Roseanne's Return

It seems that Roseanne is returning to our televisions soon. She even tweeted a reply to me that Norm MacDonald will be along for the ride. I assume he will be a writer for the show, and hopefully he'll get a little screen time as well. He's brilliant! It has been reported that Roseanne will tackle issues in a Trump era. I haven’t read anything from Roseanne regarding the meaning of this, but Roseanne is a supporter of Trump, and I assume her character will be, or will she?

I grew up in the Roseanne era. I still remember watching an early Roseanne on the Johnny Carson show doing a number about a sugar coma. I don’t remember the entire bit, but I remember my mother, who I thought was the funniest woman alive, laugh out loud at Roseanne. If my mother, my comic idol, loved Roseanne, then I knew there was something special about her.

When Roseanne, the television show, hit the airwaves, I was impressed by a show that showed a family very much like the one that I lived in. It wasn’t the white-washed family of the 50’s through early 70’s. It wasn’t the goofy families of the late 70’s and early 80’s. It was gritty, down to earth, and realistic. Along the way, the show tackled many subjects, while all the while having a good time, entertaining us with a show that even kids could watch.

You can’t say that about many comedies on television today. The shows have become ultra-liberal, geared towards the east and west coasts, and they are so filthy that I don’t want my kids watching them. Roseanne dealt with adult subjects in a way that the adults got the joke, while the kids didn’t, but both laughed. Old fashioned Looney Tune cartoons had the same brilliance. When you can create something for the old and young alike, you have mined gold.

So, what will Roseanne in the 21^st century look like? First, we’ve been told that Dan will be back despite us learning that he died. Roseanne mentioned somewhere that he faked his own death. Maybe even better will be Roseanne having a nervous breakdown, and living in a life where she couldn’t tell dream from reality? What about the kids? Will they return to having been Becky hooked up with Mark and Darlene with David? That doesn’t mean that they would have to be together today. In many cases, few early adult relationships last. Odds are, Beck and Mark are split up and fight over custody from time to time. We know Sara Gilbert is gay in real life, and I did have a first cousin whose wife left him for another woman. So, could Darlene have done the same, but still be on friendly terms with David? Maybe David’s line could be, “Well, I didn’t have what Darlene was looking for?” That would be a vagina, folks! I always told my cousin that. I always felt it would be easier to lose a woman to another woman instead of another man because there’s no way I could compete with another woman!

What about DJ? What is in store for his character? Will Jackie be back? Families change over time. People move out, some move in, my family looks very different than it did 20 years ago. There are those who were very close 20 years ago who barely talk to one another today.

What about this political angle that keeps being reported. Will Rosie be more conservative in her older years? Or, will Roseanne play the opposite, and play off as a liberal? Just because Roseanne may play her character as a conservative doesn’t mean her whole family will be. In fact, it wouldn’t make for much fodder for the writers if everyone was on the same page politically. Does anyone remember hearing about that couple that divorced over Trump last fall? Roseanne could play the conservative leaning character to Dan’s liberal leaning character, and in the end, it could show us that even though loved ones disagree, it is possible to find common ground on other important issues, like family, and keep loving the person you disagree with politically. Of course, Roseanne and Norm MacDonald could keep us in stitches while showing us this fact over and over.

I’ve watched the Full House reboot and there is one thing that bothers me about it. It’s too fake. The premise isn’t based in reality. Roseanne will hopefully not go down this route. How do you bring in old characters, like children, back into the home, especially when they should be on their own with families of their own? Well, many millenials are living at home with their parents. Having all three kids living under the roof would be unbelievable, but having DJ still living at home, continually going to college because he can’t find a good job, while growing deeper and deeper into student debt would be very realistic, while making for good script. I mean, don’t we all know a “professional student” or three in our own life? I have a brother who is one. He works as an auto parts man. He’s the highest educated auto parts man that I know, and he has $100,000 in student loans to go with it, so he keeps going back to college! I don’t know how he’ll ever be able to buy a house at this rate, and he’s 38 years old with no family of his own. That’s real life. Maybe that’ll be DJ’s life?

