There's an interesting debate underway in regards to the president's reaction about the BP oil spill in the Gulf. His supporters say they don't need to see him scream and shout to know he's mad about the spill. His opponents say he needs to show more emotion, claiming his sense of calm gives the impression he doesn't care.
I'm torn.
I do believe the president,(like most Americans) is angry over this disaster, which is now expected to loop the entire state of Florida, and will likely involve the Atlantic coast by mid-summer. How could any leader not be angry over the destruction that the spill is causing? But does he need to kick and scream to make his point?
Not Really.
First, he doesn't have that kind of personality. He seems to typically remain calm, no matter what the situation, which ultimately is a great characteristic of leadership. Likewise, his getting emotional will not clean up one drop of oil any faster.
That being said, the other side has a point as well. President Obama seemed to show more excitement when Paul McCartney arrived at the White House recently, than he has at any point since the oil crisis began. He did delay getting involved with BP, and he does seem a bit too patient with the oil executives as they continue to make one blunder after another in their attempts to clean up the mess.
While one has to admire the president's ability to keep his cool, one can also remember the comfort brought by George Bush as he stood in the rubble in front of the World Trade Center vowing to make those who caused the damage pay. While it's been said that his show of emotion ultimately got us into two wars, I believe his display actually gave angry Americans someting to hold on to on the darkest day of our lives. A willingness to show emotion on that day, also showed a sign of great leadership. A true leader can show a sense of anger while keeping a clear head regarding his responsibilities.
While we need calm leaders, we also need to know that they care. There would be no point to President Obama throwing a hissy fit as the BP leaders scratch their heads over what to do next, but it would be encouraging to see him kick up a small fuss when yet another attempt at clean up has failed. The residents on the Gulf coast need to see that. America needs to see it. Ultimately BP needs to see it, so they feel a bit more pressure to get this clean up show on the road.
Showing posts with label Chiristian Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chiristian Commentary. Show all posts
Friday, June 4, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
What WOULD Jesus say?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she believes she must pursue public policies "in keeping with the values" of Jesus Christ, "The Word made Flesh."
CNS (Cybercast News Service) news reported yesterday that Pelosi, a Catholic, said at a May 6, Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill that she is asked all the time "What is your favorite this?" "What is your favorite that?" She said one time she was asked "What is your favorite word?" Her answer to that question was "My favorite word is the Word, is the Word," making an obvious reference to Jesus Christ who is called The Word in the Book of John.
How Baffling.
First, Pelosi favors legalized abortion and voted against the ban on partial birth abortion that was enacted into law in 2003. Psalm 127:3 highlights the value God places on children,saying, "Truly children are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward." With that in mind, it would seem that Pelosi misunderstands what the term "The Word" means in John 1. The "Word" was Jesus, and Jesus was/is God. As outlined in Psalm 127, God loves children. Clearly, Ms. Pelosi does not.
Likewise, her comments at the Catholic Community Conference also included her saying that "we have to give voice to what that (the Word) means in light of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word.
Huh? "that?" The Word is a "Who" not a "That"
Did God really intend a reference to His Son to be a vehicle for political debate over 2000 years after it was written? Of course not. Was Pelosi really twisting scripture to suggest that the biblical reference to "The Word" was somehow a protection for the pro-choice values she supports? Likely. Is the Speaker really so naive that she thinks using (or misusing in this case) scripture at a Catholic Conference will somehow win her votes in the next election? She clearly does not get it. Most of us who truly claim Christianity as the basis for our faith, have read the Bible and we understand that Jesus Christ was not sent to earth to support any political agenda, let alone one that so obviously contradicts His Father's teachings.
Perhaps even more shocking was Pelosi's comment that you could "Fill it in with anything you want" making reference that non-Christians could use the term "Word" to mean anything.
Excuse me?
As someone who respects all faiths, and all people's right to choose what or who they want to believe in, I would ask that if our Speaker is going to quote the Bible she needs to understand that "The Word" only means one thing. Jesus. It is a Christian reference. I don't quote the Koran when trying to make a Christian point, and it is only respectful that Ms. Pelosi not quote the Bible when trying to win points with a conservative group while clinging to her liberal values that suggest God is whoever man wants Him to be. He is not.
It is almost laughable when misinformed politicians choose to throw around Biblical truths for the sake of their own personal gain. I say almost laughable because it is so bizarre. It is also scary that someone who has been given so much, so arrogantly cheapens the word of the God she claims to follow. Pelosi's comments remind me of the liberal mantra from a few years ago, that asked "what would Jesus drive," in reference to an attempted boycott on SUV's. As a lifelong Christian, I can't imagine that Christ would have engaged anyone in a debate about the American Auto Industry and the environmental argument. I also can't imagine He would champion anyone using His message to further their own agenda. In fact, the Bible calls that pride, which is the greatest sin of all. As a champion for separation of church and state, Ms. Pelosi needs to remember her viewpoint and keep Jesus out of her bid for more votes. It's disgusting and truly informed people of the faith won't buy it.
Finally, all politicians who continually stomp all over Christianity need to learn from Pelosi's pathetic attempt to reach out to a group she knows nothing about. They want God out of our culture. They want Him out of our government. They want to make it so no one has any public connection to the faith and values our country was founded on. Fine. As Christians we'll press on, but as a group of voting Americans we ask that you don't disrespect us or the God we follow, by twisting His word to mean everything but what it was intended to mean. We don't like that, and if you insist on doing it, it may cost you big time at the polls.
CNS (Cybercast News Service) news reported yesterday that Pelosi, a Catholic, said at a May 6, Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill that she is asked all the time "What is your favorite this?" "What is your favorite that?" She said one time she was asked "What is your favorite word?" Her answer to that question was "My favorite word is the Word, is the Word," making an obvious reference to Jesus Christ who is called The Word in the Book of John.
How Baffling.
First, Pelosi favors legalized abortion and voted against the ban on partial birth abortion that was enacted into law in 2003. Psalm 127:3 highlights the value God places on children,saying, "Truly children are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward." With that in mind, it would seem that Pelosi misunderstands what the term "The Word" means in John 1. The "Word" was Jesus, and Jesus was/is God. As outlined in Psalm 127, God loves children. Clearly, Ms. Pelosi does not.
Likewise, her comments at the Catholic Community Conference also included her saying that "we have to give voice to what that (the Word) means in light of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word.
Huh? "that?" The Word is a "Who" not a "That"
Did God really intend a reference to His Son to be a vehicle for political debate over 2000 years after it was written? Of course not. Was Pelosi really twisting scripture to suggest that the biblical reference to "The Word" was somehow a protection for the pro-choice values she supports? Likely. Is the Speaker really so naive that she thinks using (or misusing in this case) scripture at a Catholic Conference will somehow win her votes in the next election? She clearly does not get it. Most of us who truly claim Christianity as the basis for our faith, have read the Bible and we understand that Jesus Christ was not sent to earth to support any political agenda, let alone one that so obviously contradicts His Father's teachings.
Perhaps even more shocking was Pelosi's comment that you could "Fill it in with anything you want" making reference that non-Christians could use the term "Word" to mean anything.
Excuse me?
As someone who respects all faiths, and all people's right to choose what or who they want to believe in, I would ask that if our Speaker is going to quote the Bible she needs to understand that "The Word" only means one thing. Jesus. It is a Christian reference. I don't quote the Koran when trying to make a Christian point, and it is only respectful that Ms. Pelosi not quote the Bible when trying to win points with a conservative group while clinging to her liberal values that suggest God is whoever man wants Him to be. He is not.
It is almost laughable when misinformed politicians choose to throw around Biblical truths for the sake of their own personal gain. I say almost laughable because it is so bizarre. It is also scary that someone who has been given so much, so arrogantly cheapens the word of the God she claims to follow. Pelosi's comments remind me of the liberal mantra from a few years ago, that asked "what would Jesus drive," in reference to an attempted boycott on SUV's. As a lifelong Christian, I can't imagine that Christ would have engaged anyone in a debate about the American Auto Industry and the environmental argument. I also can't imagine He would champion anyone using His message to further their own agenda. In fact, the Bible calls that pride, which is the greatest sin of all. As a champion for separation of church and state, Ms. Pelosi needs to remember her viewpoint and keep Jesus out of her bid for more votes. It's disgusting and truly informed people of the faith won't buy it.
Finally, all politicians who continually stomp all over Christianity need to learn from Pelosi's pathetic attempt to reach out to a group she knows nothing about. They want God out of our culture. They want Him out of our government. They want to make it so no one has any public connection to the faith and values our country was founded on. Fine. As Christians we'll press on, but as a group of voting Americans we ask that you don't disrespect us or the God we follow, by twisting His word to mean everything but what it was intended to mean. We don't like that, and if you insist on doing it, it may cost you big time at the polls.
Friday, May 28, 2010
I Know! Blame George Bush!
Today is May 28, 2010. It has been 493 days since George W. Bush left office and Barak Obama took over. That's why I almost fell off the bed as I heard a recap from the president's press conference yesterday. I was stunned as I heard him suggest that the BP oil spill may not have happened had the Bush administration been less cozy with big oil. Likewise, I was bewildered as he reassured a skeptical Washington Press Corp that he wakes up with the spill on his mind and goes to bed with the spill on his mind.
Huh?
Wasn't it President Obama who received $77,051 dollars from BP when he ran for office,the company's largest campaign donation? For that matter, wasn't it president Obama that we've seen on the golf course, at the White House Correspondents Dinner, welcoming the Yankees to the White House, playing basketball, and hosting a Cinco de Mayo party while Gulf coast residents and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal begged for some kind of assistance?
Of course the president has to multi-task and recreate even in the face of a crisis, but most of us learned as young adults that "appearances" do matter. We also learned that if you're in charge you don't try to put the blame on someone else. It's just not presidential. In this case it's just sad.
When the best the president could come up with was putting the blame on the former administration, it once again, became painfully obvious that he still doesn't have a definitive plan for bringing an end to the crisis. It also proves that the president needs to get a thicker skin when facing the criticism that in this case he deserves.
I have had many liberal friends of mine tell me and other conservatives to "get over it, Barak has won," each time we complain about this policy or that. I've had his call for change and his popular vote win, thrown out as the reason we conservatives should just shut up. I've even heard of conservatives being called racist for simply questioning the often poor judgement that the president has utilized, and yes, I've heard my liberal friends blame George Bush for the mess that we're currently in.
493 Days. It would seem that would be enough time for the president to start preaching the liberal mantra. He did win, and the conservatives lost. George Bush is gone Mr. President, and you have the Congressional majority that you need to save us from the prior administration's evils.
So now in the words of Nike, Just Do It! Stop blaming others for BP's mistake. Stop "thinking" about the problems in the Gulf and push forward to fix them. After all, in four years you don't want the next administration pointing the finger at you.
Huh?
Wasn't it President Obama who received $77,051 dollars from BP when he ran for office,the company's largest campaign donation? For that matter, wasn't it president Obama that we've seen on the golf course, at the White House Correspondents Dinner, welcoming the Yankees to the White House, playing basketball, and hosting a Cinco de Mayo party while Gulf coast residents and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal begged for some kind of assistance?
Of course the president has to multi-task and recreate even in the face of a crisis, but most of us learned as young adults that "appearances" do matter. We also learned that if you're in charge you don't try to put the blame on someone else. It's just not presidential. In this case it's just sad.
When the best the president could come up with was putting the blame on the former administration, it once again, became painfully obvious that he still doesn't have a definitive plan for bringing an end to the crisis. It also proves that the president needs to get a thicker skin when facing the criticism that in this case he deserves.
