States.”

“With PepsiCo in damage control mode, we’ve now got a clarification from Nooyi at the PepsiCo website:

The point of my analogy was to emphasize America’s leadership position. Equally critical is the need for each of us as citizens to take a constructive role in whatever we choose to do in life to ensure the U.S. continues as the world’s ‘helping hand.’

Update: Nooyi could take a few pointers from Vice President Dick Cheney who delivered this commencement speech at Auburn University last Friday.”

This is why I give credit to Wizbang. In searching the Web for the content of Nooyi’s speech, I landed on Wizbang - and I have to admit it was the first time I’d looked at this site - and I just have to give them credit, to quote our VP, “BIG time.”

The speech from Cheney is a good one; classy, because the occasion calls for it and because Cheney, himself, is a class act. Would Lynne put up with anything less?

Here’s an excerpt - oh, and thank you, Wizbang. This is great stuff.

Remarks by Vice President Cheney at the Auburn University Commencement Friday May 13:

“…Sometimes others know better than we do just what our talents are, and how we can best use them. For all the plans we make in life, sometimes life has other plans for us.

Those of us who’ve been around a while can also recall a few times when life took an unexpected turn, not always in a positive direction. As I mentioned a moment ago, I received my undergraduate degree from the University of Wyoming. My college experience, though, began at a place called Yale — but I didn’t finish there. Actually, instead, I dropped out after a few semesters. Actually, dropped out isn’t quite accurate. Was ‘asked to leave’ would be more like it. Twice. And the second time around, they said, don’t come back.

You, too, may face some disappointing turns of your own — times when you fall short, knowing you could have done better. And when that happens, don’t give up or let your doubts get the best of you. I have met some very successful people in my day — men and women of talent and character who have risen to the top of their fields. And it’s the rare one who hasn’t had a taste of failure, or a false start along the way. Setbacks in life can stop you dead in your tracks, or they can inspire you forward. Either way, you will look back on them as turning points. They are crucial days in your life, when you see the starkest kind of choice, and you know that it belongs to you alone.

One of the things I love most about our country is that we have such opportunities. There are places in the world where failure is final, and one early misstep will decide your fate forever. But America is still the country of the second chance. Most of us end up needing one. And when you’re gone on to accomplish something, we can be that much more grateful.

Gratitude, in general, is a good habit to get into. It is usually a correct appraisal of our situation. Most of us are able to succeed and rise in the world because someone helped out along the way — whether it was a memorable teacher, or a boss who handed us a great opportunity, or the person who took a chance and gave us the first big break in our career. A grateful heart is an honest understanding of all that we have been given, and all that is expected in return.

There is always the temptation to forget this — to carry ourselves with an air of entitlement, as if good things come to us by right. They rarely do. And life has a way of working out better when we don’t take things for granted, when we have a long memory of what others have given us, when we look for the blessings, great and small, that come with every day we’re alive on this Earth.

For all of you, this day in the Coliseum at Auburn will forever stand out — as a marker of gifts well used, aspirations fulfilled, and hard work rewarded. It’s been my privilege to share it with you and your families. And once again, my congratulations to you all. Good luck and Godspeed to the Auburn University Class of 2005.”

No hand gestures, no insults. Just words of wisdom from perhaps the greatest vice president this “overbearing, insensitive and disrespectful nation” has ever produced. To Kevin Aylward, who started Wizbang in April, 2003, I salute you, and I will visit your site often.

To Ms. Nooyi, I say: “F*ck you.” As much as I despise both Pepsi and Coca Cola’s recent ad campaigns, when given the choice, I will choose Coke products.

A fun quote from Marilyn Manson. If he’s trying to justify the crap that passes for entertainment these days or saying that exposing children to an adult world too soon isn’t a problem, then I’ll take issue. But I’ll defend him on that last part. Greta Van Susteren has moved from CNN to FNC and is building a solid career on just crime - and people are watching.

