It's been said that no good deed goes unpunished, and ABC News reports that a 14-year old Florida boy learned that lesson the hard way. Last week, the boy, known as Edwin, went to the Burlington Coat Factory in Orlando where he saw a 3-year old girl without a parent. He told the child that he would find her mother. Edwin's mother saw him with the girl, asked him what he was doing, and he told her he was trying to help.
It was at this point he made his big mistake, thinking the girl's mom might have been outside the store in a group of women who were talking. Off Edwin went. The little girl followed. When Edwin saw the girl outside, he took her hand. His mom followed.
While Edwin was looking for the girl's mom outside, the mother was inside looking for her missing child. A customer told her the girl was seen leaving with a man (Edwin is a very large boy) and the mother rushed out of the store, just as Edwin was bringing the girl back in because he hadn't found her mom. Next thing he knows, he's being arrested and charged with kidnapping. Poor Edwin. I wonder if he had it to do all over again if he'd help. Probably not.
We've become so jaded by the criminals who run amuck in our culture that we can't recognize when someone is trying to help. Is it really likely that a 14-year old predator would take his mom along when trying to kidnap a child? Is it likely that after being outside with the child, a kidnapper would then bring her back into the store? Come on.
Now, Edwin has an arrest record and even though the girl's mom decided against pressing charges, the Orlando police say they are moving forward with the case.
Edwin, I'd sue.
This poor kid could have been on the street doing drugs that day. He could have watched and done nothing as a little girl wandered aimlessly in search of her lost parent. Had he just ignored her, he wouldn't have been subjected to the questions and charges that have been heaped upon him. Edwin's lawyer is asking the court to expunge his arrest and surely she'll get her wish.
In a world where we complain because no one will help his fellow man, it's tragic that when a teen tries to help he's treated like a thug. I understand why the store manager had to call the police, but the surveillance tape clearly showed that Edwin was telling the truth about the order of events. It's a hard lesson learned.
I hope in spite of all of this Edwin doesn't change. I hope he'll be willing to help the next time a child is in trouble. I hope that the officials in Florida do the right thing and make him a hero instead of a convict. Hold your head high Edwin. You did do the right thing. Perhaps next time instead of terrorizing a kid who simply tried to help, the cops should look to the mother and ask why her kid was running around unattended in the first place.
Showing posts with label Christian Commentator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Commentator. Show all posts
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
I Just Don't Think It's Funny....................
Officials at the Solid Rock Church in Monroe, Ohio say they'll rebuild a 62 foot tall statue of Jesus, destroyed by fire last night. The Hamilton,Ohio Journal News reports that lightning struck the statue during a severe thunderstorm causing 700-thousand dollars in damage to the structure and the church theater behind it.
The statue has long been the center of controversy and jokes because of its size, with some calling it "butter Jesus" and others "touchdown Jesus" because of its outstretched hands. This morning, social media outlets are filled with gallows type humor about its destruction. With all due respect to my friends who think it's funny, I just don't see the humor behind the loss.
First of all, as a Christian, I find the burning of any statue that depicts Christ to be tragic. I also don't find a 700-thousand dollar loss to any church to be particularly funny, since that is a huge amount of money for any non-profit to absorb. While I understand that art appreciation is subjective, and the sheer size of this particular icon on I-75 has fueled the controversy, it's the oversight of what the statue symbolized that bothers me.
Yes, a statue is just a statue, but there seems to be a mean spiritedness about this one, and sadly from many people who call themselves Christian. It was a statue of Jesus Christ! How can you call yourself a person of faith if you mock the destruction of a religious icon, even if you thought it was ugly? Living in nearby Hamilton, which is known as the Sculpture capital of Ohio subjects me and my neighbors to hideous displays of artist's art. However, even though I find many of them distasteful I would not find it funny if their hard work was burned to the ground.