What about the girls? I hope they aren’t living to home. They could live nearby though. It’s not uncommon to find children who stay close to home. My sister lives across town from my mother. She’s a single mother and uses my mother to help watch the younger children from time to time. Maybe one of Roseanne’s daughters could live across town and be the daughter who “imposes” upon Roseanne and Dan for babysitting, groceries, and helping to put gas in the car. That would be real life. Maybe Roseanne and Dan will have to borrow from a successful child? That is reality in today's world too.

What about the heroin epidemic in our country? Will Roseanne tackle that? What if Roseanne is raising her grandchildren because one of the kids is hooked on drugs? That too is real life today. It could tackle the problem in a real life way, while still being funny. What if Darlene is the one with the heroin problem, and Roseanne is raising her kids. Becky likes to impose upon Roseanne, but Roseanne has a little fun switching the tables on Becky and dropping kids in on her at inopportune times? The cousins could also gang up on other family members. That would make for great comedy. I know my cousins and I would get into great mischief when we were younger.

            The fact is, Dan and Roseanne should be retired, but I can only assume, like so many families today, they are probably still working because they don’t have enough money to retire on, and because they have to raise their grandchildren and help the other kids out. That is reality in our world today. Will they still have the restaurant? Will Dan have a bike shop? I was sort of hoping that they would run a blue-collar tavern. What a great place to have different people come in and talk about everything affecting the working class today. Like Cheers, it would give Roseanne’s writers a place to work out a lot of material. Plus, I like the thought of having special guests pop through Roseanne’s tavern. Roseanne did these great skits in her original show with guest stars. Wouldn’t it be neat to see people pop into the bar and say stuff to crack us up? The Dukes of Hazzard used to have Roscoe’s speed trap that would catch country music stars and they’d have to play at the Boar’s Nest to have Roscoe tear the ticket up. Maybe there can be a running gag that draws celebrities into Rosie's bar for a drink? Maybe there can be a place that all these celebrities are looking for and their satellite navigation gets them lost and points them to Rosie's bar. They stop in for a drink and when they're finished, Roseanne gives them real directions, the old fashioned way, by word of mouth. Think what fun they could have with Bob Uecker, Tim Allen, or maybe president Trump stopping by! Norm MacDonald writing for Bob Uecker in a bar would be comedy gold, especially if Roseanne is behind the bar! Of course, this is all just make believe in my mind. I’m sure Roseanne knows what she wants to do with her show and it probably isn’t anything near what I’ve written. But if you're reading this Roseanne, feel free to steal my ideas!

I look forward to seeing her show. Whatever she does, she is brilliant, and I am confident her brilliance will be on full display. She is like my mother. She’s smart. She’s confident. She’s as funny as they come. I come from a line of strong women and I can relate to Roseanne. I look forward to her brand of blue-collar comedy on the television again.

Climate Change Religion

This whole climate change argument has become religious. Those who subscribe to man-made climate change have become religious fanatics about it. They don't allow for any skepticism. Anyone who dares challenge the notion that man is the main reason for climate change is labeled the equivalent of a heretic. Those of us who are agnostic to the notion aren't offered the same common decency that other religious agnostics are afforded in America. There are some even calling for us ...to be imprisoned. Google it and you'll see that I am telling the truth.

This is scientific fact. Here in Iowa, there is evidence of both major glaciation, as well as Iowa being covered by water. The ground shows the glaciation and the limestone fossils show the water. Right now, we're somewhere in between. Scientitst themselves tell us that the last glacial event happened when Paleo-Indians were in Iowa. This means, within the time that man has been here in Iowa, we've seen the loss of glaciers, as well as the loss of the giant animals that used to roam here. Was that global warming? That happened in a blink of an eye too, on the earth being billions of years old scale.

Scientists say that earth has never warmed this quickly. Really? Who's to say? Ice cores? Who's to say that the rate of warming has to be constant? The sun isn't constant. Nothing is constant. Maybe this is a quick warm-up compared to others and man has nothing to do with it? To even postulate this is heretical now.

The problem with ascribing to this man-made global warming religion is that it involves placing heavy burdens on the poor and transferring American wealth and sovereignty to others. It's a tool for those creating vast sums of wealth based upon fear. Listen to the people screaming about Trump pulling out of the Paris accord. They are full of fear!

