Kat with a K

There are no words.

In what universe is telling single adults not to have sex a good use of government (a.k.a. our) money? I can't even... gah.

Thanks to Jessie for the link.

Fluffernutter controversy!

A Massachusetts state senator is trying to pass a law against marshmallow Fluff in school lunches. Apparently he discovered that his son's elementary school offers Fluffernutters as an option to its students every day, so now he wants them banned completely. And, of course, another lawmaker is now trying to get the Fluffernutter declared the state sandwich of Massachusetts. What?

It seems like the real issue here has nothing to do with marshmallow. What I want to know is why elementary school children are being given the option of eating any one thing for lunch every day. I'm quite sure that when I was in elementary school, which was not all that long ago, there was basically one offering a day for "hot lunch," and while it was not fine cuisine, it was at least theoretically nutritionally balanced. At what age should children be allowed, or forced, to make their on nutritional decisions? Elementary school seems to be obviously too young. Now, I'm not saying that the kids shouldn't have a say - I don't believe children should be forced to eat things they don't like. (That's why I rarely bought hot lunch in elementary school.) But the great majority of kids that age aren't informed or mature enough to decide what to eat for lunch each day - especially with such tantalizing options as Fluffernutters available.

Now, nutrition is obviously the parents' responsibility. I am generally against things that take responsibility from parents to give to schools - for example, I'm totally opposed to school libraries controlling, or being expected to control, which books are read by which children. Should the same rule be applied to food? I'm not sure. Maybe it depends on what parents think they're paying for when they send that $1.65 to school for lunch. (It's probably a lot more than $1.65 now, though, isn't it? Hmm.) I'd assume most parents think that their children are being given the same sort of unappetizing but vaguely nutritional meal of yesteryear. Do those little calendars of which meal is being served on which day still go home every month? Does "Fluffernutter" appear on every day, if it's available every day? If it does, and the parents are ignoring the implications, then it's their problem, I guess. But if the school isn't making all this abundantly clear to the parents, they should be.

But I still think that passing a law about marshmallow Fluff is silly. Although if it keeps the lawmakers from passing even stupider laws about more important things... hmm. Bring on the Jaffa cakes!

Unsuitable

If I hadn't already pretty much decided that I can no longer in good conscience consider myself a member of the Catholic Church, this would be the final straw. I'll give you a few highlights, in case you don't have time to read it.

First of all, the main point: "Even if they have never had a gay sexual experience and are fully committed to celibacy, homosexual men are not suitable candidates for the priesthood."

And in case anyone was unclear, here are some "warning signs" of potential homosexuality:

students who had trouble relating to their fathers; are uncomfortable with their own identity; tend to isolate themselves; have difficulty in discussing sexual questions; view pornography on the Internet; demonstrate a deep sense of guilt; or often see themselves as victims.

Here are some of the reasons given for why even celibate gay men make bad priests:

He said they tend to have few friends, to close themselves off from others in "a clan of persons of the same type," to resent the claims on their time made by parishioners, to encourage other gay men to enter the priesthood and to deal with authority predominantly as a matter of "seduction and rejection."

Umm, pardon? Who has he been talking to?

The article goes on to explain that candidates for priesthood must be mature in their masculine sexual identity and theoretically capable of being good spouses and fathers. It seems to be accepted without question that any man with "homosexual tendencies" could not possibly fill any of those criteria.

Really, who are the ones making statements with no social or moral value now?

EDITED to add: I just found the actual text of the Vatican document here, in case you were wondering about the thing itself.

Libby and samurai and bears, oh my!

Hey, who knew? Everyone's favorite chief of staff is also a novelist! (That article is worth a read¹ just for the phrase "the long and distinguished annals of the right-wing dirty novel." Really.)

___
¹ But it's not exactly G-rated material. Just to warn you.

Aaaaaaaah.

I am now undoing all the data entry I did yesterday, because they gave me the wrong information. This is hours of work. And then I have to redo it all when they figure out the correct information. One of the people involved called to apologize, but really, couldn't they bring me chocolate or something? I was having a vaguely off day anyway. I don't feel good, but I have to be at work and then go to class. And work is being frustrating, and it's been raining for days, and I do like rain but enough is enough. And there could be some of what Cate is talking about going on, too. Actually, now that I reread Cate's entry, I'm identifying with a lot of it. Especially if you substitute "messy house" for "demon-possessed children." But yeah... cold/coughing, PMS, work frustration and overwhelmsion (WHAT is the correct form of that word? My brain is obviously gone at this point), contemplation of Big Life Changes, knitting frustration... check, check, check.

I'd like to say I'm going to go curl up in my comfy bed and drink tea and read and knit now, but, well, I can't. Which may be part of the problem.

Hope someone out there in Blogland is having a better day... send sunshine and cough drops.