I toyed with several different titles for this post. Included on that list were "Lies My Government Told Me." "'I Am Not A Socialist.'" and "Get It While You Can." But none of these seemed to do justice to the gravity of the situation facing our nation.
I apologize for the large delay between posts. Vacation. Spending time outside. Other unforeseen obstacles. That and I have several posts in progress, but this one simply could NOT wait.
You may have heard that Obama's "Healthcare" plan is most likely going to be rubber stamped through "Congress." Let's take a look at some of the details of this program:
Where to start. Well, I want to begin by saying that this is not the healthcare that the Senators have. I seem to remember that being a campaign promise. I'm pretty sure President Obama said in more than one debate that he'd make available the health plan that Congress has. What happened there?
Under this plan, the President states that you can keep your old healthcare program if you want to. You'd be considered "grandfathered" and you would not have to take the government's healthcare. Of course, you'd still be paying for the government's plan in your taxes, you just don't have to use it. You can keep your own private healthcare company. *Phew* that's a relief. That is, of course, until employers begin to realize that they don't have to offer healthcare anymore. What a major savings! What a great way to increase the bottom line! So, if this passes, we can expect employers of non-unionized employees to no longer offer healthcare. Why should they? The government can take care of those people now.
Besides, there is a clause in this bill that says that you cannot transfer your private healthcare coverage. Bet you didn't know that, huh? What does that mean? It means that if you switch jobs then you cannot: A)Bring your healthcare with you or B)get healthcare from your new job. They cannot offer it to you. Period. If you switch jobs you are also switching to the Federal Healthcare Program. So, what's to stop companies from no longer offering healthcare coverage? They can't offer it to new people, why should they continue to offer it to their tenured employees?
What's the end result of these two inevitable results of President Obama's plan? Private Healthcare companies will be forced to shut down. Without new people coming in, and with so many companies no longer offering the coverage, these companies will have to close their doors. They will have to tell those few companies that are still offering healthcare that they can no longer provide it. When all is said and done, everyone will be part of the government's program and thousands of people will be out of work due to the collapse of the private healthcare industry.
Is that how you planned on creating jobs, Mr. President? By choking every private health insurance company out of business? What are all of those people going to do? Who are they going to work for? Nothing like stimulating the economy by forcing people out of work.
Oh, and don't grow old! That's for sure. One of the ways this plan is going to "keep costs low" (You know, less that $1 trillion per year) is by limiting end-of-life care. That's right, when it comes to old folks under Obama's plan the slogan is "let 'em die. It's cheaper that way."
The best part about this program? Reporters are asking the members of Congress if they would sign up for this healthcare program. I've yet to hear one of them answer "yes."
But, to be honest, here is the most terrifying part of this plan. While most things that a President does can be undone by the next administration, (Obama was an excellent example of that principle!) this can not simply be undone by our next President. If this passes ~ that's it: the government will have yet another massive huge bureaucratic monstrosity that we can never get rid of (See: Medicare, Social Security, Homeland Security, IRS, Medicaid, Welfare, etc). All of the results I've explained above are inevitable: Once companies stop offering healthcare as a benefit which will lead to the slow strangulation death of all private healthcare companies there will be too many Americans relying on this terrible program for it to be ended. Where would they go? There is no way the existing private healthcare companies (if there are any) would be able to withstand an influx of insureds in the numbers that would suddenly find themselves uninsured. Not to mention the numbers that would be considered uninsurable, or people with "pre-existing conditions." Once we have started down this spiralling path, anyone who tries to right the ship would be seen as either heartless or stupid.
Oh, and let's not forget that the plan also has that incredibly sensible aspect that fines you if you don't have healthcare. So if you can't afford healthcare, you have to pay more for not having it. What I want to know is, will the President's plan cover me as I recover from starvation because I can't afford my food and my taxes to cover my new "affordable" healthcare plan?
Now, indulge me as we go one more speculative step forward. Without much difficulty, one can envision the government trying to lower costs by regulating what doctors can charge. This could cause the good doctors to decide that either they don't really want to practice medicine anymore, or they just don't want to practice it here. And let's not forget the complaints from countries that have socialized medicine: it takes forever to get anything done. The only country without that complaint is Germany and that country is going bankrupt. Granted, this paragraph is not as likely to happen as the rest of the post. But it is, by no means, out of the question!
In the end, either the President is incredibly short-sighted and can't foresee these obvious inevitable results or he is incredibly devious, recognizes that these things will happen but hopes he can pretend they were unintended and his dream of taking another step towards a socialist society will be complete.
Either way, that's not the type of leadership I'm looking for from the Oval Office. Please, write to your congressman or congresswoman. Tell them to vote NO on this bill. Let's leave Obama's plan where we left Hillary's: In the waiting room where it belongs. You know, that place we'll end up if this thing passes!
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Happy Independence Day
I've shared my thoughts on the Fourth of July in the past, but I had a new thought this year:
If you are going to be in one of those big city Pops/Orchestras, I hope you don't like fireworks.
They never get to see them. Whenever I've seen them play they are always facing away from the fireworks display. And even when the fireworks are off to the side, these poor people have to share their view between their music and the conductor (who gets to face the fireworks). Not you, musicians: No fireworks for you.
Thanks for making that sacrifice. We owe you one!
And that's this year's Fourth of July Opinion.
If you are going to be in one of those big city Pops/Orchestras, I hope you don't like fireworks.
They never get to see them. Whenever I've seen them play they are always facing away from the fireworks display. And even when the fireworks are off to the side, these poor people have to share their view between their music and the conductor (who gets to face the fireworks). Not you, musicians: No fireworks for you.
Thanks for making that sacrifice. We owe you one!
And that's this year's Fourth of July Opinion.
Friday, July 03, 2009
The Weather
You gotta love the Global Warming theory. Global Warming shares a distinct position with only one other theory: Evolution. What distinction is that? These two theories are so mailable that nothing, absolutely nothing, could ever prove them wrong.
Take this most recent spring and now summer here in New England. Unseasonably cool. Amazingly rainy. Global Warming states that our average temperatures should be steadily rising. And yet this is not the case this year. And what is the climate change activist's response? That the factors that go into Global Warming are causing the changes to our climate to create what we are experiencing now.
So let me make sure I understand: When it's getting hotter, that's clearly Global Warming. But when it's not getting warmer that is climate change caused by what is associated with Global Warming and, therefore, still proves Global Warming.
The problem with these two theories is that they are patently unscientific. A theory should lead to experimentation and prediction. I've not heard a single Global Warming proponent predict that Global Warming would cause a cool and very wet spring. (And I'd love to hear how one can experiment with the theory of evolution seeing as at the very heart of the theory is that the only force acting on it is natural selection and unguided mutations. As soon as we start experimenting either the only force is now longer natural selection or the mutations are no longer unguided.)
The Theory of Gravity allows me to predict that something I toss up will come down. Or I can determine how much force I'd need to get something to escape gravity. The theory of Global Warming apparently is unable to predict the future of our planets climate. And let's not forget this, now notorious, article from the April 28, 1975 edition of Newsweek: The Cooling World
I'm gonna rest assured that the earth will not become too hot for life until the earth's creator decides it's time.
Take this most recent spring and now summer here in New England. Unseasonably cool. Amazingly rainy. Global Warming states that our average temperatures should be steadily rising. And yet this is not the case this year. And what is the climate change activist's response? That the factors that go into Global Warming are causing the changes to our climate to create what we are experiencing now.
So let me make sure I understand: When it's getting hotter, that's clearly Global Warming. But when it's not getting warmer that is climate change caused by what is associated with Global Warming and, therefore, still proves Global Warming.
