Anyway, I haven’t always been a faithful person, nor did I throw off all my pre-Christian habits when I came into the fold. One of those is cursing/swearing/profanity — all of which, in my view, are loaded words. To be sure, my wife Shelley tries to discourage me; generally speaking, I’m not coarse in casual conversation. Truth be told, most of it goes on inside my head, though occasionally it spills onto the page (or the post), and when it does I’m pretty defensive and unapologetic.

You see, I’m of the mindset — rare indeed in Christian circles — that using profanity isn’t necessarily sinful; in fact, at times I think it’s entirely appropriate. That’s not to say my F-bombs dropped at someone cutting me off in traffic are from a righteous place; they’re not and I shouldn’t. But sometimes a character in a book or a particularly strong point can be emphasized with a well-placed harsh word, and I for one think that’s the whole point.

I mention all this because the Supreme Court has decided that not only can the FCC fine broadcasters for programming that contains systematic use of “dirty words” — there used to be a list, though it seems to have dwindled somewhat — but that even one-off, spontaneous utterances of the words ____ and ____ will incur fines.

What words? you ask. Well, the Supreme Court wouldn’t even write them in its opinion, but I’ll give you a hint: One starts with a whisper and ends with IT, while the other starts with FUH and rhymes with truck. They call it the “Bono rule,” because the U2 singer likes to use the F-word as an adjective — not, mind you, any kind of verb describing a physical act.

Anyway, it’s a bad call. But don’t take it from me: This column in the New York Times makes the case much better that these two banned words have become something less than vulgar:

Writing for the majority last week, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that it was “entirely rational” for the F.C.C. to conclude, as it did, that one particular curse “invariably invokes a coarse sexual image.”

Does it? The evidence is mixed. Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary and the author of a book on swearing, described the F.C.C.’s argument as “rubbish.” Although the word in question originally referred to a sexual act, Mr. Sheidlower argued, it has now taken on an independent “emotional” sense. The nonsexual use of the word can be seen in countless contemporary examples, as when Vice President Dick Cheney used it in 2004 to recommend that Senator Patrick Leahy do something that is, strictly speaking, anatomically impossible. …

In 1623, the English Parliament passed legislation to prohibit “profane swearing and cursing.” Under that law, people could be fined for uttering oaths like “upon my life” or “on my troth.” In the Victorian era, the word “bull” was considered too strong for mixed company; instead, one referred to “gentlemen cows.” Times change, notwithstanding the fervent wishes of prescriptivists to keep dirty words dirty. [bolds mine-R]

"What will I do if I can't watch this excitement from the comfort of my own home?" (Photo by Richard Drew/AP)

I just read that Obama — or, more accurately, his transition helper John Podesta — wants the digital TV conversion pushed back from its Feb. 17 start date.

This seems dumb to me for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that most every station has already made the transition… here in southcentral Kentucky (hardly the most advanced area of the nation), two of the three stations transmitting have already stopped sending out analog signals. But there’s a deeper reason that I think this “delay the transition” talk is counterproductive.

Podesta says:

The program to provide consumers with a coupon to defray the cost of the digital-to-analog converter necessary to analog TV’s to continue to work has run out of funds … As of today, over 1 million coupon requests sit on the wait list, unable to be fulfilled by the Department of Commerce. By early February, projections suggest that number could climb to over 5 million… With coupons insufficient, and the most vulnerable Americans exposed, I urge you to consider a change to the legislatively mandated analog change. [bold mine–R]

The most vulnerable Americans? Is this what we’ve come to, that one of our primary concerns in a faltering economy is to make sure “vulnerable” Americans have access to Dr. Phil and Grey’s Anatomy?

That our government — even in the so-called “conservative” phase when this transition idea was mandated in 2005 — thinks it needs to subsidize people’s ability to get a TV signal is absurd in decent economic times; I, for one, can think of a lot better ways for Uncle Sam to spend his cash than helping people buy converters for their extremely old TV sets.

Think about what this means, in practical terms: Taxpayers are being put into further debt so they can keep their access to network television. Network television that, while supposedly “public,” is almost one-third advertisement. Advertisement for Snuggies and foreign cars and newfangled mops and a million other things the viewer a.) doesn’t need and b.) CAN’T AFFORD. Oh, and there are ads, too, for credit cards and reverse mortgages and “low” financing — it’s a near-constant refrain to the already poorer-than-before taxpayer (whose tax money is itself simply paying off the interest on a huge national debt) to go spend money he doesn’t have on things he doesn’t need. He is not just tempted, he is literally seduced by these ads… don’t lie, you are constantly coming up with reasons the purchase of that on-sale flat panel TV makes more sense than ever.

