It's been said that no good deed goes unpunished, and ABC News reports that a 14-year old Florida boy learned that lesson the hard way. Last week, the boy, known as Edwin, went to the Burlington Coat Factory in Orlando where he saw a 3-year old girl without a parent. He told the child that he would find her mother. Edwin's mother saw him with the girl, asked him what he was doing, and he told her he was trying to help.
It was at this point he made his big mistake, thinking the girl's mom might have been outside the store in a group of women who were talking. Off Edwin went. The little girl followed. When Edwin saw the girl outside, he took her hand. His mom followed.
While Edwin was looking for the girl's mom outside, the mother was inside looking for her missing child. A customer told her the girl was seen leaving with a man (Edwin is a very large boy) and the mother rushed out of the store, just as Edwin was bringing the girl back in because he hadn't found her mom. Next thing he knows, he's being arrested and charged with kidnapping. Poor Edwin. I wonder if he had it to do all over again if he'd help. Probably not.
We've become so jaded by the criminals who run amuck in our culture that we can't recognize when someone is trying to help. Is it really likely that a 14-year old predator would take his mom along when trying to kidnap a child? Is it likely that after being outside with the child, a kidnapper would then bring her back into the store? Come on.
Now, Edwin has an arrest record and even though the girl's mom decided against pressing charges, the Orlando police say they are moving forward with the case.
Edwin, I'd sue.
This poor kid could have been on the street doing drugs that day. He could have watched and done nothing as a little girl wandered aimlessly in search of her lost parent. Had he just ignored her, he wouldn't have been subjected to the questions and charges that have been heaped upon him. Edwin's lawyer is asking the court to expunge his arrest and surely she'll get her wish.
In a world where we complain because no one will help his fellow man, it's tragic that when a teen tries to help he's treated like a thug. I understand why the store manager had to call the police, but the surveillance tape clearly showed that Edwin was telling the truth about the order of events. It's a hard lesson learned.
I hope in spite of all of this Edwin doesn't change. I hope he'll be willing to help the next time a child is in trouble. I hope that the officials in Florida do the right thing and make him a hero instead of a convict. Hold your head high Edwin. You did do the right thing. Perhaps next time instead of terrorizing a kid who simply tried to help, the cops should look to the mother and ask why her kid was running around unattended in the first place.
Showing posts with label Christian Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Commentary. Show all posts
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
I Just Don't Think It's Funny....................
Officials at the Solid Rock Church in Monroe, Ohio say they'll rebuild a 62 foot tall statue of Jesus, destroyed by fire last night. The Hamilton,Ohio Journal News reports that lightning struck the statue during a severe thunderstorm causing 700-thousand dollars in damage to the structure and the church theater behind it.
The statue has long been the center of controversy and jokes because of its size, with some calling it "butter Jesus" and others "touchdown Jesus" because of its outstretched hands. This morning, social media outlets are filled with gallows type humor about its destruction. With all due respect to my friends who think it's funny, I just don't see the humor behind the loss.
First of all, as a Christian, I find the burning of any statue that depicts Christ to be tragic. I also don't find a 700-thousand dollar loss to any church to be particularly funny, since that is a huge amount of money for any non-profit to absorb. While I understand that art appreciation is subjective, and the sheer size of this particular icon on I-75 has fueled the controversy, it's the oversight of what the statue symbolized that bothers me.
Yes, a statue is just a statue, but there seems to be a mean spiritedness about this one, and sadly from many people who call themselves Christian. It was a statue of Jesus Christ! How can you call yourself a person of faith if you mock the destruction of a religious icon, even if you thought it was ugly? Living in nearby Hamilton, which is known as the Sculpture capital of Ohio subjects me and my neighbors to hideous displays of artist's art. However, even though I find many of them distasteful I would not find it funny if their hard work was burned to the ground.
I find it odd that as the disgust over "the Jesus" continues that most who are laughing have never complained about the towering sign just south of the church, that promotes Hustler Hollywood and pornography. Sure,for some, the argument is the same old mantra that adults have the right to view porn if they wish. Perhaps that's true, but likewise, church leaders have the right to build a 62 foot tall statue of Christ if they wish, and at least "the Jesus" didn't promote the degradation and over-sexualizing of women. I find it a bit disappointing that Christians and otherwise decent human beings don't seem to get this. Personally, I'm glad the church has decided to rebuild.
If the Solid Rock Church's decision to build the statue was to get people talking about God, then "the Jesus" fulfilled it's purpose, and is continuing to do so even though it's gone. As I drove by the wreckage this morning, I was amazed at the number of people standing on the side of the interstate, photographing the scene. Perhaps they wanted a momento of their joy over its destruction. Perhaps they were saddened because the statue of their Lord is gone.
For me, I won't debate the validity of the art, and I won't laugh in the face of it's ruin. Instead, now that I've said my peace, I will simply borrow the words from Joshua, Chapter 24:15 which says: "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord." I think this verse says it best, and I will continue to serve Him, even if He's six stories tall.
The statue has long been the center of controversy and jokes because of its size, with some calling it "butter Jesus" and others "touchdown Jesus" because of its outstretched hands. This morning, social media outlets are filled with gallows type humor about its destruction. With all due respect to my friends who think it's funny, I just don't see the humor behind the loss.
First of all, as a Christian, I find the burning of any statue that depicts Christ to be tragic. I also don't find a 700-thousand dollar loss to any church to be particularly funny, since that is a huge amount of money for any non-profit to absorb. While I understand that art appreciation is subjective, and the sheer size of this particular icon on I-75 has fueled the controversy, it's the oversight of what the statue symbolized that bothers me.
Yes, a statue is just a statue, but there seems to be a mean spiritedness about this one, and sadly from many people who call themselves Christian. It was a statue of Jesus Christ! How can you call yourself a person of faith if you mock the destruction of a religious icon, even if you thought it was ugly? Living in nearby Hamilton, which is known as the Sculpture capital of Ohio subjects me and my neighbors to hideous displays of artist's art. However, even though I find many of them distasteful I would not find it funny if their hard work was burned to the ground.
I find it odd that as the disgust over "the Jesus" continues that most who are laughing have never complained about the towering sign just south of the church, that promotes Hustler Hollywood and pornography. Sure,for some, the argument is the same old mantra that adults have the right to view porn if they wish. Perhaps that's true, but likewise, church leaders have the right to build a 62 foot tall statue of Christ if they wish, and at least "the Jesus" didn't promote the degradation and over-sexualizing of women. I find it a bit disappointing that Christians and otherwise decent human beings don't seem to get this. Personally, I'm glad the church has decided to rebuild.
If the Solid Rock Church's decision to build the statue was to get people talking about God, then "the Jesus" fulfilled it's purpose, and is continuing to do so even though it's gone. As I drove by the wreckage this morning, I was amazed at the number of people standing on the side of the interstate, photographing the scene. Perhaps they wanted a momento of their joy over its destruction. Perhaps they were saddened because the statue of their Lord is gone.
For me, I won't debate the validity of the art, and I won't laugh in the face of it's ruin. Instead, now that I've said my peace, I will simply borrow the words from Joshua, Chapter 24:15 which says: "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord." I think this verse says it best, and I will continue to serve Him, even if He's six stories tall.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Stop Making Excuses!
While the BP boycott is an excellent idea, it's time to shift gears to a topic that affects everyone, "Personal Responsibility." Fox news reports this morning, that the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson said she was "in the gutter" and drunk when she tried to sell access to her former husband, Prince Andrew, for over $750-thousand American dollars.
When the story broke last week, The New York Daily News reported that Ferguson has been living off her daughters trust funds and was caught on tape smoking and slurping a glass of red wine in front of a pile of unpaid bills. She reportedly asked the undercover reporter who was taping her, for a cash advance of $40-thousand dollars, a wire transfer of $723-thousand, and a promise of future commissions in exchange for access to Britain's royal family.
Bottom line? She got caught so she blamed a drinking problem. This is yet another example of celebrity gone wild, blaming a before unheard of illness after being caught in an embarrassing or illegal situation. Sarah Ferguson now has a drinking problem. Jesse James announced he was a sex addict when he got caught cheating on wife Sandra Bullock. David Duchovny claimed a similar ailment after cheating on his wife actress Tea'Leoni. Anytime a celebrity drops to "C" or "D" status, an appearance on Celebrity Rehab gets their name back in the spotlight once again. It makes one sick to hear all of the excuses. What happened to "I screwed up and I'm sorry?"
I'm not saying that drinking problems and sex addictions don't exist. Sadly, they do, but it seems that many of these celebrities never discover their "problem" until they're embarassed by some undercover journalist and that's just sad. Sure, denial is a problem of addiction of any kind. Most people have to hit bottom before deciding to get help, but it seems that more and more celebrities, (and likewise everyday people) are labeling themselves with this problem or that, as a way to avoid the penalties, or to generate sympathy for their irresponsible behavior.
Our culture as a whole has stopped taking responsibility for our actions, and in many cases there seems to be a sense of pride when people are caught on tape doing something disgusting. Sarah Ferguson is just another example of someone who has crossed the line of irresponsibility and is now going on Oprah to generate some sympathy for her cause, which will ultimately mean more money for her pocketbook. I wish Oprah would say to her, "You know, living off of your children's trust fund is not only reprehensible it is a crime." I doubt she will, but it would be appropriate, and it would be responsible journalism. (which I use the word lightly)
It's time we stop glamorizing the lives and addictions of celebrities and we need to stop making excuses when someone we know is caught "sexting" or beating up another on YouTube. We need to start teaching our children that true addictions can be treated long before their bad behavior makes headlines. Maybe then, they'll grow into responsible adults. It's also time to remind them, that this type of behavior is not acceptable and there are consequences when said behavior occurs.