The latest is a story out of scenic Idaho. In short, we have three dead bodies and two missing children. The authorities have detected traces of “illicit drugs” in the two adults’ bodies. No one’s being specific about the substances, but people are starting to wonder if there’s a connection between the murders and abduction and maybe drugs and criminal behavior. No one wants to think the worst of these victims, but one can’t rule out the obvious.

Individuals need to realize that having children means sacrifice. In effect, an adult must give up having a life in order to raise children. You can argue all you want, but you have to admit there’s some truth to this. Feminists hold up their icons but never mention women like Phyllis Schlafly - mainly because feminists don’t recognize conservative women. I don’t agree with Phyllis on every issue, but I have to admire the woman because she managed to do something many women can’t. She raised a family and had a career. I mean, women do this all the time, but that doesn’t mean they’re successful at it.

Women are told that they can have it all, so they attempt to do it all. There are only 24 hours in a day - something’s gotta give. But Phyllis managed to lead a major political movement, get a law degree, write books (twenty or more at last count) as well as a syndicated column, do a radio show, get a Master’s from Harvard…and then some…and raise six children.

But even Phyllis sacrificed. She raised her children, but she also wanted to write. So when the kids were asleep, she cranked out books. I’m not sure when she managed to get her sleep, but no matter. Her children survived, and she got published. It couldn’t have been a perfect system, but she did what she could do. Hopefully her children weren’t dealing with a zombie or a tired, angry woman when they were awake. But so far the kids haven’t come out to the press with horror stories, so we have to assume there wasn’t too much damage.

But Phyllis gave up something. Sleep for one. And maybe she could have had more of a writing career, more of a political career. But you get the feeling that her family came first. In 1992, she was was Illinois Mother of the Year. I don’t think Phyllis was doing drugs. The problem with drugs is that drugs come first. If you have kids, you probably should avoid drugs. One reason I don’t have kids is that I suspect I’d want to be on drugs. It’s not a good combination.

It reminds me of the time I was living in an apartment my first year of college. The place was divided into four separate sleeping areas, and all four tenants shared the kitchen and dining areas. I decided to make popcorn while I was watching Jaws on TV. I put oil in the pan, turned on the heat, then checked in with the movie. Problem: it was the scene where Robert Shaw was getting eaten. I was frozen, mesmerized. In the distance I heard a loud noise - as if a large cardboard box filled with air had been struck…kinda like an explosion or something - but I just stood there watching Robert Shaw disappear into the fake shark’s mouth. Then I heard my roommates screaming. Never leave hot oil unattended.

This is why I don’t have children. Well, one reason. If I was watching The Godfather and it was the christening scene, do you think I could pull myself away to check on a kid? I mean, I probably could - I manage to keep my dogs alive and happy - but they’re dogs. I will pull myself away for dogs. But if I were stoned all the time, I’d be slower to react. Maybe I wouldn’t even want to react.

There are stories of drug addicted parents who beat their kids or let them wander the streets in filthy diapers, or stories of kids who are starved and neglected or get into a stash of drugs and are poisoned. If you have children, you child-proof a house. Crack on a cocktail table isn’t child-proofing a house. And if you associate with criminals, you’re putting your family at risk. So I guess people have to decide: Do I want to be a drug addicted criminal or do I want to raise a normal child?

Usually it’s the child who suffers, but a recent story had a different ending. There was a Cadillac and a toddler was locked inside. Somehow the kid activated the OnStar system. OnStar determined that a child was in jeopardy and alerted the police. When the cops showed up, the kid’s father was outside the vehicle, trying to get the kid to unlock the car door. Upon further investigation, the police discovered that the vehicle was full of marijuana. The father and two buddies were arrested.

Treason number twenty-five: If you’re not willing to act like a responsible adult, don’t bring kids into the world. And don’t have pets, either.

Tim had responded to my opinion about priests and celibacy way back in April, then I responded to his comments about married priests (finally) on Sunday. My friend, Louise (an accountant, romance writer, and professional Catholic), read my remarks and pointed out that since priests only earn $10,000 a year, if they had the financial burden of a family, they’d be forced to live on government assistance (welfare). And wouldn’t this compromise the separation of Church and state? Well done, Louise!