I find it odd that as the disgust over "the Jesus" continues that most who are laughing have never complained about the towering sign just south of the church, that promotes Hustler Hollywood and pornography. Sure,for some, the argument is the same old mantra that adults have the right to view porn if they wish. Perhaps that's true, but likewise, church leaders have the right to build a 62 foot tall statue of Christ if they wish, and at least "the Jesus" didn't promote the degradation and over-sexualizing of women. I find it a bit disappointing that Christians and otherwise decent human beings don't seem to get this. Personally, I'm glad the church has decided to rebuild.
If the Solid Rock Church's decision to build the statue was to get people talking about God, then "the Jesus" fulfilled it's purpose, and is continuing to do so even though it's gone. As I drove by the wreckage this morning, I was amazed at the number of people standing on the side of the interstate, photographing the scene. Perhaps they wanted a momento of their joy over its destruction. Perhaps they were saddened because the statue of their Lord is gone.
For me, I won't debate the validity of the art, and I won't laugh in the face of it's ruin. Instead, now that I've said my peace, I will simply borrow the words from Joshua, Chapter 24:15 which says: "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord." I think this verse says it best, and I will continue to serve Him, even if He's six stories tall.
The statue has long been the center of controversy and jokes because of its size, with some calling it "butter Jesus" and others "touchdown Jesus" because of its outstretched hands. This morning, social media outlets are filled with gallows type humor about its destruction. With all due respect to my friends who think it's funny, I just don't see the humor behind the loss.
First of all, as a Christian, I find the burning of any statue that depicts Christ to be tragic. I also don't find a 700-thousand dollar loss to any church to be particularly funny, since that is a huge amount of money for any non-profit to absorb. While I understand that art appreciation is subjective, and the sheer size of this particular icon on I-75 has fueled the controversy, it's the oversight of what the statue symbolized that bothers me.
Yes, a statue is just a statue, but there seems to be a mean spiritedness about this one, and sadly from many people who call themselves Christian. It was a statue of Jesus Christ! How can you call yourself a person of faith if you mock the destruction of a religious icon, even if you thought it was ugly? Living in nearby Hamilton, which is known as the Sculpture capital of Ohio subjects me and my neighbors to hideous displays of artist's art. However, even though I find many of them distasteful I would not find it funny if their hard work was burned to the ground.
I find it odd that as the disgust over "the Jesus" continues that most who are laughing have never complained about the towering sign just south of the church, that promotes Hustler Hollywood and pornography. Sure,for some, the argument is the same old mantra that adults have the right to view porn if they wish. Perhaps that's true, but likewise, church leaders have the right to build a 62 foot tall statue of Christ if they wish, and at least "the Jesus" didn't promote the degradation and over-sexualizing of women. I find it a bit disappointing that Christians and otherwise decent human beings don't seem to get this. Personally, I'm glad the church has decided to rebuild.
If the Solid Rock Church's decision to build the statue was to get people talking about God, then "the Jesus" fulfilled it's purpose, and is continuing to do so even though it's gone. As I drove by the wreckage this morning, I was amazed at the number of people standing on the side of the interstate, photographing the scene. Perhaps they wanted a momento of their joy over its destruction. Perhaps they were saddened because the statue of their Lord is gone.
For me, I won't debate the validity of the art, and I won't laugh in the face of it's ruin. Instead, now that I've said my peace, I will simply borrow the words from Joshua, Chapter 24:15 which says: "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord." I think this verse says it best, and I will continue to serve Him, even if He's six stories tall.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
BP YOU!
I love it when I get my first big laugh of the day before 8 a.m.
What a hoot. USA today reports that in protest over the Gulf Coast oil spill,the minor league baseball team, the Brevard County, Florida Manatees, has dropped the term "batting practice" because the initials of the term are BP.
Team members of the Milwaukee Brewers Class A affiliate, say they will now take "hitting rehearsal" instead of "batting practice" because of their outrage over the oil spill that may affect Florida's beaches this summer.
With no disrespect to the Manatees, it must be said. This is ludicrous! Is this the best idea they can come up with to show their outrage over the spill? What about a portion of ticket sales being earmarked for beach clean up? There just has to be a better idea.