Finally, it's time that our culture reward good behavior and promote the positive things that many people do everyday. Wouldn't it be wonderful if television shows were created where successful kids and adults were featured as they improved their own lives and the world around them? Even though it would be great, it is unlikely to happen. After all, stories like Sarah Ferguson's have shown us that if a show featured kids or adults without some sort of addiction or violent behavior doing something positive, it is very unlikely that anyone would watch.
When the story broke last week, The New York Daily News reported that Ferguson has been living off her daughters trust funds and was caught on tape smoking and slurping a glass of red wine in front of a pile of unpaid bills. She reportedly asked the undercover reporter who was taping her, for a cash advance of $40-thousand dollars, a wire transfer of $723-thousand, and a promise of future commissions in exchange for access to Britain's royal family.
Bottom line? She got caught so she blamed a drinking problem. This is yet another example of celebrity gone wild, blaming a before unheard of illness after being caught in an embarrassing or illegal situation. Sarah Ferguson now has a drinking problem. Jesse James announced he was a sex addict when he got caught cheating on wife Sandra Bullock. David Duchovny claimed a similar ailment after cheating on his wife actress Tea'Leoni. Anytime a celebrity drops to "C" or "D" status, an appearance on Celebrity Rehab gets their name back in the spotlight once again. It makes one sick to hear all of the excuses. What happened to "I screwed up and I'm sorry?"
I'm not saying that drinking problems and sex addictions don't exist. Sadly, they do, but it seems that many of these celebrities never discover their "problem" until they're embarassed by some undercover journalist and that's just sad. Sure, denial is a problem of addiction of any kind. Most people have to hit bottom before deciding to get help, but it seems that more and more celebrities, (and likewise everyday people) are labeling themselves with this problem or that, as a way to avoid the penalties, or to generate sympathy for their irresponsible behavior.
Our culture as a whole has stopped taking responsibility for our actions, and in many cases there seems to be a sense of pride when people are caught on tape doing something disgusting. Sarah Ferguson is just another example of someone who has crossed the line of irresponsibility and is now going on Oprah to generate some sympathy for her cause, which will ultimately mean more money for her pocketbook. I wish Oprah would say to her, "You know, living off of your children's trust fund is not only reprehensible it is a crime." I doubt she will, but it would be appropriate, and it would be responsible journalism. (which I use the word lightly)
It's time we stop glamorizing the lives and addictions of celebrities and we need to stop making excuses when someone we know is caught "sexting" or beating up another on YouTube. We need to start teaching our children that true addictions can be treated long before their bad behavior makes headlines. Maybe then, they'll grow into responsible adults. It's also time to remind them, that this type of behavior is not acceptable and there are consequences when said behavior occurs.
Finally, it's time that our culture reward good behavior and promote the positive things that many people do everyday. Wouldn't it be wonderful if television shows were created where successful kids and adults were featured as they improved their own lives and the world around them? Even though it would be great, it is unlikely to happen. After all, stories like Sarah Ferguson's have shown us that if a show featured kids or adults without some sort of addiction or violent behavior doing something positive, it is very unlikely that anyone would watch.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Don't Build the Mosque!
Calling it a "seed of peace" a New York City community board voted Tuesday night to support a plan to build a mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero. The decision came after hours of emotional public comment in which people were shouting "No Mosque" while carrying signs with pictures of the Sept. 11 victims on them.
Manhattan Community Board member Rob Townley told the Associated Press that the group believed they were making a significant step for the Muslim community to counteract the hate and fanaticism that has occured against them.
Really?
First of all, is there really that much fanaticism occuring against the Islamic community? Granted, shortly after September 11 there were plenty of incidents where misguided people hurled inappropriate epithets at anyone who claimed to be a member of the faith. In recent years however,most Americans have stopped spewing hate,(in fact "MOST" Americans never did) realizing there is a difference between Muslims who live in peace and those who call for Jihad.
Secondly, Islamic fanatics that have caused problems for America in recent years have all been affiliated with particular mosques inside the country, so one can understand the concerns of those who would live and work nearby the proposed New York site. The building will obviously not be earmarked as a place for terrorist training, but what or who will be able to stop the fanatics from coming in? It would seem that a site so close to the place where Islamic Jihadists destroyed the lives of thousands in 2001,would hve a special spiritual significance for those who thought the attacks were justified. After all,in recent weeks, we've witnessed a couple of unsuccessful terrorism attempts in Mid-Town Manhattan, so New York obviously remains a target.
Finally, since our country has become so consumed with protecting the rights of everyone but the majority, it's no surprise that a group of well meaning do-gooders have been blinded to the reality of just how insensitive this whole proposal is. Innocent people died that day. Do their families and friends really need to
be reminded of the terror every time they look out their window at the thriving Islamic establishment near the site where their loved ones were murdered? It is cruel.
While comparing all Muslims to the Jihadists who attacked the World Trade Center is ignorant and wrong, allowing this mosque to be built is equally ignorant and wrong. The proposal should not be allowed to go forward. The victims should not be made to suffer even more.
Ultimately those who say terrorism isn't confined to one particular race or religion are exactly right. Terrorism is nothing more than a misguided reaction on the part of thugs who refuse to accept law and order, and who think vigilante justice is the only way to make their point to the world. Terrorism ultimately comes in all shapes and colors. Terrorism is not confined to Islam. That point alone should serve as a reminder to those who are trying to push this temple project forward, that crazy is crazy and if the mosque is built it will bring even more fanatics out of the woodwork, putting even more innocent New Yorkers in danger.
Manhattan Community Board member Rob Townley told the Associated Press that the group believed they were making a significant step for the Muslim community to counteract the hate and fanaticism that has occured against them.
Really?
First of all, is there really that much fanaticism occuring against the Islamic community? Granted, shortly after September 11 there were plenty of incidents where misguided people hurled inappropriate epithets at anyone who claimed to be a member of the faith. In recent years however,most Americans have stopped spewing hate,(in fact "MOST" Americans never did) realizing there is a difference between Muslims who live in peace and those who call for Jihad.
Secondly, Islamic fanatics that have caused problems for America in recent years have all been affiliated with particular mosques inside the country, so one can understand the concerns of those who would live and work nearby the proposed New York site. The building will obviously not be earmarked as a place for terrorist training, but what or who will be able to stop the fanatics from coming in? It would seem that a site so close to the place where Islamic Jihadists destroyed the lives of thousands in 2001,would hve a special spiritual significance for those who thought the attacks were justified. After all,in recent weeks, we've witnessed a couple of unsuccessful terrorism attempts in Mid-Town Manhattan, so New York obviously remains a target.
Finally, since our country has become so consumed with protecting the rights of everyone but the majority, it's no surprise that a group of well meaning do-gooders have been blinded to the reality of just how insensitive this whole proposal is. Innocent people died that day. Do their families and friends really need to
be reminded of the terror every time they look out their window at the thriving Islamic establishment near the site where their loved ones were murdered? It is cruel.
While comparing all Muslims to the Jihadists who attacked the World Trade Center is ignorant and wrong, allowing this mosque to be built is equally ignorant and wrong. The proposal should not be allowed to go forward. The victims should not be made to suffer even more.
Ultimately those who say terrorism isn't confined to one particular race or religion are exactly right. Terrorism is nothing more than a misguided reaction on the part of thugs who refuse to accept law and order, and who think vigilante justice is the only way to make their point to the world. Terrorism ultimately comes in all shapes and colors. Terrorism is not confined to Islam. That point alone should serve as a reminder to those who are trying to push this temple project forward, that crazy is crazy and if the mosque is built it will bring even more fanatics out of the woodwork, putting even more innocent New Yorkers in danger.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Who wants to Vacation in Hell?
One of the saddest images on the news right now is oil covered pelicans flopping around on the beaches of Louisiana. As the BP spill enters it's fifth week, CNN reports that the company has started a "goodwill" campaign by promising to bear all costs associated with the clean up. They've also given $25 million dollars to the state of Florida to promote tourism, with most dollars going to the Panhandle area, where vacation bookings are at a standstill. Today, as the company tries yet another method to stop the leak, one has to question just how much goodwill is really involved.
First, 21 miles of coastline has already been destroyed. It will not be restored. It's done. Gone. The fishing industry along the coast continues to lose millions with small bait and tackle shops, boat rentals and other associated businesses facing bankruptcy. The regional travel and tourism industry is already chalking up 2010 as a total failure. One would imagine that for those who've lost their livelihood, the idea that BP will pick up the clean up cost, or help promote tourism, provides little comfort, even if they are naive enough to believe it.
With the governmental cap placed at $75 million, BP can certainly come up with the cash, but ultimately we'll be paying the cost at the gas pump. Within the past few years we've seen $4 per gallon for gas, with an active hurricane season getting the blame for the price hike. Imagine what will happen as the destruction toll continues to climb in the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. Is $5-$6 dollars per gallon really an inconceivable figure? I don't think so.
As someone who sells advertising for a living I am the first to champion its value, but can a bunch of TV spots really make an impact on an area where the summer tourism season is over before it started? I've even cancelled my own panhandle vacation in spite of there being no oil on the beaches -- yet. It's hard to be optimistic when the annual 4th of July Fishing Tournament in Pensacola has already been cancelled.