She also notes that, after reading about the Jewish dietary laws that I included in my response to Tim, she is even happier to be a Catholic. Her only food considerations are fish on Friday and a couple days of fasting here and there. Knowing that a cheeseburger doesn’t mean an eternity in Hell is a relief, to say the least.

I stand by my opinion about priests and celibacy and would remind priests that celibacy doesn’t mean just no sex with women. Say what you will about Catholicism, but Catholic charities do a lot of good in the world. They could do even more if the money raised by these charities wasn’t going to lawyers and their clients. It is my hope that the Rottweiler addresses this issue. But, unfortunately, I don’t foresee a solution to this problem. If the Church cannot address this hypocrisy - this crime of crimes - then they have no business preaching about the sanctity of life. You can speak against abortion and capital punishment all you want, but if you don’t stop sexual abuse within the Church, you’re wasting your breath and you’re wasting my time.

Mitch, a sailor in the British Royal Navy, was working with the ship’s anchor when the heavy chain that holds the anchor fell on his foot. The injury resulted in a nasty problem in his toe that spread to his leg. Doctors were prepared to amputate. But Mitch’s loyal Jack Russell Terrier, Milo, started licking his owner’s afflicted leg - sometimes up to four hours a day. (It’s important to give Jack Russell Terriers something to do. If they get bored, they’ll find something to do to keep themselves busy. Usually it’s not something you’d want them to be doing. But in this case, it worked out.)

By the time Mitch returned to the hospital so his doctors could remove the leg, it was healed. The power of dog spit!

Owners of Jack Russell Terriers are saying, “Yeah, so?” Remember the old Timex ads? People who survived unimaginable lickings and kept on ticking were prominently featured in TV and print ads. One of these “people” was a Jack Russell - and I can’t remember now if it was a male or female - who had run out of the house and into the street and under a car. Devastated, the family picked up their pet from the street and brought him back into the house. He was so motionless, so lifeless, that after waiting to make sure he was really gone, they dug a hole in the backyard and buried him. In the middle of the night, the family awoke to the sound of the screen door slamming. Before they could get out of bed to investigate, a muddy, bloody, Jack Russell Terrier was on the parents’ bed to greet them. Yes, the dog had been buried alive and it dug itself out of its grave, broke into the house, and made its way upstairs to wake up the family.

Typical Jack Russell behavior. Is this why The Jack Russell Terrier Association of America has changed the breed’s name and is referring to itself as The Parson Russell Terrier Association of America?

Um, can’t we all just get along? Newsweek, having learned nothing from the CBS incident, published a story about American soldiers in Gitmo flushing a Koran (or Qur’an) down a toilet. My first question is: How do you flush a book down a toilet? I’ve been living with low water use toilets for so long that I can’t even flush a dead bug down one. Anyway, it doesn’t matter - even if they tore it up in tiny pieces and flushed it - the real story now is not that the incident happened or didn’t happen. The real story is that Newsweek, like CBS, didn’t fully check out its sources and printed a story that led to riots, deaths, an extremely bad PR situation for America, and an even more dangerous environment for our military.

I have to ask: What is the role of editors these days? I mean, how does this stuff get past the powers-that-be and make it into publications? I can’t say I blame the writers. Shouldn’t the editors be making the final decisions about what gets into their magazines and newspapers? And shouldn’t they be the ones who are accountable when things go wrong?

Did anyone stop to think that this might not be a good idea because we are in the middle of a conflict with a part of the world that is so volatile that something like rioting and killing could result from a desecration story - whether it’s true or false? Newsweek has retracted the story, but the damage has been done. This is a place where desecrating a book is punishable by death, but videotaping the sawing-off of a human head with a dull blade is okay. We are dealing with a mindset that is unexplainable. It’s like living with a psychopath: you learn to walk on eggshells.

My next question: What makes people riot? There was a time that fans of sports teams that lost championships took to the streets to riot. Recently, fans of winning teams have rioted. (Thankfully, people who live on Chicago’s North Side can forever rest easy.) But tell me — what is it that makes a person get off the couch and go into the street to participate in mayhem and murder?

