Before I get into blog No. 2, a short commentary on blog No. 1:
After my inaugural “alumni blog” on election night concerning a gay marriage vote in Maine, the M-Times received a letter to the editor bemoaning my continued “gay bashing” and lamenting the fact that I am “darkening the pages of the M-Times with my opinion about gays.” And like so many times before, the writer apparently forgot to read what I actually wrote.
It’s funny. If you’re intent on calling something such as gay marriage a “civil rights issue,” anyone who voices a different opinion immediately becomes a “gay basher.” Let me clear something up: (I sound so P.C. when I say this, but I will anyway…) I have nothing against gay people. I have an uncle who’s gay. I have a friend who’s gay. And while I love them the same, I disagree wholeheartedly with what they are doing to themselves, and with what gay marriage advocates are trying to do to the country. I never claimed to be an “expert,” as the letter writer proclaims. In fact, I said just the opposite. I’m just a guy noticing a trend about gay marriage votes across the country. I disagree with the practice for all the reasons I said in that blog, and it appears the majority of Americans agree with me.
He also claims I disagree with gay marriage because gays can’t produce children. Also false. I disagree (among other reasons) because gays can’t raise children and provide both a male and female presence in a child’s life — something research has proven is vital to development.
But, as usual, the writer is more concerned with demonizing me and twisting my words than promoting intelligent discussion. I suppose when you’re on the losing side of a debate, the only way to win is by painting your opponent as a biggot. Whatever. I’ll take it. Sticks and stones, buddy.
Alas, on to more important things:
John F. Kennedy was the only Kennedy worth a damn. There, I said it. And it’s probably because he didn’t live long enough to make a fool out of himself the way his relatives seem to be lining up to do. And don’t get me wrong, between dozens of one-night stands with women who weren’t named Jacqueline Kennedy, JFK wasn’t exactly a saint, either.
The Kennedys have always played up their “Irish Catholic” heritage for political gain. And for the most part, Catholics have bought into it. But if the recent episode with JFK nephew and current U.S. Rep Patrick Kennedy doesn’t make Catholics seriously question this family’s values, I don’t know what does.
In keeping with his family’s long-standing tradition of saying one thing and acting another, Kennedy, an abortion-supporting Democrat from Rhode Island, apparently thinks God has no problem with women killing their children before birth. And he told Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin as much recently when he decided to publicly criticize U.S. Catholic bishops for not supporting health care legislation that includes public funding for abortions.
Like other “good Catholic” politicians such as Vice President Joe Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and even our own wonderful governor, Jennifer Granholm, Kennedy’s view on his faith is, sadly, the view a lot of people choose to take: Pick what looks good and discard the rest. He continues to profess his Catholic faith, but insists he “doesn’t take orders from the Vatican.” Which is funny, of course, because the Vatican makes the rules for being Catholic. And surprise, surprise, the Church says abortion is wrong.
But if ignoring one’s professed faith isn’t bad enough, Kennedy now apparently wants the rest of the Church to follow HIS version of Catholicism — you know, the one in which you don’t really have to follow ALL the commandments, so long as it fits your political goals.
Suffice to say, the bishop, Tobin, was less than pleased. And (pardon my french), he kicked some Kennedy ass. To his credit, rather than remaining silent like so many of his colleagues, Tobin came out swinging. He rightly called Kennedy a disgrace to his faith and asked him to stop receiving Communion (which Catholics believe is the sacred body and blood of Jesus) as long as he held his pro-abortion views.
And I say, it’s about time. There’s enough moral confusion in society as it is without pseudo-Catholic politicians running around telling everyone it’s OK to sacrifice the unborn as long as the poor have health care.