Meanwhile, BP CEO Tony Hayword continues his mantra of optimism on CNN, as another attempt to stop the spill gets underway this morning. He's convinced that this latest attempt at sealing the spill with mud and cement will work. He's convinced (in his words) that this will only have a moderate longterm impact on the region. He was convinced he had the answers yesterday and the day before that.
Ultimately the best "goodwill" measure by BP would be to admit that they are solely responsible for destroying much of a region that has already been devastated in years past by natural disasters. Tony Hayword and other executives need to show "goodwill" by stepping down. President Obama needs to get busy (instead of just threatening to) and let the government take over the clean up. The region is being destroyed and no amount of goodwill or travel promotion can stop it.
So what are the answers? Only the environmentalists can truly assess the permanent damage. But one thing is perfectly clear. It's not going to do a whole lot of good to encourage vacationers to come to the Gulf Coast this summer, if the area is under a blanket of oil when they arrive. It's also unlikely that travelers will come, if gas is so high they can't afford to get there in the first place.
First, 21 miles of coastline has already been destroyed. It will not be restored. It's done. Gone. The fishing industry along the coast continues to lose millions with small bait and tackle shops, boat rentals and other associated businesses facing bankruptcy. The regional travel and tourism industry is already chalking up 2010 as a total failure. One would imagine that for those who've lost their livelihood, the idea that BP will pick up the clean up cost, or help promote tourism, provides little comfort, even if they are naive enough to believe it.
With the governmental cap placed at $75 million, BP can certainly come up with the cash, but ultimately we'll be paying the cost at the gas pump. Within the past few years we've seen $4 per gallon for gas, with an active hurricane season getting the blame for the price hike. Imagine what will happen as the destruction toll continues to climb in the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. Is $5-$6 dollars per gallon really an inconceivable figure? I don't think so.
As someone who sells advertising for a living I am the first to champion its value, but can a bunch of TV spots really make an impact on an area where the summer tourism season is over before it started? I've even cancelled my own panhandle vacation in spite of there being no oil on the beaches -- yet. It's hard to be optimistic when the annual 4th of July Fishing Tournament in Pensacola has already been cancelled.
Meanwhile, BP CEO Tony Hayword continues his mantra of optimism on CNN, as another attempt to stop the spill gets underway this morning. He's convinced that this latest attempt at sealing the spill with mud and cement will work. He's convinced (in his words) that this will only have a moderate longterm impact on the region. He was convinced he had the answers yesterday and the day before that.
Ultimately the best "goodwill" measure by BP would be to admit that they are solely responsible for destroying much of a region that has already been devastated in years past by natural disasters. Tony Hayword and other executives need to show "goodwill" by stepping down. President Obama needs to get busy (instead of just threatening to) and let the government take over the clean up. The region is being destroyed and no amount of goodwill or travel promotion can stop it.
So what are the answers? Only the environmentalists can truly assess the permanent damage. But one thing is perfectly clear. It's not going to do a whole lot of good to encourage vacationers to come to the Gulf Coast this summer, if the area is under a blanket of oil when they arrive. It's also unlikely that travelers will come, if gas is so high they can't afford to get there in the first place.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Lessons Learned in the Wilderness
It's been five months since I've posted on this blog, due to an unexpected season of illness. Never in my life have I faced one health problem after another, but now that I'm better, I'm starting to realize that God has blessed me with many learned lessons through my trials.
The first lesson learned is that praying the prayer of "wanting to draw closer to God and to know more of the sufferings that Christ endured" will inevitably bring hardship into your life. While I'm sure like me, many have wished that drawing closer to "The Almighty" could be done on a beach in Hawaii, the reality is that if we let Him, God will use our trials to strengthen our faith, our minds and strangely, even our bodies.
1 Peter 4:12-13 (NKJ) says: "Beloved do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you, but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed you may also be glad with exceeding joy."
Ultimately, the only way to truly learn more about Christ's suffering is to partake in it in some small way. Never would I be arrogant enough to think that my trials have even come close to those that Jesus endured, but for four months my body has been wracked with every illness imaginable and on a human scale it has been life altering for me. When I think of how I've complained, and cried in my personal misery it fills me with wonder that Jesus went to the cross with His head held high. To experience suffering of any kind is so difficult, but to experience it knowing that Christ went through so much more on our behalf, does offer encouragement and ultimately the joy that Peter was talking about.
I've also learned that trials of any kind will only go away when God is ready for them to go away. I do not ascribe to the theory that if, as a Christian you are poor, or sick or somehow in need, that you are in that place simply because your faith is weak. Obviously prayer and faith are the mechanisms that God has given us to cry out to Him, and to help us cling to His hope, but like any father, there are times that God will say no,or not yet to the prayers that we send.
In 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 Paul said "And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness."
Paul's thorn was not removed but his ministry and love for God grew, and the Lord was glorified. While I'm not suggesting that this will be my fate, if I can use one ounce of my testimony to bring glory to our Father, then I praise Him for my trials.
The third lesson learned is one of hope and encouragement, and I cling to the promise that all times of trouble will come to an end.
In Ecclesiastes 3:1 Solomon reminds us that "To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven...."
I take great comfort in knowing that at some point this season of my life will end, as will the hard seasons others find themselves in. Whenever God decides that time will be, I hope others who have suffered, will join me in standing firm on God's principles. My prayer is that all will recognize that God has been with us all along, and that after our trials have ended, we will go forward stronger, and more prepared to fight the battles He has chosen for us to fight.
The first lesson learned is that praying the prayer of "wanting to draw closer to God and to know more of the sufferings that Christ endured" will inevitably bring hardship into your life. While I'm sure like me, many have wished that drawing closer to "The Almighty" could be done on a beach in Hawaii, the reality is that if we let Him, God will use our trials to strengthen our faith, our minds and strangely, even our bodies.
1 Peter 4:12-13 (NKJ) says: "Beloved do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you, but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed you may also be glad with exceeding joy."
Ultimately, the only way to truly learn more about Christ's suffering is to partake in it in some small way. Never would I be arrogant enough to think that my trials have even come close to those that Jesus endured, but for four months my body has been wracked with every illness imaginable and on a human scale it has been life altering for me. When I think of how I've complained, and cried in my personal misery it fills me with wonder that Jesus went to the cross with His head held high. To experience suffering of any kind is so difficult, but to experience it knowing that Christ went through so much more on our behalf, does offer encouragement and ultimately the joy that Peter was talking about.
I've also learned that trials of any kind will only go away when God is ready for them to go away. I do not ascribe to the theory that if, as a Christian you are poor, or sick or somehow in need, that you are in that place simply because your faith is weak. Obviously prayer and faith are the mechanisms that God has given us to cry out to Him, and to help us cling to His hope, but like any father, there are times that God will say no,or not yet to the prayers that we send.
In 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 Paul said "And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness."
Paul's thorn was not removed but his ministry and love for God grew, and the Lord was glorified. While I'm not suggesting that this will be my fate, if I can use one ounce of my testimony to bring glory to our Father, then I praise Him for my trials.
The third lesson learned is one of hope and encouragement, and I cling to the promise that all times of trouble will come to an end.
In Ecclesiastes 3:1 Solomon reminds us that "To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven...."
I take great comfort in knowing that at some point this season of my life will end, as will the hard seasons others find themselves in. Whenever God decides that time will be, I hope others who have suffered, will join me in standing firm on God's principles. My prayer is that all will recognize that God has been with us all along, and that after our trials have ended, we will go forward stronger, and more prepared to fight the battles He has chosen for us to fight.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Surge, Will it Win the War?
Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus -- Sort of.
Reactions are mixed after President Obama announced he would send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. After taking 92 days to make up his mind, the president made it clear last night that he would begin withdrawing the troops within 18 months.
Today, the Democrats are upset saying the cost of escalating the eight year old war is too expensive as the build up comes with a 30-billion dollar price tag. Republicans are unhappy that the president announced a definite time line for the troop withdrawal.
The Associated Press is reporting that Vice President Joe Biden, who did not support the president's decision said the new surge and exit strategy is aimed more at keeping the Taliban from overrunning Afghanistan while protecting America from another terrorist attack.
Senator John McCain who ran against Obama in last year's election said he supports the decision to send in more troops but did not agree with the announced time line for withdrawal.
"We don't want to sound an uncertain trumpet to our friends in the region," McCain said.
What do you think? A defining moment for the Obama presidency or too little too late?
A couple of things concern me about the president's decision, and the reaction to it.
First, like Senator McCain, I don't think it's ever a good idea to let the enemy know your timeline for withdrawing from any war. Military strategy is about playing your cards close to the vest. By letting the world know that we're going to be done in 18 months, the signal has been sent that winning the war is not our objective. In fact, the president never used the word "win" in his speech last night. That omission alone has to be very demoralizing to the troops who we're sending in to fight. When a country sends troops to reform a region, it's imperative that said country appears to be stable in the way they conduct the business of war. The president has made the American military look anything but stable, which will harm us in the long run.
Secondly, the Democrats are crying that the surge will be too expensive, yet Congress is spending billions to bale out banks, and the liberal politicians are working non-stop to create a multi-billion dollar healthcare plan that will provide healthcare for illegal citizens, and abortion funding and sex education for our elementary school kids. How bizarre that our national security is not as important to some in our government as a healthcare bill that will keep our children's grandchildren oppressed with massive debt.