For those who like the gesture, perhaps they should push for all phrases that have the letters B & P in them to be dropped from our language until the spill is cleaned up. No more "big person" or "blueberry pie" or "big papa." (of course those who use this term are going to be subject to being a blog feature on their own). Perhaps Americans should stay out of "Bairdford, Pennsylvania, unless the city changes it's name.
I'm sorry Manatees. While this has been wonderful publicity for your team, it seems that your attempt at political correctness is really more about generating the fan dollars that this kind of attention can bring. I will say though, the "hitting rehearsal" term does add a certain amount of drama to the process of practicing hitting baseballs, so perhaps I'll grab my opera glasses and make a roadtrip.
One final thought. In a related story, President Obama is now receiving heavy criticism on Fox News for getting mad about the oil spill, and using an expletive while discussing the issue with a reporter. While I just hate to show an understanding attitude toward the president I don't think it's fair for reporters to demand he get mad, and then criticize him for doing so. I do understand that using an expletive is not exactly presidential, and I agree that he should avoid doing that in the future. But he was mad, darn it.
Perhaps the next time he gets that mad, he could reverse the Manatee's decision not to use any terms starting with BP. Perhaps the hot new cuss word in America should be just that: He could say: "You're a big BP!" "BP you!" "That BP!" Who knows,in America, it may just work.
What a hoot. USA today reports that in protest over the Gulf Coast oil spill,the minor league baseball team, the Brevard County, Florida Manatees, has dropped the term "batting practice" because the initials of the term are BP.
Team members of the Milwaukee Brewers Class A affiliate, say they will now take "hitting rehearsal" instead of "batting practice" because of their outrage over the oil spill that may affect Florida's beaches this summer.
With no disrespect to the Manatees, it must be said. This is ludicrous! Is this the best idea they can come up with to show their outrage over the spill? What about a portion of ticket sales being earmarked for beach clean up? There just has to be a better idea.
For those who like the gesture, perhaps they should push for all phrases that have the letters B & P in them to be dropped from our language until the spill is cleaned up. No more "big person" or "blueberry pie" or "big papa." (of course those who use this term are going to be subject to being a blog feature on their own). Perhaps Americans should stay out of "Bairdford, Pennsylvania, unless the city changes it's name.
I'm sorry Manatees. While this has been wonderful publicity for your team, it seems that your attempt at political correctness is really more about generating the fan dollars that this kind of attention can bring. I will say though, the "hitting rehearsal" term does add a certain amount of drama to the process of practicing hitting baseballs, so perhaps I'll grab my opera glasses and make a roadtrip.
One final thought. In a related story, President Obama is now receiving heavy criticism on Fox News for getting mad about the oil spill, and using an expletive while discussing the issue with a reporter. While I just hate to show an understanding attitude toward the president I don't think it's fair for reporters to demand he get mad, and then criticize him for doing so. I do understand that using an expletive is not exactly presidential, and I agree that he should avoid doing that in the future. But he was mad, darn it.
Perhaps the next time he gets that mad, he could reverse the Manatee's decision not to use any terms starting with BP. Perhaps the hot new cuss word in America should be just that: He could say: "You're a big BP!" "BP you!" "That BP!" Who knows,in America, it may just work.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Maybe Just a Small Hissy Fit Mr. President?
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Stop Making Excuses!
While the BP boycott is an excellent idea, it's time to shift gears to a topic that affects everyone, "Personal Responsibility." Fox news reports this morning, that the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson said she was "in the gutter" and drunk when she tried to sell access to her former husband, Prince Andrew, for over $750-thousand American dollars.
When the story broke last week, The New York Daily News reported that Ferguson has been living off her daughters trust funds and was caught on tape smoking and slurping a glass of red wine in front of a pile of unpaid bills. She reportedly asked the undercover reporter who was taping her, for a cash advance of $40-thousand dollars, a wire transfer of $723-thousand, and a promise of future commissions in exchange for access to Britain's royal family.