I have had many liberal friends of mine tell me and other conservatives to "get over it, Barak has won," each time we complain about this policy or that. I've had his call for change and his popular vote win, thrown out as the reason we conservatives should just shut up. I've even heard of conservatives being called racist for simply questioning the often poor judgement that the president has utilized, and yes, I've heard my liberal friends blame George Bush for the mess that we're currently in.
493 Days. It would seem that would be enough time for the president to start preaching the liberal mantra. He did win, and the conservatives lost. George Bush is gone Mr. President, and you have the Congressional majority that you need to save us from the prior administration's evils.
So now in the words of Nike, Just Do It! Stop blaming others for BP's mistake. Stop "thinking" about the problems in the Gulf and push forward to fix them. After all, in four years you don't want the next administration pointing the finger at you.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Clean Up the Oil Mr. President!
Fox news reports, that former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin said yesterday, that President Obama's lack of oversight of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill may have been hampered by his relationship to BP. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Palin suggested that the White House is too cozy with the oil industry because of contributions they made to Obama's campaign in 2008.
Palin wondered why the mainstream media isn't asking if there is any connection between the contributions and why the president is taking so long to get into the area to clean it up. The White House accused her of being misinformed.
While it's hard to believe that the president would somehow put the brakes on cleaning up one of the worst national disasters in American history, it's equally baffling as to why BP is still in charge of the clean up over a month after the oil spill occured.
The AP reports that the sense of frustration by Gulf Coast residents is growing and many elected officials and environmental groups in the region are calling for the government to simply take over.
Why aren't they?
One has to wonder why an administration that has called for sweeping government controls to be put in place in most facets of our lives is so reluctant to take charge now. The president has gotten involved in our money, our health, our religion and more, yet he is holding back in putting pressure on BP to move the clean up forward. I don't know if he's doing it for the sinister reasons outlined by Ms. Palin, but I do think she is right to ask the question. The reality is the mainstream media has not investigated the connection between the president and BP so to that extent Sarah Palin is right on target.
If one thinks back to the time after Hurricane Katrina they'll remember the media attacks against former President Bush accusing him of delaying that clean up as part of some supposed racist agenda he had. Now, no national figure except Sarah Palin is questioning the current administration about why this clean up is taking so long, proving once again that real journalism is dying in America.
The issue is not about the President's supposed guilt. The issue is why the questions aren't being asked. Fair and balanced reporting has become a thing of the past, and the major television networks have become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the liberal agenda. The national media helped put Obama in office, and they continue to help his cause by refusing to ask the questions that so obviously need to be asked.
Is the president guilty of what he's being accused of by Sarah Palin? I'm not sure, but the major news networks are guilty of continuing to push his agenda on the American public. That alone is yet another sign that the freedoms we've enjoyed in America for centuries, are slowly but surely being taken away.
Palin wondered why the mainstream media isn't asking if there is any connection between the contributions and why the president is taking so long to get into the area to clean it up. The White House accused her of being misinformed.
While it's hard to believe that the president would somehow put the brakes on cleaning up one of the worst national disasters in American history, it's equally baffling as to why BP is still in charge of the clean up over a month after the oil spill occured.
The AP reports that the sense of frustration by Gulf Coast residents is growing and many elected officials and environmental groups in the region are calling for the government to simply take over.
Why aren't they?
One has to wonder why an administration that has called for sweeping government controls to be put in place in most facets of our lives is so reluctant to take charge now. The president has gotten involved in our money, our health, our religion and more, yet he is holding back in putting pressure on BP to move the clean up forward. I don't know if he's doing it for the sinister reasons outlined by Ms. Palin, but I do think she is right to ask the question. The reality is the mainstream media has not investigated the connection between the president and BP so to that extent Sarah Palin is right on target.
If one thinks back to the time after Hurricane Katrina they'll remember the media attacks against former President Bush accusing him of delaying that clean up as part of some supposed racist agenda he had. Now, no national figure except Sarah Palin is questioning the current administration about why this clean up is taking so long, proving once again that real journalism is dying in America.
The issue is not about the President's supposed guilt. The issue is why the questions aren't being asked. Fair and balanced reporting has become a thing of the past, and the major television networks have become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the liberal agenda. The national media helped put Obama in office, and they continue to help his cause by refusing to ask the questions that so obviously need to be asked.
Is the president guilty of what he's being accused of by Sarah Palin? I'm not sure, but the major news networks are guilty of continuing to push his agenda on the American public. That alone is yet another sign that the freedoms we've enjoyed in America for centuries, are slowly but surely being taken away.
Monday, December 14, 2009
It's Too Close to Call
The debate is on about whether the death of Michael Jackson or the fall of Tiger Woods should be the top AP news story of 2009. Michael had it in the bag until November 27 when news broke that Woods had crashed his SUV into a tree and was found lying on the ground bleeding and passed out in front of his home. The accident was the tip of the iceberg for squeaky clean Tiger, as skeltons started jumping from the closet with reports about extra marital affairs, one longer term extra marital relationship, sexy text messages with his girlfriend, his backing out of his own golf tournament, and now his taking a leave of absence from golf, with the loss of some of his major sponsors.
For celebrity obsessed Americans, the literal and figurative deaths of two icons in one year is almost overwhelming. With Michael Jackson, the overdose of the surgical anesthetic Propofol gave overindulgent partygoers a moment of pause, as the search for the "big buzz" cost the King of Pop his life. The subsequent media coverage surrounding his funeral, the paternity of his children, the charges of murder against his doctor who injected him with the drug, and the settlement of his estate have created a frenzy that will have the sharks circling in the water for years to come.
Now, a new A&E reality series featuring the other four members of the Jackson 5 (brothers Jackie, Tito, Jermaine and Marlon) is a shining example of how even your own family will turn against you if money is the God they worship. Debuting last night, the show basically proved to all, that Jermaine is an egomaniac, Tito should be named Joe Jackson Junior, and Marlon, who seems to have it the most together, is the one who cracks jokes, seemingly to save his sanity. It's sad that a group who once was the shining star of Motown has allowed themselves to fall to such a low point. Maybe Neil Young was right when he said that it's better to burn out than fade away.
So, who should be the top story? Poor drug addicted Michael Jackson, or poor promiscuous Tiger Woods? Some have said that both stories are an example of how those involved were simply human, and we should forgive them and move on. Others have reminded us that no athlete or musician should be held up as an idol of worship. That position belongs only to God. While both points of view have merit, the main thing that ties the Michael Jackson death scandal to the Tiger Woods scandal is that both men handed their lives over to excess.
For one it was drugs and death,for the other is was women and career suicide, but sadly the ultimate outcome was the same. King Solomon spoke about excess in the Book of Ecclesiastes, summing up a life filled with indulgence as meaningless, if it doesn't include God. When one turns their life over to the insatiable desires of their humanity, too much is never enough, and Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are both examples of that profound truth. Too many drugs, women, friends, too much money, or anything that our culture urges us to use as a substitute for God leads to destruction which will ultimately lead to a physical or spiritual death. While it's too late for Michael Jackson, hopefully Tiger Woods will learn a lesson from his sin, and will spend his time off getting his life back on track. He's been given a second chance whether he realizes it or not, and hopefully he will be smart enough to take advantage of it.
So top story, best story, worst story, who knows? Is it Michael or Tiger? I suppose we won't know until the dawn of 2010, but one thing is perfectly clear. The stories of Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are essentially the same, and they tie for the most tragic of 2009.
For celebrity obsessed Americans, the literal and figurative deaths of two icons in one year is almost overwhelming. With Michael Jackson, the overdose of the surgical anesthetic Propofol gave overindulgent partygoers a moment of pause, as the search for the "big buzz" cost the King of Pop his life. The subsequent media coverage surrounding his funeral, the paternity of his children, the charges of murder against his doctor who injected him with the drug, and the settlement of his estate have created a frenzy that will have the sharks circling in the water for years to come.
Now, a new A&E reality series featuring the other four members of the Jackson 5 (brothers Jackie, Tito, Jermaine and Marlon) is a shining example of how even your own family will turn against you if money is the God they worship. Debuting last night, the show basically proved to all, that Jermaine is an egomaniac, Tito should be named Joe Jackson Junior, and Marlon, who seems to have it the most together, is the one who cracks jokes, seemingly to save his sanity. It's sad that a group who once was the shining star of Motown has allowed themselves to fall to such a low point. Maybe Neil Young was right when he said that it's better to burn out than fade away.
So, who should be the top story? Poor drug addicted Michael Jackson, or poor promiscuous Tiger Woods? Some have said that both stories are an example of how those involved were simply human, and we should forgive them and move on. Others have reminded us that no athlete or musician should be held up as an idol of worship. That position belongs only to God. While both points of view have merit, the main thing that ties the Michael Jackson death scandal to the Tiger Woods scandal is that both men handed their lives over to excess.
For one it was drugs and death,for the other is was women and career suicide, but sadly the ultimate outcome was the same. King Solomon spoke about excess in the Book of Ecclesiastes, summing up a life filled with indulgence as meaningless, if it doesn't include God. When one turns their life over to the insatiable desires of their humanity, too much is never enough, and Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are both examples of that profound truth. Too many drugs, women, friends, too much money, or anything that our culture urges us to use as a substitute for God leads to destruction which will ultimately lead to a physical or spiritual death. While it's too late for Michael Jackson, hopefully Tiger Woods will learn a lesson from his sin, and will spend his time off getting his life back on track. He's been given a second chance whether he realizes it or not, and hopefully he will be smart enough to take advantage of it.
So top story, best story, worst story, who knows? Is it Michael or Tiger? I suppose we won't know until the dawn of 2010, but one thing is perfectly clear. The stories of Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are essentially the same, and they tie for the most tragic of 2009.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Are You Naughty or Nice?
The American Family Association has called off its boycott against The Gap and Old Navy after Old Navy (owned by The Gap) aired a commercial featuring the company's "Supermodelquins" singing Merry Christmas. The AFA website reports that thousands of Christians sent e-mails, letters and petitions threatening to boycott both stores if they refused to use the word "Christmas" in their advertising. As a result, parent company The Gap buckled under the pressure, and filled themselves with Christmas cheer. Now, Best Buy and Dick's Sporting Goods have been added to the AFA's "naughty or nice" list, being deemed as "naughty" for their refusal to use advertising that mentions the word Christmas. A call to boycott those stores is pending.
Ahhhh, the power of the boycott. Two thumbs up to everyone who e-mailed or wrote The Gap and Old Navy, and especially to those who refused to shop there while the boycott was in place. While it's ridiculous that the AFA has to have a "naughty or nice list," the absurdity of our country's obsession with political correctness makes the list necessary and that's just sad. While the argument is old, it's still hard to believe that any retailer would refuse the word Christmas because of it's connection to Jesus. It's even more troubling that in spite of the AFA's making this list every year, some retailers still try to get around the word therefore risking their entire shopping season.
Do atheists, agnostics or any of those belonging to a myriad of other religions really care if the word Christmas is used on or near December 25? If you don't believe the day is a religious holiday that celebrates the birth of Christ, why would you care that others do? Are you really so sensitive that hearing someone say Merry Christmas wrecks your entire day? Remember, you don't believe! You are allowed to say Happy Holidays, Bah Humbug or anything else that you want, and if there truly is no Christ to worship, why are you threatened? Merry and Christmas are just words to you, and the reality is that December 25 is called Christmas whether you like it or not. Look at it this way. The holiday is celebrated with the giving of gifts, which requires shopping, so if you have no religious beliefs or ties to Christianity, just enjoy the materialism that many put ahead of the religious significance of the holiday. Believe me we Christians will get over it, and you can still max out your credit cards at stores who say Merry Christmas. Again, Merry and Christmas ARE JUST WORDS!
