I allowed myself to sleep a little later than usual this morning, so my spleen and bile levels are a bit depressed: ergo, I have insufficient agita for a “traditional” tirade. However, I have a couple of tidbits for general amusement.
1. The War On Catholics Continues.
The FBI classifying us as a variety of terrorist was bad enough. Apparently, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts thinks we might breed more of our kind from children we foster-parent:
Beliefs in traditional marriage and the reality of biological sex have led to a Roman Catholic couple in America being rejected as suitable foster parents.
Mike and Kitty Burke’s application to foster was denied by the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) because they “would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA”….
According to court papers, during the application process the Burkes shared their beliefs “that marriage is between a woman and a man and that sexual relations are to be kept within the bounds of such a marriage”.
They also told the assessor representing the DCF, who interviewed them in their own home, that due to their “religious beliefs, they would not assist a medical gender transition for a hypothetical future child”.
In a report of the interviews, the assessor expressed concern about the Burkes’ beliefs on gender and sex and believed that neither they, nor “their faith”, would be “supportive of LGBTQIA+ youth”.
Their application was subsequently rejected by the DCF, “based on the couple’s statements/responses regarding placement of children who identified LGBTQIA”.
(Note the URL of the cited story. Odd that we’re hearing about it from a UK source, isn’t it?)
This assessor is demonstrably less interested in the welfare of children in state care than in the promulgation and reinforcement of the transgender ideology. As that has been established as a social contamination – a communicable mental illness, if you will – the clash is really between the assessor’s politics and the teachings of the Burkes’ faith.
The Burkes have initiated a lawsuit against Massachusetts for religious discrimination. We can hope they prevail in court, but lately the odds against doing so have been formidable.
2. “Homeschool is no school!”
Parental rights are fighting a multi-front war, and the educrats are determined to see parents lose:
A Coffee County [Tennessee] Judge with a reputation for being biased against homeschooling trampled on parental rights on Tuesday by ordering a homeschooled student back to public school.
General Sessions and Juvenile Court Judge Gerald Ewell, Jr. told the student that he could send her away and that “homeschool is no school.”
In a recording from the Patriot Punk Network, the judge can be heard saying, “When there’s a truancy charge pending, state law says that I have to approve homeschool.”
Ewell Jr. then says, “And I don’t do it. You’ve got to go to a public school. Homeschool is no school.”
Ewell, Jr. then directed the student to be present at her former school the next day. “If you’re not there tomorrow, I’m going to send you… send you off is exactly what we’re going to do.”
He then told the parents that they could be found guilty of violating the Compulsory School Attendance Law.
Read that carefully. This supposed judge is plainly biased. More than that, he’s in violation of a U.S. Supreme Court precedent. And looky here:
The parents enrolled their child in Chestnut Ridge Academy, a Category IV non-public school, one of the legally recognized methods of homeschooling in the state. Under this category, students are technically considered to be privately schooled under state law.
If this judge presided over a normal court, his ruling would be grounds for being removed from the bench. Indeed, if he holds a law license – not all judges do – he could be disbarred as well. But Judge Ewell is a Juvenile Court judge…and such courts often make up their own laws. Worse, they usually get away with it.
3. Mask Slippages Dept.
You can tell that this Leftist feels invulnerable: she “lets it all hang out:”
The President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, explains Central Bank Digital Currencies are all about control. She has said it before, and she means it….
She said the digital euro would be a control mechanism for EU citizens. As the EU, we depend on gas supplies from a very unfriendly country, she said, and we need the digital euro to help us with that. And then she said that we have a threshold. The EU has a threshold of €1000 in Europe. If you cross it, you will find yourselves in the grey market. You risk being caught, fined, or sent to jail. But the digital euro will have limited control.
“Limited control with the digital euro. I don’t think so. In this interview, Lagarde talked about 3 to 400 euros being some sort of a threshold, and anything above that, anything spent above that will be monitored. And it’ll be monitored very, very easily with the digital euro.”
For those with shorter memories than mine, this isn’t Christine Lagarde’s first foray into arrant idiocy:
The recent World Economic Forum in Davos, a yearly gathering of would-be dictators whose self-awareness has been chemically suppressed if not surgically removed, is a fertile source for the emissions of such persons. These can be priceless – especially when they’re standing before a microphone straining to say something profound. Let the following serve as an example:
Someone should be trying to keep this woman out of the public eye. Happy for us that apparently no one is doing so.
4. Brevity Is A Leading Cause Of Bafflement.
As a person of a certain age, I’m more conscious than I once was of the sand trickling through the hourglass. And so I’ve become terse. (No, not here. I feel my obligation to you, Gentle Reader, far too keenly. Besides, a septuagenarian crank is still a crank.) In consequence, when I’m asked a question to which a short reply is possible, that’s what I give. Some people aren’t quite prepared to cope. Brevity is such an infrequent visitor to their conversations that its appearance is off-putting to them.
Yesterday evening, Beth (a.k.a. the CSO) and I had our friends Tom and Jane over for dinner. As is usual, Beth did the cooking and I did the cleaning-up. I start the cleanup as soon as everyone has finished eating, as you would not believe the mountain of pots, pans, dishes, serving pieces, and utensils Beth can employ to make dinner…especially dinner for guests.
And so I was at the sink for some time while Beth did the host duties. As usual with these two friends, the talk was largely about the yoga classes Jane and Beth have in common. That didn’t bother me; I was under no obligation to participate. But when I returned to the table, Jane realized that I’d been out of the whirl of things. It seemed to embarrass her. At the next convenient pause in her chat with Beth about some not-to-be-named yoga teacher, Jane turned to me and said, “Would you like to join us at yoga, Fran?”
I smiled. “No.”
I didn’t think I’d be halting all conversation with one syllable, but I did. It seems Jane expected a parade of excuses, rationales, and circumlocutions. And in truth, such a soliloquy usually accompanies a demurral of that sort. My disinclination to provide any any derailed her train of thought.
There’s a moral in there, though I’m not sure it would be politic to make it explicit.
That’s all for today, Gentle Reader. I’ve finally been making progress on my long-stalled novel-in-progress, and I’d like to get back to it before Beth finds something absolutely imperative for me to do, like washing and waxing our garden hoses. So until whenever, be well.