Bottom line? She got caught so she blamed a drinking problem. This is yet another example of celebrity gone wild, blaming a before unheard of illness after being caught in an embarrassing or illegal situation. Sarah Ferguson now has a drinking problem. Jesse James announced he was a sex addict when he got caught cheating on wife Sandra Bullock. David Duchovny claimed a similar ailment after cheating on his wife actress Tea'Leoni. Anytime a celebrity drops to "C" or "D" status, an appearance on Celebrity Rehab gets their name back in the spotlight once again. It makes one sick to hear all of the excuses. What happened to "I screwed up and I'm sorry?"
I'm not saying that drinking problems and sex addictions don't exist. Sadly, they do, but it seems that many of these celebrities never discover their "problem" until they're embarassed by some undercover journalist and that's just sad. Sure, denial is a problem of addiction of any kind. Most people have to hit bottom before deciding to get help, but it seems that more and more celebrities, (and likewise everyday people) are labeling themselves with this problem or that, as a way to avoid the penalties, or to generate sympathy for their irresponsible behavior.
Our culture as a whole has stopped taking responsibility for our actions, and in many cases there seems to be a sense of pride when people are caught on tape doing something disgusting. Sarah Ferguson is just another example of someone who has crossed the line of irresponsibility and is now going on Oprah to generate some sympathy for her cause, which will ultimately mean more money for her pocketbook. I wish Oprah would say to her, "You know, living off of your children's trust fund is not only reprehensible it is a crime." I doubt she will, but it would be appropriate, and it would be responsible journalism. (which I use the word lightly)
It's time we stop glamorizing the lives and addictions of celebrities and we need to stop making excuses when someone we know is caught "sexting" or beating up another on YouTube. We need to start teaching our children that true addictions can be treated long before their bad behavior makes headlines. Maybe then, they'll grow into responsible adults. It's also time to remind them, that this type of behavior is not acceptable and there are consequences when said behavior occurs.
Finally, it's time that our culture reward good behavior and promote the positive things that many people do everyday. Wouldn't it be wonderful if television shows were created where successful kids and adults were featured as they improved their own lives and the world around them? Even though it would be great, it is unlikely to happen. After all, stories like Sarah Ferguson's have shown us that if a show featured kids or adults without some sort of addiction or violent behavior doing something positive, it is very unlikely that anyone would watch.
When the story broke last week, The New York Daily News reported that Ferguson has been living off her daughters trust funds and was caught on tape smoking and slurping a glass of red wine in front of a pile of unpaid bills. She reportedly asked the undercover reporter who was taping her, for a cash advance of $40-thousand dollars, a wire transfer of $723-thousand, and a promise of future commissions in exchange for access to Britain's royal family.
Bottom line? She got caught so she blamed a drinking problem. This is yet another example of celebrity gone wild, blaming a before unheard of illness after being caught in an embarrassing or illegal situation. Sarah Ferguson now has a drinking problem. Jesse James announced he was a sex addict when he got caught cheating on wife Sandra Bullock. David Duchovny claimed a similar ailment after cheating on his wife actress Tea'Leoni. Anytime a celebrity drops to "C" or "D" status, an appearance on Celebrity Rehab gets their name back in the spotlight once again. It makes one sick to hear all of the excuses. What happened to "I screwed up and I'm sorry?"
I'm not saying that drinking problems and sex addictions don't exist. Sadly, they do, but it seems that many of these celebrities never discover their "problem" until they're embarassed by some undercover journalist and that's just sad. Sure, denial is a problem of addiction of any kind. Most people have to hit bottom before deciding to get help, but it seems that more and more celebrities, (and likewise everyday people) are labeling themselves with this problem or that, as a way to avoid the penalties, or to generate sympathy for their irresponsible behavior.
