Just a few thoughts that have been bouncing around in my brain that can't make a big old post in themselves:
The other day, a young up-and-coming stock car driver died in a crash while driving back to the West coast from North Carolina. He lost control of his vehicle and he and his passenger were thrown out of the car. Neither was wearing seat belts. With the safety devices found in race cars today, and with the importance placed on safety, why was this young man without a seat belt? My condolences to his family, but this guy should have known better, and wasn't very bright for his failure. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/may/23/052310988.html
The West Wing series is over, after seven years. A lot of people really liked the final episode, but my family was disappointed. Yes, it was classy. Yes, it was sad. But there were very few resolutions in the final episode! What was Toby's reaction to his pardon? Who is Sam Seaborn engaged to? What happened to Ainsley Hayes? So many things cried out for this series to continue. So my question is...who will be the one to start writing West Wing novels?
With all of the garbage on TV these days, is it any wonder that my favorite network is the Food Network? Thank goodness for Iron Chef America, and my favorite...Good Eats with Alton Brown. Seriously...Alton Brown rules. He is funny, smart, and I learn something every time I watch his show. Besides, how often can you laugh out loud at a food show? Emeril can go away anytime soon, by the way, and he can take Racheal Ray with him.
Am I the only person in this country who refuses to watch American Idol? Why are shows called "reality shows" when there is no link to reality at all?
My wife looks in the mirror as she gets dressed every day, and all she can see is that she "is getting old". First of all, everyone does. Second of all, I'm no spring chicken myself. And third...no one else can tell. She looks beautiful and I am blessed to have her as my wife.
(No reason for adding this....just felt like it. So sue me.)
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Speaking Without Knowing
The man Job had been dealing with three "comforters" for days, who had berated him and telling him that God was punishing him for his deeds. Job defended himself, but in so doing, became a little too confident in his own righteousness. Jehovah gently corrected his thinking by giving illustrations and stating facts. Upon hearing these things, Job humbly admitted, "Therefore I talked, but I was not understanding...In hearsay I have heard about you, but now my own eye does see you. That is why I make a retraction, and I do repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42: 3, 5, 6)
It is folly to claim to be able to speak on a subject of which one knows little, and that which one knows is merely hearsay. Why bring this up? Mainly because I am more than a bit tired of hearing some people tell others what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. I read some of the comments, and I am absolutely amazed, not just with the venom that is sometimes spewed, but with the lies and incorrect information that is spread about our beliefs, by those who don't really have the vaguest idea. For example, the most common piece of misinformation is that Witnesses don't believe in Jesus. Where did they get that nonsense? Obviously they have never listened to one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Witnesses do believe in Jesus, and that his ransom sacrifice made possible a reconciliation with God and the opportunity for eternal life. What we do NOT believe is that Jesus is equal to God or is part of a trinity.
Yet, this and other pieces of misinformation continue to be thrown about carelessly by people who think they know. But unlike the man Job, even when told the truth they refuse to listen and claim to know better than a Witness what Witnesses believe.
It is okay not to agree with Jehovah's Witnesses. It is also fine if a person doesn't want to discuss the Bible (although they don't need to be rude...they can simply say "no thanks"). But please, don't discuss the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses with others if you don't really know the beliefs. If you want to know what we believe, ask us. Don't ask people who have never even read a Watchtower magazine, much less delved into our Bible-based beliefs.
Really, I can't tell you anything about the gestation cycle of the African elephant. I can't explain how television signals are converted into pictures. If you want to know these things, I would tell you to consult the experts, or at least material written by those who know for sure; those who work in the field. I also cannot tell you about the numerous beliefs contained in the Muslim faith. Want to know about them? Ask a Muslim! But to those who ask non-Witnesses what Witnesses believe, and to those who claim to know our beliefs and don't....talk to a Witness! Even if you don't want to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, we are happy to clarify misconceptions about us and our faith. And to those who spread lies just to get people to dislike Witnesses...shame on you.
Once people actually find out the truth about our beliefs, and find out that we are very nice, God-fearing people who care about our neighbors, perhaps those who have spoken incorrectly will emulate Job, who said "What shall I reply to you? My hand I have put over my mouth." (Job 40:4)
By the way, to find information about the gestation cycle of the African elephant, go to the experts: http://www.zoo.org/educate/fact_sheets/elephants/africel.htm
It's really quite interesting! And now I know the facts, not the fallacies.
It is folly to claim to be able to speak on a subject of which one knows little, and that which one knows is merely hearsay. Why bring this up? Mainly because I am more than a bit tired of hearing some people tell others what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. I read some of the comments, and I am absolutely amazed, not just with the venom that is sometimes spewed, but with the lies and incorrect information that is spread about our beliefs, by those who don't really have the vaguest idea. For example, the most common piece of misinformation is that Witnesses don't believe in Jesus. Where did they get that nonsense? Obviously they have never listened to one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Witnesses do believe in Jesus, and that his ransom sacrifice made possible a reconciliation with God and the opportunity for eternal life. What we do NOT believe is that Jesus is equal to God or is part of a trinity.
Yet, this and other pieces of misinformation continue to be thrown about carelessly by people who think they know. But unlike the man Job, even when told the truth they refuse to listen and claim to know better than a Witness what Witnesses believe.
It is okay not to agree with Jehovah's Witnesses. It is also fine if a person doesn't want to discuss the Bible (although they don't need to be rude...they can simply say "no thanks"). But please, don't discuss the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses with others if you don't really know the beliefs. If you want to know what we believe, ask us. Don't ask people who have never even read a Watchtower magazine, much less delved into our Bible-based beliefs.
Really, I can't tell you anything about the gestation cycle of the African elephant. I can't explain how television signals are converted into pictures. If you want to know these things, I would tell you to consult the experts, or at least material written by those who know for sure; those who work in the field. I also cannot tell you about the numerous beliefs contained in the Muslim faith. Want to know about them? Ask a Muslim! But to those who ask non-Witnesses what Witnesses believe, and to those who claim to know our beliefs and don't....talk to a Witness! Even if you don't want to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, we are happy to clarify misconceptions about us and our faith. And to those who spread lies just to get people to dislike Witnesses...shame on you.
Once people actually find out the truth about our beliefs, and find out that we are very nice, God-fearing people who care about our neighbors, perhaps those who have spoken incorrectly will emulate Job, who said "What shall I reply to you? My hand I have put over my mouth." (Job 40:4)
By the way, to find information about the gestation cycle of the African elephant, go to the experts: http://www.zoo.org/educate/fact_sheets/elephants/africel.htm
It's really quite interesting! And now I know the facts, not the fallacies.
Friday, May 05, 2006
France, Religion, and Taxes...with a shot at Uzbekistan
It's been a few days since my last rant, so the venom is ready to spew forth once again. Well, maybe not venom...more like incredulousness.
Religious persecution is nothing new. The Pilgrims fled Europe to avoid persecution, and one only has to crack open a history book to see numerous other examples of it. Whether you agree with a religion or not, if a country has a constitution, and within that constitution there is a guarantee of religious freedom (even a limited amount), then by law that country's security forces and political powers are bound to abide by that law. And yet...here are just two small instances of remarkable persecution taking place in our very day. One is in a former Soviet bloc country, so it may be less surprising to some. But a remarkable display of chutzpah is taking place in a country considered a part of the West; my second home, France.
Here is the situation. The French government has decided that Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization are to be taxed for all donations received from its members. Mind you, Jehovah's Witnesses, whether you agree with them or not, are an acknowledged and approved religion in the country of France. No other religious group is being taxed in this manner. Yet for some unknown reason, the French courts have agreed with this move and have ordered that this tax be paid. Not only that, but here's another kicker: the tax rate is 60%!
http://www.jw-media.org/newsroom/index.htm?content=europe.htm
(Click on the link for France)
The courts have acknowledged that the organization "was run in a completely benevolent fashion, and that its activities were not commercial or for profit." So why the tax? That is what all people who believe in religious freedom should be asking. Even the members of other religions are concerned about this matter. If it can happen to Jehovah's Witnesses, who is next?
The case will be brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which has consistently overruled such ridiculous rulings time and again. I am confident that they will uphold the rights listed in the French constitution. And still, we must ask ourselves; if it can happen in France, where next?
I would like to direct everyone's attention to the events in Uzbekistan as well. It isn't just Jehovah's Witnesses being attacked there, although reports consistently come in relating to one abuse or another against them. In this case, the government is directly ignoring their own constitution to persecute members of any religion they see as opposing their own.
http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=774
Isn't it sad that with all the progress that these countries are claiming, that the fruitage that their progress is bearing is that of oppression and persecution reminiscent of the former Soviet Union.
(For further information on religious persecution around the world, please visit the excellent reporting site of Forum 18 at www.forum18.org)
Religious persecution is nothing new. The Pilgrims fled Europe to avoid persecution, and one only has to crack open a history book to see numerous other examples of it. Whether you agree with a religion or not, if a country has a constitution, and within that constitution there is a guarantee of religious freedom (even a limited amount), then by law that country's security forces and political powers are bound to abide by that law. And yet...here are just two small instances of remarkable persecution taking place in our very day. One is in a former Soviet bloc country, so it may be less surprising to some. But a remarkable display of chutzpah is taking place in a country considered a part of the West; my second home, France.