For too long, Catholics in this country have let politicians walk all over them and their faith, starting with President Obama’s commencement address at the University of Notre Dame back in the spring (which the school’s president, a Catholic priest, approved). More than 50% of Catholics last fall voted for the Democratic ticket for president, despite Obama/Biden’s support for abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. For U.S. bishops, that’s unacceptable. I doubt it’s because 50% of Catholics subscribe to Patrick Kennedy’s brand of Catholicism. It’s because local Catholic leaders have failed to stand up and say what needs to be said: Morality is not negotiable. Sin is sin, regardless of which politician has the better plan for health care, or the economy, or foreign policy.
Bishop Tobin should be commended, not for standing up for his faith, but for doing his job as a spiritual leader. Patrick Kennedy, like so many Kennedys before him, is nothing but a big, fat hypocrite.
Dear University of Michigan-Flint,
Welcome to your new battleground on all things your mother told you never to discuss in public: Sex, politics and religion.
Well, not so much sex as politics and religion, but when the three intertwine, such as this week, there could be some sex thrown in there as well, if I feel like it.
My name is Mike Stechschulte, and I used to run this joint in the not-so-distant past. Some might remember me as the editor who stirred up campus debates on such controversial topics as the Vagina Monologues and the larger issues of the day on the editorial pages of The Michigan Times.
Well, I’m back. Although not in any official capacity. The current editor-in-chief has agreed to allow me to write an “alumni blog” of sorts, and so, well, I’m doing it.
The topics? As I stated above, in this order:
1.) Religion
2.) Politics
3.) Sex
What qualifies me to write about these things? I’m glad you asked. Absolutely nothing. I’m a Roman Catholic (which in some people’s minds disqualifies me off the bat); I’ve never run for public office (sixth-grade student council doesn’t count); and I’ve never had sex (see the Roman Catholic thing … and please, no jokes, I’ve been in a relationship for almost five years).
Well, that’s enough personal information about me for one blog.
We’re gonna have some fun.
I’m kicking this thing off on a rather appropriate night: Election Day 2009. And while I won’t use this space right now to talk about how two Republican gubernatorial wins (New Jersey and Virginia) are a referendum on our president, Dear Leader Chairman Mao-bama (credit to Mike Church for that one), I think the most important answer to come out of voters today is one nobody seems to be hearing:
Gay marriage? No thank you.
That’s what voters in Maine said today in slapping the state government back into its proper place for the second time in a year after California’s hotly contested Proposition 8. Gay marriage advocates had hoped the question on the New England state’s ballot would turn that region into a mecca for homosexuals, with neighboring New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut all allowing the practice.
But after voters in the nation’s southwesternmost state rejected gay marriage last year, voters in the union’s northeasternmost state said the same.
But what’s really significant about this is that it keeps an important streak alive: Every time the issue has been put before a state’s voters, legalized gay marriage has been defeated. Every single time.
And when I say that, let’s not get overly technical here. I’m talking about states that allow same-sex marriage with no restrictions. Of the states that allow or have allowed gay marriage in the past, not a single one has been approved by the voters.
In Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and California, the state supreme courts decided gay marriage should be allowed. In Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, it was the legislatures. And in California and Maine, the voters turned around the same year and said “no you don’t.”
At least 13 times in other states, the issue of gay marriage has been put before voters, including here in Michigan. And each and every time, the answer has been the same: We don’t want it.
More than 40 states nationwide have explicitly limited marriage to two people of the opposite sex. Five currently allow same-sex marriage. And all five do so because of the opinions of the few, rather than the opinions of the many.
It’s not a civil rights issue. Sorry. It’s not. Gays don’t have to use different drinking fountains than straights. Gays don’t have to attend different schools. Gays were never enslaved. Gay people have all the same rights a straight person has, including the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. And that’s important for a simple reason:
The state regulates marriage for its own benefit, not for ours.
Think about it. Why would the government care if two people make a promise to stay together for life? What possible benefit could it have for the government to actually give incentives? Two words: Chil-dren. Study after study has shown that a child who grows up with both a mother and a father on average is a more productive member of society than a child with only one parent or a divided household.