The problem with these two theories is that they are patently unscientific. A theory should lead to experimentation and prediction. I've not heard a single Global Warming proponent predict that Global Warming would cause a cool and very wet spring. (And I'd love to hear how one can experiment with the theory of evolution seeing as at the very heart of the theory is that the only force acting on it is natural selection and unguided mutations. As soon as we start experimenting either the only force is now longer natural selection or the mutations are no longer unguided.)
The Theory of Gravity allows me to predict that something I toss up will come down. Or I can determine how much force I'd need to get something to escape gravity. The theory of Global Warming apparently is unable to predict the future of our planets climate. And let's not forget this, now notorious, article from the April 28, 1975 edition of Newsweek: The Cooling World
I'm gonna rest assured that the earth will not become too hot for life until the earth's creator decides it's time.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Review: Recount
2008/R/Drama
Recount is the dramatization (based on actual events) of the fight for Florida during the 2000 Presidential Election between Bush and Gore. **Spoiler Alert** Al Gore looses. This movie, produced by HBOFilms, stars Kevin Spacey, Dennis Leary, Ed Begly Jr., Tom Wilkinson, and Mitch Pileggi. If the mere fact that this movie was made didn't communicate it, the fact that it's HBOFilms starring these people made it more than apparent prior to viewing that this movie would lean left.
Recount was everything I thought it would be an nothing I'd hoped it would be. Lean left? Yeah, if you can call a boat that's capsized "leaning." While I expected a bias, the extent to which the filmmakers went was surprising. What I found was had the bias been less exaggerated, I might have been more receptive to some of their talking points.
How bad was the bias? I'll list just a few comparisons in regards to how the portrayed the competing sides:
The Candidates:
While neither Senator Gore nor Governor Bush was fully portrayed, they were represented throughout the movie. Gore was in charge of the legal proceedings that his team of lawyers was pursuing. He was compassionate, concerned with the American people and his image. Bush was absent. His team was run by the head lawyer. Gore's people were on the phone to him repeatedly. No one ever checked with Bush regarding the actions they were taking. The only time we heard Bush was when he was snooty to Gore on the phone. We hear Gore several times leading and directing his troops.
The Lawyers:
There are several ways the director and writers chose to expose their bias through these characters. There is a very telling scene that bounces between the two camps as the set their strategy when it first appeared that Florida was going to become a post-election battleground. The Democrats would say something that sounded gentle and altruistic. They'd follow it up with a comment about something they certainly couldn't do on moral or ethical grounds. Cut to: The Republican lawyers proclaiming they needed to do the exact verbatim thing the liberal lawyers just said they could never do. This was done not once, not even twice, at least three times throughout the course of the movie. While it garnered a laugh, even from me, it moved this piece from fictional retelling to melodrama.
The Design:
I debated which heading to use for this section. "Design" encompasses lighting, costumes, and set. The lawyers for the two sides were purposefully portrayed as polar opposites. The democrats were in business casual: respectable yet approachable. The republicans were in business suits: stuffy, stodgy, rich. Gore's team was headquartered in a comfortable, brightly lit, campaign-style storefront filled with big windows, folding chairs, campaign signs, and folding tables. The Bush team was in a dark, enclosed conference room filled with heavy law books, heavy curtains, and a big heavy table. The Liberals were lit warmly, attractively, comfortably with key lights and fill lights. The conservatives were consistently back lit with a single harsh cold light.
There was a moment when they almost made the Republicans appear to be human. However, when juxtaposed with some of the things the Democrats said, even that was slanted. A fellow lawyer asked the Chief Republican attorney why he switched parties, as he was once a Democrat. The man replied that at a difficult time in his life, a politician was very kind and understanding: G. Bush I. "Oh, how sweet." Right? Consider this: Following their loss, a few of the Democrats were saying that they didn't even like Al Gore. What am I getting at? The Democrats are doing what they are doing because the believe in the party and it's platforms. The only reason the lawyer was a Republican was due to friendship. No intelligent person would ever be a Republican based on the party platforms (unless you are rich.) Even in their "pet the dog*" moment, they still bashed the right.
In the end, some of the Democrats are sitting around opining that hopefully, the right man was in office, even if it wasn't their guy. While they are discussing this little hints are being dropped: Brown appointed as FEMA chair on a newspaper, Iraq mentioned in a broadcast. They don't go so far as to drop any foreshadowing of 9/11, but their feelings on the overall situation is clear (as though we needed to be reminded how the makers of the movie truly felt...)
We all remember the questions surrounding the Florida election of 2000. In my extensive studies on the counts and recounts I still cannot say for certain who won the state. The filmmakers certainly had a very compelling story with valid points on both sides. The fact that they couldn't simply tell the story and felt they need to spin it (more than spin it: catapult it) to the left negated any points either side had. Basically, the inability of the writers, director, and producers to suppress their own political viewpoints made this movie a waste of time.
The message of the movie is unmistakable. So, even though it was completely counter productive, they were successful in communicating their purpose. They get a half star for that. The acting, constrained as it was by the script and overall bias, was fairly decent. One star for that.
Overall 1.5 out of 5 stars.
* A "pet the dog" moment is when you have your stereotypical villain pet a dog, or do something else humane, to show that he isn't all evil. A good example of this would be when Nicholas Cage's character cares for his brother in Face/Off. This ability to care shows he's somewhat human.
Recount is the dramatization (based on actual events) of the fight for Florida during the 2000 Presidential Election between Bush and Gore. **Spoiler Alert** Al Gore looses. This movie, produced by HBOFilms, stars Kevin Spacey, Dennis Leary, Ed Begly Jr., Tom Wilkinson, and Mitch Pileggi. If the mere fact that this movie was made didn't communicate it, the fact that it's HBOFilms starring these people made it more than apparent prior to viewing that this movie would lean left.
Recount was everything I thought it would be an nothing I'd hoped it would be. Lean left? Yeah, if you can call a boat that's capsized "leaning." While I expected a bias, the extent to which the filmmakers went was surprising. What I found was had the bias been less exaggerated, I might have been more receptive to some of their talking points.
How bad was the bias? I'll list just a few comparisons in regards to how the portrayed the competing sides:
The Candidates:
While neither Senator Gore nor Governor Bush was fully portrayed, they were represented throughout the movie. Gore was in charge of the legal proceedings that his team of lawyers was pursuing. He was compassionate, concerned with the American people and his image. Bush was absent. His team was run by the head lawyer. Gore's people were on the phone to him repeatedly. No one ever checked with Bush regarding the actions they were taking. The only time we heard Bush was when he was snooty to Gore on the phone. We hear Gore several times leading and directing his troops.
The Lawyers:
There are several ways the director and writers chose to expose their bias through these characters. There is a very telling scene that bounces between the two camps as the set their strategy when it first appeared that Florida was going to become a post-election battleground. The Democrats would say something that sounded gentle and altruistic. They'd follow it up with a comment about something they certainly couldn't do on moral or ethical grounds. Cut to: The Republican lawyers proclaiming they needed to do the exact verbatim thing the liberal lawyers just said they could never do. This was done not once, not even twice, at least three times throughout the course of the movie. While it garnered a laugh, even from me, it moved this piece from fictional retelling to melodrama.
The Design:
I debated which heading to use for this section. "Design" encompasses lighting, costumes, and set. The lawyers for the two sides were purposefully portrayed as polar opposites. The democrats were in business casual: respectable yet approachable. The republicans were in business suits: stuffy, stodgy, rich. Gore's team was headquartered in a comfortable, brightly lit, campaign-style storefront filled with big windows, folding chairs, campaign signs, and folding tables. The Bush team was in a dark, enclosed conference room filled with heavy law books, heavy curtains, and a big heavy table. The Liberals were lit warmly, attractively, comfortably with key lights and fill lights. The conservatives were consistently back lit with a single harsh cold light.