Here is the situation. The French government has decided that Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization are to be taxed for all donations received from its members. Mind you, Jehovah's Witnesses, whether you agree with them or not, are an acknowledged and approved religion in the country of France. No other religious group is being taxed in this manner. Yet for some unknown reason, the French courts have agreed with this move and have ordered that this tax be paid. Not only that, but here's another kicker: the tax rate is 60%!
http://www.jw-media.org/newsroom/index.htm?content=europe.htm
(Click on the link for France)
The courts have acknowledged that the organization "was run in a completely benevolent fashion, and that its activities were not commercial or for profit." So why the tax? That is what all people who believe in religious freedom should be asking. Even the members of other religions are concerned about this matter. If it can happen to Jehovah's Witnesses, who is next?
The case will be brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which has consistently overruled such ridiculous rulings time and again. I am confident that they will uphold the rights listed in the French constitution. And still, we must ask ourselves; if it can happen in France, where next?
I would like to direct everyone's attention to the events in Uzbekistan as well. It isn't just Jehovah's Witnesses being attacked there, although reports consistently come in relating to one abuse or another against them. In this case, the government is directly ignoring their own constitution to persecute members of any religion they see as opposing their own.
http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=774
Isn't it sad that with all the progress that these countries are claiming, that the fruitage that their progress is bearing is that of oppression and persecution reminiscent of the former Soviet Union.
(For further information on religious persecution around the world, please visit the excellent reporting site of Forum 18 at www.forum18.org)
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
France Takes a Big Step Backwards
Let me repeat that I am not political. I just see things as they are. I am also extremely interested in cultural issues. I am especially interested in France, since I married into a French family. Thus, I feel compelled to write a quick note on the situation in France.
Yesterday, Jacques Chirac decided to pull the law that would allow employers to fire people under the age of 26 for any reason within the first year of hiring. Why did he do so? He caved to the labor unions who have turned France into the economic joke of the E.C.
France needs to change. Unemployment is high. Taxes are enormous. Employers are leaving the country in droves because the situation there is impossible for them to succeed.
The current situation in the country gives workers at least 6 weeks vacation to start, a virtual job for life unless they do something like shoot their boss, and the employers are required to pay tons of money in taxes and other monies to the government to cover employees' health and welfare in abundance. In the meantime, employees abuse the system and go on strike at the drop of a hat. When will the people realize that they are going to have to give up some of these unreasonable perks in order to compete on an equal basis with the rest of the world? The problem is that no one wants to be first. But someone is going to have to. Until the labor unions sit down at the table with the government officials, economists, and employers to try to hash out a realistic way of changing things, France will continue to spiral downward and become irrelevant in the world.
It's sad. France used to be the darling of diplomacy and an unrivalled European state. Now, it's just a joke, and its people are seen to be rioting, stubborn, and lazy. What a shame, because such behavior could lead to the loss of a truly wonderful culture. I'm not sure which is worse; the American government's behavior of late or the French people's behavior. Maybe it's a tie. Two different winners (losers?) in two different categories.
Yesterday, Jacques Chirac decided to pull the law that would allow employers to fire people under the age of 26 for any reason within the first year of hiring. Why did he do so? He caved to the labor unions who have turned France into the economic joke of the E.C.
France needs to change. Unemployment is high. Taxes are enormous. Employers are leaving the country in droves because the situation there is impossible for them to succeed.
The current situation in the country gives workers at least 6 weeks vacation to start, a virtual job for life unless they do something like shoot their boss, and the employers are required to pay tons of money in taxes and other monies to the government to cover employees' health and welfare in abundance. In the meantime, employees abuse the system and go on strike at the drop of a hat. When will the people realize that they are going to have to give up some of these unreasonable perks in order to compete on an equal basis with the rest of the world? The problem is that no one wants to be first. But someone is going to have to. Until the labor unions sit down at the table with the government officials, economists, and employers to try to hash out a realistic way of changing things, France will continue to spiral downward and become irrelevant in the world.
It's sad. France used to be the darling of diplomacy and an unrivalled European state. Now, it's just a joke, and its people are seen to be rioting, stubborn, and lazy. What a shame, because such behavior could lead to the loss of a truly wonderful culture. I'm not sure which is worse; the American government's behavior of late or the French people's behavior. Maybe it's a tie. Two different winners (losers?) in two different categories.
Monday, April 03, 2006
We've Been Saying This For Years
What a shock. Can you believe it? An article on MSNBC.com today states that content in movies, television, and music can affect our children! Next they're going to tell us that stopping breathing is dangerous.
Here's the link to the article on MSNBC's website:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12130036/
So, basically what the study says is that the increased sexual content in the media is causing young people to have more sex and more promiscuous sex at an earlier age. This flies in the face of all of those who say that "it's just music" or "it's just a movie". No, it isn't. When the brain takes in images and words, it processes them. It cannot be ignored. The brain is too powerful for that. Instead, the information goes in and stays in, whether in the conscious or subconscious.
Think back to television in the late 50s and early 60s. Lucy and Desi didn't even sleep in the same bed! They wouldn't say the word "pregnant". Yes, that was probably too extreme on the side of caution. It was also too extreme to say that Barbara Eden couldn't show her navel in "I Dream of Jeannie". But compare that to the blatant sex, language, violence, and immorality we see today! Is it any wonder that our children view these acts as normal and even preferable?
Allow me to point you to a couple of scriptures in the Bible. Use whatever translation you prefer. Read the MSNBC article. Then check out Ephesians 5: 3-5 and Colossians 3: 8, 9 for a start. Anyone who thinks that the Bible isn't a guide for our day isn't thinking clearly.
Folks, pay attention to what your children are watching and listening to in the media. Find out what music they hear and what movies and television shows they watch. Then exercise your authority as parents and eliminate the bad things. (This includes video games, by the way.) As the years go by, you will see just how valuable such guidance is, and how it helps our children to grow into well-balanced and decent adults. And don't we need more of those?
Here's the link to the article on MSNBC's website:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12130036/
So, basically what the study says is that the increased sexual content in the media is causing young people to have more sex and more promiscuous sex at an earlier age. This flies in the face of all of those who say that "it's just music" or "it's just a movie". No, it isn't. When the brain takes in images and words, it processes them. It cannot be ignored. The brain is too powerful for that. Instead, the information goes in and stays in, whether in the conscious or subconscious.
Think back to television in the late 50s and early 60s. Lucy and Desi didn't even sleep in the same bed! They wouldn't say the word "pregnant". Yes, that was probably too extreme on the side of caution. It was also too extreme to say that Barbara Eden couldn't show her navel in "I Dream of Jeannie". But compare that to the blatant sex, language, violence, and immorality we see today! Is it any wonder that our children view these acts as normal and even preferable?
Allow me to point you to a couple of scriptures in the Bible. Use whatever translation you prefer. Read the MSNBC article. Then check out Ephesians 5: 3-5 and Colossians 3: 8, 9 for a start. Anyone who thinks that the Bible isn't a guide for our day isn't thinking clearly.
Folks, pay attention to what your children are watching and listening to in the media. Find out what music they hear and what movies and television shows they watch. Then exercise your authority as parents and eliminate the bad things. (This includes video games, by the way.) As the years go by, you will see just how valuable such guidance is, and how it helps our children to grow into well-balanced and decent adults. And don't we need more of those?
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
More Culture Clashes
Once again, the news is filled with problems. Two of the big ones today are the protests in France and the Hispanic protests over new bills in the U.S. designed to curb illegal immigration. Granted, these are two very different subjects, but both involve a group of people trying to influence their respective governments.
In Paris, there is violence, car burnings, confrontations with police and general mayhem. The law that is being protested is an attempt to bring down unemployment and to move France into the modern world. Currently, if you get a job in France, it is almost impossible to be fired from it. Employers have no way of getting rid of poor employees unless the employee does something illegal. Because of this, employers don't want to hire many people, so unemployment stays high. Even though I don't take sides in political issues, it certainly appears that France has to do something with their economy now, or they won't be able to compete. However, the main aspect of this that fascinates me is the attitude of the French worker. It is an attitude of entitlement. They feel as though they are entitled to jobs for life, free health insurance, money for having babies, etc., etc. Yet they don't seem to understand that they are paying for this with a sales tax of 22%, high income taxes, television taxes, etc., etc., etc. And so, they strike, they protest, they burn cars, and they look like rabble.
Let's contrast that image with the Hispanics who are opposed to new laws that would treat illegal immigrants as felons and would punish employers who hire them with huge fines. How did the nation's Hispanic population react? They protested. However, there was a marked difference in how they handled themselves as opposed to how the French did. In Los Angeles, there was a march of over 500 thousand protesters. Five...hundred...thousand! But the amazing thing is that it was peaceful. In other cities there was more of the same. There were walkouts from schools and from jobs; there were discussions with civil leadership; and there was calmness. This was truly an example of how a group can get their message out. No violence, no burnings, and no vandalism.