Finally, I'm baffled as to how president Obama came up with 30,000 as the final surge number when General McChrystal originally called for 40,000. I understand we have to work with what we've got, but it seems that the president was trying to make some kind of political point when he did not explain why he cut the troop number by 10,000. I sincerely hope I'm wrong when my gut tells me that once again decisions about protecting America have been reduced to nothing more than a pawn in the game of political football. (although I fear I'm exactly on point)
So Virginia, be happy this Christmas, as we are a bit better off than we were yesterday. The president's decision to send more troops after the first of the year, should help calm a region that is rapidly spinning out of control. For the next 18 months you can sleeep a little easier at night. But remember Virginia, life is full of comprimise and you'll never be completely at peace while you walk this earth. July 2011 will be here before you know it my dear, and once again you'll be forced to fear the inevitable when Johnny comes marching home.
Reactions are mixed after President Obama announced he would send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. After taking 92 days to make up his mind, the president made it clear last night that he would begin withdrawing the troops within 18 months.
Today, the Democrats are upset saying the cost of escalating the eight year old war is too expensive as the build up comes with a 30-billion dollar price tag. Republicans are unhappy that the president announced a definite time line for the troop withdrawal.
The Associated Press is reporting that Vice President Joe Biden, who did not support the president's decision said the new surge and exit strategy is aimed more at keeping the Taliban from overrunning Afghanistan while protecting America from another terrorist attack.
Senator John McCain who ran against Obama in last year's election said he supports the decision to send in more troops but did not agree with the announced time line for withdrawal.
"We don't want to sound an uncertain trumpet to our friends in the region," McCain said.
What do you think? A defining moment for the Obama presidency or too little too late?
A couple of things concern me about the president's decision, and the reaction to it.
First, like Senator McCain, I don't think it's ever a good idea to let the enemy know your timeline for withdrawing from any war. Military strategy is about playing your cards close to the vest. By letting the world know that we're going to be done in 18 months, the signal has been sent that winning the war is not our objective. In fact, the president never used the word "win" in his speech last night. That omission alone has to be very demoralizing to the troops who we're sending in to fight. When a country sends troops to reform a region, it's imperative that said country appears to be stable in the way they conduct the business of war. The president has made the American military look anything but stable, which will harm us in the long run.
Secondly, the Democrats are crying that the surge will be too expensive, yet Congress is spending billions to bale out banks, and the liberal politicians are working non-stop to create a multi-billion dollar healthcare plan that will provide healthcare for illegal citizens, and abortion funding and sex education for our elementary school kids. How bizarre that our national security is not as important to some in our government as a healthcare bill that will keep our children's grandchildren oppressed with massive debt.
Finally, I'm baffled as to how president Obama came up with 30,000 as the final surge number when General McChrystal originally called for 40,000. I understand we have to work with what we've got, but it seems that the president was trying to make some kind of political point when he did not explain why he cut the troop number by 10,000. I sincerely hope I'm wrong when my gut tells me that once again decisions about protecting America have been reduced to nothing more than a pawn in the game of political football. (although I fear I'm exactly on point)
So Virginia, be happy this Christmas, as we are a bit better off than we were yesterday. The president's decision to send more troops after the first of the year, should help calm a region that is rapidly spinning out of control. For the next 18 months you can sleeep a little easier at night. But remember Virginia, life is full of comprimise and you'll never be completely at peace while you walk this earth. July 2011 will be here before you know it my dear, and once again you'll be forced to fear the inevitable when Johnny comes marching home.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
MERRY CHRISTMAS! (May God Help us All)
It's that time of year when we start hearing rumblings about which national retailers will not be using the word "Christmas" in their holiday advertisements.
The American Family Association is asking all Christians to boycott those stores that won't use the word, having been successful at changing some retailers minds in the past. The AFA reports on their website, that Sears, one of the companies who was boycotted three years ago, is now offering a Christmas Club on sears.com. Many Americans including The Christian Commentator, enjoyed last year's WalMart spots, depicting the little boy putting a nativity scene under his Christmas tree. WalMart had also been the target of a boycott a few years back.
This year, the AFA is calling on Christians to boycott The Gap, which has clearly indicated that it will not allow the term "Christmas" to be used on any of its promotional advertising. In addition, they are asking for a boycott of Old Navy and Banana Republic, which are both owned by the same company.
Are you willing to boycott stores that won't allow "Christmas" into their advertisements? If so, you can also go to afa.net, where you can buy buttons and stickers that say "Merry Christmas." They make the perfect accessory to wear into the stores where you refuse to shop, because of their lack of "Christmas" cheer.
This whole idea of retailers refusing to use the word "Christmas" is ridiculous. With 70% of the U.S. population claiming to be Christian, why would they decide to offend such a large group of people, especially in a time when retail sales are going down the drain?
The other issue that doesn't seem to make sense, is the suggestion that a "word" has the power to convert someone to a particular faith. Having been a Christian for over 40 years, I can honestly say, that my conversion moment didn't come because someone wished me a Merry Christmas.
If you don't believe in the religious connotation of the holiday, why would you be threatened by those of us who do? You can relax. You still can buy a bunch of tacky decorations, max out your credit cards on gifts nobody wants, and fill yourself with food and drink while laughing at those of us who respect the day as the rememberance of Christ's birth. Believe me when I say, we won't stop by on December 25 to spoil your fun.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what about the rights of those of us who do call ourselves Christian? We gladly stand by and offer well wishes to those who celebrate Hanuakkah and Kwanza and we tolerate those who choose to celebrate nothing at all. At the same time, it gets a bit old, to be part of the one group in America who happens to be in the majority, as far as religion is concerned, yet we are the very ones who aren't given the respect to worship our God publicly. Remember retailers, every major religion has their day, and ours happens to be the one that can make or break your year end sales goals.
So, be sure to weigh in on what you think. Merry Christmas or boycott? Protest or complacency? Spending your hard earned dollars for gifts for your loved ones, or forgetting about Christmas all together?
As for me, let me be the first to release my inner radical here in mid-October to say: MERRY CHRISTMAS! May the peace of Christ be with you, whether you worship Him or not, and may God put an end to the insanity in the New Year.
The American Family Association is asking all Christians to boycott those stores that won't use the word, having been successful at changing some retailers minds in the past. The AFA reports on their website, that Sears, one of the companies who was boycotted three years ago, is now offering a Christmas Club on sears.com. Many Americans including The Christian Commentator, enjoyed last year's WalMart spots, depicting the little boy putting a nativity scene under his Christmas tree. WalMart had also been the target of a boycott a few years back.
This year, the AFA is calling on Christians to boycott The Gap, which has clearly indicated that it will not allow the term "Christmas" to be used on any of its promotional advertising. In addition, they are asking for a boycott of Old Navy and Banana Republic, which are both owned by the same company.
Are you willing to boycott stores that won't allow "Christmas" into their advertisements? If so, you can also go to afa.net, where you can buy buttons and stickers that say "Merry Christmas." They make the perfect accessory to wear into the stores where you refuse to shop, because of their lack of "Christmas" cheer.
This whole idea of retailers refusing to use the word "Christmas" is ridiculous. With 70% of the U.S. population claiming to be Christian, why would they decide to offend such a large group of people, especially in a time when retail sales are going down the drain?
The other issue that doesn't seem to make sense, is the suggestion that a "word" has the power to convert someone to a particular faith. Having been a Christian for over 40 years, I can honestly say, that my conversion moment didn't come because someone wished me a Merry Christmas.
If you don't believe in the religious connotation of the holiday, why would you be threatened by those of us who do? You can relax. You still can buy a bunch of tacky decorations, max out your credit cards on gifts nobody wants, and fill yourself with food and drink while laughing at those of us who respect the day as the rememberance of Christ's birth. Believe me when I say, we won't stop by on December 25 to spoil your fun.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what about the rights of those of us who do call ourselves Christian? We gladly stand by and offer well wishes to those who celebrate Hanuakkah and Kwanza and we tolerate those who choose to celebrate nothing at all. At the same time, it gets a bit old, to be part of the one group in America who happens to be in the majority, as far as religion is concerned, yet we are the very ones who aren't given the respect to worship our God publicly. Remember retailers, every major religion has their day, and ours happens to be the one that can make or break your year end sales goals.
So, be sure to weigh in on what you think. Merry Christmas or boycott? Protest or complacency? Spending your hard earned dollars for gifts for your loved ones, or forgetting about Christmas all together?
As for me, let me be the first to release my inner radical here in mid-October to say: MERRY CHRISTMAS! May the peace of Christ be with you, whether you worship Him or not, and may God put an end to the insanity in the New Year.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Let the Kid Back in School!
Lansingburgh Senior High School in Troy, New York has a zero tolerance policy in regards to kids bringing weapons to school. While that is obviously a great policy, the school district is catching a lot of negative press for suspending 17-year old Matthew Whalen for having a small pocket knife in his car.
UPI news service reports that the 17-year old Eagle Scout was suspended first for five days, then for an additional 15 under the school's Code of Conduct policy, after admitting that the knife was in his glove compartment. He said he had placed it there as a precaution in case of car trouble. The suspension was a rare mark against Whalen, an honor student recognized last year by the Boy Scouts of America and the city of Troy for saving a woman's life. He has also completed basic training for the Army and had hoped to attend the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
Appearing on Fox News This Morning, Whalen said he understood the district's policy and claimed to have no problem with the original five day suspension that he was given. What he didn't understand, was the decision to add the additional 15 days, because school leaders told him they knew he had no intent to use the knife improperly. To make matters worse, the state of New York doesn't consider the knife a weapon because its blade is only two inches long which makes it too small to classify. Sadly, this incident will likely destroy his chances of fulfilling his childhood dream of going to Westpoint.