A final note. Those who ascribe to the belief that we evolved instead of being created tell us that it's survival of the fittest. Only the strong survive, as well as those who have been able to adapt. Shouldn't we be adapting to a changing climate instead of trying to change the climate? Do you realize how kooky that sounds? Man will control the climate? We're not talking about environmentalism, where we protect our water and air. We've been doing that long before this Paris accord. Christ, our water is cleaner now than it was in the 70's. Anyone else remember the acid rain terror?

BTW - When will the proponents of climate change, like Al Gore, start practicing what they preach? Only when they quit flying around in their private jets and taking limousine rides, I might get like Alfred E. Neuman in 1979 and start getting nervous. Until then, "What......me worry?"

The only time Alfred E. Neuman got worried. 1979 Three Mile Island incident.

 

I was productive today too.

I have frequent dreams of going back to Dad's house in Walker and finding my old Cutlass in the shed. I uncover it and gingerly take it out because the brakes are bad in my dream, but I drive slowly. I am giddy as all get out because I'm driving my old car. 

Well, it's no car, but I resurrected an old lawn mower today that has a 20 year history with me.

My father bought my first wife and me a very nice push lawnmower the summer after we got married (1997). We ended up divorced and I lost ownership of that mower for awhile. I bought a new mower, not as nice, and shortly thereafter, got my old mower back. My mother was in need of a mower and my current wife KinDee wanted to keep the new mower and give my mom the 7 year old, very nice mower. I didn't like it. I wanted to give my mother the new one and keep the one my father had given me, but I relented and gave it to my mother. 

Those of you who know my mother know that she doesn't check or change oil for the most part. She just uses stuff that is mechanical. I figured it would blow up on her after a year or two. I never asked about it. I just moved on in life.

I used that new lawnmower that I bought and wore it out. Well, I didn’t, but my kids did. They kept slamming the deck every time it would be plugged. They had the wheels on it toed out, looking like a cow taking a dump. Eventually, the handle broke and the kill switch cable snapped. That was that. The engine still ran, but it used some oil. It had a very busy life. When it broke, I put it in my “someday” pile and bought a new Husqvarna push mower.

I priced parts for the now broken mower. The handle, deck parts, and cable, were over $70. I got to thinking how similar this new mower was to the one that I had gotten from my father, and given to my mother. The differences were this: The one that I gave my mother had a straight rear axle and the engine had a throttle. You could adjust the speed of the engine. The deck on the one my father bought me was heavier and easier to work under. It didn’t plug up nearly as much.

My mother has been hiring her lawn service to be done for a few years now. I thought maybe, just maybe, she’d have that old mower there for me to rob parts off of. If nothing else, I thought I could switch engines and put the engine from mine on the one that I gave to her because surely – it couldn’t still be running, could it?

She said that she had it, but that it really was junk and that she hadn’t thrown it out yet. It was sitting outside, I think covered, but outside nonetheless. I got it home last fall and pulled on the rope to check if the engine was locked up and I heard, “Clunk, clunk, clunk.” Someone had hit a boulder, or something similar, and bent the blade all to hell. The throttle cable was busted. The kill switch cable was working, but very stiff. I didn’t even try to do anything with the mower. It would have to wait for another year.

I got outside today and felt like doing something. Sean got home from school and I instructed him to get those two mowers, the one I kept and the one that I gave away. I thought about swapping engines as I knew mine worked when I parked it and I always use Sta-bil in the gas. I thought, “What if this thing actually runs?”

I looked it over. It needed a spark plug. I sent KinDee after one and then I went to work cleaning the air filter. It was junk, so I pulled the one off of the mower that I had kept. I saw the fuel line was shot. I pulled the one off of the mower that I kept. I drained the oil. It was probably the same oil that I put in the mower many years ago. It was sludge. I took off the blade. There was the anti-seize on the bolt. I use anti-seize and had I not, I doubt that I would have gotten that blade off so easily. I sent KinDee after a new blade.

I drained the gas when I changed the fuel line. We put the new spark plug in. We checked for spark. We had spark. We put oil in and the new blade on. We put a cup or two of gas in and put some Sea Foam in the gas as well as a dash in the crank case oil.

I had Sean take it over into the lawn. I told him that I wasn’t sure how to adjust the throttle as the cable was seized. I unscrewed the cable from the holder so that we could adjust the throttle on the engine. I told Sean to put it in the middle. I had him pump the primer bulb and start pulling. He pulled and pulled and pulled and pulled. Nothing.

