Breaking: Lazy Journalism Rewarded by a Race-Obsessed Culture!!!

When does a quick Twitter search and a couple screen shots count as investigative journalism?  When the story is about racism, of course!  Minority-hating is so prevalent that a reporter needn’t work terribly hard collecting a black list of offenders (no pun intended) before presenting the nasty, intolerant folks for public shame.

For example, this article recently chastised roughly 15 Tweeters, whose posts about the black actors in the movie The Hunger Games were considered racially-inappropriate. The scandal was uncovered by the reputable journalists at Jezebel.com. (Motto: "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for women.")

Okay, seriously, Jezebel is an online tabloid. If you need more proof, one of its columns is called "the dirt bag.” Like most gossip gazettes, it has turned defamation into an art form—though celebrities provide bigger targets than private citizens. So I’m a little surprised they dared post the full names and faces of unsuspecting Tweeters, under a headline calling them "Racists.” 

The tweets were used—poor spelling and all—to make sweeping character judgments. But the reporter didn’t bother contacting the Tweeters personally so they could explain themselves in more than 140 characters. Jezebel settled for lazy research leading to libelous accusations, which is why “entertainment news” receives zero credit from sane people.

But race-obsessed America isn’t sane.

Thus, a whole gaggle of second-and-third-hand outlets picked up Jezebel’s story, taking it seriously as if it hadn’t appeared next to a piece about “the appropriate times to stare at a woman’s butt." Copy-cat “reports” ran in Forbes, HuffingtonPost, E!, Us Magazine, WashingtonPost (blog), and countless other virtual information hubs. And—what’s worse—not one of these newspapers gave the Tweeters a chance to defend themselves. No one gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Does it frighten anyone else that a regular Joe’s tweets, statuses, and blog quotes can be ripped from context and used to castigate him as a person?  Is it possible there are explanations for those quotes, besides utter, intolerable racism? 

-------                    

                         

"After watching the hunger games preview 6 times in a row, i realized Rue is black. whaaaat?! #shocked."

"cinna and rue weren't suppose to be black...why did the producer make all the good characters black smh"

"I was pumped about the movie, until I learned a black girl was playing Rue."

Honestly, I have no idea whether these Tweeters think black people are worth less than white people. Or if, possibly, they’re just upset the movie didn’t match the picture in their head. Personally, while reading the Hunger Games, I had a difficult time keeping track of the skin tones of 50+ characters at once. So I, too, am surprised Rue is black. I see now the book’s author calls her “dark-skinned,” but I missed that line the first time around. And I can tell you what I would have said to my husband in the theater, when I saw African-American Rue instead of the red-head I expected:

“So, they’re keeping it PC, huh?…” 

Luke would understand what I meant; when the book’s author doesn’t specify a race for a character, the part often goes to a minority actor, to “balance out” the cast. We wouldn’t want a movie to become too white, or the producers might get caught in the pages of Jezebel, wearing the racist label.

Thus, if someone pictured Rue incorrectly, his “disappointment” belongs in the same category as those who complained about Dear John, Twilight, and any other best-seller-turned-movie failing to reach the high expectations of its fans. Viewers especially hate when a beloved novels get edited for political reasons. 

In this case, it seems many fans were guilty of misreading. (What?! With elogquent, well-punctuated Twitter posts like theirs?! Poor reading comprehension?...  #shocked)  But that’s far less damning than being “racists.” 

A couple of those tweeters I’m nearly sure were just making jokes. Like this guy, who is pictured as a young, black man, (and who tags a dark-skinned girl in his tweet): "EWW...rue is black?? I'm not watching." It sounds like irony to me. Another person wrote, "Since when is Rue a nigger?" He could be an insensitive racist. Or he could watch a lot of “shock” comics—like Chris Rock—and genuinely believe blatant profanity is funny. 

Again, I can’t say what happens in the heads of these Tweeters—much less their hearts—but I wish at least one reporter had bothered to ask them before (almost all of) the offenders closed their Twitter accounts. This last bit of the story interests me most... I believe the reaction of the “guilty tweeters” reveals more about the issue of racism than anything they wrote before realizing a sleazy magazine would turn it into news.  

The internet community blasted the Twitter-users, with a unity that doesn’t often follow controversial stories.  Even when a tiny human died in utero, trolls emerged to say unspeakably ugly things to the parents. Yet, in the case of the Racist Tweeters, literally thousands of responses delivered the same message: “Shame on those tweeters!”  “Skin color doesn’t matter!” “Racist behavior sickens me!” “I thought Rue looked like an angel!” And on, and on, and on. In my searching, I couldn't find one--NOT ONE--person suggesting the tweeters were misunderstood. Let alone someone suggesting that racism itself is okay.