What do you think? Is this a case of school district follow through about an important policy, or one of it's being totally ridiculous? A young man with an exemplary record, had a small pocket knife in his car and somehow the school found out. He admitted to having the knife, because first, he doesn't lie, and the state says it's too small to be classified as a weapon anyway. He's then kicked out of school for three weeks putting a black mark on his record, and now he may lose the one thing that has kept him motivated and hard working for his whole young life? OUTRAGEOUS!
While policies are put in place for the protection of all, schools exist to teach and prepare young people for life. This young man has gotten it right. He has strived for a goal and has lived a life that is so exemplary that many teenagers can't even imagine it. He isn't drinking or doing drugs. He isn't getting his young girlfriend pregnant. He isn't in a gang. He has been an honor student and a hero, and now some over eager administrator is trying to make him an example, risking his entire future for nothing.
UPI news service reports that the 17-year old Eagle Scout was suspended first for five days, then for an additional 15 under the school's Code of Conduct policy, after admitting that the knife was in his glove compartment. He said he had placed it there as a precaution in case of car trouble. The suspension was a rare mark against Whalen, an honor student recognized last year by the Boy Scouts of America and the city of Troy for saving a woman's life. He has also completed basic training for the Army and had hoped to attend the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
Appearing on Fox News This Morning, Whalen said he understood the district's policy and claimed to have no problem with the original five day suspension that he was given. What he didn't understand, was the decision to add the additional 15 days, because school leaders told him they knew he had no intent to use the knife improperly. To make matters worse, the state of New York doesn't consider the knife a weapon because its blade is only two inches long which makes it too small to classify. Sadly, this incident will likely destroy his chances of fulfilling his childhood dream of going to Westpoint.
What do you think? Is this a case of school district follow through about an important policy, or one of it's being totally ridiculous? A young man with an exemplary record, had a small pocket knife in his car and somehow the school found out. He admitted to having the knife, because first, he doesn't lie, and the state says it's too small to be classified as a weapon anyway. He's then kicked out of school for three weeks putting a black mark on his record, and now he may lose the one thing that has kept him motivated and hard working for his whole young life? OUTRAGEOUS!
While policies are put in place for the protection of all, schools exist to teach and prepare young people for life. This young man has gotten it right. He has strived for a goal and has lived a life that is so exemplary that many teenagers can't even imagine it. He isn't drinking or doing drugs. He isn't getting his young girlfriend pregnant. He isn't in a gang. He has been an honor student and a hero, and now some over eager administrator is trying to make him an example, risking his entire future for nothing.
Is it appropriate to ruin a kid's dreams over something that the state says is not illegal? Of course not! I hope the Whalen family sues the school district and I hope they collect big. We cannot expect our children to understand the difference between right and wrong if we have no common sense when it comes to enforcing the policies we have put in place. One wonders what was going on behind the school building when Whalen was being kicked off the property. More than likely there were a bunch of kids cutting class and doing the very things that Whalen has never gotten himself involved in.
Get real, Lansingburgh Senior High! Matthew Whalen is one of the good guys and you should let him back in school. It's just bizarre that you don't recognize that. Is this really a case of your being committed to enforcing a policy? I think it's a case of the inmates running the asylum, and I think that you have become so jaded and fearful of your students, that you can simply no longer tell the difference between right and wrong.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Does that Baby Have a Beer?
There's a billboard in Deep River, Connecticut that shows a baby sucking on a beer bottle. The headline across the top reads: "You wouldn't do this then (give the baby a beer) ......Why Now? (showing teen agers drinking)
The point the billboard designers were trying to make is that parents watch their infants, and they should watch their teens to make sure that they too, don't drink. The billboard has generated a lot of discussion with citizens, causing many to challenge parents who feel it's ok to drink in front of their kids. It comes as police across Connecticut crack down on teenagers who are drinking and driving.
As someone who sells outdoor advertising , I too, was initially shocked at the image of a cute baby with a beer bottle pursed at its lips (you can check out the photo of the billboard at http://www.nbcnewyork.com/ ) and my initial thought was that the billboard went too far. However, it did make me read the message, and it did make the point that while many parents would never give beer to a baby, they do encourage teen drinking by either imbibing in front of their kids or giving the alcohol to them directly.
A properly designed billboard is meant to invoke deep feelings about the subject that is being advertised, and this campaign has done just that. It does shock the reader because it's message is outrageous, but in doing so, it also makes them think about a problem that has gotten out of hand.
Perhaps we need more of this type of advertising, so adults will be forced to look at how their behavior affects the impressionable children around them. Subtlety hasn't worked, and bombarding people with the statistics showing the impact of their behavior on kids obviously hasn't either. I've been saddened, when I've seen parents who not only drink in front of their kids but who actually have their toddler be the "beer runner" for them between the 'fridge and the couch. THAT'S JUST WRONG! (yet it happens all the time)
Two thumbs up from The Christian Commentator to the advertisers and designers who came up with this concept. It will shock you, but it reminds one of the old saying: "the little children will lead them." Hopefully, the beer drinking baby on this billboard will help a few parents wake up, and will lead them to the truth about how wrong it is to encourage alcohol consumption in minors.
Check out the photo and let me know what you think.
The point the billboard designers were trying to make is that parents watch their infants, and they should watch their teens to make sure that they too, don't drink. The billboard has generated a lot of discussion with citizens, causing many to challenge parents who feel it's ok to drink in front of their kids. It comes as police across Connecticut crack down on teenagers who are drinking and driving.
As someone who sells outdoor advertising , I too, was initially shocked at the image of a cute baby with a beer bottle pursed at its lips (you can check out the photo of the billboard at http://www.nbcnewyork.com/ ) and my initial thought was that the billboard went too far. However, it did make me read the message, and it did make the point that while many parents would never give beer to a baby, they do encourage teen drinking by either imbibing in front of their kids or giving the alcohol to them directly.
A properly designed billboard is meant to invoke deep feelings about the subject that is being advertised, and this campaign has done just that. It does shock the reader because it's message is outrageous, but in doing so, it also makes them think about a problem that has gotten out of hand.
Perhaps we need more of this type of advertising, so adults will be forced to look at how their behavior affects the impressionable children around them. Subtlety hasn't worked, and bombarding people with the statistics showing the impact of their behavior on kids obviously hasn't either. I've been saddened, when I've seen parents who not only drink in front of their kids but who actually have their toddler be the "beer runner" for them between the 'fridge and the couch. THAT'S JUST WRONG! (yet it happens all the time)
Two thumbs up from The Christian Commentator to the advertisers and designers who came up with this concept. It will shock you, but it reminds one of the old saying: "the little children will lead them." Hopefully, the beer drinking baby on this billboard will help a few parents wake up, and will lead them to the truth about how wrong it is to encourage alcohol consumption in minors.
Check out the photo and let me know what you think.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Make My Baby a Green Eyed, Singing Sensation Please!
Fox News reports that Asthetic Trait Selection in babies is now available at several U.S. fertility institutes. For 5-thousand dollars potential parents can have DNA testing done on embryos before they're implanted back into the mother, giving them the power to choose the baby's eye color, hair color, height, and talents such as singing ability, or athletic potential.
The Los Angeles based Fertility Institutes began advertising the pending availability of these tests last December and parents immediately began contacting them to sign up. The idea of Asthetic Trait Selection emerged after DNA testing on embryos was originally done to determine the child's potential for serious disease like breast cancer, cystic fibrosis, and alzheimers risk later in life.
Lest we think that asthetic trait selection is enticing to just a few weirdos who want to play God with their children, a New York University survey that was conducted earlier this year, said that up to 13% of those who responded said they would use the screening to determine the looks, intelligence and athletic ability of their children. 40% of Americans who approve genetic testing for disease, said they see asthetic trait selection as a natural progression of the genetic testing concept.
So, the idea of having a baby and loving it just because it's yours is a thing of the past? Why would anyone care if a child has blue or brown eyes or if they will be a future contestant on American Idol? Are we really at the point in our culture where we're willing to destroy a child just for being a brunette versus a blonde? The idea of pre-screening for disease makes some sense although I can't imagine choosing not to have a baby because eighty years from now that child may develop alzheimers disease!
This is yet another example of twisting the positive benefits of science into a freakshow for those who are so selfish and controlling that they won't accept a baby unless it meets their preferred physical criteria. How sad when you think of so many couples who would love any child but for medical reasons can't have one of their own.
Remember as the song says "Jesus loves the little children, red and yellow black and white." I suspect that also means "blonde or brunette, with green eyes or blue." If we are part of the 70% of Americans that agree that God is the creator of life, it seems to me that we should respect his title and leave the job of creation to Him.,
The Los Angeles based Fertility Institutes began advertising the pending availability of these tests last December and parents immediately began contacting them to sign up. The idea of Asthetic Trait Selection emerged after DNA testing on embryos was originally done to determine the child's potential for serious disease like breast cancer, cystic fibrosis, and alzheimers risk later in life.
Lest we think that asthetic trait selection is enticing to just a few weirdos who want to play God with their children, a New York University survey that was conducted earlier this year, said that up to 13% of those who responded said they would use the screening to determine the looks, intelligence and athletic ability of their children. 40% of Americans who approve genetic testing for disease, said they see asthetic trait selection as a natural progression of the genetic testing concept.