I told him to prime it some more and keep trying. Finally, after many tries – it popped off and ran. It smoked like hell, but it ran! I had Sean fill the gas up so that it would dilute the Sea Foam and check the oil. It needed more oil. We added more oil and let it set until we felt good that it was full. I asked Sean to adjust the mower, then mow the ditch. He did it! That old mower had life in it for the first time in years. It wasn’t quite a “Cutlass” moment, but it was sure nice to see that old push mower come back to life. It was quite a bit older, having been through quite the ordeal, but it’s running.

I will never give it away again. I will keep the one that I bought new for parts. I prefer the one my father gave me 20 years ago.




Mower that my father bought me 20 years ago.



Mower that I bought new. Now being used for parts.

 

Regarding Faith and Defending it

Luke 10:17-18 reads;

The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in Your name.” So He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

I have thought long and hard on this for many years. We all think that if we go to heaven, it will be peaches and cream. Well, that may not be the case. Satan was in heaven. He was supposed to be God’s favored angel at one time, yet, as the legend goes, he grew jealous and wanted to be God himself. He convinced other angels to turn away from God as well and they were hurled to earth.

We face the same decision here on earth every day. Do we follow God or do we turn from him? Are we more worried about making others happy, or God? If we were in heaven at the time Satan turned, would we stick up and defend God or would we join Satan?

Think about your life. When confronted by atheists, Muslims, and others hostile towards Christianity, what do you do? Do you defend your faith, or do you worry about offending those who hate Christians and Jews (God’s chosen people)?

It’s one thing to be civil to others. It’s another to refuse to defend God.

I was once asked by a loved one whether an all powerful God needs defended. The answer is yes, and this is why.

We are here on earth as a test. The bible tells us that we will be judged in the end and those who have denied Jesus will be denied by Jesus. Those who have proven to be unworthy will be burned like chaff. This is where we prove to God that if another Satan were to arise, that we would side with God. If we cannot defend our faith and stand with God here, then how can God expect us to do so in heaven?

There are a great many things about God and heaven that I don’t understand, and I hope someday will be answered by the “boss” himself. Until that time, I will do my best to defend my God and my faith, especially in today’s environment of utter hatred for our Lord and Savior. I know it will be hard. Even St. Peter wept bitterly after denying Christ three times.

 

 

Regarding doctors, and others.......

I have noticed how many in the medical field, and in the law profession for that matter, will think nothing of taking a long vacation, hopping on a plane, and fly overseas to administer to the poor and downtrodden.

Yet, right here to home, there are those who cannot get the proper medical care because doctors refuse to make house calls, or to go to smaller communities to visit their patients.

I don't understand this. Does it make them feel better to fly overseas to take care of those in need vs. driving out of their way or taking time out of their day, to administer to those in need here at home?

Jewish Ham and Gay Christian Cakes

I saw a news story this morning from South Carolina where the newspaper seems surprised that an openly gay lawmaker was elected in a deeply Christian and conservative district.

This shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of the Christian faith. It’s as if the author of the article would expect evangelical Christians to run an openly gay man out of town on a rail. They don’t seem to understand that Christians are some of the most tolerant people on the planet. In fact, in Christian nations, you'll see great tolerance shown towards those who live and believe differently. That great tolerance was enshrined in our Constitution, written mainly by Christian men.

What we don’t appreciate is a perversion of our faith by those who wish to change us. Homosexuality is a sin. It always has been in the Jewish/Christian faith, and until Jehovah God instructs us differently, I suspect it will remain so. Lying and stealing are also sins, by alas, nobody has asked us to change our views on those issues yet.

Because we don’t see homosexuality as acceptable, we do not feel comfortable embracing it within our churches, although, some churches that are more “worldly” have. You can see parallels in the Jewish faith. The strict adherents to Judaism will not eat pork. However, there are some Jews who aren’t really that strict who enjoy the occasional ham sandwich. It depends upon your personal religious commitment as to how you approach your faith and apply it to your life. Thankfully, in America, this is your right. Go to many Muslim nations where they have religious police, and you won’t have that freedom. Over there, you may be imprisoned, or worse, for enjoying that ham sandwich. (Muslims don’t eat pork either)

Most Christians see the gay community the same as we see others of different faiths or creeds. As long as they don’t bother us, we don’t care. Do Buddhists come into our churches and demand that we worship Buddha?  Do Muslims come in and demand that we pray to Allah? Are Jews allowed to come into our churches and remove all references to Christ? Obviously not. Why then are gay people coming into churches, many times the very church they attended their entire life, and demanding that the church change its views on homosexuality because of them? Should the church change its views on rape, lying, or murder because those people come to our churches too? No. We show the same compassion towards sinners that Christ asked of us. It does not mean that we must accept sinfulness as normal. Sin is sin and the wages of sin is death. That is fundamental Christian bedrock.

