GOOD THINGS FIRST
I got off to a very good start today and found my photograph for the day early. Following my annual physical examination last week, I had to be at a clinic on Fourth Avenue by seven o’clock this morning for a routine diagnostic test. I had a good conversation with Tony, the young fellow who did the test. Both of us are passionate about photography, both of us use Nikons, and both of us do a lot of bicycling. Long story short, Tony and I agreed that we will get together soon for a bike ride with cameras.

-------------------------------------------------------
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT...
on a much less pleasant subject.

Some of my friends expected me to be upset with the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Westboro Baptist Church yesterday. To the contrary, I think the court made the right decision. While I disagree completely with the “message” of Mr. Phelps and his group, I defend their right under the constitution to express their opinions about god and people and just about any other subject. In writing about the man who heads the church, I don't use the title reverend because the man is repulsive; he is the antithesis of reverend. Phelps is a disgrace, and I am embarrassed for all the people who call themselves Christians, and I am especially embarrassed for Baptists... but the speech of even the most repulsive citizens is protected under the constitution. Of course, reasonable people are offended by Westboro Baptist Church’s picketing of funerals of dead soldiers with “THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS” signs. However much reasonable people may object to the signs and to the people carrying them, the right of those citizens to express their opinions is established in the Constitution.

Once while I waited in line at the post office behind a couple engaged in a quiet but fierce argument, the man whispered to the woman, “You’re a f....g slut and I wish I’d never laid eyes on you.” She gave as good as she got and in sharp, louder retort described his vileness in terms that even I am not comfortable repeating. The battle raged in low but distinct tones for at least five minutes before they both fell silent. After they did their business with the postal clerk, they left the building together. I suppose it would not have been inappropriate for me or for another person in line to ask them to take their argument outside, but we didn’t. All of us, including the clerks, wore disgusted/sad expressions. Post offices are public property. Theoretically, they belong to all of us, including the couple. It’s not nice, but it’s legal for them to have a public argument. He didn’t threaten violence against her, and she did no more than express her opinion of him in the most vivid terms. If a policeman had been in the post office, would he have been on sound legal ground to have arrested them for disturbing the peace? I don’t know.