QUESTION OF THE DAY

Would you agree never to talk again in exchange for ten-million dollars?

WHO IS PAT GARRETT?

Pat Garrett is the man (Photo Above) who courageously brought Billy the Kid's psychopathic reign of terror to an end in July, 1881. In the past several days I have encountered numerous stories about the upcoming auction of the only surviving photo of "Billy the Kid." I have listened as wild west enthusiasts and amateur historians have spoken glowingly, and with an unmistakable gleam in their eye, of Billy the Kid and the lawless times in which he lived. The opening bid is expected to be $400,000, and many believe that the final cost of the photo could easily exceed $1,000,000.00. I personally wouldn't give a used piece of chewing gum for a photo of Billy the Kid. I find our culture's fascination with him disturbing. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, about Billy the Kid that I can find to celebrate, and I would never want his likeness on display in my home. It also bothers me that Jesse James, various pirates, gangsters and others have successfully crossed over from infamy to fame, but Pat Garrett goes largely unremembered. There is no demand for Pat Garrett memorabilia, and that's a shame. I think it is telling who a culture celebrates.

What does our lasting fascination with Billy the Kid and his ilk say about American culture?

SMASHING FRAGILE THINGS

I am a smasher of fragile things. A dasher of icicles. A stomper of frozen puddles. I yell into the dawn and, perhaps worst of all, I lob rocks into quiet ponds. I confess it. I am a smasher of fragile things. I should not be left alone with old flourescent bulbs, rotten produce, or eggs. Give me a melon and a baseball bat and I will give you a smile.

Is it wrong? Tell me, is it wrong to be a smasher of fragile things?

SOME ARE FRUSTRATED THAT THEY CANNOT COMMENT ON THE ABOVE POLL...

so I will create this as a separate post, which will allow you to comment on the poll. Here is the comment thread up to this point;

The Fredericksons commented thusly-

I was greatly intrigued by your poll. However, I found it very hard to vote. Why did you not specify who was hurt? Me or the groom? It matters significantly. This is quite the loaded scenario. I will be closely following to see how the BFZ followers vote.

Steve commented thusly-
If I understand this hypothetical correctly, several of your readers would abandon a beloved fiancée if a tragic accident rendered conventional sex impossible. This is a repulsive moral choice.


To which I replied thusly-

Explain yourself, Steve Maxon. As anyone who knows me well can attest, your opinion carries much weight with me and I will listen with receptive ears.



I do have to point out though that nothing was ever mentioned about abandoning anyone. Not going through with a marriage is not entirely the same thing as abandonment, especially in light of this scenario. What is a marriage without sex? (Please note-In the scenario I make no distinction between conventional intercourse or otherwise.) Visualize marriage without sex- Two close roommates with pooled resources. That is not the fullness of what that experience ought to be, and if no vows have been made I think I would make as gracious an exit as possible. After one has promised before God and witnesses "until death do us part," than you better man up and be the best darn spouse you can be for the duration. Doing so as enxpression of love to your spouse as well as to God, but no such vows or obligation fetters the decision of a single person. You should experience the fullness of what marriage can be. You should not march like a martyr into a life of unrequited passion and dutiful cohabitation.


I think the decision not to marry would be gut-wrenching and difficult, but ultimately morally defendible.

So there, now you're up to speed. Comment away my fellow citizens of the BFZ. Or don't. Whatever.

ENGLISH SPEAKERS, LEND ME YOUR EARS!

Should we just accept "Agreeance" as a word. This past week I have heard two separate people use the word in conversation.

I'll give you an example- "We are in agreeance on the main idea, but we still need to iron out a few minor things."

Both times I felt myself start to correct them, but then checked myself. I know it's not a word, but why not? It seems to me that if enough people are saying it and its meaning is clearly understood by the listener, then perhaps it is a de facto word. Are we in agreeance on that point? Is it snobbery to deny agreeance a place within the lexicon of the English speaking world.

I am leaning toward accepting agreeance as a word. It is a word. It is in common use. Why fight it? Anybody wanna make an argument against agreeance?