Do we see homosexuals going into synagogues and mosques demanding the same treatment? If so, I don’t see it. It’s funny to me that I’m only witnessing the attack on Christian values and beliefs, and not the same treatment towards Jews or Muslims.

Why isn’t the gay community asking Jewish and Muslim bakers to bake them gay wedding cakes? Why are they suing Christian bakers for refusing? Isn’t it the right of anyone in this country to refuse to act in a manner that they see as endorsing anything that is contrary to their religion? Is refusing to design and deliver a cake for a gay couple to a gay wedding, truly discrimination? If a gay customer came into a bakery and wanted to purchase a cake, already made, and the owner refused because the customer is gay, that is discrimination. However, asking the baker to personally design and deliver a cake for a gay wedding, something they would not normally do, and requiring them to do so, is not the same thing. It's the bakery owner's religious right to refuse.

If I go into a Jewish delicatessen and want to order a sandwich, they cannot refuse me as a Christian. I have to purchase what they have available. I can ask the deli to serve certain things, but they are under no obligation to cater specifically to me. If I want a ham sandwich, I cannot force that deli to serve ham. I don’t have a right to a ham sandwich. They are not discriminating against me or my religion by refusing to carry or make me a ham sandwich. If I want a ham sandwich, there are plenty of other places to get one. Their refusal to serve me a ham sandwich doesn’t indicate a hatred towards me. It indicates that they are living within their religious beliefs, something they have a right to do. The same ought to apply to the Christian baker. Sadly, it doesn’t.

Why should Trump sell off his businesses?

In the early days of our country, those who were our leaders had businesses. They weren’t corporations, but they certainly were rather large for the times. George Washington had many businesses, one of which was making whiskey, and Washington made decisions that benefitted his whiskey business by making it hard, almost illegal, for the average person to make whiskey themselves without the government coming after you. This lead to the infamous Whiskey Rebellion. Google it if you're not familiar with it. Does anyone hold this against Washington today? Not one bit. It’s just a footnote in history.

Jefferson had a large plantation and many slaves. It could be said that Jefferson could have favored policy that benefitted his plantation and his slave holdings. Did anyone ask Jefferson to divulge of all of his holdings when he became president? Of course not. That was not how things were understood in early America. In early America, our leaders were meant to be citizens, not career politicians.

Why should Trump sell all of his businesses? If Trump passed legislation that required people to use Trump’s services, or if he used his position to purchase land that would not otherwise be available to him, or if he funneled money through his business (like Hillary has been doing with her foundation), then there would be a conflict of interest. However, if Trump took a pro-business stance that helped all businesses, his included, then what is wrong with that? America elected a businessman.

There are many who think this will place Trump in a constitutional conflict as the constitution has a provision about accepting foreign money. The theory on this is that if Trump accepts any money through his hotels from foreign governments, who I suppose may rent rooms from Trump, that this would throw him into a position rife for impeachment.

The section in question is found in section 9, Article I of the Constitution.

 "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."  

I have read up on this and there’s a good piece in the New York Times about this. You can read about it by clicking HERE. In short, George Washington accepted two gifts from France without consulting Congress and nothing happened to him. It seems the law is on Trump’s side, even if some of our citizens aren’t.

What is truly lacking in this country is a good understanding of the founding of America. A good history of the early years, an understanding of why things were designed the way they were, and just civics in general is sorely lacking in America. When I was younger, I remember arguing with my father about the way things should have been instead of why they were the way they were, and Dad told me that I would have made a good shit-house lawyer, meaning, someone who could argue a point quite well, even if the facts of the matter weren’t on my side. That’s what we see a lot of these days due to our woeful lack of civic understanding.

In short, should Trump not divest all of his business interests, while it may seem inappropriate to those who don’t understand historical precedent, it is not illegal.