In April 1992, I watched the Los Angeles riots on TV when I lived in the northern part of the state. Motorists were pulled from their vehicles and beaten, cars were overturned, store windows were smashed, businesses were burned to the ground. The individuals who pulled Reginald Denny from his truck, beat him, kicked him, dropped a cinder block on his head, then danced around his broken body and stole his wallet, acted as if they were at a party. The results? A neighborhood was destroyed. Lives and livelihoods were destroyed. And after there was more than fifty people killed, more than two thousand people injured, and damage totaling one billion dollars, Rodney King asked the world: “Can’t we all just all get along?”

That’s probably when I decided it was time to start thinking seriously about leaving California. Within two years I bought a house in another state. Getting along always sounds like a good idea. Your parents tell you and your siblings to just learn to get along. Teachers tell you and your classmates to just get along. Your boss tells you and your coworkers to just get along. But “just getting along” denotes a certain apathy, a let’s-not-rock-the-boat, a just-let-everyone-do-their-thing attitude. People think: As long as it doesn’t affect me, I don’t care what my neighbor does. We learn to put up, then shut up. So getting along isn’t the solution. Treason number twenty-four: Can’t we all just behave?

I’m a…loooz-zah! There are people out there adding comments to my blog and I haven’t yet acknowledged them. How scuzzy is that? Today I’m going to set some time aside to respond to Tim, who has probably since determined that I’m a deadbeat who doesn’t appreciate that he took the time to read what I wrote then took the time to comment on it. No doubt Tim has abandoned The Voice of Treason and has gone on to other things. But hopefully it isn’t too late for me to thank him for his remarks from…oh, gosh, it’s been so freaking long…um, April 19th??? Well, I apologize for not immediately responding to Tim, but to tell you the truth, I was so surprised — maybe mortified is a better word — that someone would comment, that I think I went into a state of shock. I need to snap out of it and be more responsible. Tim, I apologize for being so rude.

What Tim did is respond to my remarks about the new pope and the criticism from those who were disappointed that he was going to be conservative and traditional. I feel that if you don’t like what Catholicism stands for, don’t be a Catholic. There are versions of Catholicism out there that are much more accommodating and could be a better choice for the more liberal Catholic. It’s like Judaism. You can be a Jew, but you don’t necessarily have to have two refrigerators in your kitchen. Orthodox Jews are so adamant about keeping meat and dairy separate, that they don’t even want them mixing and mingling in the fridge. I don’t care what my food is doing once I close the door and the light goes out. But if you’re an Orthodox Jew, this is an integral part of your life.

From Judaism 101:

General Rules

“Although the details of kashrut are extensive, the laws all derive from a few fairly simple, straightforward rules:

1. Certain animals may not be eaten at all. This restriction includes the flesh, organs, eggs and milk of the forbidden animals.
2. Of the animals that may be eaten, the birds and mammals must be killed in accordance with Jewish law.
3. All blood must be drained from the meat or broiled out of it before it is eaten.
4. Certain parts of permitted animals may not be eaten.
5. Meat (the flesh of birds and mammals) cannot be eaten with dairy. Fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables and grains can be eaten with either meat or dairy. According to some views, fish may not be eaten with meat.
6. Utensils that have come into contact with meat may not be used with dairy, and vice versa. Utensils that have come into contact with non-kosher food may not be used with kosher food. This applies only where the contact occurred while the food was hot.
7. Grape products made by non-Jews may not be eaten.”

* An aside: a lot of Italians feel the same way. They’re very picky about serving meat and fish in the same meal, and you definitely don’t want both meat and fish in your pasta sauce. Think about it: what fish and meat would you want to mix together anyway?

Animals that may not be eaten

“Of the “beasts of the earth” (which basically refers to land mammals with the exception of swarming rodents), you may eat any animal that has cloven hooves and chews its cud. Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6. Any land mammal that does not have both of these qualities is forbidden. The Torah specifies that the camel, the rock badger, the hare and the pig are not kosher because each lacks one of these two qualifications. Sheep, cattle, goats and deer are kosher.