Now, before anyone from a single-parent household gets their blood boiling over that, let me reiterate that the key words are “on average” and “both a mother and a father.” This isn’t to say people from one-parent households aren’t productive members of society or that they can’t be. It’s simply to say that with two parents, the odds are better. Even children from single-parent households would have to admit their lives would have been a little easier had two parents been around instead of one.
And while homosexuals are good people, and perfectly capable of caring for a child, the fact is, two men can’t provide the presence of a mother, and two women can’t provide the presence of a father. No matter how hard they try, the fact is, the natural, biological differences between men and women are what they are for a reason: to produce and raise well-balanced, well-prepared children.
As a recent example, a 2008 study by San Francisco State University found conclusively in a survey of single-parent households that child behavioral problems were different and independently related to the level of interaction with either a male father figure or a female mother figure. In this study and others, it was shown that while a child’s behavioral issues were affected by the lack of a parent, they were more specifically affected by the lack of a particular parent. In a homosexual household, that lack of a particular parent still would exist.
But back to the original issue. It is the specific act and ability of childbearing and child-rearing that is the reason the state feels compelled to give benefits for heterosexual marriage — not because of some blind appeal to generosity. It’s the ugly truth, but it’s the truth. More heterosexual marriages means more healthy, well-adjusted children. And more well-adjusted children means more benefit to society as a whole.
Trust me, this isn’t a new thing. Perhaps because it’s been so long since the concept of government benefits for married people was introduced, the original intent has become blurry. But for all of you out there who thought for a second that our government might actually be benevolent, shame on you. You know everything Big Brother does is for its own good.
But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what Big Brother wants. It matters what the voters want. And on this issue, across the country, the voters appear to have spoken loud and clear.
Press Release:
Michigan Radio (WUOM 91.7), an affiliate of National Public Radio (NPR), is censoring a program announcement.
The local chapter of the nonprofit organization If Americans Knew, whose mission is to inform Americans on topics of importance that are under reported or misreported in the American media, is attempting to place the following paid announcement on the radio station:
“’If Americans knew dot org,’ a non-profit organization focused on media coverage of the Palestine-Israel conflict: Executive Director Alison Weir will visit southeast Michigan the week of Oct 12th. Details on the web at “If Americans Knew dot org”.”
Michigan Radio has refused to air the announcement, violating its ethical obligation as a publicly funded station not to censor information. While the station eventually agreed to run amended spots (cost: $1,000), it still refuses to include the organization’s name, If Americans Knew.
Weir, who has traveled throughout Gaza and the West Bank as a freelance journalist and speaks widely throughout the United States, said that she will fight Michigan Radio’s censorship, saying: “It is exactly this type of activity – to prevent people from learning the facts on Israel-Palestine – that is causing the perpetuation of this tragic conflict and that is behind the $7 million per day of American tax money that goes to Israel, a misuse of our money at any time, but especially when American schools, veterans programs, and businesses are desperate for funding.”
Weir said that her organization will fight Michigan Radio’s censorship: “Americans should not allow censorship of our public airwaves. A free and vigorous press is essential to our democratic republic. To maintain a strong, healthy, free and prosperous nation it is critical that we hold onto our most basic Constitutional rights and principles. We will fight Michigan Radio’s highly unethical and extremely destructive attempt to prevent its listeners from learning about an organization and allowing listeners to decide for themselves what they think of the facts it presents.
Weir, whose organization is based in Oregon, is a 1969 Journalism graduate of the University of Michigan and was a Senior Editor at the Michigan Daily. She said it is especially troubling to find this censorship at a station based at the University of Michigan, since in her studies at Michigan her professors had emphasized the importance of a free press and ethical journalism.
Weir said that despite repeated attempts to speak to representatives of Michigan Radio beginning on Oct 13th, no one had returned her calls. Weir, who has so far spoken at Michigan State University, Eastern Michigan University, University of Michigan Flint, University of Michigan Dearborn and other locations, still has three upcoming presentations. She says she hopes that the station will stop its censorship in time to run the If Americans Knew announcement.