There was a moment when they almost made the Republicans appear to be human. However, when juxtaposed with some of the things the Democrats said, even that was slanted. A fellow lawyer asked the Chief Republican attorney why he switched parties, as he was once a Democrat. The man replied that at a difficult time in his life, a politician was very kind and understanding: G. Bush I. "Oh, how sweet." Right? Consider this: Following their loss, a few of the Democrats were saying that they didn't even like Al Gore. What am I getting at? The Democrats are doing what they are doing because the believe in the party and it's platforms. The only reason the lawyer was a Republican was due to friendship. No intelligent person would ever be a Republican based on the party platforms (unless you are rich.) Even in their "pet the dog*" moment, they still bashed the right.
In the end, some of the Democrats are sitting around opining that hopefully, the right man was in office, even if it wasn't their guy. While they are discussing this little hints are being dropped: Brown appointed as FEMA chair on a newspaper, Iraq mentioned in a broadcast. They don't go so far as to drop any foreshadowing of 9/11, but their feelings on the overall situation is clear (as though we needed to be reminded how the makers of the movie truly felt...)
We all remember the questions surrounding the Florida election of 2000. In my extensive studies on the counts and recounts I still cannot say for certain who won the state. The filmmakers certainly had a very compelling story with valid points on both sides. The fact that they couldn't simply tell the story and felt they need to spin it (more than spin it: catapult it) to the left negated any points either side had. Basically, the inability of the writers, director, and producers to suppress their own political viewpoints made this movie a waste of time.
The message of the movie is unmistakable. So, even though it was completely counter productive, they were successful in communicating their purpose. They get a half star for that. The acting, constrained as it was by the script and overall bias, was fairly decent. One star for that.
Overall 1.5 out of 5 stars.
* A "pet the dog" moment is when you have your stereotypical villain pet a dog, or do something else humane, to show that he isn't all evil. A good example of this would be when Nicholas Cage's character cares for his brother in Face/Off. This ability to care shows he's somewhat human.
Once, Twice, Three Years a Daddy
Today Full House turns three.
THREE!
I cannot believe that so much time has passed.
I don't often take time to express fatherhood thoughts. I'd like to take a few minutes to do so now.
I love learning about my son. I love finding out what he likes and dislikes. What he thinks is funny. How he likes to spend his time. What excites him. What he has learned that we intentionally taught him and what he's learned that we did not intentionally teach him. I love his disposition, his intelligence, his athletic ability, his personality. I can't wait to see how our relationship will grow as he does (Well, I don't want him to be grown tomorrow!) I love my son.
I've learned that parenthood is backwards from any other relationship. Consider the majority of other types of relatioships: friendships, marriages, parents, colleagues. Let's assume that every interaction I have with them is positive. We express mutual respect. We compliment each other. In most of our interactions we are positive. In those relationships, if something cutting, negative, or biting is said, it almost completely wipes out all of the positive and good that has happened before. With parenthood, one could have a brat. One's child could be the worst, most disrespectful kid on the block. This parent could have the most infuriating frustrating child and have all of that angst and stress pent up as they are trying to get this hypothetical child to go to sleep. And this child calls them in for the 8 thousandth time to his room and says, "Daddy, I love you." And everything else goes away! Nothing else matters. Suddenly, said child is an angel. Full House is an amazing little boy. I honestly wonder why I was blessed with such a fantastic kid. This is not a commentary on him in the slightest. Simply that, there are times when I, as a father, usually unwarranted, get frustrated with him. He says something sweet, innocent, brilliant, funny, whatever... it all melts away. This would never happen in any other relationship.
I don't like the term "Father." I learned this fact when I was playing with Full House in a public place and an older gentleman asked him, "Do you like playing with your father?" "Whoa," I thought, "I'm his Dad." I had a visceral emotional reaction to the moniker "father." I am blessed to be Full House's (and Wild Card's) dad.
I'm trying to be intentional as his dad. We have a game plan before we play football. We story board before we shoot a film. We prepare for an interview. Why don't we have a plan for parenthood. I call him "Little Man" to remind myself that it's my job to raise him to be a Godly man. I'm intentionally laying a foundation on which I can build as he grows older to instill in him habits that I never had. Prayer. Reading the Word. Studying the Word. Modeling the proper servanthood leadership in the home. Displaying how to love and respect a woman. I don't want to fly by the seat of my pants. I want a game plan. Hopefully it will get even better as I grow in experience as a dad.
So, my little man, my buddy: Happy Birthday. Thank you for three years of laughs, smiles, games, insight, surprises, and love.
I love you, buddy!
I cannot believe that so much time has passed.
I don't often take time to express fatherhood thoughts. I'd like to take a few minutes to do so now.
I love learning about my son. I love finding out what he likes and dislikes. What he thinks is funny. How he likes to spend his time. What excites him. What he has learned that we intentionally taught him and what he's learned that we did not intentionally teach him. I love his disposition, his intelligence, his athletic ability, his personality. I can't wait to see how our relationship will grow as he does (Well, I don't want him to be grown tomorrow!) I love my son.
I've learned that parenthood is backwards from any other relationship. Consider the majority of other types of relatioships: friendships, marriages, parents, colleagues. Let's assume that every interaction I have with them is positive. We express mutual respect. We compliment each other. In most of our interactions we are positive. In those relationships, if something cutting, negative, or biting is said, it almost completely wipes out all of the positive and good that has happened before. With parenthood, one could have a brat. One's child could be the worst, most disrespectful kid on the block. This parent could have the most infuriating frustrating child and have all of that angst and stress pent up as they are trying to get this hypothetical child to go to sleep. And this child calls them in for the 8 thousandth time to his room and says, "Daddy, I love you." And everything else goes away! Nothing else matters. Suddenly, said child is an angel. Full House is an amazing little boy. I honestly wonder why I was blessed with such a fantastic kid. This is not a commentary on him in the slightest. Simply that, there are times when I, as a father, usually unwarranted, get frustrated with him. He says something sweet, innocent, brilliant, funny, whatever... it all melts away. This would never happen in any other relationship.
I don't like the term "Father." I learned this fact when I was playing with Full House in a public place and an older gentleman asked him, "Do you like playing with your father?" "Whoa," I thought, "I'm his Dad." I had a visceral emotional reaction to the moniker "father." I am blessed to be Full House's (and Wild Card's) dad.
I'm trying to be intentional as his dad. We have a game plan before we play football. We story board before we shoot a film. We prepare for an interview. Why don't we have a plan for parenthood. I call him "Little Man" to remind myself that it's my job to raise him to be a Godly man. I'm intentionally laying a foundation on which I can build as he grows older to instill in him habits that I never had. Prayer. Reading the Word. Studying the Word. Modeling the proper servanthood leadership in the home. Displaying how to love and respect a woman. I don't want to fly by the seat of my pants. I want a game plan. Hopefully it will get even better as I grow in experience as a dad.
So, my little man, my buddy: Happy Birthday. Thank you for three years of laughs, smiles, games, insight, surprises, and love.
I love you, buddy!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Father's Day
I was running around my yard with my son hoping that my love and attention would help him grow into a man that I, my wife, and even he, would be proud of.
In the midst of this I had a thought: Who would I have been if I had a father who wanted to be a Dad? I've always said and known that I am a better man because my father left. I wouldn't be half the man I am if I'd had his example of what it meant to be a husband or a father. God obviously placed specific men in my life at specific times to shape me into the man I am today. For that I am inexpressibly grateful!