Of the things that are in the waters, you may eat anything that has fins and scales. Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9. Thus, shellfish such as lobsters, oysters, shrimp, clams and crabs are all forbidden. Fish like tuna, carp, salmon and herring are all permitted.

For birds, the criteria is less clear. The Torah lists forbidden birds (Lev. 11:13-19; Deut. 14:11-18), but does not specify why these particular birds are forbidden. All of the birds on the list are birds of prey or scavengers, thus the rabbis inferred that this was the basis for the distinction. Other birds are permitted, such as chicken, geese, ducks and turkeys.

Of the “winged swarming things” (winged insects), a few are specifically permitted (Lev. 11:22), but the Sages are no longer certain which ones they are, so all have been forbidden.

Rodents, reptiles, amphibians, and insects (except as mentioned above) are all forbidden. Lev. 11:29-30, 42-43. Some authorities require a post-mortem examination of the lungs of cattle, to determine whether the lungs are free from adhesions. If the lungs are free from such adhesions, the animal is deemed “glatt” (that is, “smooth”). In certain circumstances, an animal can be kosher without being glatt; however, the stringency of keeping “glatt kosher” has become increasingly common in recent years.

As mentioned above, any product derived from these forbidden animals, such as their milk, eggs, fat, or organs, also cannot be eaten. Rennet, an enzyme used to harden cheese, is often obtained from non-kosher animals, thus kosher hard cheese can be difficult to find.”

Kosher slaughtering

“The mammals and birds that may be eaten must be slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law. (Deut. 12:21). We may not eat animals that died of natural causes (Deut. 14:21) or that were killed by other animals. In addition, the animal must have no disease or flaws in the organs at the time of slaughter. These restrictions do not apply to fish; only to the flocks and herds (Num. 11:22).

Ritual slaughter is known as shechitah, and the person who performs the slaughter is called a shochet, both from the Hebrew root Shin-Chet-Tav, meaning to destroy or kill. The method of slaughter is a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade with no nicks or unevenness. This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognized as the most humane method of slaughter possible.

Another advantage of shechitah is that ensures rapid, complete draining of the blood, which is also necessary to render the meat kosher. The shochet is not simply a butcher; he must be a pious man, well-trained in Jewish law, particularly as it relates to kashrut. In smaller, more remote communities, the rabbi and the shochet were often the same person.”

Separation of Meat and Dairy

“On three separate occasions, the Torah tells us not to “boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). The Oral Torah explains that this passage prohibits eating meat and dairy together. The rabbis extended this prohibition to include not eating milk and poultry together. In addition, the Talmud prohibits cooking meat and fish together or serving them on the same plates, because it is considered to be unhealthy. It is, however, permissible to eat fish and dairy together, and it is quite common. It is also permissible to eat dairy and eggs together.

This separation includes not only the foods themselves, but the utensils, pots and pans with which they are cooked, the plates and flatware from which they are eaten, the dishwashers or dishpans in which they are cleaned, and the towels on which they are dried. A kosher household will have at least two sets of pots, pans and dishes: one for meat and one for dairy. See Utensils below for more details.

One must wait a significant amount of time between eating meat and dairy. Opinions differ, and vary from three to six hours. This is because fatty residues and meat particles tend to cling to the mouth. From dairy to meat, however, one need only rinse one’s mouth and eat a neutral solid like bread, unless the dairy product in question is also of a type that tends to stick in the mouth.

The Yiddish words fleishik (meat), milchik (dairy) and pareve (neutral) are commonly used to describe food or utensils that fall into one of those categories. Note that even the smallest quantity of dairy (or meat) in something renders it entirely dairy (or meat) for purposes of kashrut. For example, most margarines are dairy for kosher purposes, because they contain a small quantity of whey or other dairy products to give it a dairy-like taste. Animal fat is considered meat for purposes of kashrut. You should read the ingredients very carefully, even if the product is kosher-certified.”