So, where are all the racists?

The readers/commenters believe “skin color doesn’t matter.” Their implication is, “I’m not a racist!” And many people shared the story on Facebook—to clarify they disapprove of racism as well. This generation went to school in integrated classrooms, played on black, brown, and yellow sports teams, and usually had a least one close friend they could use as a reference about life-in-a-different color.  (At 7-years-old, I asked Jasmine how she “got her hair with all the beads in it.” She responded very informatively with: “I don’t know. My mom does it.”) 

Besides hearing that “skin color doesn’t matter” (repeatedly), most young people have experienced it. Thus, being “racist” is so serious an offense that even people condemned supposedly by their own words took to hiding rather than face the wrath of the righteously-angry Online Community. (Motto: we’re not racist.)

So, where are those who believe skin color does matter? And why are we so determined to find them, give them a platform, and then criticize their intolerance?

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

Please read this article, and tell me if you agree or disagree that many of today's young adults subscribe to "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism:"

"[The study showed] most religious teens in the U.S. had very little appreciation or regard for the theological and doctrinal particulars of their own religious traditions but did believe that God exists, loves them, wants them to follow the Golden Rule, and comforts them in the midst of the emotional ups and downs of adolescence... [They believe] all religious traditions are functionally equivalent, and that they provide spiritual succor, moral guidance, and emotional support in about equal measures."   

 "...a majority of the 30 percent of this cohort of emerging adults who are regular churchgoers are “selective adherents” who “believe and perform certain aspects of their religious traditions but neglect and ignore others.” ...When it comes to religion, this seems to be a generation of lukewarm believers." 


Be sure to read the author's theory regarding why this trend occurs...

-----
Rather than writing a lengthy response of my own, I'd like to borrow a few quotes from commenters at the bottom of the linked article.

20-Something Wrote:
"As a member of what would be considered the "Emerging Adult" group, I must say Christian Smith is right on. . .and totally wrong. I agree with him on the fact that a large portion of adolescents and emerging adults ascribe to "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism." I would, however, like to add that this is not a generation-specific phenomenon. Church goers of all ages have begun to adapt and edit the more traditional views of Christianity to accommodate their chosen lifestyles. As for those who fall into the adolescent category...in my opinion we are suffering the consequences of the sensationalism of churches in the 80's and 90's. (i.e. more show than substance). Things will turn around as soon as churches start preaching the unapologetic gospel again." 

Julian Wrote:
"...Youth these days...are as ignorant about religion as they are about almost everything else except their particular line of specialty and pop culture. America has always had a pragmatic bent, but anti-intellectualism has reached its zenith under the modern image-based media domination... You cannot expect them to love and follow something they do not know. The Death of reading--serious intellectual reading--has profound consequences for society. The only real opportunity to get views other then the liberal and atheistic weltanschauung of the media and other elites, is to read, from every age, from every category, from everywhere. I am in my mid-20s. I find your assessment accurate. Humanity...[may] thrive in the sense of longevity, health, comfort, safety, freedom, and opportunities for work and pleasure. But very few will really live, rise above the constraints of social norms and pop culture, and the gratification of the senses and emotions..."

What do you think?

Christian Oppression...

I came across this picture online recently.

Do you notice anything ironic about it?

If not, let me change the scenario a bit.  Experts project that, within two generations, Christianity will cease being the dominant religion. The Muslim people have a birthrate of roughly twice that of the non-Muslim population, and Islam may be the most widely-practiced religion sometime even before you and I die.

My point is not whether this is “good” or “bad.”  I’m only saying that—shortly—the pie chart above may look completely different, with “Muslim” being the big blue area that currently says “Christian.”

Now, let’s imagine it’s the future, and the predictions have come true—there are more Muslims in the world than Christians. Then, let’s suppose I take that pie chart and put a quote above the blue, Muslim area which says, “I’m taking over this plane.”

Is that okay?

…Or would a Muslim have the right to complain that I’m stereotyping?

If I assume something negative about an entire group of people—and then post a picture making fun of them on the internet—is that oppression? I think it would be offensive, regardless of how many Muslims exist, how many of them become terrorists, whether it's a joke, etc. etc. 

It's wrong to categorize and then crack jokes.