But still, sometimes I wonder...
In the midst of this I had a thought: Who would I have been if I had a father who wanted to be a Dad? I've always said and known that I am a better man because my father left. I wouldn't be half the man I am if I'd had his example of what it meant to be a husband or a father. God obviously placed specific men in my life at specific times to shape me into the man I am today. For that I am inexpressibly grateful!
But still, sometimes I wonder...
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Seeing Stars
No, this isn't a post about my years in Hollywood. And I haven't seen a cartoon character take a mallet to the head recently. I'm talking about big gaseous balls of fire in the heavens.
I've had a few encounters with stars within the past few days. The story of Abraham and the promise that his descendants would outnumber the stars. I read a Shakespearean sonnet that referenced them. And I'm watching a BBC program called Hyperspace, billed as covering "From the beginning of the universe to the end of our world" and these have gotten me thinking...
When I read the story of Abraham, I'm never really impressed that his descendants will out number the stars - out numbering the sands astounds me - but not so much the stars. And Shakespeare talks about the number and beauty of them... ehh. Don't get me wrong, they are amazing and I love gazing at them, but... And then I remember:
We do not see the same stars they did!
I'm not saying that the stars themselves are different, but our planet has gotten so visually loud that we see so many fewer stars than they did. Consider this:
This is basically what we see now:
Imagine seeing this:
I was driving across Wyoming (not many people can start a sentence that way!), it was night, the highway was empty (anyone surprised?), the land was so flat I could see the horizon as though I was at sea. Wyoming doesn't believe in streetlights. I had a realization. I pulled my car over, turned off the lights, climbed up on the hood, leaned back on the windshield and marvelled! Suddenly I understood the promise to Abraham. I saw the majesty Shakespeare attempted to capture in words. I'd never seen the night sky so filled with stars.
Which brings me to my other thought: Hyperspace has been using some fairly ironic words. Obviously this BBC production isn't acknowledging the existence of God and yet they are using such words as "creation" and talking about things being "brought into existence."
The first episode mentions "the beginning of time" and takes us back to the Big Bang. Of course, most of us know that scientists generally agree that time existed before the Big Bang, we just have no way of knowing what was there. That was just something that made me go "huh?"
Anyway, the episode talks about how everything that is was "created" by stars. The only element that existed during the Big Bang was hydrogen, that became stars that became denser and created helium, oxygen, calcium, etc all the way to lead as the star died. Dying stars spewed their "star stuff" that became planets and the super nova-ing stars created black holes. All I could picture is God watching this thinking, "I know! Isn't is so stinking cool?! Doesn't it just blow your mind what I came up with! I'm so proud of you that you figured it all out. I love this stuff too!"
To bring this post together, Hyperspace gave a statistic: For every grain of sand on earth there are 1 million stars in the universe. I guess I need to swap which promise to Abraham amazes me!
I will continue to be astonished by the beauty and creativity of the stars.
I've had a few encounters with stars within the past few days. The story of Abraham and the promise that his descendants would outnumber the stars. I read a Shakespearean sonnet that referenced them. And I'm watching a BBC program called Hyperspace, billed as covering "From the beginning of the universe to the end of our world" and these have gotten me thinking...
When I read the story of Abraham, I'm never really impressed that his descendants will out number the stars - out numbering the sands astounds me - but not so much the stars. And Shakespeare talks about the number and beauty of them... ehh. Don't get me wrong, they are amazing and I love gazing at them, but... And then I remember:
I'm not saying that the stars themselves are different, but our planet has gotten so visually loud that we see so many fewer stars than they did. Consider this:
This is basically what we see now:
Imagine seeing this:
I was driving across Wyoming (not many people can start a sentence that way!), it was night, the highway was empty (anyone surprised?), the land was so flat I could see the horizon as though I was at sea. Wyoming doesn't believe in streetlights. I had a realization. I pulled my car over, turned off the lights, climbed up on the hood, leaned back on the windshield and marvelled! Suddenly I understood the promise to Abraham. I saw the majesty Shakespeare attempted to capture in words. I'd never seen the night sky so filled with stars.
Which brings me to my other thought: Hyperspace has been using some fairly ironic words. Obviously this BBC production isn't acknowledging the existence of God and yet they are using such words as "creation" and talking about things being "brought into existence."
The first episode mentions "the beginning of time" and takes us back to the Big Bang. Of course, most of us know that scientists generally agree that time existed before the Big Bang, we just have no way of knowing what was there. That was just something that made me go "huh?"
Anyway, the episode talks about how everything that is was "created" by stars. The only element that existed during the Big Bang was hydrogen, that became stars that became denser and created helium, oxygen, calcium, etc all the way to lead as the star died. Dying stars spewed their "star stuff" that became planets and the super nova-ing stars created black holes. All I could picture is God watching this thinking, "I know! Isn't is so stinking cool?! Doesn't it just blow your mind what I came up with! I'm so proud of you that you figured it all out. I love this stuff too!"
To bring this post together, Hyperspace gave a statistic: For every grain of sand on earth there are 1 million stars in the universe. I guess I need to swap which promise to Abraham amazes me!
I will continue to be astonished by the beauty and creativity of the stars.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
International Politics
I think it's a rare event that JMO delves into the realm of international politics, but there are two issues that have burst onto the scene of current events on which JMO has an opinion. (Surprise, surprise, right?)
Newsline: North Korea
Two American Journalists entered North Korea illegally as they covered a story regarding North Korean refugees fleeing to China, the country they entered from. They were arrested in March and only just recently were sentenced to twelve years hard labor. The Obama administration is very concerned regarding this verdict.
I have three thoughts on this situation. First, honestly, twelve years is getting off easy. Let's consider the other possibilities. If I'm North Korea, I'm arresting your for espionage. You are in our country illegally, you are from a country with which relations are currently strained and you have recording devices. Espionage equals death. Twelve years vs death? I'll take the twelve years.
Second, what were these journalists thinking? North Korea won't care? They'll be treated with leniency because they are women? Nothing like giving ammunition to the enemy of your country. If nothing else, these two journalists are now bargaining chips for the North Koreans with the US government regarding their nuclear program.
Third, the Obama administration has stated that they are very concerned with the terms of the sentence. This should come as no surprise to anyone! Of course the Obama administration is concerned. They don't care about people coming into this country illegally, why should other countries enforce their own laws?
Newsline: Iran
I was shocked to hear that Iran was holding elections! That lasted for about 4 seconds. Then I remembered that Iraq used to hold elections, too. It was the only country in the world where the President was elected having received 100% of the vote and where 100% of the vote was greater than the eligible voting population.
Therefore, I was even more surprised to hear that Ahmadinejad won by "a larger margin than expected." I expected it to be 100%. That means that in rigging the election, they actually allowed the other candidates to receive some of the votes! Looks like reform is coming to Iran. Maybe next time it will be a tie, and they will have a run off election before Mahmoud declares himself the winner.
So, that's my opinion. What's yours?
Newsline: North Korea
Two American Journalists entered North Korea illegally as they covered a story regarding North Korean refugees fleeing to China, the country they entered from. They were arrested in March and only just recently were sentenced to twelve years hard labor. The Obama administration is very concerned regarding this verdict.
I have three thoughts on this situation. First, honestly, twelve years is getting off easy. Let's consider the other possibilities. If I'm North Korea, I'm arresting your for espionage. You are in our country illegally, you are from a country with which relations are currently strained and you have recording devices. Espionage equals death. Twelve years vs death? I'll take the twelve years.