Utensils

“Utensils (pots, pans, plates, flatware, etc., etc.) must also be kosher. A utensil picks up the kosher “status” (meat, dairy, pareve, or treyf) of the food that is cooked in it or eaten off of it, and transmits that status back to the next food that is cooked in it or eaten off of it. Thus, if you cook chicken soup in a saucepan, the pan becomes meat. If you thereafter use the same saucepan to heat up some warm milk, the fleishig status of the pan is transmitted to the milk, and the milchig status of the milk is transmitted to the pan, making both the pan and the milk a forbidden mixture.

Kosher status can be transmitted from the food to the utensil or from the utensil to the food only in the presence of heat, thus if you are eating cold food in a non-kosher establishment, the condition of the plates is not an issue. Likewise, you could use the same knife to slice cold cuts and cheese, as long as you clean it in between, but this is not really a recommended procedure, because it increases the likelihood of mistakes.

Stove tops and sinks routinely become non-kosher utensils, because they routinely come in contact with both meat and dairy in the presence of heat. It is necessary, therefore, to use dishpans when cleaning dishes (don’t soak them directly in the sink) and to use separate spoon rests and trivets when putting things down on the stove top. Dishwashers are a kashrut problem. If you are going to use a dishwasher in a kosher home, you either need to have separate dish racks or you need to run the dishwasher in between meat and dairy loads.

You should use separate towels and pot holders for meat and dairy. Routine laundering kashers such items, so you can simply launder them between using them for meat and dairy. Certain kinds of utensils can be “kashered” if you make a mistake and use it with both meat and dairy. Consult a rabbi for guidance if this situation occurs.”

Grape Products

“The restrictions on grape products derive from the laws against using products of idolatry. Wine was commonly used in the rituals of all ancient religions, and wine was routinely sanctified for pagan purposes while it was being processed. For this reason, use of wines and other grape products made by non-Jews was prohibited. (Whole grapes are not a problem, nor are whole grapes in fruit cocktail).

For the most part, this rule only affects wine and grape juice. This becomes a concern with many fruit drinks or fruit-flavored drinks, which are often sweetened with grape juice. You may also notice that some baking powders are not kosher, because baking powder is sometimes made with cream of tartar, a by-product of wine making.”

Now, one of my sisters was Jewish. We lived in a Jewish neighborhood in Chicago, so when she married her Jewish boyfriend she converted to Judaism. With her second husband, she became a Seventh Day Adventist. These people don’t eat meat and don’t wear jewelry. Go figure.

Anyway, I don’t claim to be an expert on religion, yet I’m fascinated by it. My mother grew up in an Italian immigrant family and learned to hate Catholicism at an early age. She says she disliked the hypocrisy; those who claimed to be the best Catholics were often the worst people. And she didn’t appreciate that neither the priests nor the nuns could keep their hands off her. Someone was always either trying to grab her or slap her. So she found an ingenious way of getting out of going to church. She’d make herself pass out. This became an embarrassment for the family so they let her stay home. But as they say: Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Even though she didn’t make us go to church, and she told us we could be any religion we wanted to be as long as we kept her out of it, she tended to act sometimes like a Catholic. She told us that if we were smart, we wouldn’t get involved in religion at all. And she purposely moved us to a Jewish neighborhood. When I’d ask what religion we were, she’d say Protestant. When I’d ask the next day, she’d say Presbyterian. The next: Episcopalian. We had no religious symbols in the house. No crosses, no statues. When I found a rosary in a little leather pouch on the beach, she took it away from me, saying: “Crosses are bad luck!”

But it seemed like every dog and cat we had was named after a saint. And when I was ten years old, she brought home a raccoon named Buddy as my birthday present - much to the horror of our cats Jude and Luke, and our landlord Mr. Daniels - and whenever Buddy would stuff the bathroom sink drain with towels or walnuts or whatever object that would fit perfectly in that hole and make it possible for him to turn on the faucet and flood the apartment, my mother would always pray to St. Jude for help.