Again, I don't take sides on any political issue. I see both sides of the French and Hispanic issues. Do I see logic on one side or the other? Sure. I have been to France on a number of occasions and have seen the problems created by unemployment and an over-regulated group of employers. I know many Hispanics, as I live in California. I see the hard work that many of them do, whether they are in landscaping, hotel work, or other jobs that caucasians don't seem to want. Granted, there are many Hispanics in higher positions and even the Attorney General of the United States. But I'm focusing on the "lower" jobs that most people don't want. These immigrants work hard for the most part, and I am frequently impressed with the modesty and kindness I receive when I speak with them.
My point? I have a couple. First; the French people need to quit whining. If they want to compete with the big boys, they need to change. And they also need to stop with the constant strikes, protests, and vandalism. The rest of the world watches this and wonders what has happened to these people who used to be the epitome of diplomacy. Second; people need to quit blaming illegal immigrants from Mexico for the problems in California, Arizona, Texas, and other states. Create a program where they may work legally without fear of deportation, and have employers take a set tax amount from their checks. Easy, right? Nonetheless, the French could take lessons from the Hispanics on how to conduct themselves. Classy protest, amigos. Classy, calm, and effective.
In Paris, there is violence, car burnings, confrontations with police and general mayhem. The law that is being protested is an attempt to bring down unemployment and to move France into the modern world. Currently, if you get a job in France, it is almost impossible to be fired from it. Employers have no way of getting rid of poor employees unless the employee does something illegal. Because of this, employers don't want to hire many people, so unemployment stays high. Even though I don't take sides in political issues, it certainly appears that France has to do something with their economy now, or they won't be able to compete. However, the main aspect of this that fascinates me is the attitude of the French worker. It is an attitude of entitlement. They feel as though they are entitled to jobs for life, free health insurance, money for having babies, etc., etc. Yet they don't seem to understand that they are paying for this with a sales tax of 22%, high income taxes, television taxes, etc., etc., etc. And so, they strike, they protest, they burn cars, and they look like rabble.
Let's contrast that image with the Hispanics who are opposed to new laws that would treat illegal immigrants as felons and would punish employers who hire them with huge fines. How did the nation's Hispanic population react? They protested. However, there was a marked difference in how they handled themselves as opposed to how the French did. In Los Angeles, there was a march of over 500 thousand protesters. Five...hundred...thousand! But the amazing thing is that it was peaceful. In other cities there was more of the same. There were walkouts from schools and from jobs; there were discussions with civil leadership; and there was calmness. This was truly an example of how a group can get their message out. No violence, no burnings, and no vandalism.
Again, I don't take sides on any political issue. I see both sides of the French and Hispanic issues. Do I see logic on one side or the other? Sure. I have been to France on a number of occasions and have seen the problems created by unemployment and an over-regulated group of employers. I know many Hispanics, as I live in California. I see the hard work that many of them do, whether they are in landscaping, hotel work, or other jobs that caucasians don't seem to want. Granted, there are many Hispanics in higher positions and even the Attorney General of the United States. But I'm focusing on the "lower" jobs that most people don't want. These immigrants work hard for the most part, and I am frequently impressed with the modesty and kindness I receive when I speak with them.
My point? I have a couple. First; the French people need to quit whining. If they want to compete with the big boys, they need to change. And they also need to stop with the constant strikes, protests, and vandalism. The rest of the world watches this and wonders what has happened to these people who used to be the epitome of diplomacy. Second; people need to quit blaming illegal immigrants from Mexico for the problems in California, Arizona, Texas, and other states. Create a program where they may work legally without fear of deportation, and have employers take a set tax amount from their checks. Easy, right? Nonetheless, the French could take lessons from the Hispanics on how to conduct themselves. Classy protest, amigos. Classy, calm, and effective.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Personal Responsibility
As I was driving to work today, I was listening to sports radio. (I'm a guy...what can I say?) The conversation, as it frequently is, was about Barry Bonds and steroids. One caller said that it is the parent's responsibility to teach their children the dangers of steroids, to watch over them, and to recognize that men like Bonds are not role models.
That is true. However, we also need to teach our kids personal responsibility. If they take steroids to be like Bonds, there have to be reasons behind it. There is the "win at all costs" attitude that prevails in the world today. But the kids choose to take the 'rhoids. They get them from somewhere, and it usually isn't the parent that is providing them.
In a way, this is a symptom of the "not my fault" generation. In many cases, this generation of adults has moved away from the principle of hard work to earn their money and have looked for the "quick fix" method. There is the gambling method, where someone continues to plow money into the lottery or gambling trying to get the easy millions. (Eventually, even the winners end up miserable because they found that money didn't solve their problems...but that's a topic for another time.) My favorite method is the "let's sue them" method. I hear that phrase over and over, especially on the news. Someone is suing McDonalds because their food made them fat. Really? Junk food three times a day can make you fat? What a concept! Another person sued McDonalds because they spilled coffee in their lap and the coffee was...hot!! Another surprise! You order hot coffee and you get hot coffee! Come on now. When I get something from the drive-through from a minimum wage employee, I always check to be sure the lid is on tight because I don't want to wear my drink. Yet this person who didn't check thinks McDonalds should be sued because the coffee was hot. That isn't the real reason. They want an easy buck, and that is the attitude of society today. Look for a reason to sue and sue.
Okay folks. Tell me that this attitude hasn't affected our kids. I dare you. Whether it is teen sex, drug use, stealing, materialism, or whatever; society's example has infected our kids. And how can we stop it? One way is to set the example. Bonds should take responsibility for what he did, confess it, take the spanking, and move on. As parents, we should display the benefits of hard work and not look for the quick buck. We also should teach our children the necessity of taking responsibility for their actions. If they get in trouble at school, don't go down and yell at the teacher like it is her fault! Nine times out of ten it is the child's fault, and he or she should take whatever punishment is doled out. That is how we teach it. That is how they learn it.
Winning isn't everything, and money isn't happiness. And Barry...take the blame. You did it. You know you did. Be a man.
That is true. However, we also need to teach our kids personal responsibility. If they take steroids to be like Bonds, there have to be reasons behind it. There is the "win at all costs" attitude that prevails in the world today. But the kids choose to take the 'rhoids. They get them from somewhere, and it usually isn't the parent that is providing them.
In a way, this is a symptom of the "not my fault" generation. In many cases, this generation of adults has moved away from the principle of hard work to earn their money and have looked for the "quick fix" method. There is the gambling method, where someone continues to plow money into the lottery or gambling trying to get the easy millions. (Eventually, even the winners end up miserable because they found that money didn't solve their problems...but that's a topic for another time.) My favorite method is the "let's sue them" method. I hear that phrase over and over, especially on the news. Someone is suing McDonalds because their food made them fat. Really? Junk food three times a day can make you fat? What a concept! Another person sued McDonalds because they spilled coffee in their lap and the coffee was...hot!! Another surprise! You order hot coffee and you get hot coffee! Come on now. When I get something from the drive-through from a minimum wage employee, I always check to be sure the lid is on tight because I don't want to wear my drink. Yet this person who didn't check thinks McDonalds should be sued because the coffee was hot. That isn't the real reason. They want an easy buck, and that is the attitude of society today. Look for a reason to sue and sue.
Okay folks. Tell me that this attitude hasn't affected our kids. I dare you. Whether it is teen sex, drug use, stealing, materialism, or whatever; society's example has infected our kids. And how can we stop it? One way is to set the example. Bonds should take responsibility for what he did, confess it, take the spanking, and move on. As parents, we should display the benefits of hard work and not look for the quick buck. We also should teach our children the necessity of taking responsibility for their actions. If they get in trouble at school, don't go down and yell at the teacher like it is her fault! Nine times out of ten it is the child's fault, and he or she should take whatever punishment is doled out. That is how we teach it. That is how they learn it.
Winning isn't everything, and money isn't happiness. And Barry...take the blame. You did it. You know you did. Be a man.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Why is everything a "phobia" now?
As I was reading the "Scene" section in the local newspaper, I noticed what is becoming an all-too-common accusation. Because the film Brokeback Mountain did not win the Oscar, some were accusing the Academy members of being "homophobes". Basically, the term has come to mean anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality. But what is a phobia, really? One online dictionary describes it as:
an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations
OK...with that definition in hand, can the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences really be called "homophobes"? For that matter, can anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality be called "phobic"? I don't see these people running in abject terror from anyone who is openly gay. Nor do they see psychiatrists in order to conquer this phobia. Let's face a simple fact: the word homophobia is being used as an attack word to group anyone who doesn't agree with such a lifestyle into one negative gang.
Now, let's be realistic and discern if I can be called a homophobe. I am a firm believer in what the Bible says about homosexuality. In both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, homosexuality is not tolerated. God does not approve of those kinds of sexual appetites. Thus, as a Bible student and believer, I agree that homosexuality is not acceptable. When I see an openly gay person on the street, however, I don't break out in a cold sweat and run like a crazed rabbit in the opposite direction! Nor do I treat homosexuals as though they have the plague. No, I don't condone their choices or behavior, but I am not afraid of gay people, nor am I hostile towards them. Yet by the standards of those who love labels and are so quick to go on the defensive, I would be called a homophobe.