Second, what were these journalists thinking? North Korea won't care? They'll be treated with leniency because they are women? Nothing like giving ammunition to the enemy of your country. If nothing else, these two journalists are now bargaining chips for the North Koreans with the US government regarding their nuclear program.
Third, the Obama administration has stated that they are very concerned with the terms of the sentence. This should come as no surprise to anyone! Of course the Obama administration is concerned. They don't care about people coming into this country illegally, why should other countries enforce their own laws?
Newsline: Iran
I was shocked to hear that Iran was holding elections! That lasted for about 4 seconds. Then I remembered that Iraq used to hold elections, too. It was the only country in the world where the President was elected having received 100% of the vote and where 100% of the vote was greater than the eligible voting population.
Therefore, I was even more surprised to hear that Ahmadinejad won by "a larger margin than expected." I expected it to be 100%. That means that in rigging the election, they actually allowed the other candidates to receive some of the votes! Looks like reform is coming to Iran. Maybe next time it will be a tie, and they will have a run off election before Mahmoud declares himself the winner.
So, that's my opinion. What's yours?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Dismantling Food
Recently, I admitted to myself that I have a strange eating habit. I dismantle food (If this confuses you, you'll understand more as you read). I used to think this was localized only to one or two snacks. However, the more I reflected on this abnormality, the more I concluded that, when it comes to dismantling food, I practically do it whenever possible.
I first started to consider this issue when Reese ran their "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese" campaign.
How do I eat my Reese Peanut Butter Cups? I bite off the chocolate around the circumference of the cup. Then I see if I can get the chocolate off the top. Then I eat the peanut butter. I dismantle it - bit by bit.
Anyway. This all came to a head on Friday when I had a few different snacks in relative rapid succession.
I had a Pop Tart. (I bite the edges off, then try to slide apart the middle so I have the frosting and the filling on the top and bottom.)
I had some Combos. (I try to isolate the filling by biting off the pretzel or breading from around the outside. Then I pop the middle in my mouth)
I had some Kit Kats. (I bite off the ends and then I lift off each level of wafer with my teeth as I
devour the candy bar).
I stopped mid Kit Kat and realized that within five hours I'd dismantled four different foods! (I'd
already had a peanut butter cup). Then I thought about other foods:
Swiss Cake Rolls: I eat the chocolate coating off and then unroll it as I eat it.
Reese Sticks: I eat these the same way I eat Kit Kats, biting off one layer at a time.
Think it ends there? I wish! In fact, not only does it not end,it gets worse! I have trouble eating an Oreo without opening it and licking off the filling. I even try to nibble off the candy shell of Reese' Pieces and eat the peanut butter by itself!
Think that's crazy? While this one is not as consistent as all of the others, I've even been known to chew off the breading from Mozzarella Sticks if they've gotten a little cool and the cheese has congealed inside them!
Even as I wrote this I found I was realizing even more foods I do this to! (Don't worry, I added them as I went). But what does this bizarre eating habit say about me? Do I even want to know?! I may be opening Pandora's box but ... I am inviting you to offer your opinions on what this says about me, or what part of my personality you think is being reflected. Fire away!
(Ok, but I am not as bad as my college friend who used to rip off the "fry butts" and eat only the middles leaving a pile of amputated fry ends on her plate! ... Right?)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
And one other thing: Congratulations to the QofH for reaching the milestone of her first 100 posts on It's Called Guilt. If you haven't yet, be sure to check out her insightful blog on motherhood!
I first started to consider this issue when Reese ran their "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese" campaign.
How do I eat my Reese Peanut Butter Cups? I bite off the chocolate around the circumference of the cup. Then I see if I can get the chocolate off the top. Then I eat the peanut butter. I dismantle it - bit by bit.Anyway. This all came to a head on Friday when I had a few different snacks in relative rapid succession.
I had a Pop Tart. (I bite the edges off, then try to slide apart the middle so I have the frosting and the filling on the top and bottom.)
I had some Combos. (I try to isolate the filling by biting off the pretzel or breading from around the outside. Then I pop the middle in my mouth)I had some Kit Kats. (I bite off the ends and then I lift off each level of wafer with my teeth as I
devour the candy bar).I stopped mid Kit Kat and realized that within five hours I'd dismantled four different foods! (I'd
already had a peanut butter cup). Then I thought about other foods:Swiss Cake Rolls: I eat the chocolate coating off and then unroll it as I eat it.
Reese Sticks: I eat these the same way I eat Kit Kats, biting off one layer at a time.
Think it ends there? I wish! In fact, not only does it not end,it gets worse! I have trouble eating an Oreo without opening it and licking off the filling. I even try to nibble off the candy shell of Reese' Pieces and eat the peanut butter by itself!
Think that's crazy? While this one is not as consistent as all of the others, I've even been known to chew off the breading from Mozzarella Sticks if they've gotten a little cool and the cheese has congealed inside them!
Even as I wrote this I found I was realizing even more foods I do this to! (Don't worry, I added them as I went). But what does this bizarre eating habit say about me? Do I even want to know?! I may be opening Pandora's box but ... I am inviting you to offer your opinions on what this says about me, or what part of my personality you think is being reflected. Fire away!
(Ok, but I am not as bad as my college friend who used to rip off the "fry butts" and eat only the middles leaving a pile of amputated fry ends on her plate! ... Right?)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
And one other thing: Congratulations to the QofH for reaching the milestone of her first 100 posts on It's Called Guilt. If you haven't yet, be sure to check out her insightful blog on motherhood!
Friday, June 12, 2009
Review: Premonition
Seriously, I'm totally going to give the movie away
I'm not even kidding, if you want to watch the movie and be surprised, stop reading now
(But let me say this: it's really not worth skipping the review to watch the movie. If you have to pick one, pick the review)
2007/PG-13/Drama
Premonition is my movie. And when I say that, "my movie" is a movie that never got made, for good reason. I'll explain:
For my final project in film school, we had to pitch a movie idea to the producers (Professors). They'd select which five movies would be made out of the twelve that were presented. I pitched a movie called Photo Finish. The very short synopsis is: Due to the consequences of his own actions, fate gives a man a Polaroid Camera. The camera begins to lead him to strangers who, unbeknownst to him, are about to die. He takes their picture and when it develops it turns out to be a picture of their death, which is imminent. He decides to try to do good and the each time the camera leads him he tries to save the person's life. His actions end up causing their death, and when he does nothing, they still die. Finally, the camera leads our anti-hero to a mirror. He takes his own picture and sees how he will die moments before it happens. The movie ends with an apparition of our hero passing the camera off to the person who was responsible for his death, and they cycle continues.
This is the movie I pitched. The producers didn't like the fact that there was no redemption for the main character. They told me my movie would be made, but I had to rework it so that his actions saved people from their imminent demise. What the producer says goes and Photo Finish was made.
What does this have to do with Premonition? If you've seen the movie, I hope you'll see the correlation. First, let me say that I didn't like this movie. It had so many things that annoy me. Not the least of which was some supernatural plot gimmick that had no explanation. Why is Sandra Bullock living the days of this specific week out of order? Was the priest supposed to provide some type of explanation? Hardly! So, basically, this was a time travel movie without being explicitly marketed as one.
Having said that, this time travel movie suffers from the same problem that many others do. In fact, it is the exact same complaint I have with Minority Report (Which was a much better movie). Her premonition is the direct cause of his death. If she did not have the premonition he is still living so what caused the premonition? He's not dead. (With Minority Report it was the Pre-cog's vision that causes the dominoes to tumble eventually ending with Cruise's character committing the murder the Pre-cog saw. No Pre-cog, no murder) No premonition, no death.
