I'm Confused

There may be a few out there who wonder who this guy is. He is Phil Robertson the father of the A&E "reality" program Duck Dynasty. He was interviewed by GQ magazine and made some rather unflattering comments about homosexuals. What he said doesn't so much concern me. It has been the reaction to what he said. First, A&E suspended him indefinitely from appearing on the Duck Dynasty program. Phil and his family are very religious Christians and his comments on homosexuals were in keeping with his religious beliefs. It does not make them any less insensitive it just provides some background for the furor his comments have created. There are many on Facebook and other social media sites complaining about Phil Robertson's free speech rights being violated. Our free speech rights, those for every America, are derived from the first ammendment to the Constitution. It states as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It appears from everything I read today that no law has been made stating that Phil Robertson or any other American cannot make the statements regarding homosexuals that he made. This is not a free speech issue. It is an employment issue. A&E networks employed Phil Robertson. They paid him for his appearances on a television program the network broadcast. I worked for over 20 years for the Illinois Department of Corrections. They did not abridge my free speech rights but I also understood that my ongoing employment could be adversely impacted by things that I said. I was certainly free at any point to make disparging remarks about my supervisor, the governor, the director. Indicate that I thought they enjoyed copulating with farm animals or whatever. I chose not to make those comments in exchange for my continued employment. Phil Robertson is still an employee of A&E. He has been suspended while they determine what to do. He said some things his employer didn't like. They have a right to determine if his employment with them will continue. His free speech rights have not been abridged in any manner. He can go out today and repeat his statements in any manner that does not violate the law. Yes, there are laws that limit your speech. What? Go to a church on Sunday and start hollering in the middle of the sermon any kind of crazy statement you want. See how long it is before you are removed by the police for disturbing the peace or trespassing or some other charge. Try to argue that the police are violating your free speech rights. Using the most famous example, you can't go into a crowded theater and yell fire. Free speech has limits. At its core this is still not about free speech. It is about what sort of conduct an employer is going to allow from an employee. If what A&E did in response to what Phil Robertson said then use your free speech rights to complain (again within the boundaries of the law). You can't say things like you want to burn down their studios or kill the director of the program. Don't watch any of their shows. Just don't say they are violating his free speech rights. They aren't.

Why Is This Such a HUGE Deal????

Up front I'm not a big Miley Cyrus fan. Having made that clear at times she does have a point. Maybe this is little more than Miley trying to keep her name on the news and in front of everyone but she still makes a valid point. She tweeted this picture recently.

If you are looking for an attractive picture of Miley I must say this isn't it. She was trying to do something more with her breasts than wish you a Merry Christmas. Miley was saying thanks to New York for being one of the few states to "free the nipple". Director Lena Esco is releasing a film next month called "Free the Nipple". It is her quest to have backward censorship laws changed which in some jurisdictions require police to arrest women for breastfeeding in public or being topless at a beach. The film is having trouble being released because it is being given an NC-17 rating for nudity. I must admit I find it odd that films which depict all variety of murder and mayhem in a gory violent manner don't receive this type of rating. Killing, dismembering, beheading, stabbing, shooting, running over people with a car, all are pretty much okay. Show a nipple or two too often, too much, too long and it is NC-17 for you. Breastfeeding in public, how is that so wrong.

I don't see where this is in any way sexually provocative. It is a mother breastfeeding her child and sharing a loving, bonding moment with him. Somehow that is more offensive than this?

I mean really wouldn't you feel better if he had a shirt on. Yet as far as I know this is legal at every public beach in the United States. If a woman did this she would be subject to arrest in many jurisdictions.

Free the Nipple had a Facebook account until it was suspended for repeated posting things that violated Facebooks terms of use. One wonders why Facebook would find those postings offensive while having no problem with parents posting pictures of their children's poop. "Looking what little Johnny did! We're sooo proud!"

In closing let's be honest. The problem is men. If a group of women, oh hell, if ONE woman bares her breasts guys will crowd around with cameras and push each other to get a picture. You would think someone was leading a unicorn down the street there will be such a comotion. Get real guys, if you want to see a nipple lift up your shirt and take a look. Same thing, same place. Grow the fuck up.

