Okay before I get started on the actual rant, let's study a little history first. The Poem, The Defense of Fort McHenry was penned by Francis Scott Key in September of 1814 while he viewed the British Attack on Fort McHenry. When the handbills for the poem were published, the song To Anacreon In Heaven (A British Drinking song BTW) was suggested as the tune to be played if the verses were sung. This poem would become known as the Star Spangled Banner. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson ordered that it should become the National Anthem played by the military and naval services, but it wasn't until March 3rd, 1931 that it was officially designated as the National Anthem by act of Congress.

"America the Beautiful" is an American patriotic song. The lyrics were written by Katharine Lee Bates and the music composed by church organist and choirmaster Samuel A. Ward. Bates originally wrote the words as a poem, Pikes Peak, first published in the Fourth of July edition of the church periodical The Congregationalist in 1895. At that time, the poem was titled America for publication.

Ward had originally written the music, Materna, for the 19th century hymn O Mother dear, Jerusalem in 1882. Ward's music combined with the Bates poem was first published in 1910 and titled America the Beautiful. The song is one of the most beloved and popular of the many American patriotic songs.[1] From time to time it has been proposed as a replacement for The Star-Spangled Banner as the National Anthem, including television sign-offs.

Everyone caught up? Excellent, now on with the rant!

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Indiana-college-not-playing-the-national-anthem-?urn=ncaab-wp4428

As the article says, Goshen College in Northern Indiana has opted not to play the Star Spangled Banner at their sporting events. They feel that the very militaristic air of the song (Bombs bursting, rockets red glare etc) does not set well with the pacifistic beliefs of the Mennonite faith. Instead they have decided to play America the Beautiful. Needless to say, this has sparked all kinds of heated discussions.

The general air of the rants directed at this decision are that Goshen is somehow being unAmerican by refusing to play SSB. Lots of "Well, that is the way it has always been" and "they have to" comments are floating around. Instead of supporting and praising these people for sticking to their beliefs and still trying to show their patriotism, people are considering them to the bad guys.

Now folks, I'd understand the rage if Goshen was playing the Russian National Anthem or even if they were refusing to play anything at all, but that's not what is happening here. They have chosen one highly patriotic song (As noted above, one that has been many times considered to replace the SSB) over another. Just because the one they chose isn't the same as the one everyone else uses doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong.

There is no law or even hard set rule that states the SSB or any sort of music has to be played at public events (Non-military). It's a tradition and a tradition that is less than a hundred years old so it hasn't always been a tradition. Hells there are people alive today who were around before the tradition started.

Goshen is just doing its best to fit both sides of a coin together. We should applaud them for doing this, not rage against them. I love the SSB (Even with that particularly hard note towards the end) and still feel my heart fill with pride every time I hear it. I also love the song America the Beautiful and feel that it also is a fitting tribute to this great country. "Let each person celebrate this great nation in a manner that befits their beliefs and cultures."

No new taxes! Oh wait you are poor...never mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html

Okay so the Reboobicans don't want to let the tax cuts for the rich established during Bush's run expire because that would raise taxes. (Technically by the way, that is not "raising" taxes. It is simply letting the taxes return to their previous rate, but that's splitting hairs.) They say it would put harsh strictures on Corporations and Businesses and prevent them from creating new jobs, hiring more workers etc. (Never mind that corporate hiring and jobs actually decreased under these tax cuts) However, they are more than willing to let a very small tax cut that benefits the average joe on the street lapse.

Here we have proof that the Reboobicans don't really give a damn about the poor and middle class. They are only interested in helping the super rich because those are the forces that feed their coffers. Bush tax cuts cost the country billions of dollars a year with no evidence of any kind to show that it actually has helped do anything but make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

It is time that we stopped putting up with this crap and took the country back from the fat cats (Reboobicans and Damnocrats combined) and set things straight.

Of Reporters, Truths and Friendships...not nessecarily in that order.