You might see now why I’m conflicted. I’m a conservative, raised by an Italian mother who’s a lapsed Catholic who wanted us to grow up in a Liberal Jewish neighborhood in Chicago. I’m pulled towards both religions. But it’s not like you can be both Catholic and Jewish. That whole Jesus thing kinda gets in the way. Buddhism is also attractive to me, but what it really comes down to is that I haven’t yet found a religion that I agree with 100%. The main sticking point, I guess is dietary laws. I’m not willing to change my eating habits for God. And if I’m not willing to do that, what else wouldn’t I be willing to do? I’m not cut out for organized religion. Sure, I don’t agree with 100% of what Republicans stand for, but I still vote Republican. That’s different, because for me there’s no other choice. Until the Libertarians find a decent candidate to run and don’t all come across as fringe tax-evading dope-smoking crazies, maybe I’ll vote for them instead.

I digress. Let’s get back to Judaism. It’s a religion that seems, for the most part, to make sense. In fact, converting to Judaism might solve some problems for dissatisfied Catholics. For instance, the Jews have the good sense to divide themselves up into different groups: Orthodox (believing that Jewish law comes from G-d and cannot be changed), Conservative (accepting the binding nature of Jewish law but believing that the law can change), Reconstructionist (an outgrowth of Conservative that does not believe in a personified deity and believes that Jewish law was created by men), and Reform (believing that Jewish law was inspired by G-d and one can choose which laws to follow). Catholics can spell out the word God, Jews can’t. Fascinating.

When I was a kid, I was in love with the idea of religion. I would walk past the beautiful Catholic churches and look at the statues and stained glass and wonder what it was like to go in there. Then I’d look at the Catholic school students in their uniforms and wonder why I didn’t have to wear a uniform at my public school. I’d walk with my friends after school and say goodbye to them when we got to the Hebrew school because they had to go to Hebrew class. How come I got to go home and watch Garfield Goose? I’d walk past the temples and sometimes muster up the courage to run up the stairs to open the door and peek inside. What was in there?

Religion lost a little mystery when we moved to Arizona. My best friend was a Mormon and she’d drag me to church with her. What a bizarre place! It looked like the inside of a 747 - very contemporary. And it seemed so casual. All they seemed to do there was put on skits and play volleyball. More like a theatre company or sports team than a church. But it wasn’t for me. I wanted something a little more rigid.

And that’s why I said what I said about Catholicism. What’s wrong with a religion that stays rigid? Tim’s point is that the Church was willing to change on some rules, so why shouldn’t they be consistent and change some more? This was his comment:

“Hi, I’m Tim, I followed a thread here from LJ…

So, in a rather serious way: why no married priests?”

Well, Tim, if it were up to me everything would still be in Latin, Catholics would just have to learn Latin if they wanted to understand what the priests were saying, and priests would have to take voice lessons. Good thing I’m not the pope, right? But then I couldn’t be - I have ovaries. Frankly, Tim, you present some excellent points. But I don’t care for the idea of married Anglicans becoming priests. It sounds too much like cheating. I stand by my support of celibacy. To me, what better illustrates a commitment to a higher power? If a man is married to a woman and has children, I feel that his number one commitment is to that family. To sacrifice that, and to give yourself totally to a religion, is well, pretty damned impressive to me. It’s why I’m especially horrified when I learn of priests and nuns molesting and fornicating all over the place. Is nothing sacred? If a priest can’t keep his pants zipped, what else can’t he do?

There is romance in the Church. A handsome young priest, celibate and above all things carnal, is intoxicating. If he can sacrifice physical pleasure and give up any idea of passing on his family’s name, then this religion thing has got to be some powerful stuff. It’s a romantic ideal, yes, but it’s something that should continue and be revered. There is room for romance in the Church - but no room for sex. And there should be no room for pedophile priests. As long as they’re accepted, I cannot be a Catholic.

I don’t know if that addresses your question, Tim, but that’s what I think about married priests. I think if a priest is willing to sacrifice parts of his religion to make his life more comfortable, then perhaps he’s chosen the wrong religion. Why should the Church have to change to accommodate those who don’t want to obey the rules? As for your point about changing rules to address the shortage of priests, there’s still a shortage of priests today. I don’t believe that changing the religion is the answer. The Church has an obligation to make the religion more attractive to prospective priests, but that might just mean raising the standards even higher.