Isn't this just another way to attack anyone who doesn't agree with someone's lifestyle or choices? I have the right to my opinions about various subjects. I can be opposed to political matters. If I am opposed to politics, do I become a "politiphobe"? I am opposed to murder. Am I now a "killophobe"? If the gay community doesn't like the fact that I disapprove of their lifestyle, they have the right to say so. They cannot, however, force their opinions on me and they should not group me in the same category as those who feel that homosexuals should be physically injured or those that feel that they shouldn't be seen or heard.
Let's get rid of the "phobe" suffix, folks. There are too many people who truly suffer from phobias to minimize the psychological condition by labelling opinions as phobias. If you don't like my opinion towards gays, you are free to discuss it with me. You may even imply that I am closed-minded (which I am not) or very religious (which I am). But don't use "homophobia" as a grouping for all of the people who do not approve of the practice. The film didn't win because the film didn't win.
Period.
Deal with it.
Or are you an "Academyphobe"?
an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations
OK...with that definition in hand, can the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences really be called "homophobes"? For that matter, can anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality be called "phobic"? I don't see these people running in abject terror from anyone who is openly gay. Nor do they see psychiatrists in order to conquer this phobia. Let's face a simple fact: the word homophobia is being used as an attack word to group anyone who doesn't agree with such a lifestyle into one negative gang.
Now, let's be realistic and discern if I can be called a homophobe. I am a firm believer in what the Bible says about homosexuality. In both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, homosexuality is not tolerated. God does not approve of those kinds of sexual appetites. Thus, as a Bible student and believer, I agree that homosexuality is not acceptable. When I see an openly gay person on the street, however, I don't break out in a cold sweat and run like a crazed rabbit in the opposite direction! Nor do I treat homosexuals as though they have the plague. No, I don't condone their choices or behavior, but I am not afraid of gay people, nor am I hostile towards them. Yet by the standards of those who love labels and are so quick to go on the defensive, I would be called a homophobe.
Isn't this just another way to attack anyone who doesn't agree with someone's lifestyle or choices? I have the right to my opinions about various subjects. I can be opposed to political matters. If I am opposed to politics, do I become a "politiphobe"? I am opposed to murder. Am I now a "killophobe"? If the gay community doesn't like the fact that I disapprove of their lifestyle, they have the right to say so. They cannot, however, force their opinions on me and they should not group me in the same category as those who feel that homosexuals should be physically injured or those that feel that they shouldn't be seen or heard.
Let's get rid of the "phobe" suffix, folks. There are too many people who truly suffer from phobias to minimize the psychological condition by labelling opinions as phobias. If you don't like my opinion towards gays, you are free to discuss it with me. You may even imply that I am closed-minded (which I am not) or very religious (which I am). But don't use "homophobia" as a grouping for all of the people who do not approve of the practice. The film didn't win because the film didn't win.
Period.
Deal with it.
Or are you an "Academyphobe"?
Monday, February 20, 2006
Random Thoughts for February
It has been a busy couple of months, which doesn't excuse my failure to post, but may explain it. Still, now that I have a few minutes, I would like to jot some random thoughts about events that have been going on recently. These are in no particular order of importance or interest.
Mohammed cartoons - OK, so this whole thing has gone far beyond a simple protest of Dutch cartoons. First of all, was it right to print the cartoons that have created such strife? My answer: yes and no. You see, there is indeed such a thing as freedom of speech. There is also freedom of the press and freedom of expression. In that sense, the cartoons were legal. The question then becomes: Was it moral and was it insensitive? There are laws that say that you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie house, as it would endanger the public welfare. (I've heard that it is also illegal to yell "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse, but I digress.) The fact is that the publication of the cartoons was indeed insensitive toward the beliefs of Muslims. However, newspapers and news broadcasters have never been known for their sensitivity towards people's feelings. One sees this when a reporter sticks a microphone in the face of a woman whose husband has just died and asks her what she is feeling.
One more question arises here: Did Muslims in the middle East overreact? The answer to that is a definite "yes". Here in California, Muslims were unhappy about the cartoons. But rather than riot, they decided that a campaign to educate people about their beliefs made more sense. Bravo to them. That shows what calm minds can do. They not only made their point, but they showed class. However, in the Middle East, the governments and extremists used the cartoons as another excuse to vandalize and take part in acts of violence. Embassies were attacked, as were people. In one African nation, 15 people who were said to be Christian were killed as a reaction to the cartoons. Frankly, this smacks of just another excuse to get violent and another excuse for extremists to cause trouble. They don't seem to care about the grief they cause for moderates who believe in peaceful solutions. When extremists react as they did, they harm other members of their faith and create a cycle of hatred and violence that will not end until one side destroys the other.
Come on folks. If you find the cartoons violate the tenets of your faith, write letters, educate people, but don't use it as an excuse to plunder and pillage. That's just ridiculous.
Hot Cross Buns in England OK, here's another fun one. A school district in England has decided that they will no longer serve hot cross buns in their cafeteria to avoid creating a hostile environment for Jehovah's Witnesses, who find the cross to be another form of idolatry. One commentator described Witnesses as "Russelites" (which is an old, old form of attack against the Witnesses) and that they are oversensitive and want nothing more than the destruction of everything and everyone. (I'm paraphrasing here, because I don't want to give this imbecile any more press than he deserves.) The Witnesses in England never asked the buns to be removed. No, they do not eat them. So? That is their right, just as people who don't eat meat have the right to eat only veggies. The bigger issue here is that some twit with a so-called degree in theology feels the need to attack Jehovah's Witnesses with false accusations and name calling. Yes, I'm resorting to name calling in this blog just to show how ridiculous it is. I don't know this man, so how can I call him names? In the same manner, this man obviously knows nothing of the beliefs of Witnesses and thus has sunk to the base practice of name-calling and lies.
If someone wants to know something about Islam, that person should consult someone who practices the religion. If someone wants to know about the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, he or she should not consult someone who knows nothing of them and should not consult those who, for one reason or another, have left the organization or been removed for unrepentant practices. If you want to know about the beliefs of Witnesses, contact a Witness. Is that so hard to figure out? And for those news reporters who want a story about a belief, will you please quit going to these other folks who are bitter and nasty and lying about the organization? Every time I see an article where a reporter interviews someone from one of these groups and doesn't interview an active Witness, it makes my nerves jump. That is poor reporting that belongs on the pages of the National Enquirer or the Star. Hack Journalism at its finest.
Cop killing - Over the weekend, the State of California witnessed the death of its fifth California Highway Patrol officer in the last year. That may not seem like a lot if you are talking about a war zone, but for a state like California, that is a lot. Two of the five have been officers who stopped a car for a traffic violation, walked up to the driver, and had the driver shoot them point-blank. If you think that this blog is to simply say how wrong that is, then go to your corner and think a little while. No, what I want to say is this: the next time you see a news report where a copy may seem a little rough on a suspect, think about what these guys face every day. Every traffic stop could be an incident of violence. Every disturbance call could lead to a concealed weapon being drawn. You wonder why cops are nervous? Get a clue. They are nervous because these guys have weapons with cop-killer bullets and bullet-proof vests! Folks, the police may seem like they are just out to give you a ticket for travelling 3 miles per hour over the speed limit, but remember, 3 miles over the speed limit is still OVER the limit. You don't want a ticket? Drive under the limit. If you do get a ticket, don't blame it on the cop. Blame it on yourself. Period. And show these guys some respect. The majority of them have earned it. The Bible tells us to obey the superior authorities as long as their demands don't contradict God's laws. Last I checked, speed limits don't conflict. Killing cops does. Give them a break, and if you notice a cop walking by, maybe you could say "thank you". They really could use it right now.
Mohammed cartoons - OK, so this whole thing has gone far beyond a simple protest of Dutch cartoons. First of all, was it right to print the cartoons that have created such strife? My answer: yes and no. You see, there is indeed such a thing as freedom of speech. There is also freedom of the press and freedom of expression. In that sense, the cartoons were legal. The question then becomes: Was it moral and was it insensitive? There are laws that say that you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie house, as it would endanger the public welfare. (I've heard that it is also illegal to yell "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse, but I digress.) The fact is that the publication of the cartoons was indeed insensitive toward the beliefs of Muslims. However, newspapers and news broadcasters have never been known for their sensitivity towards people's feelings. One sees this when a reporter sticks a microphone in the face of a woman whose husband has just died and asks her what she is feeling.
One more question arises here: Did Muslims in the middle East overreact? The answer to that is a definite "yes". Here in California, Muslims were unhappy about the cartoons. But rather than riot, they decided that a campaign to educate people about their beliefs made more sense. Bravo to them. That shows what calm minds can do. They not only made their point, but they showed class. However, in the Middle East, the governments and extremists used the cartoons as another excuse to vandalize and take part in acts of violence. Embassies were attacked, as were people. In one African nation, 15 people who were said to be Christian were killed as a reaction to the cartoons. Frankly, this smacks of just another excuse to get violent and another excuse for extremists to cause trouble. They don't seem to care about the grief they cause for moderates who believe in peaceful solutions. When extremists react as they did, they harm other members of their faith and create a cycle of hatred and violence that will not end until one side destroys the other.