With all of the Christmas hoopla, I'm thankful for the AFA's "naughty or nice" list and some of the other anti-Christmas retailers include: Banana Republic, Barnes & Noble, CVS, Radio Shack and Staples. The nice list features great stores like Hobby Lobby, JC Penny, K-Mart & Lowes. (updated November 24 and the entire list can be viewed at www.afa.net)
So Christians get out there and shop. Keep the Christ in Christmas but reward those stores who are willing to step up and support your religious beliefs and freedoms. The "nice" retailers need you and the economy needs the jumpstart. American Family Association, keep up the good work and thank you for making all of us aware of the Christ friendly stores that we can support this year.
Remember, there's only 24 shopping days until Christmas, and retailers are promising special deals until the big day. In the meantime, let me wish you a Merry Christmas, I'll remind you that Jesus loves you, and I'll hopefully see you at The Gap.
Ahhhh, the power of the boycott. Two thumbs up to everyone who e-mailed or wrote The Gap and Old Navy, and especially to those who refused to shop there while the boycott was in place. While it's ridiculous that the AFA has to have a "naughty or nice list," the absurdity of our country's obsession with political correctness makes the list necessary and that's just sad. While the argument is old, it's still hard to believe that any retailer would refuse the word Christmas because of it's connection to Jesus. It's even more troubling that in spite of the AFA's making this list every year, some retailers still try to get around the word therefore risking their entire shopping season.
Do atheists, agnostics or any of those belonging to a myriad of other religions really care if the word Christmas is used on or near December 25? If you don't believe the day is a religious holiday that celebrates the birth of Christ, why would you care that others do? Are you really so sensitive that hearing someone say Merry Christmas wrecks your entire day? Remember, you don't believe! You are allowed to say Happy Holidays, Bah Humbug or anything else that you want, and if there truly is no Christ to worship, why are you threatened? Merry and Christmas are just words to you, and the reality is that December 25 is called Christmas whether you like it or not. Look at it this way. The holiday is celebrated with the giving of gifts, which requires shopping, so if you have no religious beliefs or ties to Christianity, just enjoy the materialism that many put ahead of the religious significance of the holiday. Believe me we Christians will get over it, and you can still max out your credit cards at stores who say Merry Christmas. Again, Merry and Christmas ARE JUST WORDS!
With all of the Christmas hoopla, I'm thankful for the AFA's "naughty or nice" list and some of the other anti-Christmas retailers include: Banana Republic, Barnes & Noble, CVS, Radio Shack and Staples. The nice list features great stores like Hobby Lobby, JC Penny, K-Mart & Lowes. (updated November 24 and the entire list can be viewed at www.afa.net)
So Christians get out there and shop. Keep the Christ in Christmas but reward those stores who are willing to step up and support your religious beliefs and freedoms. The "nice" retailers need you and the economy needs the jumpstart. American Family Association, keep up the good work and thank you for making all of us aware of the Christ friendly stores that we can support this year.
Remember, there's only 24 shopping days until Christmas, and retailers are promising special deals until the big day. In the meantime, let me wish you a Merry Christmas, I'll remind you that Jesus loves you, and I'll hopefully see you at The Gap.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Almost Famous
As Americans took pause to give thanks last week, it's President Obama who should have been especially grateful that two aspiring reality stars turned out to be harmless, when they crashed the gates at his state dinner honoring the Prime Minister of India.
Tareq and Michaele Salahi put on their black dinner jacket and red sari and were shown grinning and waving to the cameras as they waltzed past several layers of security. They met the president,and posed for pictures with Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel. They even boasted on Facebook that they had pulled the stunt off, making the U.S. Secret Service look like a bunch of buffoons.
Now, the president is calling for a full review, and the embarrassed director of the Secret Service is apologizing for the breach of security. What's especially funny is that many celebrities and politicos are speaking out saying they remembered the Salahi's and never once questioned if they should be there.
Perhaps now the president will realize that not everyone has a pure motive, and that bad people do exist. While the Salahi's were simply glory hogs, the breach could have been deadly had they have been terrorists. It's pretty scary to think that as we continue to try to upgrade our security across the country, one couple got through seven layers of security at the White House. If the president and his staff were in danger without a clue,what does that say about the safety of the rest of us? If anything, this stunt proves that political correctness has to be put aside when it comes to protecting the commander in chief, or any American citizen around the world.
While some are calling for the Salahis to be arrested, I think they should be hired by the government in spite of the ego-centricity involved in their stunt. They have proven that our security is lax, and they have proven that the president needs to change his attitude about those who want to hurt him or this country. Perhaps the couple could be used as spies and could infiltrate parties across the globe to garner secrets from enemy regimes. It's unlikely to happen though. Sadly, they probably couldn't get through the international security. I imagine that America is the only country in the world where fancy clothes are the only things needed to position yourself within striking distance of the politically correct king.
Tareq and Michaele Salahi put on their black dinner jacket and red sari and were shown grinning and waving to the cameras as they waltzed past several layers of security. They met the president,and posed for pictures with Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel. They even boasted on Facebook that they had pulled the stunt off, making the U.S. Secret Service look like a bunch of buffoons.
Now, the president is calling for a full review, and the embarrassed director of the Secret Service is apologizing for the breach of security. What's especially funny is that many celebrities and politicos are speaking out saying they remembered the Salahi's and never once questioned if they should be there.
Perhaps now the president will realize that not everyone has a pure motive, and that bad people do exist. While the Salahi's were simply glory hogs, the breach could have been deadly had they have been terrorists. It's pretty scary to think that as we continue to try to upgrade our security across the country, one couple got through seven layers of security at the White House. If the president and his staff were in danger without a clue,what does that say about the safety of the rest of us? If anything, this stunt proves that political correctness has to be put aside when it comes to protecting the commander in chief, or any American citizen around the world.
While some are calling for the Salahis to be arrested, I think they should be hired by the government in spite of the ego-centricity involved in their stunt. They have proven that our security is lax, and they have proven that the president needs to change his attitude about those who want to hurt him or this country. Perhaps the couple could be used as spies and could infiltrate parties across the globe to garner secrets from enemy regimes. It's unlikely to happen though. Sadly, they probably couldn't get through the international security. I imagine that America is the only country in the world where fancy clothes are the only things needed to position yourself within striking distance of the politically correct king.
Friday, November 13, 2009
No God in the Heavens of Cincinnati
As someone who works in the Outdoor Advertising industry, I've been watching with interest the debate over a Cincinnati billboard that has an anti-God message on it. WCPO-TV reports that the billboard went up on Tuesday and reads: "Don't Believe In God? You are not alone." The group who bought the billboard, The United Coalition of Reason, said they put up the message to prove that bigotry toward atheism is real. Yesterday, the billboard was taken down and moved to another location because the person who owned the property where it had first been located had been receiving numerous threats of violence. The sign has now been reinstalled at a location that is owned by the advertising company.
What do you think? Is it appropriate for believers to call for violence against the landowner? No. He had nothing to do with the advertising company's sale, he just leased the ground that the billboard structure sits on. While the message is offensive to me and others who believe in God, the threat of violence is never an appropriate way to respond, and in fact is extremely anti-Christian. The Bible says that vengeance belongs to The Lord, and it's not up to Christians or anyone else to engage in vigilante justice.
Sadly, those who have threatened the landowner have now proved the point (at least in this instance) that The Coalition of Reason was trying to make. While I strongly disagree that atheists, agnostics and humanists are somehow being mistreated by society in general,the threats over the billboard have put them in the position of victim in Cincinnati, which will undoubtedly create sympathy for their cause.
The reality is that 70% of the American people claim to believe in God, and since there is still freedom of religion here, the atheists will have to learn to live among peaceful religious people. They don't however, have to accept violence against their belief system any more than we do. At the same time, one need only to turn on the evening news to see that the anti-God momvement is still alive and well, and is in fact championed by a huge part of our culture. The whole concept of political correctness has evolved from the belief system of those who have no faith. While it's ridiculous, people have lost their jobs, their positions and their prestige because they wore a cross on their lapel or wished a co-worker Merry Christmas. When the atheists face that kind of discrimination, perhaps more of us will be sympathetic to their plight.
The argument was made by The Coalition of Reason, that atheists, agnostics, and humanists are our neighbors, but so are Christians. Perhaps that means we will just have to accept each other and get along. While I stand at the front of the line of those who defend the power of billboards, I doubt that many conversions to any faith have occured because of a sign that went up for 30 days. I also doubt that the behavior of anyone will change because of one group's message.
Those who call themselves Christian, yet make threats of violence should be ashamed of themselves and should go back and read the Bible in which they claim to believe. God won't ordain your actions and either will Christians who have their heart in the right place. Likewise, those who feel bad for the atheists need to get a clue. They are not being persecuted. Even our president has defended their rights by claiming that America is no longer a Christian nation, but a melting pot of many different faiths. That would logically include those who don't believe in anything.
For now, the battle has been won for the atheists who call Cincinnati their home. The sign has been put back up. The perceived persecution is behind them, and life is once again good. Their message is out there and they are safe, happy and protected. They can enjoy their peace and know that things are ok. No worries. No misery. No God. They can forget about Him and those who believe, and they won't have to deal with the issue of His reality, at least not in this life.
***The opinions in this blog are strictly mine and do not reflect the opinions of the owners or employees of the advertising company that I work for.
What do you think? Is it appropriate for believers to call for violence against the landowner? No. He had nothing to do with the advertising company's sale, he just leased the ground that the billboard structure sits on. While the message is offensive to me and others who believe in God, the threat of violence is never an appropriate way to respond, and in fact is extremely anti-Christian. The Bible says that vengeance belongs to The Lord, and it's not up to Christians or anyone else to engage in vigilante justice.
Sadly, those who have threatened the landowner have now proved the point (at least in this instance) that The Coalition of Reason was trying to make. While I strongly disagree that atheists, agnostics and humanists are somehow being mistreated by society in general,the threats over the billboard have put them in the position of victim in Cincinnati, which will undoubtedly create sympathy for their cause.
The reality is that 70% of the American people claim to believe in God, and since there is still freedom of religion here, the atheists will have to learn to live among peaceful religious people. They don't however, have to accept violence against their belief system any more than we do. At the same time, one need only to turn on the evening news to see that the anti-God momvement is still alive and well, and is in fact championed by a huge part of our culture. The whole concept of political correctness has evolved from the belief system of those who have no faith. While it's ridiculous, people have lost their jobs, their positions and their prestige because they wore a cross on their lapel or wished a co-worker Merry Christmas. When the atheists face that kind of discrimination, perhaps more of us will be sympathetic to their plight.
The argument was made by The Coalition of Reason, that atheists, agnostics, and humanists are our neighbors, but so are Christians. Perhaps that means we will just have to accept each other and get along. While I stand at the front of the line of those who defend the power of billboards, I doubt that many conversions to any faith have occured because of a sign that went up for 30 days. I also doubt that the behavior of anyone will change because of one group's message.
Those who call themselves Christian, yet make threats of violence should be ashamed of themselves and should go back and read the Bible in which they claim to believe. God won't ordain your actions and either will Christians who have their heart in the right place. Likewise, those who feel bad for the atheists need to get a clue. They are not being persecuted. Even our president has defended their rights by claiming that America is no longer a Christian nation, but a melting pot of many different faiths. That would logically include those who don't believe in anything.