Tonight Weir will speak at the Flint Islamic Center (9447 Corruna Rd, Swartz Creek) at 7 pm. On Saturday Weir will be speaking at 2pm in Swartz Creek at Genesee Academy (9447 Corunna Rd) at 2pm and at 7 pm at the Unity Center (1830 W Square Lake Rd.). The events are free and open to the public.
Weir said, “Michigan Radio’s attempt to prevent listeners from learning of our organization demonstrates why our work is so important – Americans are being deprived of information by media who refuse to give us the facts on one of the world’s most tragic, longest lasting, and destructive conflicts – one that not only costs the lives of Palestinians and Israelis, but that is also extremely damaging to Americans.”
Weir’s organization found that media reports on the Israel-Palestine reported on Israeli children’s deaths at rates up to 13 times greater than they reported on Palestinian children’s deaths – even though Palestinian children had been killed first and in far greater numbers.
Similarly, the organization found that American media – including NPR – had failed to report on a 2003 Capitol Hill briefing in which a commission headed by former Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer, Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, and General Ray Davis, America’s highest ranking Medal of Honor recipient, had announced their finding that Israel had “committed an act of war against the United States” in its attack on a US Navy ship that had killed or injured 200 American servicemen and that this incident had been ordered covered up at the time by the White House.
Weir says, “We all need to oppose this censorship.”
Daily News compilation: http://www.israel-palestinenews.org/2009/10/michigan-public-radio-censoring.html
I will preface this by saying I am a very liberal individual, and I support equal rights for all: straight, gay or otherwise. I also do not believe in using religion to define what is marriage, and hope that someday gay marriage will be tolerated, and universally legal.
That said, I cannot understand why people such as Perez Hilton waste our time criticizing Carrie Prejean, perhaps better known as Miss California USA, for her comments regarding gay marriage at the Miss USA competition Sunday.
From a journalistic standpoint, why would someone ask such a question in a public forum if they cannot accept an answer that differs from their own opinion? I think that Hilton cornered Prejean by asking a “gotcha” question. What if she said she supports gay marriage, just to sound politically correct? Would we commend her for what she said, rather than for how she really feels?
Why is the opinion of one beauty pageant contestant worth getting into an uproar? Why is there a media frenzy surrounding how one blogger and judge of the competition reacted to her answer? A better question, perhaps, is why Perez Hilton is a star, but that’s for another discussion.
Sure, her answer reeked of ignorance in the eyes of those in support of gay marriage. I would have cringed had I been there. But at the same time, her answer was respectful and honest. Nowhere in her answer did she condemn someone for being homosexual, nor did she scoff at the idea. She simply said that, based on her values, she feels the way she does. Chances are, she wouldn’t have said anything at all, had she not been prompted by Hilton.
Believe it or not, there are worse crimes against humanity.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy still exists in our armed services, and is infinitely more insulting than Prejean’s response to a loaded question. So, where is the outrage?
Some gay couples cannot visit each other in the hospital, or file joint tax returns. Where’s the outrage?
Everyone gets hung up over one culturally insignificant event, rather than taking steps to right society’s wrongs.
If understanding is what Perez Hilton wants, then that favor needs to be returned. Simply put, though somewhat heartfelt, his tirade was an idiotic attempt to draw further attention to himself.
The fact is, a majority of Americans do not yet embrace same-sex marriage, nor do our leaders in government. Funneling one’s energy into attacking one woman’s ideology is a sad waste of resources, and I am sure if the entire pageant was quizzed, the contestants would have fallen somewhat equally on both sides of the issue.
Verbally attacking someone in a blog will not change anyone’s mind. It serves the opposite purpose, in some cases. How about being constructive by helping reverse the numerous other inequalities facing same-sex couples? I believe that, ultimately, that will be more effective in achieving the ultimate goals that are sought.