------

I’d just like to say two things in response to the pie chart, as it exists today. First, it doesn't matter if Christians out-number members of other faiths in the world. Individual Christians still can experience oppression at the hands of an aggressive group. 

Even if there are 1,000,000,000,000 Christians in the world and only two Hindus, if those Hindus seek out others to beat, torture, or even "just" make fun of other beliefs, that's persecution. If they overpower Christians for their beliefs in any way, that's oppression.

Regardless of whether Christian beliefs are“popular," the fact remains:  Some of my brothers and sisters ARE oppressed. They are thrown in jail, maimed, cast out of their country, or even killed, because their religion is unpopular in their immediate circle.

It disgusts me that ignorant Americans, with access to chart-developing software, can mock this tragedy with the sarcastic quote, “Help, we’re being oppressed!” just because THEY’VE never seen an arrest, a hanging, or a beheading. (Here are a just a few true examples)

Secondly, I’m lucky enough to live in a place I don't fear for my life, so I've never personally said, “Help, I’m being oppressed!” That's why I don’t enjoy having those words put in my mouth.

Yet I HAVE said things are unfair--even in America--since society is allowed to make statements about Christians like me which political correctness prohibits being said about anybody else. My "Taking-Over-This-Plane" chart is just one example. 

If you believe it's NOT okay to stereotype Muslims with a flippant quote attributed to the whole group--but you believe it's fine to do so with Christians--then here's a thought from ONE Christian on the subject. (Feel free to make a digital poster and pass it around.)

"Hey! I'm being treated unfairly!”

There Is Nothing Funny About Insecurity

In general, I don't find women comics funny. Often, they tend to be whiny, predictable, and outspokenly feminist. (By now, surely all of you know how I feel about the majority of feminists.) But I actually had high hopes for Tina Fey's book Bossypants, after waiting about three months for it to be available at the library.

I read the back cover in a bookstore and chuckled to myself. The description on the inside flap sounded promising. AND, everybody knows her Palin impersonation was spot-on-hysterical, so I decided to check it out.  So why, half-way through, was a I tempted to give up and return it?

Simply: my reading time is precious these days, and I try to keep it entertaining (as opposed to a chore). Bossypants' ability to elevate my blood pressure made it a bad fit. When the first three chapters contain nothing but the same-old cracks about homosexuals and style, I get concerned. When punchlines are few and political rants are frequent, I roll my eyes. When "abortion" is mentioned in jest, not once, but twice, I want to throw your book against a wall.

She piped about workplace inequality--which meant disproportional celebration whenever a female did something cool. (Nothing like favoring women as a means of combating sexism. Power to my people!)  She complained repeatedly about those who don't think she's funny--even dedicating Chapter 17 to personal responses to haters in internet forums. (It's possible to answer an opponent tactfully, like when she told the guy who called her a troll, "You've never even seen my guard a bridge!"  That's kind of funny, and shows she doesn't take herself seriously. But then, she abandoned the high road by referencing his small penis and joking about another commenter's mom. Classy.) Apparently she remains unaware how this discredited the chapter titled, "I don't f---ing care if you like it." Over and over, I reached the conclusion, "She's just an angry feminist!" And we all know there's nothing funny about soapbox preaching.

For some reason, though, I kept picking up the book again, and now I'm glad I did. If I hadn't, I would have lost my own challenge to consider the motivation behind somebody's actions before saying "I don't understand how someone could be that way!" Too often, we make no effort to look from another person's point-of-view before assuming they are crazy. So, I really needed to find SOMETHING positive to say about Tina Fey, and to attempt understanding her many, unexpected sore spots, even though she bugs me.  

And, little by little, I began to see the insecurity behind Miss Fey's inconsistencies. One of the best examples was when she said: “The worst question [about my personal life] is: How do you juggle it all?...They're asking, 'You're [messing] it all up, aren't you?'" 

THAT'S what she hears when people ask about her busy life? Friends, journalists, and talk show hosts want to know how a married, TV executive, with a three-year-old, manages everything at once, and she thinks this is code for secret judgement? Later, she tells the story of when she realized it "wouldn't be just me and the baby" any time soon because  “work wasn't just going to go away.” It devastated her. But she writes: “Of course, I'm not supposed to admit that there is triannual sobbing in my office because it's bad for the feminist cause. It makes it harder for women to be taken seriously in the workplace. It makes it harder for other working moms to justify their choice."  

