Okay, I had to take it out. He refers to Chesterton as "A Living, Talking Gargoyle," and begins the chapter on GKC with "It is hard to think of Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) without laughing. Or I find so."
He points out that Chesterton found humor in even serious subjects: "GKC never regarded humor as inappropriate, intrusive, or out of place. On the contrary. It was, or should be, welcome always and everywhere, especially in religious discussion."
He gives some background on GKC, noting that like many of his generation he could have become just another "aimless bohemian," but "He was saved by marriage, his wife, Frances, being a sensible and practical person."
I agree with that conclusion. Frances was a gift from God.
Johnson does raise the rumors about the marriage being unconsummated - I find in many of the other chapters in the book he also tends to wander into matters of sexuality - but questions that assumption and argues that it may just be a way GKC's enemies to attack him.
He goes on to provide some interesting (though familiar) insights about Chesterton as a humorist.
The book is clearly intended for folks who might not be familiar with the writings and humor of Chesterton, or who perhaps have not analyzed the humor of some of the other featured humorists (Benjamin Franklin, Laurel and Hardy, The Marx Brothers, James Thurber, and Charlie Chaplin being among some of the others).
If you spot it, check out what he has to say about Chesterton. It's worth the read - and it's a quick read.
There is much talk these days about what is happening in several states about striping teacher unions of their collective bargaining rights. The balance of power between labor and management is a volatile one each side feels the other is taking too much. All states are now facing budget problems states do not produce anything they take and distribute they cannot crank up production to give more they can only take more but there is no more to take. On average 90% of each state’s budget is spent on three things: Education, Medication and Incarceration. They won’t cut medication because that would make them seem heartless and they won’t attack incarceration because that would make them look soft on crime, also both of those programs have many and very strong voters. So they attack education. This is principally the fault of the teachers unions. They have always thought of themselves as invincible and as such have done a very poor job of PR.
Their saying has always been, “It’s for the kids.” now for so many that saying rings hollow. It seems that every voting cycle there is a tax on the ballot for the schools yet test scores are dropping, the number of those going on to college is dropping, school violence is rising - yes by most accounts our schools are failing. True, the percentage of “bad” teachers is below the average of any public industry but the only news we get is from those bad ones. The unions have not spent the energy to publicize the successes.
The education field is hurt because they have taken on the job of parenting, a job they are not equipped for and will always fail at. A village cannot raise a child. At one teachers meeting, I was at, the principal told us we need to find more ways to get the parents involved. My question was, “Why would we want to do that”? No one had an answer. The last thing any teacher wants is being kibitzed by a parent because they do not care about your classroom they only care about their child. As one parent told/demanded of me was that her child needed more individual attention and it was useless to tell her that I have a 40 min class with 30 kids so he will just have to wait his turn to get more than his one minute. I am sure the reason this edict came down for on high was to improve public relations but they did not have the mental tools to complete this program – we are teachers not sales and marketing people.
Also schools are now all teaching to the test. Overall test score are linked to federal dollars. Teachers are no longer given the freedom to follow a train of inquiry. The new merit pay program for teachers will be linked to test results. Schools will become more and more like Dilbert factories that put out defective product.
The attack on unions will not improve education only save money. Lower salaries will not attract quality people but attract more like the one I knew who said, “I only teach to get money for my clothing budget.”
It seems that today relationships follow this pattern: This is a great deal becomes an ordeal becomes looking for a new deal. And in our sped up world the seven year itch has become the three year glitch. A new survey of 2,000 British adults points to the 36-month mark as a significant point of relationship restlessness. The poll cites weight gain, stinginess and snoring as key factors that seem to be annoying couples earlier than ever, which are big deals in a materialistic world. The poll was commissioned by Warner Bros. in promotion of the U.K. release of its film, Hall Pass, which addresses marital tedium. (I have been married for 32 years and it has been a lot of things but never tedious or as Uncle Gilbert said "The whole pleasure of marriage is that it is a perpetual crisis.").
Incidentally, 34 percent of those polled said the film made them feel slightly better about their partner, while 66 percent said they saw the movie while cheating.
Attorney General Eric Holder says the United States will continue to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, but will not defend it in court because he and President Obama have decided it is unconstitutional.
I don't know about you, but I find it alarming when the President and the Attorney General get together and decide that a law is unconstitutional. Last I checked that was not their job. If this stands a precedent will be set that the President can now over turn any Supreme Court decision or just decide which laws are worth obeying. Can you say cafeteria constitutionalism?
In a bizarre letter, to John Boehner, the Attorney General opines that the DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment. You will recall that the Fifth Amendment protects people from having to testify against themselves in court, assures people accused of crimes of due process of law, and keeps private property from being taken without just compensation.
How this could have any bearing on DOMA boggles the mind, but that's why lawyers are paid the big bucks. CNS News explains it far more cogently than the Associated Press. In a nutshell, the Attorney General argues that there is no legal basis for government not recognizing a "marriage" between two men or two women. The only reason he can see is irrational and therefore discriminatory and discriminating irrationally against someone violates his or her implicit right to equal treatment under the law.
Got it?
It's a stretch, but that's the gist of it. According to the Hon. Mr. Holder, Congress can defend the law if it wants to, seeing as how he has washed his hands of doing his job.
“…Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types—the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins.” GKC