I have held my breath long enough.
I watched as the newest mentally absent Vin Diesel flick, “Fast and Furious,” took the box office last weekend, shattering April records and besting more cerebral newcomer “Adventureland” by five spots for weekend intake.
This is a perfect example of style over substance, to a sickening degree. Fast cars, hot women, wooden acting and horrible dialogue. They obviously cater to the lowest common denominator. In cases such as this, the financial returns are hard to argue. But do they really have to do it this way?
The highest yield for any film this decade was the more than $1 billion worldwide that “The Dark Knight” took in. This movie had brains, solid acting, great effects, better stunts, and reflected our times and tackled ethical issues, rather than escaping them. Still, few could argue that it didn’t provide some level of escapism, despite its sometimes grave tone. Films like “Fast and Furious” bypass the meat of a good story and go straight for the dessert.
I may be wrong here, but the one thing films like “Iron Man” and “The Dark Knight” have going for it is longevity. “Fast and Furious” will have its one great weekend and will quickly decline and eventually, be forgotten, at least until the now-requisite fifth iteration is released. “The Dark Knight” played straight through its December DVD release, and then came back to theaters in January, and still had an audience.
I realize I am comparing apples to oranges here, so I will provide another example. One of the biggest blockbusters this summer is supposed to be “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.” Someone somewhere at Fox somehow leaked the film on file-sharing Web sites a month early, however. The buzz? Bad. The reason? Appealing to the simpletons, rather than the fans who would pay to see a film more than once. I saw some of the rough footage, which included unfinished special effects. I watched those scenes with an open mind, but was appalled at some pretty simple scenes that really did not need to be CGI-engineered. I mean, Batman really stood on ledges of skyscrapers and stuntmen really fell out of windows for that film. Do we really need a CGI fight atop a building? What do we hire these actors for? Or, for that matter, the stuntmen? Or the director? I don’t even want to see the finished product now, because I know it will be as exciting as watching a video game cutscene.
Future films haven’t escaped falling victim to this mentality. “Where the Wild Things Are,” a Spike Jonze adaptation of the beloved book we all read as children, looks incredibly promising with its amazing preview trailer, set to Arcade Fire’s “Wake Up.” Still, Warner Brothers held onto this film for the past few years, expecting a CGI orgy similar to recent Dr. Suess bastardizations, er, “adaptations.” Jonze went with a more natural, realistic method of portraying the fantasy, but used costumes that resemble treasured Jim Henson films like “Labyrinth” and “Dark Crystal,” with a dash of “The Neverending Story,” for good measure. What did those films have in common? The DVDs still sell fairly well, unlike Jim Carrey’s “Grinch” or Mike Myers’ “Cat in the Hat” films.
Yes, the economy is tough. Yes, there was a massive writers strike that stalled the industry, but why must we pay with sub-par films? Where’s the imagination? For each “Dark Knight” there are about nine “Fantastic Fours.” For each Scorsese, Spielberg or Michel Gondry, there is an exponential quantity of Uwe Bolls and Renny Harlins.
I miss the days, long before special effects were remotely convincing, when the story and performances mattered most. We need another “E.T.” We need another “Taxi Driver.” We need more films that challenge viewers, not cater to their wallets.
Living in Flint off and on for the last fifteen years has taught me that there is always a way, that despite everything that assures you on a daily basis that you won’t survive another day, guess what?
You will.
I swear I could almost hear the sighs of relief from the GM HQ when they found out that most likely the government will be forcing them into a controlled bankruptcy…it’s like, well, we’ve been fighting for a long time…we’re tired, here, you do it…
The American auto worker is now a relic. The American worker no longer has a voice, or any power or even a stick to put a sign on…
According to the story on the front page of the New York Times today, even if the U.A.W. resists a “judge [can still] approve a sale even over creditor objections in an emergency under Section 363.”
My interpretation of this is much simpler: It’s over. Resistance is futile. We brought this on ourselves by not isolating and making social lepers of Hummer drivers.