And as for Thomas and his comments about pigeons and British politics, that will have to be saved for another day.

Breaking news: Looks like parents are too busy today to be stabbin’ their kiddies to death.

One of the problems with sleeping with FNC on, is that FOX & Friends is loud. It’s a morning show so they have to be exuberant to ensure that you’re paying attention. I don’t hate the show the way other people do - I actually prefer it to the other early morning fodder - but once I hear something like: “Students dissect a live dog in class - coming up next!!!” I’m awake.

The school didn’t spring this on anyone. There was a letter. There was justification: this will be the educational experience of a lifetime! The kids will see - up close and personal - how the digestive system really works! Besides, this dog is unwanted and is going to be euthanized anyway. Let’s slice it open and look at its innards!

I adored my high school Biology teacher. I suppose today he would have been sued, but back then we all accepted it when he’d point at me in class and tell the other girls they should dress like me instead of like sluts. I still tend to favor fabric. But these girls did not and, to Mr. Harris, it was inappropriate and a terrible distraction. But what I really liked about him was that he assumed that few of us were pre-med material. In fact, he said he doubted any of us were going to go on to have careers in science or medicine, so he refused to sacrifice a frog for us. He was no bleeding heart Ecology Now! Liberal. He just couldn’t justify spending the school’s money on lab animals then killing them for our entertainment. Did he discourage any budding scientists or surgeons? Probably not. But he spared me from cutting open an animal, and I appreciated that.

I’d considered, in college, studying to become a veterinarian. But when I looked at the required courses, most of them involved cutting up dogs and cats. If I couldn’t bring myself to dissect an animal, how was I supposed to perform life-saving surgery on it? It amazes me that, today, I’m able to give my dog insulin shots. But, at 17, the idea of cutting open something that used to be someone’s pet…ugh. Maybe it was because I grew up near Loyola University in Chicago. The rumors were that struggling medical students couldn’t afford to pay for the animals that were required for class, so they’d comb the neighborhood looking for freebies. The horror, the horror.

But what bothers me about this dissection of the live dog is how they justified it: It’s unwanted, and it’s going to die anyway. So why use a dog? Treason number twenty-three: if you want to teach students about the human digestive system, dissect a human. I imagine it would be easy to find one that’s unwanted and is going to die anyway. Go to a prison. Better yet, go to Kenyan forest.

I’m no zealot, but what the hell ever happened to freedom of religion in this country? Two stories today: 1) a mother is asked to read from her son’s favorite book during something called “ME Week,” and 2) another little boy is reprimanded for reading during recess. First of all, why is there something called “ME Week” in the public schools? And second, why is reading during recess a problem? To clarify, the mother was asked to come to school and read from her son’s favorite book to give his classmates a little insight into the subject of her little boy. It’s ME Week at school and we want the scoop on this kid. So Mom sits down to read the (gasp!) Bible. The teacher, thinking that this is going to be a problem, tells the mother to hold her horses - she has to run this one by the boss. So she hightails it to the principal’s office to ask if it’s okay that one of the kids’ mothers is in there with the Bible. The principal wastes no time - he dashes to the classroom and tells the woman that what she intends to do is against the law! The shame here is that these kids weren’t older. If they’d heard that this book is somehow contraband, they would have been reading it themselves the same day. Unfortunately, these were five year-olds. The woman could have read them Mein Kampf and it probably wouldn’t have made an impression.

Next, a ten year-old boy chooses, on his own time, to read his bible during recess. That a school would discourage any ten year-old boy from reading voluntarily is disturbing enough, but this smells like discrimination. In both cases.

Treason number twenty-two: teach Comparative Religion in the schools as an elective course. Chances are students will flock to the course and actually learn something. Since so much of literature alludes to religious teachings, it only seems logical to give students a broader scope. Hell, if we could go back to teaching Latin and Greek, think of the soaring SAT scores! And what is the harm with teaching a kid the difference between a Buddhist and a Hindu, or a Mormon and a Mennonite? Oh, wait. No, that would be teaching now, wouldn’t it? Can’t have that in the school system.