For now, the battle has been won for the atheists who call Cincinnati their home. The sign has been put back up. The perceived persecution is behind them, and life is once again good. Their message is out there and they are safe, happy and protected. They can enjoy their peace and know that things are ok. No worries. No misery. No God. They can forget about Him and those who believe, and they won't have to deal with the issue of His reality, at least not in this life.
***The opinions in this blog are strictly mine and do not reflect the opinions of the owners or employees of the advertising company that I work for.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Looking in the Nooks and Crannies for Jihad
The Associated Press reported yesterday that Major Nidal Malik, the accused shooter in the Fort Hood massacre, had ties to the same mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers. Attackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour were attending Virginia's Dar al Hijarh Islamic Center, when Malik held his mother's funeral there. It's not known if Malik associated with Hazmi and Hanjour, but Fox News reports that the Islamic Center is known for preaching radical messages, and worries about Malik's radical beliefs had been previously brought up at Fort Hood.
US Senator Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is now calling for an investigation into the Fort Hood shootings to determine if they were a terrorist act. Liberman said that if Hasan was showing signs of being an extremist, the U.S. Army should have had zero tolerance and should have discharged him. You think?
The AP is also now reporting that Hasan's classmates in a 2007-08 masters program at a Texas military college had complained about his radical views, saying he had told fellow students that Islamic law was to be followed before the U.S. Constitution, and he reportedly arugued that suicide bombing is a justifiable act.
Why was Major Malik allowed to remain in the Army? Is our military so hard up for recruits that they tolerate these type of threats with no repercussions to those who made them? Thirteen people died and thirty others were injured and it's unbelievable that we have to question whether or not this was a terrorist act. Of course it was! There's an old military adage that says to defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy, and it would certainly seem that the best way to know the enemy is to become one of them. For Major Malik, the United State government was the enemy and he left plenty of warning signs that this shooting was going to happen.
While it's imperative that all religions be respected in America, it's equally imperative that we put absurd concepts like political correctness aside and investigate when people begin to threaten our security. Radical Islam or Jihad, calls for the extermination of Israel and its people and any person or group who supports them or their country. As a result, America belongs in the class of the hated. That fact alone gives us the right to investigate anyone who will be responsible for the security of our country, especially those who so openly attack our government as an element of expressing themselves. We also need to investigate any mosque that is rumoured to be preaching a message of hate.
No, all Muslims are not terrorists, but those familiar with the Koran will tell you that Jihad is a principle that is taught in its pages. We must be cautious without being paranoid about people who consistently threaten what we stand for, as it's not a violation of anyone's rights for a government to protect itself by acting in the best interest of its citizens.
One can only hope that Senator Lieberman will follow through and demand an extensive investigation into the Fort Hood shootings and the role that radical Islam played there. He should also investigate the potential that exists for this type of thing to happen elsewhere. In addition, every U.S. lawmaker should join Lieberman in his call for investiagation, putting their fears about the rights of others to rest.
Fanaticism is not limited to radical Islam, and we've seen the damage that fanatics have done in the past, even those like Timothy McVeigh, who were American born. Anyone has the potential to become a terrorist, especially if they are so vocal in their hatred of the country they claim to serve. It's time for us to wake up and take a closer look at everyone who chooses to reside on a U.S. military base, even before they move in. If we don't, it won't be long before another shooting incident will once again catch us offguard.
US Senator Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is now calling for an investigation into the Fort Hood shootings to determine if they were a terrorist act. Liberman said that if Hasan was showing signs of being an extremist, the U.S. Army should have had zero tolerance and should have discharged him. You think?
The AP is also now reporting that Hasan's classmates in a 2007-08 masters program at a Texas military college had complained about his radical views, saying he had told fellow students that Islamic law was to be followed before the U.S. Constitution, and he reportedly arugued that suicide bombing is a justifiable act.
Why was Major Malik allowed to remain in the Army? Is our military so hard up for recruits that they tolerate these type of threats with no repercussions to those who made them? Thirteen people died and thirty others were injured and it's unbelievable that we have to question whether or not this was a terrorist act. Of course it was! There's an old military adage that says to defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy, and it would certainly seem that the best way to know the enemy is to become one of them. For Major Malik, the United State government was the enemy and he left plenty of warning signs that this shooting was going to happen.
While it's imperative that all religions be respected in America, it's equally imperative that we put absurd concepts like political correctness aside and investigate when people begin to threaten our security. Radical Islam or Jihad, calls for the extermination of Israel and its people and any person or group who supports them or their country. As a result, America belongs in the class of the hated. That fact alone gives us the right to investigate anyone who will be responsible for the security of our country, especially those who so openly attack our government as an element of expressing themselves. We also need to investigate any mosque that is rumoured to be preaching a message of hate.
No, all Muslims are not terrorists, but those familiar with the Koran will tell you that Jihad is a principle that is taught in its pages. We must be cautious without being paranoid about people who consistently threaten what we stand for, as it's not a violation of anyone's rights for a government to protect itself by acting in the best interest of its citizens.
One can only hope that Senator Lieberman will follow through and demand an extensive investigation into the Fort Hood shootings and the role that radical Islam played there. He should also investigate the potential that exists for this type of thing to happen elsewhere. In addition, every U.S. lawmaker should join Lieberman in his call for investiagation, putting their fears about the rights of others to rest.
Fanaticism is not limited to radical Islam, and we've seen the damage that fanatics have done in the past, even those like Timothy McVeigh, who were American born. Anyone has the potential to become a terrorist, especially if they are so vocal in their hatred of the country they claim to serve. It's time for us to wake up and take a closer look at everyone who chooses to reside on a U.S. military base, even before they move in. If we don't, it won't be long before another shooting incident will once again catch us offguard.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Looking to the Past to Move Forward to the Future
What a great day for New York! The Yankees have won the World Series for the first time since 2000, and The USS New York is now docked at Pier 88 awaiting her commissioning on Saturday.
The ship's bow is forged from the steel that was pulled from the wreckage of the World Trade Center, signifying the determination of the American people to rally from the greatest tragedy in our history. To further illustrate the ship's connection to the American spirit, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, appearing on Fox News This Morning, reminded viewers that it was built in his home state with 1200 workers staying behind after the area was evacuated in preparation for Hurricane Katrina. When the hurricane hit the shipyard in August 2005, the workers kept building, so the ship would be ready for this day. None of our enemies should doubt the fact that in spite of our problems, Americans will still shine in the face of adversity.
Saturday's formal commissioning of The USS New York will honor the memory of those who died on Sept. 11, and it will provide a tribute to those who survived the attacks. One of the most touching moments of the past few days occured when the ship's pilot brought it into harbor in remembrance of his brother who lost his life when the twin towers came down. The words of the ship's motto: "Strength forged through sacrifice. Never forget," further embody the spirit of the American soldier, firefighter, police officer, worker and family who lost so much that day, but remain steadfast in their hope for a brighter American future.
How sad that on this day of celebration and remembrance, President Obama continues to delay his decision about sending more troops into Afghanistan. How sad that as we celebrate our strength,he's sending the message to the world that America is indecisive, and defeatist. How sad that our Commander in Chief has so little respect for the country he serves and the military he leads. Our troops deserve better. The American people deserve more.
Hopefully today will be a wake up call for the president. Maybe, as he makes the inevitable congratulatory call to the Yankees for their World Series win, he'll make a supportive statement by sending in the troops that his military leaders have requested. Thousands of men and women stand ready to defend this country to the death, and it's just wrong that they are being left in limbo. This decision has been delayed long enough. This decision needs to be made NOW.
It's only appropriate that as New York and the rest of the country honor the American Spirit that is being displayed on the decks of The USS New York, the president should move forward to do the same. Those who came before him on the day the Trade Center was hit, didn't have the luxury to consider how their decisions would affect their political future. They had to react. They had to make split second decisions that would affect the safety and lives of every person in this country. They had to sacrifice. They had to show leadership.
Perhaps the president should look to those people as he continues to fumble around, and perhaps then he will realize that leadership means making the hard decisions even if some disagree. One can only hope that when and if he finally see the light, the president will also remember that it's America and not the rest of the world that he works for, and we expect him to do the right thing by moving forward.
The ship's bow is forged from the steel that was pulled from the wreckage of the World Trade Center, signifying the determination of the American people to rally from the greatest tragedy in our history. To further illustrate the ship's connection to the American spirit, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, appearing on Fox News This Morning, reminded viewers that it was built in his home state with 1200 workers staying behind after the area was evacuated in preparation for Hurricane Katrina. When the hurricane hit the shipyard in August 2005, the workers kept building, so the ship would be ready for this day. None of our enemies should doubt the fact that in spite of our problems, Americans will still shine in the face of adversity.
Saturday's formal commissioning of The USS New York will honor the memory of those who died on Sept. 11, and it will provide a tribute to those who survived the attacks. One of the most touching moments of the past few days occured when the ship's pilot brought it into harbor in remembrance of his brother who lost his life when the twin towers came down. The words of the ship's motto: "Strength forged through sacrifice. Never forget," further embody the spirit of the American soldier, firefighter, police officer, worker and family who lost so much that day, but remain steadfast in their hope for a brighter American future.
How sad that on this day of celebration and remembrance, President Obama continues to delay his decision about sending more troops into Afghanistan. How sad that as we celebrate our strength,he's sending the message to the world that America is indecisive, and defeatist. How sad that our Commander in Chief has so little respect for the country he serves and the military he leads. Our troops deserve better. The American people deserve more.
Hopefully today will be a wake up call for the president. Maybe, as he makes the inevitable congratulatory call to the Yankees for their World Series win, he'll make a supportive statement by sending in the troops that his military leaders have requested. Thousands of men and women stand ready to defend this country to the death, and it's just wrong that they are being left in limbo. This decision has been delayed long enough. This decision needs to be made NOW.
It's only appropriate that as New York and the rest of the country honor the American Spirit that is being displayed on the decks of The USS New York, the president should move forward to do the same. Those who came before him on the day the Trade Center was hit, didn't have the luxury to consider how their decisions would affect their political future. They had to react. They had to make split second decisions that would affect the safety and lives of every person in this country. They had to sacrifice. They had to show leadership.
Perhaps the president should look to those people as he continues to fumble around, and perhaps then he will realize that leadership means making the hard decisions even if some disagree. One can only hope that when and if he finally see the light, the president will also remember that it's America and not the rest of the world that he works for, and we expect him to do the right thing by moving forward.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
To Vote or Not To Vote - You Make the Call
THE TOP TEN REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE TODAY:
10. You campaigned for Bill Clinton because he was a master saxophone player.
9. You campaigned for Bill Clinton in 2008. You knew he wasn't running then, but you just couldn't let go.
8. You only vote for good looking candidates which is why you've started the "Clooney in 2012" campaign.
7. You still can't name the president, vice president or even the mayor of your hometown, and frankly you don't care to know who they are.
6. You're a conspiracy theorist, and believe that if you cast a ballot the government will secretly monitor your vote, and will inject your children with mind controlling drugs if you don't vote "their" way.
5. You look to Hollywood for help in making all of your political decisions, and you get your news from "The View."
4. You think Sean Penn really did have a good purpose for touring Iraq, and you believe him when he says America is bad.
3. You think your vote doesn't matter so you stay home and complain about the state of the world to all who will listen. (and you believe you dodged a bullet in regards to those mind controlling drugs).
2. You don't think the economy is "that" bad, after all you can still live in your bomb shelter now that the bank has foreclosed on your home.