(Also, blame is not helpful in these situations.)
It’s going to take awhile to get things back on track, but they can and will get back on track.
“I’m not worried about Flint getting through this,” Genesee Early College student Kai Williams, 16, remarked yesterday. “It’s the rest of America I’m worried about […] those people who are used to always having whatever they want, they’re the ones who are going to really be feeling this.”
If living in Flint has taught us how to be poor than it has also taught us how to imagine our lives rich in things that money will never be able to buy: Community, art, music and the appreciation we have for our children as we combine resources for schools and make our college campus’ centers for learning and development for everyone.
As the sun sets on the age of the automobile, Flint, in its many years of hardship has become wise, and all those things that nearly killed us, didn’t.
We know in the very core of our beings that lamentation of things lost doesn’t bring them back. We know that the quicker we accept the facts and go about implementing the next plan the better. Everything we have been through has prepared us for THIS.
In what may be dark times ahead, the world will be looking for answers and I believe the good people of Flint are prepared to step up in these time of uncertainty, and be leaders, by example.
A memorial service will be held for Dr. Matthew Hilton-Watson (Dr. Matt) today at 3 p.m. in the UM-Flint Theatre, 251 French Hall. We will provide updates for those unable to attend. Please stay tuned.
I joined The Michigan Times in 2001. It was my first paid writing gig, and since that date I have held the titles of managing editor, features editor, webmaster, layout editor, assistant editor, copy editor, music critic and senior staff writer.
I credit the paper for drawing me into journalism, even if my quest to become a journalist prolonged my college career to about twice the length of your average non-Ph.D. student.
During my time here, I came to know and love Flint. I wrote for The Flint Journal for about three years, and made several great acquaintances while there, and gained some priceless insights into the newspaper world. I was saddened to see the recent announcement this week that they are abandoning the daily format and switching to three print issues per week. I work at a competing newspaper in Fenton, and I think the shock waves were felt all the way down in Fenton.
It is amazing how much Flint has changed since my first year here. Not only has the campus embraced the college atmosphere and has expanded exponentially FYI: The William S. White Building was a vacant lot during my freshman year. Imagine that.
The Michigan Times has a Web site. This wasn’t the case when I joined the staff nearly eight years ago. The Michigan Times is an award-winning newspaper. This definitely wasn’t the case when I joined eight years ago.
I have so many people to thank for helping me continue to love what I do each day. As we approach these last few issues with the current staff (in addition to myself, Mike Stechschulte and Tim Jagielo are both graduating), I am sure there will be plenty of reminiscing and looking back.
I’ll list those who deserve specific thanks, in no particular order. If you feel left off the list, please let me know.
And last, but not least, these people deserve extra special mention. Without these people, we wouldn’t have a newspaper.
I was saddened last week to hear the news of “Dr. Matt.”
Our features editor, Jordan Climie, called me to report some sad news from campus shortly after it happened. I didn’t really know how to respond at the time.
I didn’t personally know Dr. Matt, but witnessing the entire campus community come together following his untimely death was an astonishing sight. It was obvious, from this writer’s view, that he had a large impact on his students.
It reaffirmed my belief that the University of Michigan, all three campuses included, chooses the absolute best to lead its students. While I never took a course with Dr. Matt, I had a few “Dr. Matts” guiding my academic career, which I hope to wrap up this semester. I know their lessons will follow me through my career and life. I couldn’t imagine feeling what his students are feeling, but I do understand what he meant to them, and I wish them all the best in dealing with this tragedy.
I want to run a poll to figure out at what time students go to bed and get up in the morning. This assumes you don’t have to work late or have late class, and you don’t have to work early or have early class the next morning. At what time would you go to bed and get up in the morning? Please reply in comments. Thank you.
The Student Voice of the University of Michigan-Flint. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily represent the views or stances of the newspaper.
RSS 2.0