This one is part musings on reporting the news and part supporting of friends. I have always believed that any reporter, no matter the venue, should always report the fair and unbiased truth as soon as possible to as many people as possible. Whether you work for a multi-national newspaper conglomerate or a small town paper with a readership consisting of people you go to church with on Sundays, reporters should always be the "Firstest with the mostest" when it comes to accurate and truthful reporting.

This morning, a reporter who I have the greatest respect for dropped what could only be considered a major bomb. He printed the complete and unvarnished truth about a major closing in his area that could affect hundreds of people. He sought to get this news out as quickly and as accurately as possible to as many people as he could so that his readers and friends could be informed of the event and maybe be prepared for it. He did this out of his incredible sense of duty to the truth and his admirable concern for the community around him. So how was he rewarded for this effort?

Well, judging from the responses when he posted the news on FB, he was berated for springing this bomb on people without warning. The overall attitude I got from the posts was that "Am I placing blame no, but I do think it could have been handled better and I don't love that I found out on facebook. I know you have a job to do but it just seemed cold" or "You are the Editor of the Wiregrass Farmer not Facebook! Bad timing and cruel! Printing the report in the Wiregrass would have been sufficient! Putting it on fb was not your job." There are more, even a few in support, but that seems to be the overall gist of it.

A reporter can never "handle things better" except by reporting the truth as soon as possible. Reporting the truth is always "cold." Even in a small community such as my friend lives in, a reporter cannot and should not let his job be influenced on how happy or unhappy his reports will make the people around him. He cannot shade the truth or even omit parts of the truth just to make himself popular.

Reporting quickly and accurately will always seem like "bad timing and cruel" because 9 times out of 10, the people involved in the news you are reporting really don't want the news reported. Whether they are the ones causing the news (In this case, the closing of a school) or the people being effected by the news (Losing their jobs, classes etc) neither side wants the truth to come out. One side is afraid people are going to be pissed and mob them and the other side really just would rather not hear the bad news until later.

"Printing the report in the Wiregrass would have been sufficient! Putting it on fb was not your job" is another good one and my friend's response tops anything I could come up with. "Putting it on FB is my job. I edit the WGF FB page. This is an extension of the WGF and a recognized part of the newspaper.

If I had put it on the Wiregrass Farmer website under the Breaking News category and tweeted it, that too would be part of my job. As to how it affected you and you friends, again speak to the MTC leaders." It is the job of a great reporter/editor to get the news out to as many people as possible ASAP and in this modern era, it is easy to push the news out to literally millions of people very quickly.

So even though my friend was only doing his job and doing it well, he is being berated for it. The things I have quoted are only the responses to his FB post. I can just imagine the phone calls, emails etc he is received and the "letters to the editor" he will get in the days to come. Still, I have no doubt that my friend will continue his journalistic excellence and not compromise his values. As I have said many times in the past, he is a far better writer than I and a better news reporter than I could ever be.

As a closing note (B flat), think on this. In the future, when you read in your newspaper, E-paper etc an article by a reporter who reports the truth, no matter how painful it is, instead of griping because you didn't want to hear the news give that reporter a mental pat on the head. Better yet, send a letter to the editor saying thank you.

Whatever happened to Customer Service?

Okay, most of you probably don't know this, but I am an Ass, A Jerk and even a real Neener at times. Generally this only occurs when something really honks me off. It can be anything from some stupid peeples article I read or the actions of some idiot I meet out and about. I generally try to reserve these snarky moments for times that truly call for them. Whether I succeed most times is anyone's guess. However, every now and then something happens that truly, truly PISSES me off and I feel the need to vent. This, in case you haven't guessed yet, is one of those times. So bear with me while I vent.

Yesterday afternoon around 6-ish, I called our pharmacy in the Russell Parkway Krogers to get refills on my insulin, one of my wife's meds and my test strips. I told the man on the phone that I would be by to pick it up in the morning. He said that was fine and we ended our little chat. Now, today around 4-ish, my wife drops by said pharmacy on the way home from work to pick up our prescriptions and is told that, not only are they not ready yet, but she will have to wait till 7 to get them. When she complains, they revise their estimate to 5:30.

