BENIGHTED VIEWS

     It seems that the Rag is a gift that keeps on giving. I know they are proud of their new colored inserts, but are they proud of their journalistic achievements? Highly doubtful as basically, there are no achievements. There is not even proper proofreading! Typos occur in all published material and I just love when I find errors in books, but the amount and continuity of these errors is just too high.
     In addition, the content of the articles, if one can call propagandist drivel articles, is of low quality. But what we have here at The Rag is simply another example of what plagues UCO in general - the promotion of little people and their egos over the benefit of the Village and its residents. Truly, what was their life experience that has led them to their current positions? And please, I have seen the exaggeration of resumes grow over the years, so truth please. And yes, I agree, there is always time and reason to stretch and reinvent oneself, but there also has to be an acknowledgement when one is over one's head, going down for the third time, and the immediate necessity is to call for help.
     The staffing also calls for thought. DonHoHo has grown from a newcomer to one who wanted to be paid to one who returned with a bigger role than before, writing several articles and recipes for each issue. It is also interesting to note that he is now on the Finance Committee though he had nothing to say at the last meeting. Basically he has nothing to say, especially since he stopped writing his nasty comments on the blog of David's. Is this what we have to look forward to - another Ed Black in the making? Another one who will crawl into all areas of UCO without having been elected? I guess this is the CVWPB Intern Program. Not a good thought!
     Never does The Rag reach out now to gather opinions of others. Well, for one thing, they want to prevent what has already been outed - the truth. We know that UCO ignored the Sheffield O problem. We know that they have ignored other issues even as they concentrated on the whims of the Lord and Master over there in UCO. They have allowed false material and statements to be written and no refutation was allowed. Joy even hid her own knowledge of YEARS about the Sheffield O problem, hid behind her "journalistic" protection - The Rag!
     Ed Black's ridiculous article about the Kent contract and the holes in it as well as the lousy performance of the company needed to be presented along with a refutation but none was solicited for then Ed would have been angry and who knows what revenge might have been taken? Would Joy have lost her editor position? Wishful thinking, that! In any case, that article and its content is for another posting. Not neglecting you, Ed, do not worry.
     What irked me personally was the article that was supposed to represent a differing opinion on same sex marriage as opposed to the warm article written by Ruth Berman. If this article, if it can be called that, represents the best of the opposition then woe upon us. The article was bigoted with many nasty insinuations. For one, the one that most stuck in my craw was his rather clumsy attempt to say that while it is okay by him to have these relationships (oh thank you, Irv, for giving permission for people to have loving relationships) but not marriage. Why, just call it coupling! At that point, the nausea was overwhelming.
     Yes, people can be called couples, but the term coupling is used mainly to refer to animals. We couple two oxen as a yoked pair. Animals are coupled, bred to each other - NOT HUMANS. If the fact of two people who love each other getting the right to state this to the world bothers you, if two men linking up in a legal manner, able to take care of each other, adopt children together, adopt the child of one of the partners and yes, Irv, there are ways for gay couples to have their own children, then listen up. I can explain it to you privately. Well, if all this bothers you, here is some advice - don't marry a guy!
     I believe that humans should have evolved to the point where a loving and consensual relationship is recognized as such. It is time we recognized that G-d made us all and if you have a question, send it to the proper address. We do not have the right to deny permission for two adults to bind themselves together. How many more couples of advanced age must you see as they come to the registrars' offices all over the country to make their union official after lo all these years that they have been together.
     And no, I do not swing that way, but if I did, I would have wanted the opportunity, the right, to have found my partner in life and make it official. Gerry and I will be married 48 years, G-d willing, in September and knew each other and dated for five years before, thru high school and a year of college. Why can not others have the same right to do this openly in a loving relationship. Who are we to deny that?
     If your religious beliefs say no to all this, remember, others in the Bible were also to receive the same punishments and would you stone a rebellious child or a possible witch, a Wiccan? No, I would hope not so why LGBTQ couples?  No one is forcing you into such a relationship so no one is violating your rights. Restrict the rights of some and the rest follows. We had that situation in Nazi Germany, before that throughout history when Jews were marked with badges and hats, locked behind ghetto walls from sunset to sunrise, in Soviet Russia, in Moslem countries where Jews and Christians are second class citizens and even Moslems of a different sect are considered sub human and even right here in the USA where Jews were prevented by covenants in buying homes or were shown the signs, "No Jews". Hate grows, seeks places to enter. Let us keep it out. Wherever it might go.