And the number one reason to "Not Vote" today:
You said to your spouse this morning: "What do you mean today's election day?"
For Everybody Else: See you at the polls!
10. You campaigned for Bill Clinton because he was a master saxophone player.
9. You campaigned for Bill Clinton in 2008. You knew he wasn't running then, but you just couldn't let go.
8. You only vote for good looking candidates which is why you've started the "Clooney in 2012" campaign.
7. You still can't name the president, vice president or even the mayor of your hometown, and frankly you don't care to know who they are.
6. You're a conspiracy theorist, and believe that if you cast a ballot the government will secretly monitor your vote, and will inject your children with mind controlling drugs if you don't vote "their" way.
5. You look to Hollywood for help in making all of your political decisions, and you get your news from "The View."
4. You think Sean Penn really did have a good purpose for touring Iraq, and you believe him when he says America is bad.
3. You think your vote doesn't matter so you stay home and complain about the state of the world to all who will listen. (and you believe you dodged a bullet in regards to those mind controlling drugs).
2. You don't think the economy is "that" bad, after all you can still live in your bomb shelter now that the bank has foreclosed on your home.
And the number one reason to "Not Vote" today:
You said to your spouse this morning: "What do you mean today's election day?"
For Everybody Else: See you at the polls!
Monday, November 2, 2009
Flying the "Not So Friendly" Skies
Southwest Airlines has apologized to Pamela Root for kicking her and toddler son Adam off a plane bound from Amarillo, Texas to San Jose, California last week. The problem began when the three year old started screaming "Go Plane Go!" and "I Want Daddy," while waiting for take off. When the child didn't calm down, the pilot taxied back up the runway, and the mother and child were removed from the flight. The 38-year old woman was livid over the incident saying she was stuck in Texas while her luggage went on to California where her angry husband was waiting. She had to buy a portable crib and diapers and was forced to spend another night at her parents house where she had been visiting. Root said she was confident that had the plane taken off, her son would have quieted down, and she demanded that Southwest compensate her for her ticket and things she had to buy, once back on Texas soil. In addition to apologizing, Southwest has refunded Root's ticket money and has given her a $300 voucher for another trip.
What do you think? Too much, or "Way To Go" Southwest? Kicking a woman and child off of an airplane is harsh, but one wonders why the mother didn't do more to calm the boy down once the situation began to escalate. The Oakland Tribune reports that Root said she planned to feed Adam once the plane took off, and while she knew that would make him cranky, she thought it would allow him to stay asleep longer, making things better for everyone in the long run. Perhaps when the child began his tantrum, Root should have scrapped that idea and moved quickly on to plan B.
Most people understand that babies and small children may not be the best travelers, and most are willing to tolerate a certain amount of crying and acting up on the part of said child. If a toddler goes into a screaming tantrum however, it's the responsibility of the parent to get the situation quickly under control. People are trying to work or rest on airplanes and no one wants to listen to an out of control kid for a couple of hours. The screaming child can also become a distraction for the flight crew as they try to provide safety instructions and service to other passengers.
As someone who loves kids, I think Southwest did go too far in kicking the mother and toddler off the plane. But, many parents, especially younger ones,seem to expect everyone else to suffer because they have a problem disciplining their child. I like many, have been inconvenienced and annoyed as I've sat on airplanes, in plays, meetings, church groups, etc. while a parent shrugs off a misbehaving toddler's disruption of the event as nothing more than a minor problem. Often, there is no attempt to correct the situation, and everyone has to sit idly by while it plays itself out. It often makes me think of my own childhood and the swat on the rear end I would have gotten had I have made such a spectacle of myself. Many parents seem to forget that they are responsible for getting their child under control, and if they can't do that, then perhaps they should not put the child into a situation where they will become that upset.
While Southwest did the right thing in apologizing to Ms. Root, she needs to remember that not everyone finds little Adam to be as precious as she does. Hopefully, she'll realize that tolerating a cranky baby for a few minutes is much different than expecting people to keep quiet while the baby has a melt down in Aisle 2. Perhaps in the future, she should consider driving back and forth to Texas, at least until Adam gets older and is easier to tolerate. While I'm sure everyone on the Southwest flight with the Roots would agree, I don't imagine the family will be taking my suggestion any time soon. If little Adam got so out of control that he had to be removed from the airplane, can you imagine what he'd be like trapped for several hours in the car? Maybe the solution for Adam is a nanny, so next time he can avoid the trip altogether and just stay home.
What do you think? Too much, or "Way To Go" Southwest? Kicking a woman and child off of an airplane is harsh, but one wonders why the mother didn't do more to calm the boy down once the situation began to escalate. The Oakland Tribune reports that Root said she planned to feed Adam once the plane took off, and while she knew that would make him cranky, she thought it would allow him to stay asleep longer, making things better for everyone in the long run. Perhaps when the child began his tantrum, Root should have scrapped that idea and moved quickly on to plan B.
Most people understand that babies and small children may not be the best travelers, and most are willing to tolerate a certain amount of crying and acting up on the part of said child. If a toddler goes into a screaming tantrum however, it's the responsibility of the parent to get the situation quickly under control. People are trying to work or rest on airplanes and no one wants to listen to an out of control kid for a couple of hours. The screaming child can also become a distraction for the flight crew as they try to provide safety instructions and service to other passengers.
As someone who loves kids, I think Southwest did go too far in kicking the mother and toddler off the plane. But, many parents, especially younger ones,seem to expect everyone else to suffer because they have a problem disciplining their child. I like many, have been inconvenienced and annoyed as I've sat on airplanes, in plays, meetings, church groups, etc. while a parent shrugs off a misbehaving toddler's disruption of the event as nothing more than a minor problem. Often, there is no attempt to correct the situation, and everyone has to sit idly by while it plays itself out. It often makes me think of my own childhood and the swat on the rear end I would have gotten had I have made such a spectacle of myself. Many parents seem to forget that they are responsible for getting their child under control, and if they can't do that, then perhaps they should not put the child into a situation where they will become that upset.
While Southwest did the right thing in apologizing to Ms. Root, she needs to remember that not everyone finds little Adam to be as precious as she does. Hopefully, she'll realize that tolerating a cranky baby for a few minutes is much different than expecting people to keep quiet while the baby has a melt down in Aisle 2. Perhaps in the future, she should consider driving back and forth to Texas, at least until Adam gets older and is easier to tolerate. While I'm sure everyone on the Southwest flight with the Roots would agree, I don't imagine the family will be taking my suggestion any time soon. If little Adam got so out of control that he had to be removed from the airplane, can you imagine what he'd be like trapped for several hours in the car? Maybe the solution for Adam is a nanny, so next time he can avoid the trip altogether and just stay home.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Sometimes, a Shirt is just a Shirt
The PC police have finally gone over the edge in their continued attack on Christianity.
This time, the absurdity comes from the anti-God crowd at Penn State University, where there's been an uproar over a t-shirt that was designed to be worn on "white out" day at the football stadium.
The tradition of "white out" day began when Penn State fans were asked to wear a white t-shirt as a show of support each time the football team had a home game against a ranked opponent. Penn State has the biggest college football stadium in the country with an average of 110-thousand fans showing up for each game. With everyone in white it becomes the ultimate intimidation for the opposing team.
"White Out" day has become so popular that students have started submitting t-shirt designs each year to be voted on by students and fans. The winning design is then manufactured and sold by the university.
It's this year's winner that has caused the problem at Penn State. The t-shirt was designed after the school helmet and is white with a blue stripe down the center. The words "Penn State" were added across the chest and then the holy war was on. It seems some were offended because they thought the design looked like a cross and a few of the "anti-gods" went beserk. Six student complaints as well as one from the Philadelphia Anti-Defamation League have now forced the school to stop selling the t-shirts, because a few crazies thought there was a subliminal religious message on them.
The whole mess doesn't make sense,but the fact that yet another attack on Christianity is making news is downright biblical. Yesterday, the debate about the very existence of God made headlines and today there's an uproar from a jaded few who apparently see Jesus everywhere and can't handle it. The Bible says that in the last days, attacks on the faith will become more numerous.We've seen that, but are we really prepared for this kind of lunacy? Christians have often been accused of seeing evil everywhere, but it now seems that those with nothing better to do, see crosses.
Get Real! It's a t-shirt! It has nothing to do with God, and it's mind boggling that some people are so afraid of Christianity that they'll make fools of themselves and see things that aren't there. If you don't believe, why are you afraid? Is it really logical to think that Christians have no other way to spread the message except for putting subliminal images on college football shirts? Perhaps the bigger question is that if we don't, why did we just choose one college? Why wouldn't we have covert t-shirt designers in all schools, so we can flood the world with the cross? I think some of these people have watched too many movies about conspiracies.
The Christian music and publishing industries make billions of dollars each year from the sale of religious books and tapes. There are radio and television networks devoted to nothing more than spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. Bloggers (like The Christian Commentator) are posting all over the internet where millions can read their stories about defending the faith. Even conservative channels like Fox News, have begun to fight the good fight of religious freedom.
If you're one of the six who complained at Penn State, you really do need help. In fact, I'm sure hundreds of Christians will be willing to pray that you get it and that you'll soon rejoin those of us who live in the realm of reality. Believe me, we aren't out to get you, and sometimes a football shirt is just a football shirt. As believers, we really don't see the physical God in the trees or sky or even on football fans, even though we stand firm in our belief that He gave man the knowledge to create them. You see, God really doesn't need to impose Himself on the chests of beer drinking college kids and anyone can choose to reject the work His Son did on the cross. So if you're upset about this whole "white out" business you can relax. God won't be there on game day if you don't want him to be, but I sure hope no one gets caught praying, for the winning Penn State touchdown.
This time, the absurdity comes from the anti-God crowd at Penn State University, where there's been an uproar over a t-shirt that was designed to be worn on "white out" day at the football stadium.
The tradition of "white out" day began when Penn State fans were asked to wear a white t-shirt as a show of support each time the football team had a home game against a ranked opponent. Penn State has the biggest college football stadium in the country with an average of 110-thousand fans showing up for each game. With everyone in white it becomes the ultimate intimidation for the opposing team.
"White Out" day has become so popular that students have started submitting t-shirt designs each year to be voted on by students and fans. The winning design is then manufactured and sold by the university.
It's this year's winner that has caused the problem at Penn State. The t-shirt was designed after the school helmet and is white with a blue stripe down the center. The words "Penn State" were added across the chest and then the holy war was on. It seems some were offended because they thought the design looked like a cross and a few of the "anti-gods" went beserk. Six student complaints as well as one from the Philadelphia Anti-Defamation League have now forced the school to stop selling the t-shirts, because a few crazies thought there was a subliminal religious message on them.
The whole mess doesn't make sense,but the fact that yet another attack on Christianity is making news is downright biblical. Yesterday, the debate about the very existence of God made headlines and today there's an uproar from a jaded few who apparently see Jesus everywhere and can't handle it. The Bible says that in the last days, attacks on the faith will become more numerous.We've seen that, but are we really prepared for this kind of lunacy? Christians have often been accused of seeing evil everywhere, but it now seems that those with nothing better to do, see crosses.
Get Real! It's a t-shirt! It has nothing to do with God, and it's mind boggling that some people are so afraid of Christianity that they'll make fools of themselves and see things that aren't there. If you don't believe, why are you afraid? Is it really logical to think that Christians have no other way to spread the message except for putting subliminal images on college football shirts? Perhaps the bigger question is that if we don't, why did we just choose one college? Why wouldn't we have covert t-shirt designers in all schools, so we can flood the world with the cross? I think some of these people have watched too many movies about conspiracies.