The Parsons

My Great Grandmother was born February 24, 1866 in Henderson, township Illinois. She was the daughter of Franklin B Parsons and Sarah Bullard Parsons. She came from an interesting family. They originally came to what is now the United States in about 1637 with the arrival of Cornet Joseph Parsons. So the family has a long history in this country, but that isn't what this story is about. It is about these guys.

The men in the photograph are from the left David Hastings Parsons, Franklin D. Parsons, Franklin B. Parsons and the little fella in front is Gary V. Parsons. Let's start with what I know at this point.

David Hastings Parsons was born October 22, 1801 in Springfield, Massachusetts the son of Hosea Parsons and Sally Upham. His father Hosea was a gunsmith who died in New Orleans, Louisana in 1803 of yellow fever. David Hastings Parsons arrived in Knox County sometime prior to 1850 as he is listed as a resident in the 1850 census. He and his wife Lydia Taylor Warren are the parents of 8 boys and one girl. My Great Great Grandfather Franklin B. Parsons picture above being their third born. We have journals from David Hastings Parsons somewhere at my mother's house. She is attempting to find them. When you start looking at ancenstry records things can get confusing. Some are trying to indicate that David Hastings Parsons was a Civil War veteran. I found that unlikely as at the beginning of the war he would be 60 years of age. He had a son named David H. Parsons, Jr. who was born in 1828 and died in 1868. He appeared to be a likely candidate but the David Parsons who enlisted in the Illinois 124 Infantry did so in Aurora, Illinois and listed his occupation as farmer. David H Parson, Jr. was listed in the 1860 census as living in Knox County and working as a carpenter. A couple of hours work looking at Civil War records on line finally revealed that the Civil War veteran was David W. Parsons and to the best of my knowledge at this time no relation. The next bump in the road was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The majority of ancestry records available are due to work by the Mormon Church. They baptize the dead by proxy in order to ensure their entrance to heaven. They indicate that David Hastings Parsons was a member of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints endowment date January 8, 1846 at the Temple Nauvoo, Illinois. Their records indicate his spouse was Lydia Taylor. While I intially had doubts about this when given some thought it seems the most likely outcome. I had questioned if it could have been his son David Jr. It would seem more probable it was him based on a couple of things. Prior to this in 1840 David Sr. had been living in Ohio. He clearly came west to Illinois and eventually settled near Henderson. He could have gotten caught up in the religious fervor of the 1840's and been in Nauvoo. Since Joseph Smith was killed in the area and the church went west to Utah he may have decided to stay in Illinois. His journal may help solve the issue. The last thing I will note about David H. Parsons, Sr. is that he died January 18, 1899. So a very long life for the times.

Franklin B. Parsons and Sarah Bullard were married in 1849 and were the parents of 4 boys and 5 girls. My Great Grandmother Mary Emma Parsons was the second youngest. She was born in 1866 and died in 1952. Franklin DeWitt Parsons in the photograph above was their third child and second son. When we lived over at the farm in my grandparents house. The home built by my Great Grandfather John James Sutor, Sr. and Mary Emma Parsons we came across an envelop. Inside were several small folded pieces of paper with names written on them. Inside those folded pieces of paper were small snippets of hair. Two of the daughters of Franklin and Sarah died in infancy, They were Sarah Lucinda Parsons and Effa Manermia Parsons. One sister older than Mary Emma and one sister younger. Photographs were expensive in the 1860's so those little bits of hair were kept by her parents to remember her siblings.

Franklin D. Parsons ended up living in Kansas. It may explain why some of my Great Grandfather John James Sutor, Sr. siblings ended up in Kansas. They were the subject of a prior blog. The information I have on Gary V. Parsons is slim at this time. He appears to have gone by the name Guy and was a farmer in Kansas later in life. More research is needed to fill in those blanks.

My advice is to join Ancestry.com and get to digging around. There is lots to learn.