Our culture as a whole has stopped taking responsibility for our actions, and in many cases there seems to be a sense of pride when people are caught on tape doing something disgusting. Sarah Ferguson is just another example of someone who has crossed the line of irresponsibility and is now going on Oprah to generate some sympathy for her cause, which will ultimately mean more money for her pocketbook. I wish Oprah would say to her, "You know, living off of your children's trust fund is not only reprehensible it is a crime." I doubt she will, but it would be appropriate, and it would be responsible journalism. (which I use the word lightly)
It's time we stop glamorizing the lives and addictions of celebrities and we need to stop making excuses when someone we know is caught "sexting" or beating up another on YouTube. We need to start teaching our children that true addictions can be treated long before their bad behavior makes headlines. Maybe then, they'll grow into responsible adults. It's also time to remind them, that this type of behavior is not acceptable and there are consequences when said behavior occurs.
Finally, it's time that our culture reward good behavior and promote the positive things that many people do everyday. Wouldn't it be wonderful if television shows were created where successful kids and adults were featured as they improved their own lives and the world around them? Even though it would be great, it is unlikely to happen. After all, stories like Sarah Ferguson's have shown us that if a show featured kids or adults without some sort of addiction or violent behavior doing something positive, it is very unlikely that anyone would watch.
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.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Don't Build the Mosque!
Calling it a "seed of peace" a New York City community board voted Tuesday night to support a plan to build a mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero. The decision came after hours of emotional public comment in which people were shouting "No Mosque" while carrying signs with pictures of the Sept. 11 victims on them.
Manhattan Community Board member Rob Townley told the Associated Press that the group believed they were making a significant step for the Muslim community to counteract the hate and fanaticism that has occured against them.
Really?
First of all, is there really that much fanaticism occuring against the Islamic community? Granted, shortly after September 11 there were plenty of incidents where misguided people hurled inappropriate epithets at anyone who claimed to be a member of the faith. In recent years however,most Americans have stopped spewing hate,(in fact "MOST" Americans never did) realizing there is a difference between Muslims who live in peace and those who call for Jihad.
Secondly, Islamic fanatics that have caused problems for America in recent years have all been affiliated with particular mosques inside the country, so one can understand the concerns of those who would live and work nearby the proposed New York site. The building will obviously not be earmarked as a place for terrorist training, but what or who will be able to stop the fanatics from coming in? It would seem that a site so close to the place where Islamic Jihadists destroyed the lives of thousands in 2001,would hve a special spiritual significance for those who thought the attacks were justified. After all,in recent weeks, we've witnessed a couple of unsuccessful terrorism attempts in Mid-Town Manhattan, so New York obviously remains a target.
Finally, since our country has become so consumed with protecting the rights of everyone but the majority, it's no surprise that a group of well meaning do-gooders have been blinded to the reality of just how insensitive this whole proposal is. Innocent people died that day. Do their families and friends really need to
be reminded of the terror every time they look out their window at the thriving Islamic establishment near the site where their loved ones were murdered? It is cruel.
While comparing all Muslims to the Jihadists who attacked the World Trade Center is ignorant and wrong, allowing this mosque to be built is equally ignorant and wrong. The proposal should not be allowed to go forward. The victims should not be made to suffer even more.
Ultimately those who say terrorism isn't confined to one particular race or religion are exactly right. Terrorism is nothing more than a misguided reaction on the part of thugs who refuse to accept law and order, and who think vigilante justice is the only way to make their point to the world. Terrorism ultimately comes in all shapes and colors. Terrorism is not confined to Islam. That point alone should serve as a reminder to those who are trying to push this temple project forward, that crazy is crazy and if the mosque is built it will bring even more fanatics out of the woodwork, putting even more innocent New Yorkers in danger.
Manhattan Community Board member Rob Townley told the Associated Press that the group believed they were making a significant step for the Muslim community to counteract the hate and fanaticism that has occured against them.
Really?
First of all, is there really that much fanaticism occuring against the Islamic community? Granted, shortly after September 11 there were plenty of incidents where misguided people hurled inappropriate epithets at anyone who claimed to be a member of the faith. In recent years however,most Americans have stopped spewing hate,(in fact "MOST" Americans never did) realizing there is a difference between Muslims who live in peace and those who call for Jihad.