Come on folks. If you find the cartoons violate the tenets of your faith, write letters, educate people, but don't use it as an excuse to plunder and pillage. That's just ridiculous.
Hot Cross Buns in England OK, here's another fun one. A school district in England has decided that they will no longer serve hot cross buns in their cafeteria to avoid creating a hostile environment for Jehovah's Witnesses, who find the cross to be another form of idolatry. One commentator described Witnesses as "Russelites" (which is an old, old form of attack against the Witnesses) and that they are oversensitive and want nothing more than the destruction of everything and everyone. (I'm paraphrasing here, because I don't want to give this imbecile any more press than he deserves.) The Witnesses in England never asked the buns to be removed. No, they do not eat them. So? That is their right, just as people who don't eat meat have the right to eat only veggies. The bigger issue here is that some twit with a so-called degree in theology feels the need to attack Jehovah's Witnesses with false accusations and name calling. Yes, I'm resorting to name calling in this blog just to show how ridiculous it is. I don't know this man, so how can I call him names? In the same manner, this man obviously knows nothing of the beliefs of Witnesses and thus has sunk to the base practice of name-calling and lies.
If someone wants to know something about Islam, that person should consult someone who practices the religion. If someone wants to know about the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, he or she should not consult someone who knows nothing of them and should not consult those who, for one reason or another, have left the organization or been removed for unrepentant practices. If you want to know about the beliefs of Witnesses, contact a Witness. Is that so hard to figure out? And for those news reporters who want a story about a belief, will you please quit going to these other folks who are bitter and nasty and lying about the organization? Every time I see an article where a reporter interviews someone from one of these groups and doesn't interview an active Witness, it makes my nerves jump. That is poor reporting that belongs on the pages of the National Enquirer or the Star. Hack Journalism at its finest.
Cop killing - Over the weekend, the State of California witnessed the death of its fifth California Highway Patrol officer in the last year. That may not seem like a lot if you are talking about a war zone, but for a state like California, that is a lot. Two of the five have been officers who stopped a car for a traffic violation, walked up to the driver, and had the driver shoot them point-blank. If you think that this blog is to simply say how wrong that is, then go to your corner and think a little while. No, what I want to say is this: the next time you see a news report where a copy may seem a little rough on a suspect, think about what these guys face every day. Every traffic stop could be an incident of violence. Every disturbance call could lead to a concealed weapon being drawn. You wonder why cops are nervous? Get a clue. They are nervous because these guys have weapons with cop-killer bullets and bullet-proof vests! Folks, the police may seem like they are just out to give you a ticket for travelling 3 miles per hour over the speed limit, but remember, 3 miles over the speed limit is still OVER the limit. You don't want a ticket? Drive under the limit. If you do get a ticket, don't blame it on the cop. Blame it on yourself. Period. And show these guys some respect. The majority of them have earned it. The Bible tells us to obey the superior authorities as long as their demands don't contradict God's laws. Last I checked, speed limits don't conflict. Killing cops does. Give them a break, and if you notice a cop walking by, maybe you could say "thank you". They really could use it right now.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
When Will It End?
I just wanted to take a moment to ask anyone who reads this blog to take a look at my friend's posting. Specifically, his posting of November 29, 2005.
http://abdurmalik.blogspot.com/
Most of you have never been to the town he speaks of, but it is about 15 miles northeast of Sacramento, California. It is an area that used to be kind of sleepy, but is now becoming a bedroom community for Sacramento and the Bay Area, and prices for homes are shooting up as they are elsewhere in our area. With all of that, it still has a small town feel and most would describe the town as friendly. Yet, the incident that he describes shows that we have a long way to go.
There is something that people of all races need to remember: we are all human beings. I don't say that expecting people to say "duh" in response. But obviously, there are still some "people" out there who think that one race is superior to another. That is a load of garbage. Face it...white women can have babies with black men and vice versa. That goes for other races as well. Scientifically, we are the same species. The only thing that differentiates the races is the human tendency to think one above another. That is not physical; it is psychological. And it is ridiculous. Even the Bible notes that all races come from one. Anyone who, in our day and age, can make mindless, racist, vile and violent comments like the two idiots in Loomis did had better hope that they never need a black man to come to their aid someday. What will they do? Turn down the help? I am proud of my friend, Abdur, for keeping his temper under control. I also know that if anyone, of any race, needed help, Abdur would be the first one there. He has done it in the past, and he always will.
I don't feel the need to apologize for the two "men" who made the comments. Or those who insulted his mother on other occasions. Frankly, I consider them beneath contempt. After all these years, there are still some pillowcase wearing imbeciles who haven't learned. What a shame. They miss out on knowing some truly great people.
By the way...my brother-in-law is black...and he is one great guy.
http://abdurmalik.blogspot.com/
Most of you have never been to the town he speaks of, but it is about 15 miles northeast of Sacramento, California. It is an area that used to be kind of sleepy, but is now becoming a bedroom community for Sacramento and the Bay Area, and prices for homes are shooting up as they are elsewhere in our area. With all of that, it still has a small town feel and most would describe the town as friendly. Yet, the incident that he describes shows that we have a long way to go.
There is something that people of all races need to remember: we are all human beings. I don't say that expecting people to say "duh" in response. But obviously, there are still some "people" out there who think that one race is superior to another. That is a load of garbage. Face it...white women can have babies with black men and vice versa. That goes for other races as well. Scientifically, we are the same species. The only thing that differentiates the races is the human tendency to think one above another. That is not physical; it is psychological. And it is ridiculous. Even the Bible notes that all races come from one. Anyone who, in our day and age, can make mindless, racist, vile and violent comments like the two idiots in Loomis did had better hope that they never need a black man to come to their aid someday. What will they do? Turn down the help? I am proud of my friend, Abdur, for keeping his temper under control. I also know that if anyone, of any race, needed help, Abdur would be the first one there. He has done it in the past, and he always will.
I don't feel the need to apologize for the two "men" who made the comments. Or those who insulted his mother on other occasions. Frankly, I consider them beneath contempt. After all these years, there are still some pillowcase wearing imbeciles who haven't learned. What a shame. They miss out on knowing some truly great people.
By the way...my brother-in-law is black...and he is one great guy.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Giving Thanks...
Here it is, the day that the world calls "Thanksgiving". All in all, however, is it really necessary to have such a holiday? One day a year for giving thanks seems almost hypocritical if one believes in God. Why? In the Bible, we are reminded over and over about the importance of giving thanks. It is not meant to be something done once a year, but regularly; daily; often. A family I know is not religious. The woman of the house thinks she believes in God, but does not practice any form of religion. Yet, on Thanksgiving, their family prays before dinner. Once a year, they pray. Is that really giving thanks?
People ask me if I celebrate Thanksgiving. My reply is, invariably, that every day is thanksgiving for me. I don't have a large turkey dinner, watch football, or have friends and family over. Football and turkey is done occasionally, but friends and family are gathered many times a year; not just once. Every day is thanksgiving because every day I think about the blessings that my family and I have received and I give thanks several times a day. How can any living being who believes in God do any less?
In reality, all Thanksgiving has become is a day for gorging (an act expressly frowned upon in the Scriptures), for arguing with family members, and for perusing the ads for "Black Friday" so that people can pay homage to the gods that they truly worship: the almighty dollar and the god of materialism.
Sorry for my negativity, but facts are facts. Now excuse me, while I go read a bit and prepare to avoid every single department and toy store there is tomorrow.
People ask me if I celebrate Thanksgiving. My reply is, invariably, that every day is thanksgiving for me. I don't have a large turkey dinner, watch football, or have friends and family over. Football and turkey is done occasionally, but friends and family are gathered many times a year; not just once. Every day is thanksgiving because every day I think about the blessings that my family and I have received and I give thanks several times a day. How can any living being who believes in God do any less?
In reality, all Thanksgiving has become is a day for gorging (an act expressly frowned upon in the Scriptures), for arguing with family members, and for perusing the ads for "Black Friday" so that people can pay homage to the gods that they truly worship: the almighty dollar and the god of materialism.
Sorry for my negativity, but facts are facts. Now excuse me, while I go read a bit and prepare to avoid every single department and toy store there is tomorrow.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Random Rant on Art
I'm in the process of reading a book for my English class entitled "Beloved" by Toni Morrison. I don't want to insult anyone who loves this book, especially since it was made into a movie and won a Pulitzer Prize. However, I'm finding it very difficult to enjoy this book. Subject matter aside, the writing style of this author feels disjointed and difficult to follow. In fact, I just get tired reading it.
So what's my point? My point is that the art illuminati seem to feel that anything that is different is good. Some of the modern art that I've seen looks as though the artist shoved paint up his nose and sneezed onto the canvas. But since it is different, it is "magnificent, unique, innovative", etc., etc., etc. Sorry, folks. That isn't art. Don't tell me that a splash of paint on canvas compares to a Monet. I'm not buying. That's why I'm ranting about writing styles. Just because something is strange and disjointed doesn't make it deep or artistic. Frankly, I find more enjoyment delving into a book when I can be drawn along with the story, not when I have to fight like a salmon swimming upstream...and then at the end of the stream is a bear.