Stuff

I just want to spend a little time today writing about things I think about. It has been just over a year since 20 children and 6 adults were killed in Newtown. What has changed since then? You might think that after a tragedy like that (it was a tragedy) we would do whatever was necessary to protect our children at their schools. Gun control, armed police officers, metal detectors, locked doors, something, anything, everything possible. According to media reports in the year since Newtown 11,437 people have been killed by guns. This includes homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths. The estimate of the total number is actually 33,173 using estimates from the Center for Disease Control. The last year we have CDC records available for is 2010. The total deaths that year from guns was 31,672 a number that included 2,694 children or teens. Since Newtown there have been 26 school shootings. The following statistics may explain why we have managed to do nothing since Newtown.

Number of firearms in the United States: 310,000,000

Number of guns per person: about one

Countries with more guns per person: None

Country in second place: Yemen with about 11 guns for every 20 citizens

Number of licensed firearm dealers in the United States: 134,997

Number of grocery stores in the United States: 37,053

Total money spent by the National Rifle Association in 2011: $231,071,589

Total spent by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the largest gun control organization: $2,844,489

Percentage of Americans that in March 2013 supported an assault weapons ban 57%, and in December 2013 48%

Percentage of Americans that in March 2013 supported background checks for all gun purchases 91%, and in December 2013 77%.

Since Newtown 114 bills were signed into law by states. In 22 states new laws were created to curb gun violence. In 29 states new laws were enacted making it easier for people to own guns, carry guns in public and to make it more difficult for the government to track guns. Yes the total of the two is 51 however some states did both things and some states did nothing.

You would wonder since it appears the majority of Americans support a universal background checks why that wouldn't happen. You consistently hear the representatives in Washington claiming that the majority of Americans are for one thing or another and they should get what they want. A CBS News survey in 2009 showed that 64% of Americans say the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans. Yet the Affordable Care Act does not accomplish this. It appears for the most part to accomplish very little at times depending on how cooperative the government is at the state level. Why is it a problem for every American to have health insurance? What is wrong with that? I understand the Tea Party and many conservative Republicans do not like the Affordable Care Act. Where and what is their alternative proposal? At some point don't you have to stop being against everything and start being for something? You want lower taxes but you refuse to cut government spending while you complain about the federal budget deficit. You want a free market while you provide tax breaks and subsidies to large corporations and banks.

So, in my opinion it doesn't matter what the majority of Americans want because the folks with the money buy the perks they want from the government. They write changes in the tax code and have representatives or senators present them as part of a bill. They get the benefit and then tell the rest of us that they are just following the law. It's got to be easy to do when you write them for your benefit.

Life will go on for those of us who don't end up on the wrong end of a gun. We will continue to have school shootings and too many citizens without health care. Children will go hungry, schools will lack needed resources while we build new weapons systems to protect us against enemies who can't defeat the ones we already have. The majority will say that something needs to be done while they choose to sit back and do nothing. You may now go back to watching TV and thinking everything will be ok.

Money, Money, Money

The news today was that President Obama has requested an increase in the minimum wage to $10.00 per hour. It would provide a wage earner with a family of four an annual income of $20,800. According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services the 2013 federal poverty measure guidlines indicate that in the 48 contiguous states the poverty level for a family of four is $23,550. In Alaska $29,440 and Hawaii $27,090. So a wage of $10.00 per hour does not get you out of poverty in the United States. You would still need to hold another part time job and would still be eligible for some government assistance. It is a sad statement on where we are as a nation. Bill Maher said it well.

Perhaps Mr. Maher unfairly picks on Kentucky Fried Chicken. Here is the real cost from our largest employer.

The Walton family who own the majority of WalMart stock are among the richest 50 individuals in the United States. They are worth 10's of billions of dollars. They contunie to fight workers who attempt to organize and have been cited by the Labor Department for labor law violations. It would seem even working for a sleazy company like WalMart one should be able to afford the products they sell- like food, without government assistance. Yet that is clearly not the case. In all fairness the problems aren't limited to KFC and WalMart. We shouldn't ignore that company that provides us with McNuggets and the McRib sandwich. They both claim to contain meat from some sort of animal. How much can it cost to provide the public with sawdust and slaughter house floor scrapings?