Now when I go back out in the rain to pick up our prescriptions at 5:15 or so, I politely inquire as to why we had to wait TWENTY FOUR HOURS to get our prescriptions filled. I was a little miffed since I was directly behind a lady who had just dropped hers off (Saw her do it) and she was told that there would be a 30 minute wait. Now instead of being apologetic or even polite, the ladies in the pharmacy get a really serious attitude and inform me that it wasn't their fault because the tech who took my order had set it to be filled at SEVEN PM that evening. Now keep in mind, I told the tech on the phone that it'd be picked up in the morning and he agreed. I was not told 7pm.

So then, to top things off, when I finally get my prescriptions, the tech lady taking my money informs me that the needles that I use to take the insulin are out of stock and they will have to order me more. Now besides the fact that I cannot take insulin without the needles, why didn't they tell me this half an hour before? Better yet, why didn't they tell my wife that when she was there an hour before? So I am forced to choose from having to drive across town to get needles or wait to get some tomorrow. Since I had a couple of needles left from the last box and really didn't feel like driving, I said to go ahead and rush order them for tomorrow.

Now what really honked me off wasn't the mistakes they made or even the wait. What pissed me off was their attitude. From all three women, I got the attitude of "We didn't mess up, you did." and "Well that's not our problem." A simple "I'm sorry Sir we made a mistake" or a "I'm sorry for the trouble Sir." would have done wonders for my anger management issues. Instead they get all snarky and royally cheese me off.

Customer service is a dying art form caused by so many people not giving a damn. It's time we stopped taking crappy service and bad attitudes and reminded these people that we basically pay their salaries. That is what the SIOTBAA Society is all about. Come on folks!

Define Unnatural?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-bachmann-faith-20110808,0,2495054.story Mighty Bachmann is at it again and in her usual fine form. As I have stated in the past, I don't like this woman. I think she is a lying twit with less than two brain cells to rub together and her very presence on the campaign trail is setting back women at least 100 years, but believe it or not, this rant isn't about Bachmann, its about a word and how it is defined.

I have heard time and time again, Homosexuality (Hells most forms of sexuality that don't involve one man/one woman in the classic position) as "unnatural." The pastor in the above article uses it and hundreds of people have used it and I have to wonder exactly what they mean when they use it.

Dictionary.Com defines Unnatural thus,
unnatural
[uhn-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl]   Origin
un·nat·u·ral/ʌnˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Show Spelled[uhn-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2.at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3.at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
4.lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
5.not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.

So according to these definitions, Unnatural can be simply defined as something that does not occur naturally in the world around us. So that means if Homosexuality is unnatural, then it cannot possibly exist outside the actions of men. It has to be an artificially contrived state, going against the "pure" world around us. Whelp, if that is the argument that Bachmann and her ilk are using then they are way off base.

Homosexual activity exists aplenty in nature. Our closest genetic cousins the Apes and Chimps do it all the time. When a friendly female isn't around they engage in very "friendly" activities to pass the time. (BTW this one can also be used in support of masturbation if one so chooses.) Moving further away, we have the Dolphins who have been observed to engage in just about every sort of sex known to man including multiple partners and homosexuality. There are more examples, but those two alone disprove Bachhy's point.

Now, when I have pointed these things out in the past, many people have used the argument that "These creatures are animals" as if to imply that simple beasts cannot be used to prove a point. Of course this one comes back to bite them because if these creatures are truly simple beasts incapable of making moral choices, then that means that their actions are the purest form of innocence. Thus making their "gay" actions completely natural.

Now I am not making arguments for or against homosexuality. The people that know me know how I feel on the subject. This is purely a semantic argument over what I feel is the improper use of a perfectly good word. Oh yeah, and the fact that Bachmann is an idiot.