The Christian music and publishing industries make billions of dollars each year from the sale of religious books and tapes. There are radio and television networks devoted to nothing more than spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. Bloggers (like The Christian Commentator) are posting all over the internet where millions can read their stories about defending the faith. Even conservative channels like Fox News, have begun to fight the good fight of religious freedom.
If you're one of the six who complained at Penn State, you really do need help. In fact, I'm sure hundreds of Christians will be willing to pray that you get it and that you'll soon rejoin those of us who live in the realm of reality. Believe me, we aren't out to get you, and sometimes a football shirt is just a football shirt. As believers, we really don't see the physical God in the trees or sky or even on football fans, even though we stand firm in our belief that He gave man the knowledge to create them. You see, God really doesn't need to impose Himself on the chests of beer drinking college kids and anyone can choose to reject the work His Son did on the cross. So if you're upset about this whole "white out" business you can relax. God won't be there on game day if you don't want him to be, but I sure hope no one gets caught praying, for the winning Penn State touchdown.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Are you there, God?
Christianity and whether it's beneficial to society is the subject of debate in the new documentary Collision. Written by Atheist, Christopher Hitchen, who believes God, Jesus and the stories of the Bible are all myth, Collision also presents the other side of the argument featuring Evangelical Pastor Douglas Wilson. Strangely, the two men are friends in real life, showing respect for each other's beliefs even though they go head to head with a vengeance in the movie.
Writing on the Huffington Post, Hitchens said that religion will always retain prestige because of its being the species first attempt to make sense of our own nature. The problem for him lies in the Christian viewpoint that the question can be answered on the basis of revelation and faith.
Wilson makes the counter point that the atheistic worldview is reductionistic, saying that atheists believe everything that happens is a chance driven jumble in the concourse of atoms we call time. Wilson says that from the atheist's point of view, the 1927 Yankees, Princess Di, the music of John Cage, and our current Congress have all occured by chance in an aimless fashion.
So, as a Christian how do you defend the faith? The Bible calls upon us to stand ready to give answers, but are we really willing or capable of doing so? Hitchens documentary says that 15% of Americans have no affiliation to any religion. When combined with those who don't accept Christ, millions of people then fall into our Christian definition of being lost.
How can we defend the concept of faith to a group of people who claim that we're ignorant for having it? How can we prove that the Bible is absolute truth and that Jesus actually rose from the dead? We can't. Faith is just that, and comes from the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit in the believer. We can only show faith through action by living according to the principles that Christ and his Apostles taught. We must love our neighbor, we must share God's word (without being preachy around those who refuse to hear) and we must adhere to Jesus' words in the Book of John thatsay that "He is the way, the truth and the life." We must stand ready to defend our creator even when it's not the popular thing to do.
It's mystifying that Christians are called stupid for having faith in the idea that something bigger than we are created the universe that surrounds us. I find it equally absurd when atheists make the argument that the world's existence is unexplainable and spontaneous. Intelligence is based in logic and it is only logical that nature and the human species had to be created by a divine, master designer who knew what perfection was before it existed. Chance can never be perfect, yet the intricacies of the human brain, the perfect designs of nature's seasons and the life source that is found in the world's oceansare just a few of the things that prove that faith in God is where the intelligent person puts his belief. I agree with those who say science is where the answers often lie, but even science had to have a beginning. God is the only one who could inspire mere mortals to discover the answers to many of the world's problems through scientific method. Science is not eternal. God is and hope is the "collision" point where faith and science meet.
If genuine faith was about nothing more than clinging to anything that made me feel better in the moment, then I too would be an atheist. If belief in God came only in the good times when life's ugliness was far away, then I too, would not see Christianity as anything to be concerned with. If I believed that man could walk on the moon but refused to believe that a virgin birth is impossible, then I too would call the people of faith stupid. If I believed that Christ's resurrection from the dead never happened, then I too, would be shouting my disbelief to the masses.
I do belive however, that faith is more complex than any issue that confronts mankind. It only grows through the uncertainties of the life we've been given. I believe that God is at His closest when times are hard and we can't seem to find anyway or anyone to help us out. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that my life can only be eternal if I accept through faith that He rose from the dead. I believe that I'm at my most intelligent when I accept the fact that next to God, I know nothing at all. You see, I believe that God is very real and that He can do everything He said He can and more. I believe that He loves me and all of his children on earth, even those who refuse to accept the reality that is Him. Finally, I believe that if it makes me stupid and out of touch to have faith in God, then I am blessed, and I look forward to the day when I can personally thank Him for my ignorance.
Writing on the Huffington Post, Hitchens said that religion will always retain prestige because of its being the species first attempt to make sense of our own nature. The problem for him lies in the Christian viewpoint that the question can be answered on the basis of revelation and faith.
Wilson makes the counter point that the atheistic worldview is reductionistic, saying that atheists believe everything that happens is a chance driven jumble in the concourse of atoms we call time. Wilson says that from the atheist's point of view, the 1927 Yankees, Princess Di, the music of John Cage, and our current Congress have all occured by chance in an aimless fashion.
So, as a Christian how do you defend the faith? The Bible calls upon us to stand ready to give answers, but are we really willing or capable of doing so? Hitchens documentary says that 15% of Americans have no affiliation to any religion. When combined with those who don't accept Christ, millions of people then fall into our Christian definition of being lost.
How can we defend the concept of faith to a group of people who claim that we're ignorant for having it? How can we prove that the Bible is absolute truth and that Jesus actually rose from the dead? We can't. Faith is just that, and comes from the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit in the believer. We can only show faith through action by living according to the principles that Christ and his Apostles taught. We must love our neighbor, we must share God's word (without being preachy around those who refuse to hear) and we must adhere to Jesus' words in the Book of John thatsay that "He is the way, the truth and the life." We must stand ready to defend our creator even when it's not the popular thing to do.
It's mystifying that Christians are called stupid for having faith in the idea that something bigger than we are created the universe that surrounds us. I find it equally absurd when atheists make the argument that the world's existence is unexplainable and spontaneous. Intelligence is based in logic and it is only logical that nature and the human species had to be created by a divine, master designer who knew what perfection was before it existed. Chance can never be perfect, yet the intricacies of the human brain, the perfect designs of nature's seasons and the life source that is found in the world's oceansare just a few of the things that prove that faith in God is where the intelligent person puts his belief. I agree with those who say science is where the answers often lie, but even science had to have a beginning. God is the only one who could inspire mere mortals to discover the answers to many of the world's problems through scientific method. Science is not eternal. God is and hope is the "collision" point where faith and science meet.
If genuine faith was about nothing more than clinging to anything that made me feel better in the moment, then I too would be an atheist. If belief in God came only in the good times when life's ugliness was far away, then I too, would not see Christianity as anything to be concerned with. If I believed that man could walk on the moon but refused to believe that a virgin birth is impossible, then I too would call the people of faith stupid. If I believed that Christ's resurrection from the dead never happened, then I too, would be shouting my disbelief to the masses.
I do belive however, that faith is more complex than any issue that confronts mankind. It only grows through the uncertainties of the life we've been given. I believe that God is at His closest when times are hard and we can't seem to find anyway or anyone to help us out. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that my life can only be eternal if I accept through faith that He rose from the dead. I believe that I'm at my most intelligent when I accept the fact that next to God, I know nothing at all. You see, I believe that God is very real and that He can do everything He said He can and more. I believe that He loves me and all of his children on earth, even those who refuse to accept the reality that is Him. Finally, I believe that if it makes me stupid and out of touch to have faith in God, then I am blessed, and I look forward to the day when I can personally thank Him for my ignorance.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Oprah versus Sarah
Oprah has decided to have Sarah Palin on her show, in spite of her refusal to do so during last year's election race. Fox News reports, that the former Alaskan governor will appear on the talkshow November 16, to promote her new book,"Going Rogue: An American Life."
The decision is one of the "hot topics" of the day, with many "news junkies" saying Palin should refuse to do the show since she was snubbed last year. Meanwhile, Oprah continues to be criticized by political conservatives for being so public about her support of President Obama, and her ignoring Palin when she was on the campaign trail. ( It should be noted that the president appeared on the show twice, but it was several years before his white house bid.)
To be honest, I'm surprised anyone cares about this story, and I was more suprised this morning, when so many had a comment. It's obvious to most, that Oprah's support gave a huge "fist bump" to the president, but I'm not convinced that she's the reason he won. (Frankly, I don't think he would have won, had the economy not crashed last October, as John McCain called for more of the same, in regards to saving the housing industry.)
As a former radio newsdirector and talk show host, my personal policy was to take an "all or nothing" approach in regards to having political guests on my program, especially during election cycles. I usually invited "all" candidates because I think the media functions to inform the public about the people and issues who shape their world. On that point, I can understand why the conservatives are saying that it's "too little to late," in regards to Palin's appearance, because Oprah was so publically supportive of the Obama campaign.
On the other hand, Palin has a book to sell, and may very well be back in the political arena in the future, so she is sure to offer a ratings boost which is a big plus for the advertisers who sponsor the show. Basically, the election is over and Palin has a core group of supporters who would love to see her on daytime television so Oprah booking her makes sense.
Perhaps the bigger issue lies in why so many of us are flooding the network blog sites and airwaves with comments about one guest on one talk show, and whether or not we think she should be there. It's ultimately Oprah's show and she can have any guest she wants to have. Meanwhile,there is still a war going on, a healthcare crisis, and VP Joe Biden (God forbid!) meeting with Polish leaders about our removing our missle defense system from that country. These are the issues that shape our lives, not Sarah Palin being on Oprah. Even so, we get all jazzed about a former media darling who is paving the way for another run for the white house. I guess we really would prefer to live in the "glow" of celebrity, instead of dealing with the harsh realities of our troubled world.
So, mark your calendars for Nov. 16, plan to call out sick from work that day, and enjoy Palin's moment in the spotlight, that is Oprah. The war will still be going on after the fact, and it doesn't appear our domestic problems will disappear anytime soon. Remember, if anyone challenges you by asking if you really care enough to be glued to your TV that day, you can always get in the spirit, and join the millions of other Americans who will likely be saying, "You Betcha."
The decision is one of the "hot topics" of the day, with many "news junkies" saying Palin should refuse to do the show since she was snubbed last year. Meanwhile, Oprah continues to be criticized by political conservatives for being so public about her support of President Obama, and her ignoring Palin when she was on the campaign trail. ( It should be noted that the president appeared on the show twice, but it was several years before his white house bid.)
To be honest, I'm surprised anyone cares about this story, and I was more suprised this morning, when so many had a comment. It's obvious to most, that Oprah's support gave a huge "fist bump" to the president, but I'm not convinced that she's the reason he won. (Frankly, I don't think he would have won, had the economy not crashed last October, as John McCain called for more of the same, in regards to saving the housing industry.)
As a former radio newsdirector and talk show host, my personal policy was to take an "all or nothing" approach in regards to having political guests on my program, especially during election cycles. I usually invited "all" candidates because I think the media functions to inform the public about the people and issues who shape their world. On that point, I can understand why the conservatives are saying that it's "too little to late," in regards to Palin's appearance, because Oprah was so publically supportive of the Obama campaign.
On the other hand, Palin has a book to sell, and may very well be back in the political arena in the future, so she is sure to offer a ratings boost which is a big plus for the advertisers who sponsor the show. Basically, the election is over and Palin has a core group of supporters who would love to see her on daytime television so Oprah booking her makes sense.
