Yesterday I stopped at Home Depot on the way home to pick up some more of that lawn patch repair stuff to use in the front yard, as the test patches in the backyard have actually been yielding new grass.
I also wanted to pick up some kind of tiller thing for the immediate purpose of breaking up the soil in the areas in which I need to use the patch repair stuff, but also for the future date on which I decide to do something different with the flowerbeds, as I'm not really all that thrilled about what was left behind by the previous owner in the way of flowers.
I found the perfect one; a Black & Decker model that uses the same battery system as all of the rest of my stuff.
Naturally they didn't actually have any in stock, and weren't selling the display model.
I'd intended to mow the lawn - the front and side, anyway - when I got home, but by the time I did I no longer had the energy, so I put it off until today.
I also did some hedge trimiing, and then did the patch repair thing on one of the bigger sections of dead grass, using a shovel and a rake to break up the soil, since I'm still tiller-less.
And that's been pretty much all the excitement in my life.
A Conversation at Work:
My boss: That will free you up from some "grunt work."
Me: That's good, because I certainly have plenty of that.
My boss: We're definitely going to be moving away from that kind of thing. I've got some good projects lined up for you.
Why I Heart Slacktivist Continued:
In his most recent post about the Delaware legislature passing legislature that would add sexual orientation to anti-discrimination laws, Fred "Slacktivist" Clark demonstrates yet again why I Heart Slacktivist:
Those bills never passed. "Discrimination against gays still legal in Del.," read the headline on the paper's Web site, year after year after year.
That headline was celebrated, each time, by Christian conservative groups who were always ferociously opposed to the idea that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons should enjoy the same legal protections as everyone else in the state. Those groups liked to quote Leviticus to support the idea that homosexuality was an "abomination" to God. The idea, I guess, was that homosexuals were sinners and thus real, true Christians were therefore obliged to ensure that it remained perfectly legal to deny them access to housing or employment.
It's tempting to respond in kind, to say, I'll see your Leviticus and raise you a Deuteronomy:
Do not have two differing weights in your bag -- one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house -- one large, one small. You must have accurate and honest weights and measures ... For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
In other words, no fair not being fair. You can't have one price for one group of people and a different price for a different group. You can't have one housing market or one job market for one group of people and exclude other people from that market -- that's differing weights and measures, something the Lord your God detests. Inequality, discrimination, disenfranchisement and the dishonesty of double-dealing and double-standards turn out also to be abominations before the Lord.
And there's nothing in Deuteronomy to suggest a loophole that says it's OK to have differing weights in your bag so long as the short-changing one is for homosexuals. The Bible says, unambiguously, that these Delaware Christians' crusade in defense of legal discrimination is abominable and detestable.
So what we have here is a theological dispute -- a disagreement over the interpretation and meaning of the scripture. I'm confident I can win this argument, but before we get bogged down in the theological details of such a dispute, allow me to point out the most important thing to remember about all such arguments: They don't matter. Not even a little bit. Because none of what any of us thinks about the interpretation and meaning of the scripture is in any way relevant to the question before the legislature, a wholly secular body charged only with the wholly secular matters of law and justice.