So, the idea of having a baby and loving it just because it's yours is a thing of the past? Why would anyone care if a child has blue or brown eyes or if they will be a future contestant on American Idol? Are we really at the point in our culture where we're willing to destroy a child just for being a brunette versus a blonde? The idea of pre-screening for disease makes some sense although I can't imagine choosing not to have a baby because eighty years from now that child may develop alzheimers disease!
This is yet another example of twisting the positive benefits of science into a freakshow for those who are so selfish and controlling that they won't accept a baby unless it meets their preferred physical criteria. How sad when you think of so many couples who would love any child but for medical reasons can't have one of their own.
Remember as the song says "Jesus loves the little children, red and yellow black and white." I suspect that also means "blonde or brunette, with green eyes or blue." If we are part of the 70% of Americans that agree that God is the creator of life, it seems to me that we should respect his title and leave the job of creation to Him.,
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Healing of America
Having just come through a serious illness of my own, I listened with interest this morning as New York Times bestselling author T.R. Reid discussed his new book "The Healing of America."
In the book, Reid gives an account of his findings after his visit to wealthy, industrialized democracies worldwide to investigate which countries have the best healthcare system.
After stops in Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the U.K., Reid found inspiration in the fact that unlike the U.S., these countries have achieved their goal of providing all citizens health care at a reasonable cost. He also found that "socialized medicine" is not the way that the successful countries are caring for their citizens. The coverage is there, and the healthcare statistics are better than those we have here in the U.S., but it's being provided through private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance. While Reid did find some problems, like long lines in Canada, sparse facilities in parts of France, and poorly paid doctors in Japan, none of the various world systems he reviewed are run by the government.
I only hope that our own government considers the investigations of people like Reid as they continue the debate over our own healthcare reform. We definitely need change. A two week infection has cost me several thousand dollars, and I may need more treatment before it's all over. But, that care should not be handed down by a government who has had so many problems running itself, leaving our country in the current financial state it is in. In fact, had I have faced my illness in a socialized system, I'd probably still be waiting for the care that in this case may have saved my life.
Basic healthcare is a fundamental right of all human beings. Government run healthcare is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Check out "The Healing of America." It's available at online booksellers like Amazon.com., and is a worthwhile read in a time when so much is at stake.
In the book, Reid gives an account of his findings after his visit to wealthy, industrialized democracies worldwide to investigate which countries have the best healthcare system.
After stops in Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the U.K., Reid found inspiration in the fact that unlike the U.S., these countries have achieved their goal of providing all citizens health care at a reasonable cost. He also found that "socialized medicine" is not the way that the successful countries are caring for their citizens. The coverage is there, and the healthcare statistics are better than those we have here in the U.S., but it's being provided through private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance. While Reid did find some problems, like long lines in Canada, sparse facilities in parts of France, and poorly paid doctors in Japan, none of the various world systems he reviewed are run by the government.
I only hope that our own government considers the investigations of people like Reid as they continue the debate over our own healthcare reform. We definitely need change. A two week infection has cost me several thousand dollars, and I may need more treatment before it's all over. But, that care should not be handed down by a government who has had so many problems running itself, leaving our country in the current financial state it is in. In fact, had I have faced my illness in a socialized system, I'd probably still be waiting for the care that in this case may have saved my life.
Basic healthcare is a fundamental right of all human beings. Government run healthcare is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Check out "The Healing of America." It's available at online booksellers like Amazon.com., and is a worthwhile read in a time when so much is at stake.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Take the Tiara off that Toddler!
I was half asleep last night, clicking through the channels, when I came across a show I found absolutely appalling. It's called "Toddlers and Tiaras" and is aired on TLC. Upon further research I found that the show, in its second season, follows the toddler beauty pageant circuit. TLC bills it as a look at passionate moms who "glam" up their little divas adorning them with spray-on tans, fake eyelashes, fingernails, and more make up than most adults wear for a night out. (Sadly, think JonBenet Ramsey)
The part of the show that I saw, featured the performances of girls as young as four. They were doing the "shimmy shake" and dancing around like they were strippers in some gentleman's club. "THEY WERE FOUR!" The little girls had on so much make up that they they looked plastic.
In the older category (11-13 year olds) the girls were dressed suggestively and looked 30. If that isn't horrifying enough, their mothers were standing by, some dancing their routine on the sideline as the girls performed on stage. One child's mom made a scene because the music died when her daughter started her performance and she could be heard yelling above the crowd for her little girl to get off set.
Lest you think this is just some isolated beauty pageant that is being exploited by a cable network, think again. According to the TLC website this season will focus on the Hawaiian pageant circuit and the Gold Coast Pageants that inspired the movie Little Miss Sunshine. (now I know why that is one of my favorite movies) These pageants are making millions and hundreds of little girls are being exploited each year.
The part of the show that I saw, featured the performances of girls as young as four. They were doing the "shimmy shake" and dancing around like they were strippers in some gentleman's club. "THEY WERE FOUR!" The little girls had on so much make up that they they looked plastic.
In the older category (11-13 year olds) the girls were dressed suggestively and looked 30. If that isn't horrifying enough, their mothers were standing by, some dancing their routine on the sideline as the girls performed on stage. One child's mom made a scene because the music died when her daughter started her performance and she could be heard yelling above the crowd for her little girl to get off set.
Lest you think this is just some isolated beauty pageant that is being exploited by a cable network, think again. According to the TLC website this season will focus on the Hawaiian pageant circuit and the Gold Coast Pageants that inspired the movie Little Miss Sunshine. (now I know why that is one of my favorite movies) These pageants are making millions and hundreds of little girls are being exploited each year.
While I have never been blessed with children I have to pause when I see this kind of program and ask: "What the heck is wrong with the mothers who would do this to their own child?' We've talked about child abuse this week and in my opinion this is an example of the worst kind of abuse. There is a problem in this country with an oversexualization of young girls, and for many of them, this kiddie beauty pageant circuit is where it starts.
When a mother parades her daughter around as a sex object before she is old enough for grade school, it is NOT normal. I find it unbelieveable that any responsible parent would want middle aged men glaring at their skimpily clad daughter, and that they would encourage it by making their baby up to look like a young adult. (and there were middle aged men in the TLC crowd, glaring on as these girls danced.) Calling Doctor Phil, Calling Doctor Phil! We've got years of therapy ahead for these poor children.
Sadly, I think TLC is first, trying to make a buck, and secondly trying to expose these mothers who have twisted the reality of their children's worlds. However, they're doing it at the expense of the children who they feature. I'm concerned that those who are prone to engaging in this type of exhibitionism will see this show as yet another chance for even more exposure for their daughters, which will likely make many more people want to be a part of it.
What happened to the idea of innocence and purity for little children? Is it just another Biblical concept that society wants to throw away? While I may not be a fan of beauty contests in general, at least the young adult women are making up their own minds that this is where they want to be. (although I realize many of them started as a child) However, for these little girls , a desire to dress up and please mommy, is taking them down a dark road that can destroy their values and self worth.
It's not only sad when some adult woman parades a toddler on stage and television so she can somehow fufill her own dream of being adored by the masses, I believe it's criminal. I only hope that as TLC kicks off this second season of Toddlers and Tiaras, the response is dismal, and this season will be the show's last.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Do You Trust in God?
I'm encouraged today, in spite of one atheist's attempt to remove the name of God from American currency. Michael Newdow, who you may know as the man who has spent the past four years trying to ban the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited in public schools, is now challenging the motto that is printed on our money because it refers to God.
Saying the motto "In God We Trust" is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, Newdow, a California doctor and lawyer filed a federal lawsuit last week, and this is the same argument that he used when challenging the Pledge.
So, why I am encouraged? Well, MSNBC (see liberal friends I do watch something besides Fox News!) has put a poll on their website asking the American public to vote on whether the motto should be removed.
The link is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103424/ns/us_news-life/ if you want to click through and vote.
The result? 88% of those who voted say that Newdow is all wet, and that the motto "In God We Trust" should remain! Yea!
While I realize that much of that 88% is made up of Christians and others who have no problem with God, I think it is wonderful that in a time when His name is being denigrated in our government, our schools and our entertainment, a sampling of our citizens overwhelmingly feel that it's ok if He stays on the money.
So, click through and vote if you haven't already,because it's your chance to go on record for a God who has blessed us mightily.
As for you Mr. Newdow, the people have spoken and it would appear that you need to leave God alone and find someone else to hassle.
Saying the motto "In God We Trust" is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, Newdow, a California doctor and lawyer filed a federal lawsuit last week, and this is the same argument that he used when challenging the Pledge.
So, why I am encouraged? Well, MSNBC (see liberal friends I do watch something besides Fox News!) has put a poll on their website asking the American public to vote on whether the motto should be removed.
The link is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103424/ns/us_news-life/ if you want to click through and vote.
The result? 88% of those who voted say that Newdow is all wet, and that the motto "In God We Trust" should remain! Yea!
While I realize that much of that 88% is made up of Christians and others who have no problem with God, I think it is wonderful that in a time when His name is being denigrated in our government, our schools and our entertainment, a sampling of our citizens overwhelmingly feel that it's ok if He stays on the money.
So, click through and vote if you haven't already,because it's your chance to go on record for a God who has blessed us mightily.