Perhaps the bigger issue lies in why so many of us are flooding the network blog sites and airwaves with comments about one guest on one talk show, and whether or not we think she should be there. It's ultimately Oprah's show and she can have any guest she wants to have. Meanwhile,there is still a war going on, a healthcare crisis, and VP Joe Biden (God forbid!) meeting with Polish leaders about our removing our missle defense system from that country. These are the issues that shape our lives, not Sarah Palin being on Oprah. Even so, we get all jazzed about a former media darling who is paving the way for another run for the white house. I guess we really would prefer to live in the "glow" of celebrity, instead of dealing with the harsh realities of our troubled world.
So, mark your calendars for Nov. 16, plan to call out sick from work that day, and enjoy Palin's moment in the spotlight, that is Oprah. The war will still be going on after the fact, and it doesn't appear our domestic problems will disappear anytime soon. Remember, if anyone challenges you by asking if you really care enough to be glued to your TV that day, you can always get in the spirit, and join the millions of other Americans who will likely be saying, "You Betcha."
Monday, October 19, 2009
Up, Up, and Away to Jail!
IT'S A HOAX! Fort Collins,Colorado Sheriff,Jim Alderden made the announcement yesterday, in regards to the balloon incident that had the world watching three days before. CNN.com reports that as a tearful Colorado family watched their homemade balloon fly through the air on Thursday, they knew that their son was hiding in the attic in spite of their telling reporters that they believed the six year old boy was inside the balloon.
Authorities became suspicious of the incident on Thursday night, when Richard and Mayumi Heene appeared on Larry King Live, which was hosted by fill in anchor, Wolf Blitzer. During the interview, the Heenes asked their son Falcon why he didn't come when they called his name. (Falcon was the boy that was supposedly missing)
"You guys said we did this for the show," the boy responded.
WHAT? Ahhhhhh....Out of the mouths of babes!
As a result, charges are pending against the Heenes, who apparently thought the incident would be a great publicity stunt as they tried to market themselves to be on a reality show in the future. Police are also questioning 25-year old Robert Thomas who had worked with Richard Heene as a researcher last spring. Thomas had sold the story of his experience to the popular gossip site Gawker.com., and police believe he may have acted as a co-conspirator in this incident.
As a result of their stunt, Heene and his wife are likely to be charged with three felonies including: Conspiracy to Commit a Crime, Illegal Influence of a Public Servant, and Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor. If found guilty they will both be headed to jail.
In one final twist to this already bizarre story, CNN now reports, that a nearby University Physics Professor said the balloon would never have taken off in the first place as the boy was too heavy for it to get off the ground. This now gives further credence to the conspiracy theory behind the whole incident.
So what should happen to the Heenes? I hope their fifteen minutes of fame was worth the price they'll likely have to pay for it. Have we as a society gotten so hungry for fame that we're willing to risk our families and our own futures just so we can get on camera? Thankfully most of us aren't as far gone as the Heenes, but they certainly aren't alone in their quest for national attention.
Narcissism has reached an all time high (or low) in America, with many being willing to do anything to get themselves on camera. It's a disease that is permeating our culture and part of the blame goes to the producers of many of the disgusting reality shows that fill our airwaves. It's sad and bizarre that people will allow themselves to do all kinds of immoral and gross deeds, so they can have a shot at winning some money and signing their own television deal.
While the producers of the endless number of shows must bear part of the reponsibility, those who watch them are also at fault. If there were no ratings, there would be no shows that sink to the lowest common denominator. (that lowest common denominator also includes shows like Jerry Springer and Maury Povich who exploit the disfunction of people for their own publicity and ratings gain) This whole "car wreck" mentality of watching, as people are being destroyed in front of the camera, is enough to make one physically ill.
I hope the Heenes are punished severely for their crime, as many lives were put at risk including the lives of those who were trying to help save a child. I wonder if anyone didn't get to the hospital last Thursday because the crews were out trying to save a boy who didn't need saving. I wonder how many dollars were lost as helicopters and life squads fled to the scene. I also wonder if the Heenes have any idea about what they've done to themselves and their family, as they tried to get a TV contract with no thought about the consequences. Probably not. Their lawyers are already crying that they're getting a raw deal, and we're all guilty of watching as their saga continues to unfold, which is what they wanted in the first place.
When it's all said and done, the Heenes will get what they set out to get,and their names will be remembered by those of us who prayed for their child. However, I wonder if twenty years from now they'll be proud of their accomplishment as they sit childless,in jail?
My guess is that as they reflect on what could have been, little Falcon will be seeking his own fame at that point, perhaps writing a tell-all book about his horrible experience in foster care, and the suffering he had to endure because of his parents selfishness. After all, he was exposed to the camera early in life, and it may not be easy for him to give up his place in the spotlight.
One can only imagine the life that this child and his siblings will have after all of this, but one thing is sure to occur. As they grow up without their parents, be it with relatives or in foster care, I think it will be very likely that one day they'll be too busy with their own pursuits to stop by the prison on visiting day.
Authorities became suspicious of the incident on Thursday night, when Richard and Mayumi Heene appeared on Larry King Live, which was hosted by fill in anchor, Wolf Blitzer. During the interview, the Heenes asked their son Falcon why he didn't come when they called his name. (Falcon was the boy that was supposedly missing)
"You guys said we did this for the show," the boy responded.
WHAT? Ahhhhhh....Out of the mouths of babes!
As a result, charges are pending against the Heenes, who apparently thought the incident would be a great publicity stunt as they tried to market themselves to be on a reality show in the future. Police are also questioning 25-year old Robert Thomas who had worked with Richard Heene as a researcher last spring. Thomas had sold the story of his experience to the popular gossip site Gawker.com., and police believe he may have acted as a co-conspirator in this incident.
As a result of their stunt, Heene and his wife are likely to be charged with three felonies including: Conspiracy to Commit a Crime, Illegal Influence of a Public Servant, and Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor. If found guilty they will both be headed to jail.
In one final twist to this already bizarre story, CNN now reports, that a nearby University Physics Professor said the balloon would never have taken off in the first place as the boy was too heavy for it to get off the ground. This now gives further credence to the conspiracy theory behind the whole incident.
So what should happen to the Heenes? I hope their fifteen minutes of fame was worth the price they'll likely have to pay for it. Have we as a society gotten so hungry for fame that we're willing to risk our families and our own futures just so we can get on camera? Thankfully most of us aren't as far gone as the Heenes, but they certainly aren't alone in their quest for national attention.
Narcissism has reached an all time high (or low) in America, with many being willing to do anything to get themselves on camera. It's a disease that is permeating our culture and part of the blame goes to the producers of many of the disgusting reality shows that fill our airwaves. It's sad and bizarre that people will allow themselves to do all kinds of immoral and gross deeds, so they can have a shot at winning some money and signing their own television deal.
While the producers of the endless number of shows must bear part of the reponsibility, those who watch them are also at fault. If there were no ratings, there would be no shows that sink to the lowest common denominator. (that lowest common denominator also includes shows like Jerry Springer and Maury Povich who exploit the disfunction of people for their own publicity and ratings gain) This whole "car wreck" mentality of watching, as people are being destroyed in front of the camera, is enough to make one physically ill.
I hope the Heenes are punished severely for their crime, as many lives were put at risk including the lives of those who were trying to help save a child. I wonder if anyone didn't get to the hospital last Thursday because the crews were out trying to save a boy who didn't need saving. I wonder how many dollars were lost as helicopters and life squads fled to the scene. I also wonder if the Heenes have any idea about what they've done to themselves and their family, as they tried to get a TV contract with no thought about the consequences. Probably not. Their lawyers are already crying that they're getting a raw deal, and we're all guilty of watching as their saga continues to unfold, which is what they wanted in the first place.
When it's all said and done, the Heenes will get what they set out to get,and their names will be remembered by those of us who prayed for their child. However, I wonder if twenty years from now they'll be proud of their accomplishment as they sit childless,in jail?
My guess is that as they reflect on what could have been, little Falcon will be seeking his own fame at that point, perhaps writing a tell-all book about his horrible experience in foster care, and the suffering he had to endure because of his parents selfishness. After all, he was exposed to the camera early in life, and it may not be easy for him to give up his place in the spotlight.
One can only imagine the life that this child and his siblings will have after all of this, but one thing is sure to occur. As they grow up without their parents, be it with relatives or in foster care, I think it will be very likely that one day they'll be too busy with their own pursuits to stop by the prison on visiting day.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Pink Ties and American Flags, Oh My!
We've all heard the expression that oil and water don't mix, and it's apparent today, that political correctness and common sense don't either. Two separate incidents in two separate states have made it clear that those who spend their lives trying to stop people from being "offensive" are the very ones who seem to "offend" the most. Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed and public outcry has snapped a few people back into reality.
Case in point. Fox News reports, that an Oregon apartment complex recently banned residents from flying American flags on their balconies and cars. The problem began when Jim Clausen of Portland, flew the flag from the back of his motorcycle as a tribute to his son in the military. He was told by the building management that he would be evicted if he didn't take the flag down because of its political nature. Clausen said he was stunned by the request, as were many other complex residents.
Next, longtime resident Sharron White was told to take down the flag she had been flying on her car for eight years, or she would be evicted. The management again said the flag may be offensive to some , but White said that anyone who didn't like it would just have to live with it. Good for her! Fortunately, after the outrage from Fox viewers, apartment managers with similar policies in other states have banned the no flag policy.
Meanwhile, an Illinois bus driver thought he was being supportive of his relatives when he wore a pink tie on the job to help raise awareness about breast cancer. William Jones of Springfield, said his grandmother and sister had both battled the disease, so he wore the tie on October 2, as a symbol for the kick off of Breast Cancer awareness month.
What did he get in return? A pat on the back? Praises for being a supportive family member? Of course not. He was suspended from work for one day without pay, because his employer said he violated a company wardrobe policy! In response, Jones filed a grievance against the transit system, and is waiting to collect. Good for him! (It should be noted that the bus company has now changed its position and is allowing drivers to wear the pink tie for breast cancer awareness month.)
Even thought these incidents turned out ok, the old addage is still true: "SOME PEOPLE NEED TO GET A LIFE!"
If you're " anti -American" to the point that the display of our flag is offensive to you, then there's a simple solution to your problem----GET OUT! People have fought and died for the flag, and there is no amount of diverse thought that can erase that. Two thumbs up to everyone who protested against the policy. I wonder if the wearing of flag pins will be next? (but then again, our president did start that debate when he refused to wear the flag pin in the early days.)
At the same time, how can anyone be offended by showing support for breast cancer awareness? Are there "pro-cancer" people out there that we don't know about? Is there a collection effort and literature available to help people contract the illness? As bizarre as that sounds, why else would there be a problem with showing support for the fight? I find it hard to believe that anyone would be offended by a man in a pink tie. (except the strange few that may question his masculinity for doing so, which is another blog for another day. I personally think pink is chic. :) )
While, it's good news that these situations have been resolved there are sure to be many more of them in the future. Even though informed citizens are finally starting to realize that enough is enough, we need more people who are grounded in reality to continue the protest.
Perhaps if we continue to speak out about the ridiculous nature of these types of arguments, the ACLU would go out of business, the" politically correct" junkies would get a job, and peace, at least in America, would be one step closer to reality.
Case in point. Fox News reports, that an Oregon apartment complex recently banned residents from flying American flags on their balconies and cars. The problem began when Jim Clausen of Portland, flew the flag from the back of his motorcycle as a tribute to his son in the military. He was told by the building management that he would be evicted if he didn't take the flag down because of its political nature. Clausen said he was stunned by the request, as were many other complex residents.