CEO pay does raise an interesting issue. Why are they paid so much? Are they truly that talented?

Is a CEO in the United States worth 475 times the pay of one of his average workers? Does that seem to be a bit out of balance? Probably no more than this.

The current fiscal year defense spending will consume 57% of the discretionary spending by the United States government. We spend as much on defense as almost the rest of the world combined. Why? Would some of that money be better spent elsewhere? I don't mean in another country, I mean here.

When you first look at this it is difficult to comprehend the numbers. Almost 700 billion dollars spent in Afghanistan and over 800 billion spent in Iraq. Almost 1.5 TRILLION dollars total and we are not done counting the cost in either place yet. It will go on for decades. Benefits paid to the wounded and survivors of the deceased. Money that can and should be spent in recognition of their sacrifice. What could we have done with that money here. Improved interstate highways, high speed rail, affordable college education, job training, and hundreds of other improvements that are needed here.

The solution is in looking at the facts. Avoiding talking points and partisan politics. Communication. Where do we go from here? Henry Ford paid his workers more than workers made at other car companies. Did he do so because he was a nice guy? No, he did it because it would enable them to buy the cars they made. It would create increased demand for his product. WalMart, KFC, McDonalds and a host of other companies could learn from this. Pay a living wage. Someone who makes $10,000,000 a year does not provide the ecomony with the stimulus that 1,000 people making 10,000 dollars a year provides. Economics does not work as trickle down. The economy works when the masses of the country have money to spend. When they are paid a subsistence wage there is no money for new cars, furniture, clothes, and other items they would purchase if they could and make the economy grow. So the minimum wage should go up at least enough for a worker to live out of poverty.

Are You NUTS?????

One of my Facebook friends on a regular basis posts what she calls QOTD (Question of the Day). Yesterday the question was what is your favorite nut. It was a tough question. I like nuts.

Cashew nuts are great. Here they are dangling from a cashew nut tree. A great nut to cook with. Cashew chicken comes to mind. Excellent Chinese dish.

The Mrs. is fond of brazil nuts. Not a personal favorite but still a nice snack from time to time.

Almond nuts are recommended as a diet food. I don't think the can of them I eat is the recommendation. Those who want to be technical- I know it isn't a nut, it is a seed. By the way as the commercial says- "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't." Since they call it a nut I will too.

Walnuts are the best thing that ever happened to a properly contructed brownie.

The glorious hazel nut or filbert. This is one great nut. Mon Cheri used to make the best chocolate with a hazel nut in the middle of it. Now they package them with another inferior product and to get 4 of the good ones you have to buy 12 crappy candies. I refuse to do so.

The glorious pecan. Let us be honest and truly southern. The word is pronounced pee CAN. My favorite nut in a pie. Pralines are a southern delight and I have some on order now.

I don't know how you talk about nuts without talking about squirrels. They are up in the trees stealing them from us all day long. This little fella sure seems proud of the pair he has.

Some nuts aren't edible but still vital. Where would we be without these nuts?

Sorry Mike had to throw this in. It would seem if this was real you could see them from your place. I was also wondering why Florida has blue balls? Is the gulf water really that cold?

Truck nuts. I'm not sure what this guy is doing. I'm hoping he is a mechanic (in my world a car doctor) and he is checking for a hernia. I went out and checked my truck. No nuts. I must have one that was castrated or it is a girl. Where would truck ovaries be?

 

I think they just ruined the annual Easter egg hunt for me. Don't want to send the granddaughters out in the yard looking for those.

So you have to love your nuts. How did I answer the question of the day? My favorite nut. Why my right of course. I remember too many time when I have said: "I would give my left nut for that." If I am willing to give up my left nut then my right must be my favorite. The little fella above only has one nut and he is holding it close to his heart. Take a little time today and love your nuts. Check yourself for cancer with a self exam. If you are lucky maybe someone will lend you a hand.