Then she goes on to admit she argues with herself about whether to have another baby before her body says it's too late, or to continue her “dream job” at NBC. She really gets quite vulnerable about her internal struggles, and that's where I found the common ground. I understand battling with the self very well. This whole blog is dedicated to battling between choices for the Kingdom and choices for myself. It sounds like Miss Fey struggles with her "self."

The problem is, she wraps up her book with a great big “I know it's all going to be okay" without giving any specifics. My question is: what does it mean to be "okay?" And how can she be so sure in that prediction? What tells her it will be okay?

I have my security in Jesus. When I say "everything is going to be all right," I can follow it up with, "because my Father in Heaven has a plan for me, and I will spend eternity with Him in Heaven even if things on earth get crazy." I can identify with the Proverbs 31 woman, who laughs at the future because she knows her value isn't found in any earthly thing.  Not whether  men "take her seriously."  Not how others perceive management skills.  Not whether she has one or ten children. For that woman--and for me--everything WILL be all right.

Unfortunately, I couldn't laugh at Tina Fey's book because I perceived sadness and struggle between the lines. Amid overused, politicized punchlines, there is a woman looking for genuine answers. All I want to do is show her that she believes a lie--one that her worth is found in how much she is paid. what people are saying about her online, and whether she "advances the feminist cause."

Maybe those statements are enough to land me in chapter 17 of her next book. But, there just isn't anything funny about insecurity.

Victory for White People

At my Christian college, we "focused" on cross-cultural understanding. Every couple months, an African-American speaker encouraged us to sit with people from different backgrounds and remember that "Heaven will be multicolored."

Despite my tone here (and aside from one over-zealous black man who seemed to think his purpose was to "fix" we uneducated, bigoted white students), I didn't have a problem with the push to appreciate diversity. After all, Heaven WILL be multicolored. There is neither man nor woman, Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, in Christ's body. We're equals.

Equals UNTIL...

President Obama was elected. That's when a black student ran an article in the school paper about how happy she was to see this day in history. Why? Because "her people" had once been oppressed, and things finally were looking up for them. It was--I quote--an "African-American victory." If you don't understand the problem I have, imagine John McCain had won office and I--a white student--wrote about the great victory for white people...? Would it rub you the wrong way? (There is a chance you decided to read this post because those four words caught your attention.) It should offend you!

That's racism! 

I hate racism for the same reasons I hate ageism and sexism. Regardless of who does it, whether celebrating or lamenting, if you make an issue out of a person's physical body, you are drawing lines. AND, when you separate us with traits no one can control, you've created a very exclusive club. Unlike in Christianity (into which, all are welcome--truly equal.) I have no hope of being a member of this woman's "people." In her eyes, whether she was aware of it or not, John McCain and any other white person started out with a disadvantage...  So much for equality.

Unfortunately, most people who talk about desiring diversity quickly fall into the trap of elevating the minority. That's why the unnamed male student I mentioned got on my nerves. That's why feminism` generally makes me want to remove my high heels (the ones forced on me by chauvinist pigs) and assault most of the East coast senators with them. Most of the time, people repeating "equality, equality, equality" only mean "more perks for people who look like me!" And that attitude doesn't encourage compassion for "the oppressed." I don't much feel like celebrating the election of a black president based on black-ness alone.

Yes, disapproval of someone based on skin color, the year he was born, or what she keeps in her panties makes no sense.

But neither does considering these things "victorious."

Just a Clueless Kid

Why would any self-respecting young person listen to the teachers, doctors, and politicians making excuses for them?

Supposedly, if kids see a cartoon camel on a pack of cigarettes, they will have to smoke. If their bodies desire sex, they probably will give in. And if their friends drink or use drugs, we expect our children to run alongside, like so many sheep. This offended me as a teenager, and it should continue to offend youth today.

Where is the faith in our young people? And, if kids really are incapable of making good decisions, where is that magical line between grown up and "too stupid."

When I was sixteen, I gave a speech in public speaking class outlining why I thought the death penalty should be extended to teens. I don't remember all the details, but my biggest point was, "You don't turn 18 and suddenly become aware of right and wrong." Even a toddler, I argued, knows when he or she is forbidden to do something, and will act appropriately sneaky when approaching the cookie jar. Can we really say a 13 or 14-year-old simply misunderstands that killing is a no-no?

You might as well say they're stupid.

Well, friends, (and especially my young ones), the Bible says let no one look down on you because you are young, but set an example for other believers..."  It would be nice if we had a get-out-of-trouble free card--and many adults are trying to hand us one. They call us immature and impulsive. But God says, even in our youth, we are not clueless.  We can set an example.