I'm sure that Toni Morrison's book is moving, touching, emotional, and deep. The subject matter is tense and harsh. But I don't need someone telling me how there is significance here and symbolism there. I don't mind working to see an author's point. I just don't want to have the feeling that I went on the "teacup ride" at Disneyland and someone spun the thing too fast. I want to get the point. I want to feel what the author is trying to make me feel. If the subject is harsh, I want to feel the harshness of it all. But I don't want someone telling me that a writing style is magnificent just because it is different.
Different is good, but paint from someone's nose is just colorful mucous.
So what's my point? My point is that the art illuminati seem to feel that anything that is different is good. Some of the modern art that I've seen looks as though the artist shoved paint up his nose and sneezed onto the canvas. But since it is different, it is "magnificent, unique, innovative", etc., etc., etc. Sorry, folks. That isn't art. Don't tell me that a splash of paint on canvas compares to a Monet. I'm not buying. That's why I'm ranting about writing styles. Just because something is strange and disjointed doesn't make it deep or artistic. Frankly, I find more enjoyment delving into a book when I can be drawn along with the story, not when I have to fight like a salmon swimming upstream...and then at the end of the stream is a bear.
I'm sure that Toni Morrison's book is moving, touching, emotional, and deep. The subject matter is tense and harsh. But I don't need someone telling me how there is significance here and symbolism there. I don't mind working to see an author's point. I just don't want to have the feeling that I went on the "teacup ride" at Disneyland and someone spun the thing too fast. I want to get the point. I want to feel what the author is trying to make me feel. If the subject is harsh, I want to feel the harshness of it all. But I don't want someone telling me that a writing style is magnificent just because it is different.
Different is good, but paint from someone's nose is just colorful mucous.
Monday, November 07, 2005
France on Fire
I love France. I have been there several times. My wife is French. Her family lives in France. There is something very special about France, and I particularly love Paris. I say these things to preface my following remarks about the situation in that country.
The outbreak of violence in France is horrible, disgusting, criminal...and predictable. France has long claimed to be the land of "liberty, equality, fraternity" and human rights. That all looks good on the surface. But how many who have visited Paris have gone beyond the tourist attractions? How many have looked at the social powderkeg that has existed for years?
There are thousands and thousands of immigrants in France. They largely come from northern Africa and the Middle East. The majority are quite poor. Unemployment for that group sits at around 25%. I have seen families of 10 or more people living in a one room apartment, and many of them are there illegally. Some squat in condemned buildings. Others live in the most run-down and filthy places that one can imagine. To make a long story short, these immigrants are desperate. Does that make the rampages that are going on right now acceptable? Absolutely not. First of all, the electrocution of the young boys was not the fault of the French police force. These kids got nervous when they saw the policemen and they ran. They ran straight into an electric substation. Brilliant. It's a tragedy, for sure. But it is no excuse for the riots that are taking place.
If you want to look at the people who are causing the riots, look to the second-generation immigrants who have French citizenship. These are young people. They are organized. They were just looking for an excuse to cause trouble. Why? Perhaps they are aligned with radical Muslim groups. These groups have been active in France for years, especially groups from Algeria. Perhaps they are just bored and looking for trouble. Perhaps they are looking for ways to loot. In any case, they have made themselves criminals. They are attacking innocent people and destroying property at random. Criminals.
Let me tell you a story. My sister-in-law has friends in a very poor part of her town in France. It is a suburb of Paris. As she enters the main lobby, there are young men dealing drugs, and 4 and 5 year olds out playing in the street...at 10 p.m. No parents nearby. No supervision. You wonder why these young people are out of control? Look to the parents. Yes, the same type of parents that are accusing the Police and the government of killing their kids at that power station. You know what folks? Take responsibility for your own kids and quit blaming everyone else for your poor efforts. Sure, there are kids whose parents do everything right and they still revolt. But in the case of these two kids, quit blaming the cops! Quit burning the cities as if that will help.
What is going to happen next? Are the French legislators going to say, "There, there" and throw more taxes at the problem? Probably. But I guarantee that the first thing that's going to happen is that the army is going to be called out to stifle these riots. And if the army doesn't work...watch out. The French still have a group called the Foreign Legion. These Legionnaires are not the nicest folks in the world, and they would have no qualms about doing some damage to the rioters.
Before the French government will try to help these immigrants, the violence will need to stop. But before any plans will work, parents need to take responsibility for their children, and the children need to take responsibility for their own actions. In fact, if everyone took responsibility for their own actions, we wouldn't have some of the problems that we do today. Simple, isn't it? And it's a wish that won't come true with humans being the way that they are: imperfect and selfish.
The outbreak of violence in France is horrible, disgusting, criminal...and predictable. France has long claimed to be the land of "liberty, equality, fraternity" and human rights. That all looks good on the surface. But how many who have visited Paris have gone beyond the tourist attractions? How many have looked at the social powderkeg that has existed for years?
There are thousands and thousands of immigrants in France. They largely come from northern Africa and the Middle East. The majority are quite poor. Unemployment for that group sits at around 25%. I have seen families of 10 or more people living in a one room apartment, and many of them are there illegally. Some squat in condemned buildings. Others live in the most run-down and filthy places that one can imagine. To make a long story short, these immigrants are desperate. Does that make the rampages that are going on right now acceptable? Absolutely not. First of all, the electrocution of the young boys was not the fault of the French police force. These kids got nervous when they saw the policemen and they ran. They ran straight into an electric substation. Brilliant. It's a tragedy, for sure. But it is no excuse for the riots that are taking place.
If you want to look at the people who are causing the riots, look to the second-generation immigrants who have French citizenship. These are young people. They are organized. They were just looking for an excuse to cause trouble. Why? Perhaps they are aligned with radical Muslim groups. These groups have been active in France for years, especially groups from Algeria. Perhaps they are just bored and looking for trouble. Perhaps they are looking for ways to loot. In any case, they have made themselves criminals. They are attacking innocent people and destroying property at random. Criminals.
Let me tell you a story. My sister-in-law has friends in a very poor part of her town in France. It is a suburb of Paris. As she enters the main lobby, there are young men dealing drugs, and 4 and 5 year olds out playing in the street...at 10 p.m. No parents nearby. No supervision. You wonder why these young people are out of control? Look to the parents. Yes, the same type of parents that are accusing the Police and the government of killing their kids at that power station. You know what folks? Take responsibility for your own kids and quit blaming everyone else for your poor efforts. Sure, there are kids whose parents do everything right and they still revolt. But in the case of these two kids, quit blaming the cops! Quit burning the cities as if that will help.
What is going to happen next? Are the French legislators going to say, "There, there" and throw more taxes at the problem? Probably. But I guarantee that the first thing that's going to happen is that the army is going to be called out to stifle these riots. And if the army doesn't work...watch out. The French still have a group called the Foreign Legion. These Legionnaires are not the nicest folks in the world, and they would have no qualms about doing some damage to the rioters.
Before the French government will try to help these immigrants, the violence will need to stop. But before any plans will work, parents need to take responsibility for their children, and the children need to take responsibility for their own actions. In fact, if everyone took responsibility for their own actions, we wouldn't have some of the problems that we do today. Simple, isn't it? And it's a wish that won't come true with humans being the way that they are: imperfect and selfish.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Registering for Spring
As I sit here waiting for my college registration hour to arrive, I find myself wishing that certain degrees carried a bit more import with employers. For example, if a person gets an Associates' Degree in Design Drafting, he or she could probably get an entry-level or slightly higher level job as a drafter with an engineering firm. That makes sense. That's what they went to school to learn. But what about those who find enjoyment in a more liberal arts-type education? There are certainly Associates' Degrees available in the Liberal Arts field. But it is noted in my college catalog that this degree is for those who are seeking their Bachelor's Degree in the same field. The AA degree does absolutely nothing to make a person marketable. He can't teach with an AA degree. There are very few employers who list the ability to analyze Shakespeare as a job requirement. And so, the student proceeds to a university to get a four-year degree in liberal arts. That degree qualifies the student...to get a certificate. Then, with that certificate, the student can...teach liberal arts.
Are you starting to see a pattern? Our society has become so oriented towards profits and business and technology that we are losing an appreciation for a part of our human experience that makes us well-rounded. Students are forced to take classes in majors which don't interest them because the classes that do interest them won't get them a job. Can you tell where I'm going with this? Here I am, looking at the list of Associates' Degrees available from my local Community College, and there isn't a single one of them that I want to pursue. Oh sure, I would like to go for liberal arts, but to what end? What good would it do me? Yes, I would probably enjoy the classes and gain an appreciation for a wide range of subjects. Let me just take my degree and fill out my application for McDonalds, thank you very much. This goes back to my previous rant on teachers and requirements, as well. Just in case you didn't catch that.
So I sit here, wondering what I will do. To tell the truth, I just don't know. All that I am sure about is that I am going to take my French classes so I can have the benefit of learning another language. At least that will do me some good in my daily life. (Don't ask...it's a long story.) But after that? What's the point of continuing my college? I'm already in a job that I hate. Should I get a degree to work in another job that I'll hate? No...that would be a waste. I think I'll just stick with French and writing and see if I can parlay that into something better. If not, well... would you like frites with your burger?