Secondly, Islamic fanatics that have caused problems for America in recent years have all been affiliated with particular mosques inside the country, so one can understand the concerns of those who would live and work nearby the proposed New York site. The building will obviously not be earmarked as a place for terrorist training, but what or who will be able to stop the fanatics from coming in? It would seem that a site so close to the place where Islamic Jihadists destroyed the lives of thousands in 2001,would hve a special spiritual significance for those who thought the attacks were justified. After all,in recent weeks, we've witnessed a couple of unsuccessful terrorism attempts in Mid-Town Manhattan, so New York obviously remains a target.
Finally, since our country has become so consumed with protecting the rights of everyone but the majority, it's no surprise that a group of well meaning do-gooders have been blinded to the reality of just how insensitive this whole proposal is. Innocent people died that day. Do their families and friends really need to
be reminded of the terror every time they look out their window at the thriving Islamic establishment near the site where their loved ones were murdered? It is cruel.
While comparing all Muslims to the Jihadists who attacked the World Trade Center is ignorant and wrong, allowing this mosque to be built is equally ignorant and wrong. The proposal should not be allowed to go forward. The victims should not be made to suffer even more.
Ultimately those who say terrorism isn't confined to one particular race or religion are exactly right. Terrorism is nothing more than a misguided reaction on the part of thugs who refuse to accept law and order, and who think vigilante justice is the only way to make their point to the world. Terrorism ultimately comes in all shapes and colors. Terrorism is not confined to Islam. That point alone should serve as a reminder to those who are trying to push this temple project forward, that crazy is crazy and if the mosque is built it will bring even more fanatics out of the woodwork, putting even more innocent New Yorkers in danger.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Who wants to Vacation in Hell?
One of the saddest images on the news right now is oil covered pelicans flopping around on the beaches of Louisiana. As the BP spill enters it's fifth week, CNN reports that the company has started a "goodwill" campaign by promising to bear all costs associated with the clean up. They've also given $25 million dollars to the state of Florida to promote tourism, with most dollars going to the Panhandle area, where vacation bookings are at a standstill. Today, as the company tries yet another method to stop the leak, one has to question just how much goodwill is really involved.
First, 21 miles of coastline has already been destroyed. It will not be restored. It's done. Gone. The fishing industry along the coast continues to lose millions with small bait and tackle shops, boat rentals and other associated businesses facing bankruptcy. The regional travel and tourism industry is already chalking up 2010 as a total failure. One would imagine that for those who've lost their livelihood, the idea that BP will pick up the clean up cost, or help promote tourism, provides little comfort, even if they are naive enough to believe it.
With the governmental cap placed at $75 million, BP can certainly come up with the cash, but ultimately we'll be paying the cost at the gas pump. Within the past few years we've seen $4 per gallon for gas, with an active hurricane season getting the blame for the price hike. Imagine what will happen as the destruction toll continues to climb in the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. Is $5-$6 dollars per gallon really an inconceivable figure? I don't think so.
As someone who sells advertising for a living I am the first to champion its value, but can a bunch of TV spots really make an impact on an area where the summer tourism season is over before it started? I've even cancelled my own panhandle vacation in spite of there being no oil on the beaches -- yet. It's hard to be optimistic when the annual 4th of July Fishing Tournament in Pensacola has already been cancelled.
Meanwhile, BP CEO Tony Hayword continues his mantra of optimism on CNN, as another attempt to stop the spill gets underway this morning. He's convinced that this latest attempt at sealing the spill with mud and cement will work. He's convinced (in his words) that this will only have a moderate longterm impact on the region. He was convinced he had the answers yesterday and the day before that.
Ultimately the best "goodwill" measure by BP would be to admit that they are solely responsible for destroying much of a region that has already been devastated in years past by natural disasters. Tony Hayword and other executives need to show "goodwill" by stepping down. President Obama needs to get busy (instead of just threatening to) and let the government take over the clean up. The region is being destroyed and no amount of goodwill or travel promotion can stop it.