Nothing in Scripture suggests that kids aren't smart enough, informed enough, or controlled enough to be accountable. Be wary of people who say otherwise. 

In fact, be ANGRY.

Burnt Toast. Yes, Please.

I've discovered it's difficult to spend even 30 minutes writing every day when I have a 3-month-old. She likes to take 15-minutes catnaps throughout the day, so I find myself throwing something in the microwave or grabbing a quick shower when she's asleep. I fully intend to write regularly again, once her sleep is more predictable...or when she's old enough to understand the phrase, "Mommy Time." Whichever comes first.

Meanwhile, I'll throw in a post when I find something I deem post-worthy. For instance, I've heard some buzz about Teri Hatcher's new book, Burnt Toast and Other Philosophies of Life, but I find myself unimpressed with her overarching "philosophy." This article offers an excerpt, and I encourage you to read it

Basically, the title of the book comes from Teri's experiences watching her mother eat the burnt toast during breakfast, so no one else would have to do it. I think all of us have a grandmother, aunt, or mother who does the same type of thing: eats the "defective" entree, takes the smallest piece of cake, or serves herself last--after the food has gone cold. And Teri thinks this is a shame!

"Up 'til now, I ate the burnt toast. I learned that from my mother -- metaphorically if not literally. I can't actually remember if she even likes toast or how she eats it. But what I know for sure is that although she was a loving and devoted wife and mother, she always took care of everyone and everything else before herself. This habitual self-sacrifice was well intended, but ultimately it's a mixed message for a child. It taught me that in order for me to succeed, someone else had to suffer. I learned to accept whatever was in front of me without complaint because I didn't think I deserved good things."

I understand the point she's trying to make. Women, don't consider yourselves second-class. Do things for yourselves every once in awhile! Blah, blah, blah.  But, I think Teri sort of misunderstands the principle behind eating burnt toast. And she certainly doesn't grasp the positive side of self-sacrifice. 

It's in a mother's nature to do anything for her family. We make grand claims, like, "I would take a bullet for my baby" and "I would move mountains to make sure they're safe," because our families are our number one concern. The protective instinct is God-given, love-driven, and--for the most part--applauded by society. Good moms will lay down their lives for their loved ones, and that's as it should be.

So, why do we scoff at a more practical example of that principle? Most of us will never get the chance to prove our love in martyrdom (thank God!) But all women will come face-to-face with the chance to be sacrificial at the dinner table. Comparatively, this is easy! Why does it make Teri's skin crawl?

I'd rather have a few cold dinners than brag about mountains I'll never actually be able to move.
I'd MUCH rather say, "I love you" with a piece of burnt toast than with that bullet we always reference. 

 Self-sacrifice is part of motherhood, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Self-sacrifice is necessary for true love. If "There's no love like a mother's,"we shouldn't be surprised when women volunteer for the raw end of the deal now and then, and we shouldn't pity them for that, either.  There is a certain joy in knowing you're loving your family the best way you can. And if it's a simple as burnt toast, I hope I get the chance to eat a LOT of it...


(Note: I want to reiterate that I have not read all of Teri's book, and that she says her aim is to empower women who feel they "don't deserve" anything good in life. There is a difference between sacrificing due to low self-esteem, and sacrificing out of love--which builds high self-esteem. I simply wished to make the point that--perhaps--Teri misunderstood her mother's motivation, and that sacrificially eating the burnt toast can be another kind of empowerment...) 

"Modern" Marriage

Yep, I watched part of the Royal Wedding. I woke up at 6:30am and caught the end of the sermon, lots of choral singing, and the recessional parade thingy, which probably has a more official name than that...

I missed the live broadcast of the vows, but when I heard comments referring to the absence of the word "obey" from Kate's version, I decided to YouTube it. Sure enough, with a little research, I discovered this isn't the first time a royal bride omitted this word, and it has caused quite a stir in the past. This time around, however, several observers praised Kate for following in the footsteps of independent, strong women like Diana and Fergie, claiming it shows a concentration on equality in relationships.

First of all, I'd like to point out that both Diana and Fergie wound up divorced. That's mildly interesting.

But what I really want to ask is: what about the word "obey" terrifies modern women so much?