As for you Mr. Newdow, the people have spoken and it would appear that you need to leave God alone and find someone else to hassle.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Reality that's a little " Too Real" for me
I must admit---I have a dirty little secret---I watch "some" reality TV. Now I'm not interested in the shows that have husbands and wives who are tempted to see if they can stay faithful when accosted by the opposite sex, or shows where the contestants have to eat bugs, but strangely, I do get all weak in the knees when I see Gordon Ramsey throw a frying pan across the room because someone's risotto is clumpy. (I think he reminds me of myself when cooking in my own Hell's Kitchen)
While I do find many of these shows amusing, I'm saddened by the recent "real life" murder mystery surrounding reality TV star Ryan Jenkins (Meagan Wants a Millionaire) and the bikini model he was briefly married to.
Last weekend, Jasmine Fiore was found strangled and stuffed in a suitcase with her teeth and fingers missing. Jenkins who is the prime suspect, is on the run and believed to be in Canada. Criminologists think he killed Jasmine in a fit of jealousy and dismembered her so no one would know her identity. Police were able to identify the girl because of a serial number on her silicone breast implant.
The fact that this apparent monster was allowed to participate on a TV show, that if he had won, could have put him in another intimate relationship with an unsuspecting woman, disturbs me on many levels.
First, aren't these people vetted before being accepted as part of the show's cast? If they are, with this man's violent history (he had been arrested before on charges of abusing women) why was he allowed to participate? Could his so called "personality disorder" have been overlooked because the "crazies" make for good TV?
Finally, if Ryan Jenkins tried to conceal Jasmine's identity by dismembering her, we have to wonder where he learned such a trick. My guess? On shows like CSI. It makes me wonder what will happen the next time some freak tries to kill someone and now knows that breast implants have serial numbers on them.
In an age where our values keep going down and the price of fame keeps going up, I think I'm going to give up Hell's Kitchen and switch back to ABC Family. Oh, but wait,the last time I stopped there all I saw was a bunch of teenage girls having sex with a bunch of teenage boys and then calling each other nasty names. The focus of the show was about how "normal" that behavior is in our high schools. Yes, that screams "family values" programming to me. (Get Real!)
I guess it's time to give up all reality and "R" rated tv (sorry Gordon) and pull out the old "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "Andy Griffith" dvd's. At least the craziest thing they show is a mother who loves her family to the point of a mild neurosis, and a deputy who is a bit trigger happy when trying to hog all the glory for himself.
Perhaps the shows are too simplistic for some, and the concept of love and family may even seem boring by today's standards. For me, not so much. Now that people are dying after hooking up with the narcissists who make up the casts of reality television shows, good ol' family love seems just fine to me. What do you think?
While I do find many of these shows amusing, I'm saddened by the recent "real life" murder mystery surrounding reality TV star Ryan Jenkins (Meagan Wants a Millionaire) and the bikini model he was briefly married to.
Last weekend, Jasmine Fiore was found strangled and stuffed in a suitcase with her teeth and fingers missing. Jenkins who is the prime suspect, is on the run and believed to be in Canada. Criminologists think he killed Jasmine in a fit of jealousy and dismembered her so no one would know her identity. Police were able to identify the girl because of a serial number on her silicone breast implant.
The fact that this apparent monster was allowed to participate on a TV show, that if he had won, could have put him in another intimate relationship with an unsuspecting woman, disturbs me on many levels.
First, aren't these people vetted before being accepted as part of the show's cast? If they are, with this man's violent history (he had been arrested before on charges of abusing women) why was he allowed to participate? Could his so called "personality disorder" have been overlooked because the "crazies" make for good TV?
Finally, if Ryan Jenkins tried to conceal Jasmine's identity by dismembering her, we have to wonder where he learned such a trick. My guess? On shows like CSI. It makes me wonder what will happen the next time some freak tries to kill someone and now knows that breast implants have serial numbers on them.
In an age where our values keep going down and the price of fame keeps going up, I think I'm going to give up Hell's Kitchen and switch back to ABC Family. Oh, but wait,the last time I stopped there all I saw was a bunch of teenage girls having sex with a bunch of teenage boys and then calling each other nasty names. The focus of the show was about how "normal" that behavior is in our high schools. Yes, that screams "family values" programming to me. (Get Real!)
I guess it's time to give up all reality and "R" rated tv (sorry Gordon) and pull out the old "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "Andy Griffith" dvd's. At least the craziest thing they show is a mother who loves her family to the point of a mild neurosis, and a deputy who is a bit trigger happy when trying to hog all the glory for himself.
Perhaps the shows are too simplistic for some, and the concept of love and family may even seem boring by today's standards. For me, not so much. Now that people are dying after hooking up with the narcissists who make up the casts of reality television shows, good ol' family love seems just fine to me. What do you think?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Toto, We're not in Kansas Anymore!
I almost don't know where to begin today. I'm sitting here full of emotion, yet I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or throw things. (Those who live with me have voted "no" for the last option)
First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is speaking out this morning calling everyone who disagrees and speaks out at town hall meetings about healthcare, "evildoers." At least George Bush coined the term "Axis of Evil" in reference to those who wanted to harm America. Now, if you speak out against a bill that is obviously "bad" for Americans, you're the evil one! All I can say is things are looking up for the GOP in 2012. (if we last that long) In reference to a previous post of mine, please send lawyers, guns and money. I've probably just put myself on a watch list, and I can hear my inbox filling with unsolicited white house e-mails.
Next, we have yet another attack on a Christian's right to free speech. There's a correction from yesterday's post, in which I said two teachers at Pace High School in Fla. prayed at an adults only breakfast and were put on probation--Oh no, there's going to be a trial! They're out and worse than that---they could lose their pensions because of their "radical" behavior. I think it's time to fire up the "love bus." We've got a protest to attend!
Finally, and this one's just bizarre! A little girl set up a lemonade stand in New York City recently, carrying on the age old tradition of earning some money to help others.10-year old Clementine Lee wanted to offer refreshments on a hot day with her proceeds going to charity. Sounds innocent enough, but then a police officer shows up, writes the kid a ticket for not having a license to sell and summons her to court. Now the good news is that cooler heads prevailed and Clementine has been let off the hook. The cop has been sent back for more training. As for Clementine, perhaps next time she'll stand on the N.Y. street corner and distribute pornography. At least then, her "community" will champion her rights for self expression. When up is down and down is up, it sure would seem to make sense.
First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is speaking out this morning calling everyone who disagrees and speaks out at town hall meetings about healthcare, "evildoers." At least George Bush coined the term "Axis of Evil" in reference to those who wanted to harm America. Now, if you speak out against a bill that is obviously "bad" for Americans, you're the evil one! All I can say is things are looking up for the GOP in 2012. (if we last that long) In reference to a previous post of mine, please send lawyers, guns and money. I've probably just put myself on a watch list, and I can hear my inbox filling with unsolicited white house e-mails.
Next, we have yet another attack on a Christian's right to free speech. There's a correction from yesterday's post, in which I said two teachers at Pace High School in Fla. prayed at an adults only breakfast and were put on probation--Oh no, there's going to be a trial! They're out and worse than that---they could lose their pensions because of their "radical" behavior. I think it's time to fire up the "love bus." We've got a protest to attend!
Finally, and this one's just bizarre! A little girl set up a lemonade stand in New York City recently, carrying on the age old tradition of earning some money to help others.10-year old Clementine Lee wanted to offer refreshments on a hot day with her proceeds going to charity. Sounds innocent enough, but then a police officer shows up, writes the kid a ticket for not having a license to sell and summons her to court. Now the good news is that cooler heads prevailed and Clementine has been let off the hook. The cop has been sent back for more training. As for Clementine, perhaps next time she'll stand on the N.Y. street corner and distribute pornography. At least then, her "community" will champion her rights for self expression. When up is down and down is up, it sure would seem to make sense.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Go Students, Go Students!
It's back to school time and all eyes are on Pace High School in Milton, Florida.
(Northeast of Pensacola) The hoopla began in May when Brittany McComb, the Valedictorian was not allowed to give her validictory speech because of her intent to mention God. (This is the same school where principal Mathew Staver put two teachers on probation because they opened an adult meeting with prayer.)
In protest against the ACLU and the principal, (yes, the get "A-Clu" group!) 400 students stood at the graduation ceremony and recited the Lord's Prayer and painted crosses on their graduation caps to defend their rights to free speech and faith.
The ACLU is still mad over the outpouring, and Brittany McComb (appearing on Fox News this morning) is still wondering what the big deal was.
Ahhhhh..... "and the little children shall lead them!" Go Students, Go Students!
You get a thumbs up from the Christian Commentator for engaging in protest for God.
Shame on you Mr. Staver for allowing a special interest group who is obviously in the minority, to hijack the rights of your student body. Ms. McComb worked hard to be named Valedictorian, and you took away the joy and honor that should have accompanied her success. I suppose this will be the first of many incidents where she will be forced to endure discrimination for her "radical" viewpoint that supports a belief in God. I also believe that she (and the 400 hundred others who joined her in protest)will endure.
As your school year gets underway, you need to keep in mind that while we may be guilty of silence when we should speak out, there are millions of us who agree with the beliefs of your students. You need to get your act together sir, because we are watching, and more importantly so is God.
(Northeast of Pensacola) The hoopla began in May when Brittany McComb, the Valedictorian was not allowed to give her validictory speech because of her intent to mention God. (This is the same school where principal Mathew Staver put two teachers on probation because they opened an adult meeting with prayer.)
In protest against the ACLU and the principal, (yes, the get "A-Clu" group!) 400 students stood at the graduation ceremony and recited the Lord's Prayer and painted crosses on their graduation caps to defend their rights to free speech and faith.