So what are the answers? Only the environmentalists can truly assess the permanent damage. But one thing is perfectly clear. It's not going to do a whole lot of good to encourage vacationers to come to the Gulf Coast this summer, if the area is under a blanket of oil when they arrive. It's also unlikely that travelers will come, if gas is so high they can't afford to get there in the first place.
First, 21 miles of coastline has already been destroyed. It will not be restored. It's done. Gone. The fishing industry along the coast continues to lose millions with small bait and tackle shops, boat rentals and other associated businesses facing bankruptcy. The regional travel and tourism industry is already chalking up 2010 as a total failure. One would imagine that for those who've lost their livelihood, the idea that BP will pick up the clean up cost, or help promote tourism, provides little comfort, even if they are naive enough to believe it.
With the governmental cap placed at $75 million, BP can certainly come up with the cash, but ultimately we'll be paying the cost at the gas pump. Within the past few years we've seen $4 per gallon for gas, with an active hurricane season getting the blame for the price hike. Imagine what will happen as the destruction toll continues to climb in the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. Is $5-$6 dollars per gallon really an inconceivable figure? I don't think so.
As someone who sells advertising for a living I am the first to champion its value, but can a bunch of TV spots really make an impact on an area where the summer tourism season is over before it started? I've even cancelled my own panhandle vacation in spite of there being no oil on the beaches -- yet. It's hard to be optimistic when the annual 4th of July Fishing Tournament in Pensacola has already been cancelled.
Meanwhile, BP CEO Tony Hayword continues his mantra of optimism on CNN, as another attempt to stop the spill gets underway this morning. He's convinced that this latest attempt at sealing the spill with mud and cement will work. He's convinced (in his words) that this will only have a moderate longterm impact on the region. He was convinced he had the answers yesterday and the day before that.
Ultimately the best "goodwill" measure by BP would be to admit that they are solely responsible for destroying much of a region that has already been devastated in years past by natural disasters. Tony Hayword and other executives need to show "goodwill" by stepping down. President Obama needs to get busy (instead of just threatening to) and let the government take over the clean up. The region is being destroyed and no amount of goodwill or travel promotion can stop it.
So what are the answers? Only the environmentalists can truly assess the permanent damage. But one thing is perfectly clear. It's not going to do a whole lot of good to encourage vacationers to come to the Gulf Coast this summer, if the area is under a blanket of oil when they arrive. It's also unlikely that travelers will come, if gas is so high they can't afford to get there in the first place.
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.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Surge, Will it Win the War?
Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus -- Sort of.
Reactions are mixed after President Obama announced he would send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. After taking 92 days to make up his mind, the president made it clear last night that he would begin withdrawing the troops within 18 months.
Today, the Democrats are upset saying the cost of escalating the eight year old war is too expensive as the build up comes with a 30-billion dollar price tag. Republicans are unhappy that the president announced a definite time line for the troop withdrawal.
The Associated Press is reporting that Vice President Joe Biden, who did not support the president's decision said the new surge and exit strategy is aimed more at keeping the Taliban from overrunning Afghanistan while protecting America from another terrorist attack.
Senator John McCain who ran against Obama in last year's election said he supports the decision to send in more troops but did not agree with the announced time line for withdrawal.
"We don't want to sound an uncertain trumpet to our friends in the region," McCain said.
What do you think? A defining moment for the Obama presidency or too little too late?
A couple of things concern me about the president's decision, and the reaction to it.
First, like Senator McCain, I don't think it's ever a good idea to let the enemy know your timeline for withdrawing from any war. Military strategy is about playing your cards close to the vest. By letting the world know that we're going to be done in 18 months, the signal has been sent that winning the war is not our objective. In fact, the president never used the word "win" in his speech last night. That omission alone has to be very demoralizing to the troops who we're sending in to fight. When a country sends troops to reform a region, it's imperative that said country appears to be stable in the way they conduct the business of war. The president has made the American military look anything but stable, which will harm us in the long run.