If one wants to explore some of the factors behind our nation’s debt and a failing economy spurred by the housing bubble, she only needs to look at the way our leaders and representatives intend to help the “vulnerable” among us.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk]

• A good number of black people are upset over the selection of a Chinese sculptor to fashion a monument to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. As if Chinese-Americans don’t benefit from the civil rights movement.

• A sizable contingent in my own town of Bowling Green think it’s unfair to non-smokers that any business should be allowed to decide for itself whether or not to ban smoking. My libertarian sensibilities are glad that the majority of city commissioners aren’t buying it.

• Examples abound of non-Christians upset over any display of Christianity in the public realm, even if it’s not condoned or endorsed by the state. It’s unfair for a religious person, apparently, to talk about his articles of faith—even though faith by definition is something unprovable and based on opinion.

In my own workplace, similar situations are prevalent right now. First off, we have a now-demoted news editor and now-demoted sports editor. Both were told for years to shape up and made little if any attempt to do so. And both are upset over their loss of position and salary—not, it must be noted, over their loss of responsibilities. Secondly, I’ve sensed growing disdain from a fellow colleague or two over the hours I’ve been working lately. Justin’s not at his desk on Tuesday afternoons! Even though there’s nothing for him to do? Scandalous! The nerve!

And that’s where my own notion of “fairness” differs… namely, I rarely know anyone’s situations at all as closely as I know my own. If those colleague thought for a second, “Well, Justin in fact works 10-hour days two days a week,” and “Well, Justin in fact does the majority of supplemental work,” and “Well, Justin also runs a business,” they might (I emphasize that word) see that they actually have a much better deal than I. Flip the coin and you get the same result: I see all kinds of things, at work and elsewhere, that initially inflame my senses. “Why’s that guy got all this free time, and all this money? Why don’t I have it?” But sooner or later, it dawns on me that I have no idea what that guy’s going through, what he went through, what he will go through… and maybe, just maybe, I’m a lot better off.

That’s an article of faith, I guess. But it’s one I try to hold on to—my life is going great, despite the many difficulties. Because I’m sure it could be worse, and I don’t deserve most of what I have, and I don’t need half of what I want.

Sports and elections should be fair… and “life’s not fair” sounds nice, but it’s built on a flawed premise. Life can’t be judged that way… it’s not a game, and it’s not governed by rules that we made up and can hold others to. No… life is a mystery, or a drama, or a journey. But it’s not fair because it can’t be, wasn’t meant to be, and wouldn’t be much fun if it was.

• A good number of black people are upset over the selection of a Chinese sculptor to fashion a monument to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. As if Chinese-Americans don’t benefit from the civil rights movement.

• A sizable contingent in my own town of Bowling Green think it’s unfair to non-smokers that any business should be allowed to decide for itself whether or not to ban smoking. My libertarian sensibilities are glad that the majority of city commissioners aren’t buying it.

• Examples abound of non-Christians upset over any display of Christianity in the public realm, even if it’s not condoned or endorsed by the state. It’s unfair for a religious person, apparently, to talk about his articles of faith—even though faith by definition is something unprovable and based on opinion.

In my own workplace, similar situations are prevalent right now. First off, we have a now-demoted news editor and now-demoted sports editor. Both were told for years to shape up and made little if any attempt to do so. And both are upset over their loss of position and salary—not, it must be noted, over their loss of responsibilities. Secondly, I’ve sensed growing disdain from a fellow colleague or two over the hours I’ve been working lately. Justin’s not at his desk on Tuesday afternoons! Even though there’s nothing for him to do? Scandalous! The nerve!

And that’s where my own notion of “fairness” differs… namely, I rarely know anyone’s situations at all as closely as I know my own. If those colleague thought for a second, “Well, Justin in fact works 10-hour days two days a week,” and “Well, Justin in fact does the majority of supplemental work,” and “Well, Justin also runs a business,” they might (I emphasize that word) see that they actually have a much better deal than I. Flip the coin and you get the same result: I see all kinds of things, at work and elsewhere, that initially inflame my senses. “Why’s that guy got all this free time, and all this money? Why don’t I have it?” But sooner or later, it dawns on me that I have no idea what that guy’s going through, what he went through, what he will go through… and maybe, just maybe, I’m a lot better off.

That’s an article of faith, I guess. But it’s one I try to hold on to—my life is going great, despite the many difficulties. Because I’m sure it could be worse, and I don’t deserve most of what I have, and I don’t need half of what I want.

Sports and elections should be fair… and “life’s not fair” sounds nice, but it’s built on a flawed premise. Life can’t be judged that way… it’s not a game, and it’s not governed by rules that we made up and can hold others to. No… life is a mystery, or a drama, or a journey. But it’s not fair because it can’t be, wasn’t meant to be, and wouldn’t be much fun if it was.

Meanwhile, a seemingly well-qualified applicant for a position at said coffeeshop is now 19 minutes late for an interview. I think the management is upset.