How did this movie get made? In my movie, the camera leads the anti-hero to a place where he causes peoples' deaths. In Premonition, the foreknowledge of how and when her husband dies causes Sandra Bullock to take actions that cause his death. If she lived the day he died like any other day, then he lives.
The producers who green lighted Photo Finish with their required changes made my movie better. The producers who green lighted Premonition (especially with it's clearly altered audience tested moronic ending) should not have made their movie.
Even though Bullock, Shyann McClure, and Courtney Taylor Burness (the girls playing her daughters) put forth fairly remarkable performances, considering the subject matter, they still weren't able to rescue this movie from its own storyline. (And what is with Sandra doing all these movies with weird time plot gimmicks? See The Lake House.)
Taking into account the acting: 1.5 out of 5 stars.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
I Can't Believe This Exists
This may become a regular (or semi-regular) installment on JMO. If that does become the case then here is the first episode:
I can't believe that this exists:
That's right! Remember, you saw it here first: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the musical starring David Hasselhoff! Be sure to show some restraint. Don't all rush out to buy one.
That's right! Remember, you saw it here first: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the musical starring David Hasselhoff! Be sure to show some restraint. Don't all rush out to buy one.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Nissan
With all of the failing car companies in the news, I can't help but wonder why people buy Nissans.Noun 1. Nissan - the seventh month of the civil year; the first month of the ecclesiastic year (in March and April) in the Hebrew calendar.
Here's why I ask: When I think of all of the things a car could focus on, I don't think there is a Nissan that is primary for any of them!
A Nissan isn't known for being:
Reliable like the Honda Accord or a Saturn
Safe like a Volvo
Fuel efficient like the Honda Civic or the Toyota Prius
Powerful like the Sliverado, Ram, Bronco, or Tacoma
a Muscle-car like the Mustang
a Family mobile like the Dodge Grand Caravan or Plymouth Voyager
a Chick magnet like the Mitsubishi Mirage or Eclipse
Luxurious like a BMW, Infinity, or an Audi
a Status symbol like a Lexus or a Jaguar
Stereotypical like the El Camino or the Monte Carlo
Eco-friendly like the Yaris
Sporty like the Pontiac Bonneville or Corvette
Versatile like the Subaru Outback or Ford Edge
Fun like the Dodge Neon or VW Passat
Classic like the Toyota Corolla or VW Bug
Aesthetically pleasing like a Ferrari or an Eagle Vision
an Old Person car like a Cadillac, Oldsmobile, or Lincoln
In fact, the only category that I could come up with that a Nissa might be first in would be "Nissan-y." But even in that category I might put the Mazda G6 as more "like a Nissan" than a Nissan.
So, please, why would anyone purchase a Nissan?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Translation, Please?
Ever notice how toddlers and young children seem to be speaking another language, and yet their parents somehow understand them?
Such is the case with our little Full House. His vocabulary is growing by leaps and bounds, he is speaking in full sentences, and he is finding creative ways to let us know what he is talking about. While, on one hand he is an excellent speaker and everyone he interacts with finds it easy to communicate with him; on the other hand, he does say a few things that could pass for other, sometimes humorous, words or phrases.
Below is a pictorial quiz to see how well you can speak "Full House-ese." The pictures are visual representations of what it sounds like he is saying. Can you determine what he means?
The first comment on this post will be what one might hear when he speaks, the "literal translation" if you will. Later in the week, I'll put the answers of what he actually means. See how well you can do. Feel free to put your answers in comments and let us all know if you used just the picture, or the picture and the explanation, to form your guess.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Happy guessing. Don't forget: The first comment is the "literal translation" of each picture and check back later for what he is really saying!
Such is the case with our little Full House. His vocabulary is growing by leaps and bounds, he is speaking in full sentences, and he is finding creative ways to let us know what he is talking about. While, on one hand he is an excellent speaker and everyone he interacts with finds it easy to communicate with him; on the other hand, he does say a few things that could pass for other, sometimes humorous, words or phrases.
Below is a pictorial quiz to see how well you can speak "Full House-ese." The pictures are visual representations of what it sounds like he is saying. Can you determine what he means?
The first comment on this post will be what one might hear when he speaks, the "literal translation" if you will. Later in the week, I'll put the answers of what he actually means. See how well you can do. Feel free to put your answers in comments and let us all know if you used just the picture, or the picture and the explanation, to form your guess.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Happy guessing. Don't forget: The first comment is the "literal translation" of each picture and check back later for what he is really saying!
Monday, May 11, 2009
Selling Medocrity
I saw a preview for Tom Hank's newest film that proclaimed:
"Audiences and critics around the world agree: Angels and Demons is better than The Davinci Code!"
Is that the best they could come up with? I picture people standing outside the theater, shrugging and saying off-handedly, "Well, at least it was better than The DaVinci Code."
Isn't that like saying: "Sportscasters and fans alike believe that the 2007 Dolphins (1-15) were better than the 2008 Lions (0-16)!"
"Chefs and patrons both concur: week-old moldy mushroom soup is better than month-old maggot filled road kill!"
"Families everywhere declare: living in a run-down apartment is better than living in a cardboard box!"
Are we supposed to be impressed when they compare new crap with old crap and decide that new crap is better? Just wondering.
"Audiences and critics around the world agree: Angels and Demons is better than The Davinci Code!"
Is that the best they could come up with? I picture people standing outside the theater, shrugging and saying off-handedly, "Well, at least it was better than The DaVinci Code."
Isn't that like saying: "Sportscasters and fans alike believe that the 2007 Dolphins (1-15) were better than the 2008 Lions (0-16)!"
"Chefs and patrons both concur: week-old moldy mushroom soup is better than month-old maggot filled road kill!"
"Families everywhere declare: living in a run-down apartment is better than living in a cardboard box!"
Are we supposed to be impressed when they compare new crap with old crap and decide that new crap is better? Just wondering.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Outrageous!
"Filmmaker" Kirby Dick is at it again! The very first movie review on JMO was of this embittered man's attempt at a documentary regarding the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system. It ended up being "a whiny attack by a man who basically wants to see more sex in movies (allow more people under 18 to view it) and attempted to undermine the MPAA by slapping an undue "censor" moniker upon it." -JMO.
In his new "documentary," called Outrage, Dick purposefully outs closeted homosexual politicians who actively campaign and vote against the gay liberal agenda. In interviews, his stated purpose of this "documentary" is to expose the hypocrisy in these politicians. He states that a fringe effect of this is the unauthorized outing of these supposed closet homosexuals (all of whom happen to be members of the Republican party ~ surprise, surprise.) It has little to do with his support for the gay agenda.
This is wrong on so many levels! For years, one of the staples of the Left's gay agenda, and one of their repeated points as to why their legislation should pass, is that "what happens in someone's bedroom is private and the government should not intervene." I guess it's only private when it suits them. If they deem it counter-productive it becomes everyone's business.
Another complaint of the liberal left arose when a homosexual was outed by the media. This was "none of the public's business" and it was a despicable act by the media to out this person. It was their prerogative when and how they announced their sexual preference. Unless it was deemed counter-productive to the homosexual cause, then it becomes everyone's business.
Now, again, Kirby Dick states that this "film" is primarily to expose the hypocrisy in Washington. If that is the case then I look forward to his upcoming "documentaries":
Up In Smoke - Politicians who smoke but pass anti-smoking laws.
Gun Shy - Politicians who own guns and vote for gun control laws.
Color Blind - African-American politicians who actively oppose Affirmative Action.