Secondly, the Democrats are crying that the surge will be too expensive, yet Congress is spending billions to bale out banks, and the liberal politicians are working non-stop to create a multi-billion dollar healthcare plan that will provide healthcare for illegal citizens, and abortion funding and sex education for our elementary school kids. How bizarre that our national security is not as important to some in our government as a healthcare bill that will keep our children's grandchildren oppressed with massive debt.
Finally, I'm baffled as to how president Obama came up with 30,000 as the final surge number when General McChrystal originally called for 40,000. I understand we have to work with what we've got, but it seems that the president was trying to make some kind of political point when he did not explain why he cut the troop number by 10,000. I sincerely hope I'm wrong when my gut tells me that once again decisions about protecting America have been reduced to nothing more than a pawn in the game of political football. (although I fear I'm exactly on point)
So Virginia, be happy this Christmas, as we are a bit better off than we were yesterday. The president's decision to send more troops after the first of the year, should help calm a region that is rapidly spinning out of control. For the next 18 months you can sleeep a little easier at night. But remember Virginia, life is full of comprimise and you'll never be completely at peace while you walk this earth. July 2011 will be here before you know it my dear, and once again you'll be forced to fear the inevitable when Johnny comes marching home.
Reactions are mixed after President Obama announced he would send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. After taking 92 days to make up his mind, the president made it clear last night that he would begin withdrawing the troops within 18 months.
Today, the Democrats are upset saying the cost of escalating the eight year old war is too expensive as the build up comes with a 30-billion dollar price tag. Republicans are unhappy that the president announced a definite time line for the troop withdrawal.
The Associated Press is reporting that Vice President Joe Biden, who did not support the president's decision said the new surge and exit strategy is aimed more at keeping the Taliban from overrunning Afghanistan while protecting America from another terrorist attack.
Senator John McCain who ran against Obama in last year's election said he supports the decision to send in more troops but did not agree with the announced time line for withdrawal.
"We don't want to sound an uncertain trumpet to our friends in the region," McCain said.
What do you think? A defining moment for the Obama presidency or too little too late?
A couple of things concern me about the president's decision, and the reaction to it.
First, like Senator McCain, I don't think it's ever a good idea to let the enemy know your timeline for withdrawing from any war. Military strategy is about playing your cards close to the vest. By letting the world know that we're going to be done in 18 months, the signal has been sent that winning the war is not our objective. In fact, the president never used the word "win" in his speech last night. That omission alone has to be very demoralizing to the troops who we're sending in to fight. When a country sends troops to reform a region, it's imperative that said country appears to be stable in the way they conduct the business of war. The president has made the American military look anything but stable, which will harm us in the long run.
Secondly, the Democrats are crying that the surge will be too expensive, yet Congress is spending billions to bale out banks, and the liberal politicians are working non-stop to create a multi-billion dollar healthcare plan that will provide healthcare for illegal citizens, and abortion funding and sex education for our elementary school kids. How bizarre that our national security is not as important to some in our government as a healthcare bill that will keep our children's grandchildren oppressed with massive debt.
Finally, I'm baffled as to how president Obama came up with 30,000 as the final surge number when General McChrystal originally called for 40,000. I understand we have to work with what we've got, but it seems that the president was trying to make some kind of political point when he did not explain why he cut the troop number by 10,000. I sincerely hope I'm wrong when my gut tells me that once again decisions about protecting America have been reduced to nothing more than a pawn in the game of political football. (although I fear I'm exactly on point)
So Virginia, be happy this Christmas, as we are a bit better off than we were yesterday. The president's decision to send more troops after the first of the year, should help calm a region that is rapidly spinning out of control. For the next 18 months you can sleeep a little easier at night. But remember Virginia, life is full of comprimise and you'll never be completely at peace while you walk this earth. July 2011 will be here before you know it my dear, and once again you'll be forced to fear the inevitable when Johnny comes marching home.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