The ACLU is still mad over the outpouring, and Brittany McComb (appearing on Fox News this morning) is still wondering what the big deal was.
Ahhhhh..... "and the little children shall lead them!" Go Students, Go Students!
You get a thumbs up from the Christian Commentator for engaging in protest for God.
Shame on you Mr. Staver for allowing a special interest group who is obviously in the minority, to hijack the rights of your student body. Ms. McComb worked hard to be named Valedictorian, and you took away the joy and honor that should have accompanied her success. I suppose this will be the first of many incidents where she will be forced to endure discrimination for her "radical" viewpoint that supports a belief in God. I also believe that she (and the 400 hundred others who joined her in protest)will endure.
As your school year gets underway, you need to keep in mind that while we may be guilty of silence when we should speak out, there are millions of us who agree with the beliefs of your students. You need to get your act together sir, because we are watching, and more importantly so is God.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Send Lawyers, Guns and Money
There's a new hero in Harlem, one that I think makes a great role model for those of us who defend our right to bear arms.
A 72-year old restaurant supply house owner was in his shop last week when four thugs came in to rob him. He told them he didn't have any money at the time and asked them to leave, even telling them he would not call the police if they did.
Instead, one put a gun in his face, demanding the cash he didn't have, while the others pistol whipped his employee at the end of the counter. When the employee tried to fight back, the thug who held the gun on the owner went over to help bludgeon the employee to death and that's when Gus Gusterson grabbed his shot gun that was behind the counter.
After once more telling the hoodlums to leave and they wouldn't, Gus decided in a split second to defend himself and his friend. He fired three shots off the wall, so he wouldn't hit his employee, instead killing one of the robbers, and scaring the other three off. One of the three who escaped later died.
I can see why Gus is a hero in Harlem. He won't be charged according to the local police chief because he was within his rights and the law, to defend himself. This is exactly why in my opinion, it is so important for the citizens of this country to have the right to have guns.
While the anti-gun lobby makes a compelling case about guns killing innocents, and uses the tragic cases of children who die in gun accidents as an example of why we shouldn't be allowed to keep them, I maintain that a lot of "innocent" lives (like Gus) have been saved because he was willing to defend himself, and because he had a gun nearby.
The Bible teaches us the concept of "an eye for an eye" and though he obviously didn't want to, Gus Gusterson gave what he would have gotten, had his gun not been on hand. While I "love my neighbor" as much as anyone,and I believe all people who are irresponsible with guns should be prosecuted, I'll defend my family to the death if they are threatened, and think most Americans would do the same. I champion the rights of all the Gusses out there who were simply going about their day when they were forced to defend themselves or die. I too, see Gus as a hero.
Maybe the next time some Harlem hoodlums want to pistol whip and rob someone, they'll just keep walking when they get to Gus's place. I hope his actions send the following message to those across the country who want to rob and kill: "Think twice hoodlum, or the next one to die just might be you." What do you think?
Teri
A 72-year old restaurant supply house owner was in his shop last week when four thugs came in to rob him. He told them he didn't have any money at the time and asked them to leave, even telling them he would not call the police if they did.
Instead, one put a gun in his face, demanding the cash he didn't have, while the others pistol whipped his employee at the end of the counter. When the employee tried to fight back, the thug who held the gun on the owner went over to help bludgeon the employee to death and that's when Gus Gusterson grabbed his shot gun that was behind the counter.
After once more telling the hoodlums to leave and they wouldn't, Gus decided in a split second to defend himself and his friend. He fired three shots off the wall, so he wouldn't hit his employee, instead killing one of the robbers, and scaring the other three off. One of the three who escaped later died.
I can see why Gus is a hero in Harlem. He won't be charged according to the local police chief because he was within his rights and the law, to defend himself. This is exactly why in my opinion, it is so important for the citizens of this country to have the right to have guns.
While the anti-gun lobby makes a compelling case about guns killing innocents, and uses the tragic cases of children who die in gun accidents as an example of why we shouldn't be allowed to keep them, I maintain that a lot of "innocent" lives (like Gus) have been saved because he was willing to defend himself, and because he had a gun nearby.
The Bible teaches us the concept of "an eye for an eye" and though he obviously didn't want to, Gus Gusterson gave what he would have gotten, had his gun not been on hand. While I "love my neighbor" as much as anyone,and I believe all people who are irresponsible with guns should be prosecuted, I'll defend my family to the death if they are threatened, and think most Americans would do the same. I champion the rights of all the Gusses out there who were simply going about their day when they were forced to defend themselves or die. I too, see Gus as a hero.
Maybe the next time some Harlem hoodlums want to pistol whip and rob someone, they'll just keep walking when they get to Gus's place. I hope his actions send the following message to those across the country who want to rob and kill: "Think twice hoodlum, or the next one to die just might be you." What do you think?
Teri
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Put Your Clothes On!
Shame on Billy Ray Cyrus and his wife for letting their 16-year old daughter Miley do a semi-pole dance at the Teen Choice Awards on Monday. While Miley is a huge star in her own right, she is underage and her parents could put a stop to it if they had any interest in her beyond the millions she brings in each year.
The incident brings us yet another reminder of how guilty our culture is of sexualizing little girls before they're even out of grade school. There are beauty contests where children are made up to look like they're adults,young girls are engaging in sex parties and we call it simple experimentation, and teen pregnancy is on the rise because attention starved girls are looking for someone to love. In my own neighborhood I have seen teen girls engage in inappropriate sexual behaviors because they are ignored by parents who care more about their own social life than what is going on with their children.
How hard it must be to teach a daughter to have self worth, and moral values in a society that consistently tells her she is nothing more than a sexual object that was put here to display herself for every weirdo's pleasure. I find it strange that while we continually push the idea of self importance and self centeredness in America, we are at the same time, encouraging our young females to prostitute themselves in the name of fame and adoration.
I feel sorry for Miley Cyrus, and the millions of girls like her who aren't center stage. While fame is a powerful drug and many will do anything to get it, there is a price to pay. Like Lyndsay Lohan and Brittany Spears before her, I'm sure Miley will eventually self destruct and she'll likely take many girls down with her because no one told them the behavior was wrong.
I only hope that when that time comes, Billy Ray Cyrus, his wife and the other
parents of the country who are left to clean up the mess, will blame no one but themselves.
The incident brings us yet another reminder of how guilty our culture is of sexualizing little girls before they're even out of grade school. There are beauty contests where children are made up to look like they're adults,young girls are engaging in sex parties and we call it simple experimentation, and teen pregnancy is on the rise because attention starved girls are looking for someone to love. In my own neighborhood I have seen teen girls engage in inappropriate sexual behaviors because they are ignored by parents who care more about their own social life than what is going on with their children.
How hard it must be to teach a daughter to have self worth, and moral values in a society that consistently tells her she is nothing more than a sexual object that was put here to display herself for every weirdo's pleasure. I find it strange that while we continually push the idea of self importance and self centeredness in America, we are at the same time, encouraging our young females to prostitute themselves in the name of fame and adoration.
I feel sorry for Miley Cyrus, and the millions of girls like her who aren't center stage. While fame is a powerful drug and many will do anything to get it, there is a price to pay. Like Lyndsay Lohan and Brittany Spears before her, I'm sure Miley will eventually self destruct and she'll likely take many girls down with her because no one told them the behavior was wrong.
I only hope that when that time comes, Billy Ray Cyrus, his wife and the other
parents of the country who are left to clean up the mess, will blame no one but themselves.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Ad-Lib--(It may come back to bite you)!
Writing a novel is difficult. You have to keep track of your grammar (thank goodness for my editor!) you need to make sure that you don't overuse particular words or phrases, and you have to watch your comparisons. While I understand the personal pain of this struggle, I have to admit, I had a good laugh yesterday when my president dove head first into the off-script, shark infested, bad comparison waters.
Perhaps President Obama should quit trying to make clever comparisons especially when touting the benefits of his new health care plan.
Speaking in New Hampshire, he attempted to defend a government run health care program by saying that FedEx and UPS were running great, but the post office was in trouble! Huh? (Please don't take my teleprompter away!) Sir, I think you're channeling the ghosts of Republicans past!
But a "Big Thank You" for making my point! I can honestly say that for the first time I totally agree with you! I too, think a government run health care plan would be about as effective as the government run Post Office. You're right sir. Health care would be much more effective in America if it were run by private companies like UPS and FedEx.
Here's one Republican who appreciates your gaffe Mr. President. While I'm certain your inner radical will once again rear its ugly head, for one day you made the world seem to be right side up again. I only hope this doesn't mean your mind is going. According to you, there may not be funding for treatment in the future.
Perhaps President Obama should quit trying to make clever comparisons especially when touting the benefits of his new health care plan.
Speaking in New Hampshire, he attempted to defend a government run health care program by saying that FedEx and UPS were running great, but the post office was in trouble! Huh? (Please don't take my teleprompter away!) Sir, I think you're channeling the ghosts of Republicans past!
But a "Big Thank You" for making my point! I can honestly say that for the first time I totally agree with you! I too, think a government run health care plan would be about as effective as the government run Post Office. You're right sir. Health care would be much more effective in America if it were run by private companies like UPS and FedEx.
Here's one Republican who appreciates your gaffe Mr. President. While I'm certain your inner radical will once again rear its ugly head, for one day you made the world seem to be right side up again. I only hope this doesn't mean your mind is going. According to you, there may not be funding for treatment in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