Straight & Narrow - Heterosexual politicians who support the homosexual cause.
Life & Death - Politicians who believe in Pro-life for themselves yet vote for Pro-choice legislation.
Rabid Pacifist - Draft-dodging politicians who support and wage war.
I.O.USA - Tax-evading politicians who vote to increase taxes.
Party Poopers - A two-part documentary that focuses on Republicans who vote for Socialist programs and Democrats who vote for pro-American legislation.
Once Dick has finished his comprehensive project on the hypocrisy in Washington, he should move on to his crowning jewel: Private No More: An expose on how those entrenched in the gay agenda will ignore their mantra of "the government should stay out of the bedroom" so that they can out anyone they chose if they feel it furthers their cause. And perhaps the most hypocritical act is to hold the view that homosexuals deserve equal rights, that the government should stay out of the bedroom, and then out people who had chosen to exercise their right to have their sexual preference remain private. I smell an Oscar!
I sincerely hope that those who earnestly believe in the cause of homosexuals will call this "documentary" what it is: detrimental, unethical, disrespectful, and hypocritical. And that is Just My Opinion!
In his new "documentary," called Outrage, Dick purposefully outs closeted homosexual politicians who actively campaign and vote against the gay liberal agenda. In interviews, his stated purpose of this "documentary" is to expose the hypocrisy in these politicians. He states that a fringe effect of this is the unauthorized outing of these supposed closet homosexuals (all of whom happen to be members of the Republican party ~ surprise, surprise.) It has little to do with his support for the gay agenda.
This is wrong on so many levels! For years, one of the staples of the Left's gay agenda, and one of their repeated points as to why their legislation should pass, is that "what happens in someone's bedroom is private and the government should not intervene." I guess it's only private when it suits them. If they deem it counter-productive it becomes everyone's business.
Another complaint of the liberal left arose when a homosexual was outed by the media. This was "none of the public's business" and it was a despicable act by the media to out this person. It was their prerogative when and how they announced their sexual preference. Unless it was deemed counter-productive to the homosexual cause, then it becomes everyone's business.
Now, again, Kirby Dick states that this "film" is primarily to expose the hypocrisy in Washington. If that is the case then I look forward to his upcoming "documentaries":
Once Dick has finished his comprehensive project on the hypocrisy in Washington, he should move on to his crowning jewel: Private No More: An expose on how those entrenched in the gay agenda will ignore their mantra of "the government should stay out of the bedroom" so that they can out anyone they chose if they feel it furthers their cause. And perhaps the most hypocritical act is to hold the view that homosexuals deserve equal rights, that the government should stay out of the bedroom, and then out people who had chosen to exercise their right to have their sexual preference remain private. I smell an Oscar!
I sincerely hope that those who earnestly believe in the cause of homosexuals will call this "documentary" what it is: detrimental, unethical, disrespectful, and hypocritical. And that is Just My Opinion!
Saturday, May 02, 2009
The Father's Blessing
Abraham blessed Isaac.
Isaac blessed Jacob.
Jacob pronounced a blessing over all twelve of his sons.
Even Jesus received a blessing from his Father when he was baptised.
This weekend, our church provides an opportunity for parents to give this kind of amazing, life changing blessing to their children as they welcome their 7th and 8th graders into adulthood.
And the church has begun to take steps to actually back up the concept that they are adults by allowing them to become voting members. By seeing them, not as the future of the church, but as the church of today. And by slowly but surely listening to the voice of the youth.
Why is this important? Our society is filled with children who are trying to find their way without the intentional blessing of their parents. In particular, their father. Someone who has not received this blessing typically seeks acceptance from everyone and has difficulty if someone does not accept them. They are concerned that they never quite measure up. They search in as many places they can find for the blessing they never received as they entered adulthood.
Read through some of the Biblical blessings. Gary Smalley and John Trent in their book The Blessing have accurately found that a blessing consists of "a spoken message of high value, a message that pictures a special future for the individual being bless and one that is base on an active commitment to see the blessing come to pass."
I am a dad. I will devote myself to blessing my children. Daily if I can. As often as I remember. And intentionally bestow upon both of them a complete Biblically based blessing as they enter adulthood.
I hope to bless them with, not only words, but action. By introducing them to Christ. By supporting their development: emotionally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually. By pastoring my family, modeling a husband striving to love his wife, setting an example of unconditional love in parenting.
Will I fail? You bet! I already have. Will I give up? Absolutely not!
Have you missed your blessing? Don't let that fall to your children as well. Think you've missed your chance to bless your children? It's never too late to start over. Has God blessed you with offspring? Be sure you bless your offspring with your actions and words!
I found an amazing passage recently: Isaiah 49:15 (God speaking to Israel) "I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands." How true! He chose to engrave my name onto the palm of his hands using the nails that held him to the cross.
Isaac blessed Jacob.
Jacob pronounced a blessing over all twelve of his sons.
Even Jesus received a blessing from his Father when he was baptised.
This weekend, our church provides an opportunity for parents to give this kind of amazing, life changing blessing to their children as they welcome their 7th and 8th graders into adulthood.
And the church has begun to take steps to actually back up the concept that they are adults by allowing them to become voting members. By seeing them, not as the future of the church, but as the church of today. And by slowly but surely listening to the voice of the youth.
Why is this important? Our society is filled with children who are trying to find their way without the intentional blessing of their parents. In particular, their father. Someone who has not received this blessing typically seeks acceptance from everyone and has difficulty if someone does not accept them. They are concerned that they never quite measure up. They search in as many places they can find for the blessing they never received as they entered adulthood.
Read through some of the Biblical blessings. Gary Smalley and John Trent in their book The Blessing have accurately found that a blessing consists of "a spoken message of high value, a message that pictures a special future for the individual being bless and one that is base on an active commitment to see the blessing come to pass."
I am a dad. I will devote myself to blessing my children. Daily if I can. As often as I remember. And intentionally bestow upon both of them a complete Biblically based blessing as they enter adulthood.
I hope to bless them with, not only words, but action. By introducing them to Christ. By supporting their development: emotionally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually. By pastoring my family, modeling a husband striving to love his wife, setting an example of unconditional love in parenting.
Will I fail? You bet! I already have. Will I give up? Absolutely not!
Have you missed your blessing? Don't let that fall to your children as well. Think you've missed your chance to bless your children? It's never too late to start over. Has God blessed you with offspring? Be sure you bless your offspring with your actions and words!
I found an amazing passage recently: Isaiah 49:15 (God speaking to Israel) "I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands." How true! He chose to engrave my name onto the palm of his hands using the nails that held him to the cross.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Eight Short Commentaries
Just a few short (and this time, though each successive one gets longer, by JMO standards these are all very short) thoughts on various subjects:
The roads in New England are not made for post surgery travel.
Before we had the medical ability to take out the appendix, was severe pain in your lower right side a death sentence?
"Obama looks to cut $100,000,000 from the federal budget." I know a couple of recent spending bills that could be cut...
Struggling to cut $100 Million from the $3 Trillion federal budget is like having a $3,000 budget and struggling to cut ten cents.
Note to supporters of "same-sex" marriage: The majority of the nation still opposes "Same-Sex" marriage (not a commentary for civil unions). Stop acting like your stance is main stream and stop slamming people when they express an honest opinion.
If there is to be a separation of Church and State, it needs to go both ways: Hey Church, don't tell my government how to govern. Hey State, don't tell my church how to handle its finances, don't tell my church who it must and must not marry, don't tell my church who it can and cannot refuse to hire.