Are you starting to see a pattern? Our society has become so oriented towards profits and business and technology that we are losing an appreciation for a part of our human experience that makes us well-rounded. Students are forced to take classes in majors which don't interest them because the classes that do interest them won't get them a job. Can you tell where I'm going with this? Here I am, looking at the list of Associates' Degrees available from my local Community College, and there isn't a single one of them that I want to pursue. Oh sure, I would like to go for liberal arts, but to what end? What good would it do me? Yes, I would probably enjoy the classes and gain an appreciation for a wide range of subjects. Let me just take my degree and fill out my application for McDonalds, thank you very much. This goes back to my previous rant on teachers and requirements, as well. Just in case you didn't catch that.
So I sit here, wondering what I will do. To tell the truth, I just don't know. All that I am sure about is that I am going to take my French classes so I can have the benefit of learning another language. At least that will do me some good in my daily life. (Don't ask...it's a long story.) But after that? What's the point of continuing my college? I'm already in a job that I hate. Should I get a degree to work in another job that I'll hate? No...that would be a waste. I think I'll just stick with French and writing and see if I can parlay that into something better. If not, well... would you like frites with your burger?
Monday, October 17, 2005
Teachers
My son has been dealing with the difficulties of high school. Lately it seems as though his homework is overwhelming. That isn't surprising, as he is taking some very tough classes. But that did get me thinking about the disparity in homework between different instructors teaching the same course.
Please don't get me wrong. I admire teachers greatly and I think that they are overstressed, underpaid, and underprotected. However, I do think that some teachers use homework as a substitute for good teaching. They ramble on in class, hoping that students pick up some information, but then expect them to do the bulk of their learning by copying paragraphs and doing exercise after exercise. There are benefits to homework, and studying is a necessity. But shouldn't the better part of the teaching be done within the classroom, where the teachers can see the results? I wonder if it is just a form of surrender by certain teachers who have given up hope of seeing progress in their students or by those who are just tired of the job.
That brings me to the second part of my rant: certification. Granted, we want qualified teachers giving instruction to students. Certification gives states the ability to ensure themselves that teachers meet some minimum standards. Yet, I have seen a number of teachers who have their certification who don't seem qualified to teach a dog to sit! The problem lies in a system that forces teachers into a mold and a pattern of teaching that is unimaginative and stifling.
I am not a teacher. At this stage in my life I would love to try my hand at the job. The monkey wrench in the works is the fact that I do not have a bachelor's degree. With my current job and family situation, there is no way I can even find the time to go back to school to get the degree. I have been told over and over again that I could be a teacher, that I should be a teacher, and that I would be a good teacher. My obstacle lies within a little piece of paper. Frankly, I believe that I have the skills to teach. I have the desire to teach. But I am, according to all the laws of the land, unqualified to teach. I wonder if there might be a better way.
Until that day, I'll keep helping my son through his homework and trying to get my A.S. degree in some subject or another. I'll also keep wondering what would have happened if I had been allowed to teach or had found the time to get my degree. I blame myself first and foremost, but I still wonder if this system isn't broken.
Please don't get me wrong. I admire teachers greatly and I think that they are overstressed, underpaid, and underprotected. However, I do think that some teachers use homework as a substitute for good teaching. They ramble on in class, hoping that students pick up some information, but then expect them to do the bulk of their learning by copying paragraphs and doing exercise after exercise. There are benefits to homework, and studying is a necessity. But shouldn't the better part of the teaching be done within the classroom, where the teachers can see the results? I wonder if it is just a form of surrender by certain teachers who have given up hope of seeing progress in their students or by those who are just tired of the job.
That brings me to the second part of my rant: certification. Granted, we want qualified teachers giving instruction to students. Certification gives states the ability to ensure themselves that teachers meet some minimum standards. Yet, I have seen a number of teachers who have their certification who don't seem qualified to teach a dog to sit! The problem lies in a system that forces teachers into a mold and a pattern of teaching that is unimaginative and stifling.
I am not a teacher. At this stage in my life I would love to try my hand at the job. The monkey wrench in the works is the fact that I do not have a bachelor's degree. With my current job and family situation, there is no way I can even find the time to go back to school to get the degree. I have been told over and over again that I could be a teacher, that I should be a teacher, and that I would be a good teacher. My obstacle lies within a little piece of paper. Frankly, I believe that I have the skills to teach. I have the desire to teach. But I am, according to all the laws of the land, unqualified to teach. I wonder if there might be a better way.
Until that day, I'll keep helping my son through his homework and trying to get my A.S. degree in some subject or another. I'll also keep wondering what would have happened if I had been allowed to teach or had found the time to get my degree. I blame myself first and foremost, but I still wonder if this system isn't broken.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
You Can't Have It Both Ways
I was just thinking about the debates that are raging through our public school systems these days. And as I thought about it, I wondered if things aren't getting to the point where our kids are going to suffer. What am I talking about...?
There is this big debate going on as to the teaching of "intelligent design" along side evolution. Now frankly, I am not a believer in evolution, although I used to me. I would be very content if textbooks just stated that evolution is a hypothesis, as there is no way to prove it to be factual by experimentation (which is the basis for scientific reasoning). They could say that there are other hypotheses as well, including intelligent design, creation, etc.
The thing that gets me is that right alongside this is the argument about the pledge of allegience, wherein one side wants "under God" taken out and the other side wants it left in. This is a sore point with me, as various commentators and sociological experts have stated that, in fact, the pledge of allegience is a form of worship to the flag. Those who want "under God" left in are still worshipping a piece of cloth with their mouth, while saying they believe in a Creator on the other side. Either way, this is a form of indoctrination for the kids. Some will say that the kids don't have to say the pledge and that's fine. However, all you have to do is look at the way these kids who don't say the pledge are ostracized by the teachers and the other children to see that it is a difficult thing to do. People want to create a more "inclusive" society for all races and beliefs, but isn't the pledge divisive in that way?
Then there are those who say that people are being patriotic by saying the pledge, and those that don't say it don't love their country. Be real, folks. Would a spy or terrorist have any qualms about saying a pledge in public? Of course not. They would say it, do their dirty work, and laugh that all they had to do was to say some "pledge" to move suspicion away from them. No, the pledge is not a standard for loyalty.
When all is said and done, our kids are being dragged into the middle of a bunch of incredibly selfish people who want things their way and don't want to hear alternatives. Let's keep our eye on the ball everyone. You want what's best for our kids? Improve our schools. Give the kids textbooks and safe environments. Give our kids families who have dinner together instead of running off in a million different directions to soccer practice, dance practice, cheerleading, etc., etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Quit using the kids to further your own agendas and make a name for yourselves. Put their needs, their safety, their emotional well-being, and their futures first.
There is this big debate going on as to the teaching of "intelligent design" along side evolution. Now frankly, I am not a believer in evolution, although I used to me. I would be very content if textbooks just stated that evolution is a hypothesis, as there is no way to prove it to be factual by experimentation (which is the basis for scientific reasoning). They could say that there are other hypotheses as well, including intelligent design, creation, etc.
The thing that gets me is that right alongside this is the argument about the pledge of allegience, wherein one side wants "under God" taken out and the other side wants it left in. This is a sore point with me, as various commentators and sociological experts have stated that, in fact, the pledge of allegience is a form of worship to the flag. Those who want "under God" left in are still worshipping a piece of cloth with their mouth, while saying they believe in a Creator on the other side. Either way, this is a form of indoctrination for the kids. Some will say that the kids don't have to say the pledge and that's fine. However, all you have to do is look at the way these kids who don't say the pledge are ostracized by the teachers and the other children to see that it is a difficult thing to do. People want to create a more "inclusive" society for all races and beliefs, but isn't the pledge divisive in that way?
Then there are those who say that people are being patriotic by saying the pledge, and those that don't say it don't love their country. Be real, folks. Would a spy or terrorist have any qualms about saying a pledge in public? Of course not. They would say it, do their dirty work, and laugh that all they had to do was to say some "pledge" to move suspicion away from them. No, the pledge is not a standard for loyalty.
When all is said and done, our kids are being dragged into the middle of a bunch of incredibly selfish people who want things their way and don't want to hear alternatives. Let's keep our eye on the ball everyone. You want what's best for our kids? Improve our schools. Give the kids textbooks and safe environments. Give our kids families who have dinner together instead of running off in a million different directions to soccer practice, dance practice, cheerleading, etc., etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Quit using the kids to further your own agendas and make a name for yourselves. Put their needs, their safety, their emotional well-being, and their futures first.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Five Bucks a Gallon?
As hurricane Rita nears Texas, I have read rumors that gas prices could hit five dollars a gallon. This is due to the fact that there are so many refineries in that area. Five per gallon is high, no doubt. Europeans are probably wondering what we are whining about, because they have been dealing with prices that high for years now. Still, Americans will continue to shell out the dollars to feed their Hummers and Armadas and such because they "have the right" to drive huge vehicles.
