December 20, 2004
Gender
When I was a little guy younger than springtime and joining in with the family Christmas tree decoration for my first time, I remember hearing somebody talking about the male and female plugs on the tree light strings and extension cords. It was a new and puzzling idea for me.
When I finally caught on, I sort of quietly snickered, as I figured I’d really got in on something very adult. Little did I realize then how logistically critical it is to get things like that right, and that it’s no joke at all.
This is the second Christmas for Deodar (of previous OoN fame), our outdoor Indian beauty known as the “timber of the gods,” and I was reminded of those early years once again. Deodar’s over twelve feet tall now, a lot more shapely, and requires a stepladder and additional long strings of the little twinkly white lights to be decorated properly. CP is more or less too adult for my making with any sort of adolescent humor about this procedure, but she did get the gender of those light strings all lined up with no problem or side remarks.
It occurred to me, though, that maybe the president and all his moral police squad if they just want to amend something might tend to their own behavior rather than the Constitution. If they’d just concentrate, for example, on the proper gender relationship of all the many extension light cords on the National Christmas Tree, that should keep them busy enough so that they might get something right this year.
Gender, after all, though critical for extension cords, has not a lot to do with marriage which has enough to worry about just fending for itself.
Amen, Brother.
What did Jesus say about removing the splinter from one own eye before getting in someone else’s business?
But then, I guess we’ve already noted that the so-called moral values of the Bushites are more akin to avarice and power-lust than the teachings of Jesus.
Comment by Robert Barlow — December 21, 2004 @ 2:14 pm