Next, longtime resident Sharron White was told to take down the flag she had been flying on her car for eight years, or she would be evicted. The management again said the flag may be offensive to some , but White said that anyone who didn't like it would just have to live with it. Good for her! Fortunately, after the outrage from Fox viewers, apartment managers with similar policies in other states have banned the no flag policy.
Meanwhile, an Illinois bus driver thought he was being supportive of his relatives when he wore a pink tie on the job to help raise awareness about breast cancer. William Jones of Springfield, said his grandmother and sister had both battled the disease, so he wore the tie on October 2, as a symbol for the kick off of Breast Cancer awareness month.
What did he get in return? A pat on the back? Praises for being a supportive family member? Of course not. He was suspended from work for one day without pay, because his employer said he violated a company wardrobe policy! In response, Jones filed a grievance against the transit system, and is waiting to collect. Good for him! (It should be noted that the bus company has now changed its position and is allowing drivers to wear the pink tie for breast cancer awareness month.)
Even thought these incidents turned out ok, the old addage is still true: "SOME PEOPLE NEED TO GET A LIFE!"
If you're " anti -American" to the point that the display of our flag is offensive to you, then there's a simple solution to your problem----GET OUT! People have fought and died for the flag, and there is no amount of diverse thought that can erase that. Two thumbs up to everyone who protested against the policy. I wonder if the wearing of flag pins will be next? (but then again, our president did start that debate when he refused to wear the flag pin in the early days.)
At the same time, how can anyone be offended by showing support for breast cancer awareness? Are there "pro-cancer" people out there that we don't know about? Is there a collection effort and literature available to help people contract the illness? As bizarre as that sounds, why else would there be a problem with showing support for the fight? I find it hard to believe that anyone would be offended by a man in a pink tie. (except the strange few that may question his masculinity for doing so, which is another blog for another day. I personally think pink is chic. :) )
While, it's good news that these situations have been resolved there are sure to be many more of them in the future. Even though informed citizens are finally starting to realize that enough is enough, we need more people who are grounded in reality to continue the protest.
Perhaps if we continue to speak out about the ridiculous nature of these types of arguments, the ACLU would go out of business, the" politically correct" junkies would get a job, and peace, at least in America, would be one step closer to reality.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Kabul 24
Kabul 24 is an amazing book that details the story of eight humanitarian aid workers who were kidnapped and imprisoned by the Taliban in Afghanistan, in August, 2001. The workers were part of Shelter Now International (SNI) and their efforts were headed by Christians from Western countries who were falsely accused of trying to convert Muslims into followers of Jesus. They faced 105 days of bad food, deplorable conditions, and the constant threat of execution before being freed by an American Special Forces Team in November of that year. Even more remarkable than their survival, was the faith and perserverance that each team member displayed in spite of their situation. Kabul 24 reminds all of us that God is with his children even in the most horrific of circumstances.
I'd strongly recommend that all Christians read Kabul 24. If you're familiar with the Biblical story that details the imprisonment of Paul and Silas, you will discover an amazing similarity between the two. The six women and two men led by German worker Georg Taubmann, display the same courage with their captors that Paul did in scripture. As a result, God sent many miracles their way, which ultimately led to their release.
In spite of the indignity of being forced to sleep on insect infested beds, and being forced to use toilets that were so filthy it was difficult to read about them, the group spent their days praying, singing hymns and reading scripture. Even in their darkest hour, each SNI worker displayed a sense of courage and faith that could only have come from God. The most amazing part of the tale comes after their release, when six of the eight decided to return to Afghanistan, so they could continue to help the country rebuild.
While it is a great read for Christians, Kabul 24 will also appeal to those who aren't strong in faith. The writers keep you on the edge of your seat wondering what will happen next, and the book does an excellent job of forcing you to look inside the war torn country of Afghanistan. It also makes one appreciate the freedom that life in a democracy ensures. From the first page, to the last, Kabul 24 is a story of faith, determination and compassion and it's a must read for anyone who likes a tale of hardship and great adventure that ultimately leads to a happy ending.
I'd strongly recommend that all Christians read Kabul 24. If you're familiar with the Biblical story that details the imprisonment of Paul and Silas, you will discover an amazing similarity between the two. The six women and two men led by German worker Georg Taubmann, display the same courage with their captors that Paul did in scripture. As a result, God sent many miracles their way, which ultimately led to their release.
In spite of the indignity of being forced to sleep on insect infested beds, and being forced to use toilets that were so filthy it was difficult to read about them, the group spent their days praying, singing hymns and reading scripture. Even in their darkest hour, each SNI worker displayed a sense of courage and faith that could only have come from God. The most amazing part of the tale comes after their release, when six of the eight decided to return to Afghanistan, so they could continue to help the country rebuild.
While it is a great read for Christians, Kabul 24 will also appeal to those who aren't strong in faith. The writers keep you on the edge of your seat wondering what will happen next, and the book does an excellent job of forcing you to look inside the war torn country of Afghanistan. It also makes one appreciate the freedom that life in a democracy ensures. From the first page, to the last, Kabul 24 is a story of faith, determination and compassion and it's a must read for anyone who likes a tale of hardship and great adventure that ultimately leads to a happy ending.
Friday, October 9, 2009
And The Winner Is.............
President Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize in what the Associated Press is calling a "stunning decision" that was designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world, and stress diplomacy. Obama is only the third sitting president to win the prize, with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson coming before him. (Former president Jimmy Carter won in 2002, long after he left office. )
While the award is an honor for the president and America, some Nobel observers say it comes too early in his presidency. The deadline for nominations was February 1, which was less than two weeks after he took office.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood brought about by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, but also recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit, such as reducing the stockpile of nuclear arms, easing tensions with the Muslim world, and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change. Former Polish President Lech Walesa, himself a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, said President Obama hasn't had enough time to act on many of these issues and he felt that he should have been given time to act and perservere before winning the award.
What do you think? Is it too soon? The award is no doubt an honor, and the president is to be commended for being in the elite club of three. I only hope that the prize encourages him to do a better job of making better decisions for America in a more timely fashion. The recent discussion surrounding the controversy over Obama's relationship with General McChrystal and the action that is desparately needed in regards to more troops for Afghanistan is the perfect example of how his past indecision has hurt America. Hopefully, the "peace prize" won't encourage him to take even longer to decide on the important issues facing this country.
No matter what your politics or opinion of the president, today is a day of honor for him, and he should be allowed to savor it. His efforts should be applauded by all of us as he reaches out to the international community in the hopes of making the world a safer place. But it is also critical that he remember the 300-million people that need him here in the U.S., and our own security, economy, and healthcare concerns must come before all of his international efforts.
While it is great to have a president who is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner , it is even better to have a president who remembers that service and dedication begin at home.
Congratulations, Sir, and be sure to enjoy your award today, because the hard work resumes tomorrow.
While the award is an honor for the president and America, some Nobel observers say it comes too early in his presidency. The deadline for nominations was February 1, which was less than two weeks after he took office.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood brought about by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, but also recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit, such as reducing the stockpile of nuclear arms, easing tensions with the Muslim world, and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change. Former Polish President Lech Walesa, himself a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, said President Obama hasn't had enough time to act on many of these issues and he felt that he should have been given time to act and perservere before winning the award.
What do you think? Is it too soon? The award is no doubt an honor, and the president is to be commended for being in the elite club of three. I only hope that the prize encourages him to do a better job of making better decisions for America in a more timely fashion. The recent discussion surrounding the controversy over Obama's relationship with General McChrystal and the action that is desparately needed in regards to more troops for Afghanistan is the perfect example of how his past indecision has hurt America. Hopefully, the "peace prize" won't encourage him to take even longer to decide on the important issues facing this country.
No matter what your politics or opinion of the president, today is a day of honor for him, and he should be allowed to savor it. His efforts should be applauded by all of us as he reaches out to the international community in the hopes of making the world a safer place. But it is also critical that he remember the 300-million people that need him here in the U.S., and our own security, economy, and healthcare concerns must come before all of his international efforts.
While it is great to have a president who is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner , it is even better to have a president who remembers that service and dedication begin at home.
Congratulations, Sir, and be sure to enjoy your award today, because the hard work resumes tomorrow.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Good Kids ! Good News !
A group of children from Hamilton, Ohio get two thumbs up, a big "Way to Go", and the pride and respect of The Christian Commentator. In a time when the values of our culture have dropped to an all time low, it's great to see that the kids at one elementary school seem to "get" what life's all about.
The story began in July of this year when a local fourth grader was diagnosed with T-cell lymphoma. The Hamilton Journal News reports, that as a result, Tyler Robert has not been able to return to class at Fillmore elementary.
When school began in late August, Tyler's friends started talking about making cards, and someone had the idea of taking the cards to Tyler in person. Fillmore principal Rex Bucheit decided to make the gesture even more special, by suggesting that the whole school pay a visit to Tyler's home, and that is just what happened.
On Tuesday of this week, 700 Fillmore students brought hundreds of letters, Cincinnati Bengals memorabilia, and the Bengals mascot (since Tyler is a fan) to the Robert's home. The visit was a total surprise to Tyler as all of his friends kept it secret from him. The newspaper reports that the little boy appeared to be surprised and overwhelmed by the thoughtful gesture.
In a time when the news is filled with so many stories of heinous abuse, backbiting politics, and immorality, it is wonderful to see that there are still a lot of great kids (and adults) around. One can only imagine the joy that the students brought to a very sick little boy. I hope their effort is noticed and other schools across the country follow suit when something like this occurs in their hometown. Good for you Fillmore school, and good for you, principal Bucheit. You are the true heroes in a fallen world.
From the Christian Commentator's point of view this act was not only compassionate and kind, it was the embodiment of what Paul said in Ephesians 4:32 (NKJ) "And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you."
700 kids and one principal at Fillmore school in Hamilton, Ohio have taken kindness and compassion to a whole new level. Good Job! You have truly gotten it right and deserve a pat on the back for your efforts.
The story began in July of this year when a local fourth grader was diagnosed with T-cell lymphoma. The Hamilton Journal News reports, that as a result, Tyler Robert has not been able to return to class at Fillmore elementary.
When school began in late August, Tyler's friends started talking about making cards, and someone had the idea of taking the cards to Tyler in person. Fillmore principal Rex Bucheit decided to make the gesture even more special, by suggesting that the whole school pay a visit to Tyler's home, and that is just what happened.
On Tuesday of this week, 700 Fillmore students brought hundreds of letters, Cincinnati Bengals memorabilia, and the Bengals mascot (since Tyler is a fan) to the Robert's home. The visit was a total surprise to Tyler as all of his friends kept it secret from him. The newspaper reports that the little boy appeared to be surprised and overwhelmed by the thoughtful gesture.
In a time when the news is filled with so many stories of heinous abuse, backbiting politics, and immorality, it is wonderful to see that there are still a lot of great kids (and adults) around. One can only imagine the joy that the students brought to a very sick little boy. I hope their effort is noticed and other schools across the country follow suit when something like this occurs in their hometown. Good for you Fillmore school, and good for you, principal Bucheit. You are the true heroes in a fallen world.
From the Christian Commentator's point of view this act was not only compassionate and kind, it was the embodiment of what Paul said in Ephesians 4:32 (NKJ) "And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you."
700 kids and one principal at Fillmore school in Hamilton, Ohio have taken kindness and compassion to a whole new level. Good Job! You have truly gotten it right and deserve a pat on the back for your efforts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