The IMF is guesstimating that the world's economy won't recover until 2010! This is being reported as though we still have a long way to go. Wait a minute, I thought this was the greatest recession since the great depression. Two years doesn't quite make this the recession of the century! I guess this was over hyped too. Anything to get into office, right? (Of course, Obama will take credit for this recovery. Even though I still believe that after the "stimulus" money is gone, the US will see another dip, a more severe dip in our economy before we recover.)
Let us briefly note the difference in stimulus programs compared to the parties that authored them. The Republicans (remember: for big business and the rich) gave a stimulus to the people. The same amount to everyone unless you had kids, then you got a little more. The Democrats (remember for the little guy, against big business) gave a stimulus to HUGE businesses (AIG, GMC, Fannie and Freddie Mac, ETC) and to states to give the money to the lowest bidder (IE: other big businesses) for special projects. Wake up American voter! Stop guzzling the Kool-Aid! Look at the facts and think for yourself! Which party is favoring "the little guy" and which one is favoring "big business?"
Those are some of the things rattling around in my skull. Feel free to share your thoughts on them or add your own!
Those are some of the things rattling around in my skull. Feel free to share your thoughts on them or add your own!
Monday, April 20, 2009
I Am A "Right-Wing Extremist"
At least, according to Janet Napolitano, the head of homeland security, I am.
And you might be too!
You may have heard the hubbub over Napolitano stating that returning Veterans would be targeted by these "Right-Wing Extremest" groups as possible recruits, and how up in arms the Veterans, and those who support them, were.
Not willing to just take someone's word for it, I found the declassified report. Low and behold, not only does it say that disgruntled veterans would be prime targets, but it also says that I am one, too! The report states:
Now, while I don't fall into the hate category. I definitely favor state authority over federal authority and I am defiantly in opposition to abortion and illegal immigration.
Truth be told, my stat counter has already registered a hit from the House of Representatives.
Maybe they are keeping an eye on me! Little do they know, I am keeping an eye on them!
I also had to chuckle that, according to this report, if you are a "Right-Wing Extremist" you are automatically breaking the law. Read this sentence:
To recap: I appose abortion. I favor states rights over federal authority, I oppose illegal immigration. Therefore, according to this report, I am a potential threat to the government. Are you?
You may have heard the hubbub over Napolitano stating that returning Veterans would be targeted by these "Right-Wing Extremest" groups as possible recruits, and how up in arms the Veterans, and those who support them, were.
Not willing to just take someone's word for it, I found the declassified report. Low and behold, not only does it say that disgruntled veterans would be prime targets, but it also says that I am one, too! The report states:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.Here we must note a few things. First, true to Washington's absolute narcissism, the only "government" that matters is the federal government. According to this paragraph, those that are "antigovernment" "reject federal authority in favor of state..." Apparently, state government doesn't exist. Second, did you find the immigration bias in this paragraph? I'm sure "Right-Wing Extremists" don't oppose immigration, but rather illegal immigration. Based on context elsewhere in the report, illegal immigration is listed as simply "immigration." As JMO has stated before, I refuse to refer to illegal aliens as "immigrants" as that term implies paperwork, visas, and law. As opposed to wire cutters, dark clothes, and the circumvention of the law
Now, while I don't fall into the hate category. I definitely favor state authority over federal authority and I am defiantly in opposition to abortion and illegal immigration.
Truth be told, my stat counter has already registered a hit from the House of Representatives.
Maybe they are keeping an eye on me! Little do they know, I am keeping an eye on them!I also had to chuckle that, according to this report, if you are a "Right-Wing Extremist" you are automatically breaking the law. Read this sentence:
Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of ammunition.That's right, "Rightwing Extremists" as well as law abiding citizens ~ And ne'er the twain shall meet.
To recap: I appose abortion. I favor states rights over federal authority, I oppose illegal immigration. Therefore, according to this report, I am a potential threat to the government. Are you?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Another Advertisement
In my last post, I mentioned an ad that I thought was humorous due to its claim that somehow doughnuts were better for your children than cartoons. Well, in this post, I'm going to destroy an advertisement that drives me absolutely crazy!
Mastercard has often assembled some of the more touching or thought provoking ads with their "Priceless" campaign. Their most recent attempt, however, falls well short of the mark. (You can view the commercial here.)
For those who haven't seen it, an eight year old boy is participating in everyday activities with his dad: brushing their teeth, buying light bulbs, and grocery shopping. With each activity the boy helps his dad be more eco-friendly. "Water glass... five dollars" says child's voice over as the youth turns off the running water. "Energy saving bulb... four dollars" and the child hands the dad the low power bulb while daddy returns the standard one. "reusable bag... two dollars." The son hands the plastic bag back to the cashier and gets a reusable one for his dad. "Helping your dad become a better man: Priceless."
I've often complain that Hollywood puts out too many films where the adults are morons and the kids/teens have all the answers. Now Mastercard has fallen into that same trap. I find few undercurrents more demeaning, more offensive, more detrimental to society than the one that puts forth that the youth know more than the aged.
What are we to infer from this ad? Somewhere this child learned how to be eco-friendly and needs to pass his eight-year-old wisdom on to his dad. Who did he learn if from? TV? His teachers? His friends? What else does dear-ole-daddy not know? What else has dad taught him that he should question or completely ignore? Nothing like undermining what should be the loudest strongest voice of influence in our lives: Our Dad.
Wanna make an eco-friendly commercial? Go right ahead. But have the dad teaching the child how to be environmentally responsible. The dad gives the kid the glass, shows him the better bulb, explains why he's bringing bags into the store. Need a tagline? "Raising the generation you are saving the world for: Priceless." "Passing the world on to a more responsible generation: Priceless." Teaching our children to be responsible is part of the job description. They could even leave my version with "Being a dad: Priceless." letting everybody know: This is something that all dads need to be doing.
Telling Mastercard where they can stick their commercial: Priceless.
Mastercard has often assembled some of the more touching or thought provoking ads with their "Priceless" campaign. Their most recent attempt, however, falls well short of the mark. (You can view the commercial here.)
For those who haven't seen it, an eight year old boy is participating in everyday activities with his dad: brushing their teeth, buying light bulbs, and grocery shopping. With each activity the boy helps his dad be more eco-friendly. "Water glass... five dollars" says child's voice over as the youth turns off the running water. "Energy saving bulb... four dollars" and the child hands the dad the low power bulb while daddy returns the standard one. "reusable bag... two dollars." The son hands the plastic bag back to the cashier and gets a reusable one for his dad. "Helping your dad become a better man: Priceless."
I've often complain that Hollywood puts out too many films where the adults are morons and the kids/teens have all the answers. Now Mastercard has fallen into that same trap. I find few undercurrents more demeaning, more offensive, more detrimental to society than the one that puts forth that the youth know more than the aged.
What are we to infer from this ad? Somewhere this child learned how to be eco-friendly and needs to pass his eight-year-old wisdom on to his dad. Who did he learn if from? TV? His teachers? His friends? What else does dear-ole-daddy not know? What else has dad taught him that he should question or completely ignore? Nothing like undermining what should be the loudest strongest voice of influence in our lives: Our Dad.
Wanna make an eco-friendly commercial? Go right ahead. But have the dad teaching the child how to be environmentally responsible. The dad gives the kid the glass, shows him the better bulb, explains why he's bringing bags into the store. Need a tagline? "Raising the generation you are saving the world for: Priceless." "Passing the world on to a more responsible generation: Priceless." Teaching our children to be responsible is part of the job description. They could even leave my version with "Being a dad: Priceless." letting everybody know: This is something that all dads need to be doing.
Telling Mastercard where they can stick their commercial: Priceless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)