Did you ever notice how people avoid changing because they "have the right" to do as they please? Isn't that just a lame excuse for destructive behavior? Think about it. We may have the right to do a number of things, but does that make it right to do so? We have the right to use all the gasoline that we want, to throw out as much garbage as we want, to use as much electricity as we want....but is that what is best? Frankly, most people aren't going to change their ways until they are forced to by regulations or shortages, or until they see the results first hand.
I'm no liberal. I have no political affiliation whatsoever. I do look at facts, though. And the facts show that people are ruining this earth. Just look around. Look at the landfills. Look at the rainforests. Shoot, just walk down the street. And yet...people don't or won't change their habits. Maybe gas lines and five dollars a gallon isn't such a bad thing. Maybe some SUVs will see the scrap heap. Maybe mass transit will gain a foothold in places it hasn't before. And maybe...just maybe...people will stop thinking they have the right to be selfish.
Did you ever notice how people avoid changing because they "have the right" to do as they please? Isn't that just a lame excuse for destructive behavior? Think about it. We may have the right to do a number of things, but does that make it right to do so? We have the right to use all the gasoline that we want, to throw out as much garbage as we want, to use as much electricity as we want....but is that what is best? Frankly, most people aren't going to change their ways until they are forced to by regulations or shortages, or until they see the results first hand.
I'm no liberal. I have no political affiliation whatsoever. I do look at facts, though. And the facts show that people are ruining this earth. Just look around. Look at the landfills. Look at the rainforests. Shoot, just walk down the street. And yet...people don't or won't change their habits. Maybe gas lines and five dollars a gallon isn't such a bad thing. Maybe some SUVs will see the scrap heap. Maybe mass transit will gain a foothold in places it hasn't before. And maybe...just maybe...people will stop thinking they have the right to be selfish.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Kids Today...
I was talking to my son the other day. He's a Junior in High School. As we spoke, I thought back to my time in high school. Oh sure, we had problems. It was 1982, and we dealt with things like drug use and alcohol use and such.
We like to tell our kids about how things were tougher "in our day". But as I compared my world back then with his world now, I realize that, in general, we didn't have it tougher. Granted, we didn't have all of the conveniences that are abundant today. We didn't have CD players or cell phones. But really...if you look back on your high school days if you were, say, pre-1985...you may be surprised.
Our kids are dealing with incredible pressures from schools to "be a success". In the eyes of the school, that means going on to a grand college or university and getting a high degree so that you can be a doctor or a lawyer or such. When I say incredible pressure, I mean it. These kids hear it several times a day in my son's high school. Add to that the fact that drug use is everywhere, pressure to be sexually active is everywhere, bad language, bullying and abuse is everywhere....incredible.
Frankly, I wonder what would happen if every kid became a doctor or a lawyer. Who's going to fix the plumbing? Who will build houses? Who will work in the dirty jobs?
So I ask you parents....are you pushing too hard to have a doctor or a lawyer in the family? Encourage your kid to do what he or she enjoys! Too many of us are stuck in jobs we hate, rather than doing what we want to do. Let your child thrive in their field of interest. Plumbers earn good money too!
Also, listen to your kids. Understand that the pressures they are facing are greater than what most of us faced. They are not adults yet. They need advice, they need encouragement, and they need a listening ear. Yes, they need limits too. Most of all...they need your time. Something they don't get during those hours they are asleep or in school. Nor do they get it when involved in myriads of after-school activities.
And start when they are young if you can. But even if they are already teens...just start.
We like to tell our kids about how things were tougher "in our day". But as I compared my world back then with his world now, I realize that, in general, we didn't have it tougher. Granted, we didn't have all of the conveniences that are abundant today. We didn't have CD players or cell phones. But really...if you look back on your high school days if you were, say, pre-1985...you may be surprised.
Our kids are dealing with incredible pressures from schools to "be a success". In the eyes of the school, that means going on to a grand college or university and getting a high degree so that you can be a doctor or a lawyer or such. When I say incredible pressure, I mean it. These kids hear it several times a day in my son's high school. Add to that the fact that drug use is everywhere, pressure to be sexually active is everywhere, bad language, bullying and abuse is everywhere....incredible.
Frankly, I wonder what would happen if every kid became a doctor or a lawyer. Who's going to fix the plumbing? Who will build houses? Who will work in the dirty jobs?
So I ask you parents....are you pushing too hard to have a doctor or a lawyer in the family? Encourage your kid to do what he or she enjoys! Too many of us are stuck in jobs we hate, rather than doing what we want to do. Let your child thrive in their field of interest. Plumbers earn good money too!
Also, listen to your kids. Understand that the pressures they are facing are greater than what most of us faced. They are not adults yet. They need advice, they need encouragement, and they need a listening ear. Yes, they need limits too. Most of all...they need your time. Something they don't get during those hours they are asleep or in school. Nor do they get it when involved in myriads of after-school activities.
And start when they are young if you can. But even if they are already teens...just start.
Friday, September 02, 2005
You Might Find...You Get What You Need
I've never been a fan of the Rolling Stones. I think Mick Jagger belongs in some sort of rehab clinic along with Keith Richards. That isn't the point of this blog, thank goodness.
They have a song that contains the lyrics, "you can't always get what you want...but sometimes...you get what you need."
As I went through my young adult years, I believed that, even if I didn't like it. However, I still had trouble accepting it, because so many times I got exactly what I didn't need, even if it was usually my own fault. Now, however, I have seen this happen too many times to ignore it.
As an example, once (several years ago) I didn't get a job I was applying for. I felt angry...upset...etc. However, shortly after that, my current job came through with a raise. If I had been offered the other job, I would have paid more for insurance, had fewer days off, and, it turns out, gotten less money. You just never know how these things will work.
Yesterday it happened again. I was up for a position that I didn't get. But this time, I remembered past lessons. As I analyzed my situation, I realized that this was for the best. I have a lot on my plate right now between homework, family responsibilities and other responsibilities. A six month wait is actually what's best right now.
Funny how these things work Once you look at things calmly and from a more detached viewpoint. The problem arises when your emotions get in the way and you take offense at a perceived slight.
Guess that's all part of being an adult, eh?
They have a song that contains the lyrics, "you can't always get what you want...but sometimes...you get what you need."
As I went through my young adult years, I believed that, even if I didn't like it. However, I still had trouble accepting it, because so many times I got exactly what I didn't need, even if it was usually my own fault. Now, however, I have seen this happen too many times to ignore it.
As an example, once (several years ago) I didn't get a job I was applying for. I felt angry...upset...etc. However, shortly after that, my current job came through with a raise. If I had been offered the other job, I would have paid more for insurance, had fewer days off, and, it turns out, gotten less money. You just never know how these things will work.
Yesterday it happened again. I was up for a position that I didn't get. But this time, I remembered past lessons. As I analyzed my situation, I realized that this was for the best. I have a lot on my plate right now between homework, family responsibilities and other responsibilities. A six month wait is actually what's best right now.
Funny how these things work Once you look at things calmly and from a more detached viewpoint. The problem arises when your emotions get in the way and you take offense at a perceived slight.
Guess that's all part of being an adult, eh?
Thursday, September 01, 2005
The Human Tragedy Continues
The South hasn't seen such destruction since General Sherman went on his torching spree during the Civil War. As pictures continue to fill the screen, I have to wonder if this part of the country will ever truly recover.
I was looking over some political cartoons this morning at: http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/HurricaneKatrina/main.asp
The cartoons were divided between the hurricane itself, the oil companies price gouging, the human tragedy, and the resilience of the human spirit. Yet, as I flipped over to the news sites such as CNN and MSNBC, I wasn't reading about the resilience that people are showing. Instead, I read about looters, arsonists and fighting at the SuperDome, people taking shots at helicopters, and a general breakdown of order. I understand that people are desperate, but do they think that these actions are going to get them help any sooner? In one case, someone took a shot at an evacuation helicopter at the SuperDome and they stopped all flights. Brilliant move, Mr. NRA. Instead of helping, you created more misery. Then, at another helicopter landing site at a hospital, people with clubs were crowding the landing spot. The pilot was so fearful that he broke off the landing, leaving people standing there. Again...brilliant.
I'm sure that we will be reading stories about bravery and endurance over the days ahead. It's just very sad that some idiots out there are creating even more heartache for the victims.
I was looking over some political cartoons this morning at: http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/HurricaneKatrina/main.asp
The cartoons were divided between the hurricane itself, the oil companies price gouging, the human tragedy, and the resilience of the human spirit. Yet, as I flipped over to the news sites such as CNN and MSNBC, I wasn't reading about the resilience that people are showing. Instead, I read about looters, arsonists and fighting at the SuperDome, people taking shots at helicopters, and a general breakdown of order. I understand that people are desperate, but do they think that these actions are going to get them help any sooner? In one case, someone took a shot at an evacuation helicopter at the SuperDome and they stopped all flights. Brilliant move, Mr. NRA. Instead of helping, you created more misery. Then, at another helicopter landing site at a hospital, people with clubs were crowding the landing spot. The pilot was so fearful that he broke off the landing, leaving people standing there. Again...brilliant.
I'm sure that we will be reading stories about bravery and endurance over the days ahead. It's just very sad that some idiots out there are creating even more heartache for the victims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)