So many times, I've heard self-titled "progressive" women ("strong," "independent" women) remark about how they would DIE before promising to obey their husbands, but it always makes me wonder: What is so horrible about your significant other that you don't trust him? If you're worried he would ask you to do something which is morally WRONG, why are you marrying him at all? And if not--if your only concern is having to do things you don't always want to do--are you so selfish you can't give up your own desires in his favor now and then?
----

A friend of mine complained about all the wedding hooplah, because, as she pointed out, the world is celebrating a ceremony that otherwise doesn't hold much significance to our culture anymore. Most of the tradition and pageantry has been handed down from a time when marriage really did mean forever. Now,  despite the politically correct talk about the "beautiful couple" and how "happy they are," it seems perfectly appropriate to wonder secretly when it will end in a split. (Or to wonder the same thing, not-so-secretly on your blog, I suppose.)

I realize this is a touchy subject because so many people are affected by divorce. But I can't help noticing that wedding vows mean very little in our world, and that's another reason I wonder why women fight so fiercely over the word "obey." Frequently they say "love, honor, and cherish until death do us part," then turn around and part before death. So, why can't we mutter an insincere "I'll obey ya, too"   ???

And, what's with the "richer or poorer" thing? I know the royals don't have much to worry about in that department, but statistics show the rest of us fight about money above anything else... Why would any self-respecting woman promise to attach herself to a poor guy?!

If we REALLY want to brag about our progressive marriage ceremonies and keep our vows more practical for a modern society, I think mine probably should have read something like this:

I, Amanda, take you, Luke, to be my lawfully wedded husband. I promise to love you as long as I feel you are providing for our family, and I will treat you as an equal, unless I wake up one morning and realize I'm not happy and should look out for myself first. Life is short, afterall. But, it's not so short that I can promise---for sure--to be your wife the whole time. So, I promise to be faithful as long as our relationship still feels as good as dating. If I like the things you say to me, I'll consider your opinions. (But, let's be clear. That's not the same as "obeying!") I suppose I will cherish you, if you deserve it. And I will sacrifice for you, unless it hurts TOO much.  And, finally my love, I promise to enjoy the congratulations and the taxbreak associated with our new "committment," until it's time to dissolve the contract and try again with the next guy.

Oh, Amanda, you are so judgmental.

It's true, I see the carelessness being thrown upon the beautiful institution of marriage, and--in my judgment--it is a disgrace.  But if we thought seriously about our promises, maybe fewer people would jump into marriage so readily? Maybe we wouldn't be so quick to congratulate, but would caution each other that life-long relationships aren't for the selfishly-minded (unless you want to change the vows to resemble mine above)...

I actually don't have a problem with women who KNOW they have an issue with "obeying." At least they're thinking about the words of their vows! But, again, I wonder why you would go through with the marriage anyway--just removing the parts you don't like. If you can't be sure you're standing beside a man who only will exercise his authority as a last resort and for your good, if you wonder whether it will turn into an "abuse" situation, or if you don't know for sure if he could handle leadership, why are you pledging your life to him?

----
Luke hasn't yet used his headship to end an argument. Most of the time, we go back and forth in discussion when our wills clash, and there hasn't been an instance when he felt so strongly his way was better for both of us that he trumped me on the spot...

But I remember a time my dad stepped in and took charge, despite protests. My grandpa, Mom's dad, passed away somewhat unexpectedly, and the entire family left church early to drive nearly three hours and be with Grandma. We may have thrown some clothes in bags first, but we weren't totally prepared for a long visit. Besides that, Mom's extended family was arriving in droves, and Grandma's little house was getting crowded. 

So, my dad made the executive decision to take my three siblings and me back home to our house, and let my mom spend time mourning with her family. She didn't like the idea--wanting to keep everyone together, unsure about the cost of driving back and forth repeatedly, worried about whether we'd make it for the funeral, etc. And, ordinarily, Dad tries to accomodate Mom's wishes the best he can.

But, he recognized that she wasn't thinking with her usual clarity. She was distraught, and she needed the leadership of my father to take care of details while she dealt with her pain. I'm not sure whether she held a grudge against him at first, but I did hear her remark later that she was glad he stepped in and overruled her. After the fact, she could recognize he did it for her good.
----

There is no reason for me to suspect Kate and William will crash and burn in the matrimony department, other than the truly sad divorce statistics being collected. For this reason, along with the rest of the world, I'll stare breathless at the pomp, admire the beauty, and wish my best for the couple.

But I will not celebrate their focus on "equality," when I believe strongly true love elevates the other person. I cannot praise anybody for their "modern" or "progressive" marriage, because I don't see progress in the institution at all.