Ever wonder what politicians do when it's not an election year?
Maybe they fight, call each other names, or maybe they get along. Unless you are willing to watch C-Span, you will likely not hear much about or from your Senator or Congressman. If you are willing to watch C-Span, you will likely hear long, boring speeches on subjects like a proposal to modify a proposal on making proposals during leap years.
Back to what politicians do when they are not running for an office - every citizen must wonder from time to time, but sadly, most of us think more about where to eat out or what movie is playing than what our representatives are doing who are actually elected and charged with the responsibility of representing you and I. It is this lack of scrutiny and accountability that allows them to remain virtually hidden until the press is bored and desires to pick on someone (usually a Republican, go figure) or they sponsor some bill that is relevant enough to warrant coverage.
But the question remains....when not running for an office, or re-election, do politicians fight and call each other names and get testy when they are safe and sound and elected? The answer -- is yes. But once they are elected and seated, their fight is one that is more analogous to tug of war, rather than mud slinging. It's dodge and perry, thrust and jab, hit and run, joust and jump, and negotiate, often behind "closed doors" where palm greasing and pocket lining rules the day. The party in majority may be far more concerned with keeping power than using it to advance their agenda, and the party in the minority often looks for kinks in their armor, or they just sit back, take the scraps they can get, and hope the powers that be make a big mistake they can capitalize on later. It is so much like chess, you'd think they would paint the floor of the senate in black and white blocks.
A bigger question than 'do they fight' may be....do they fight for their principals and agendas, or do they fight just because they are on opposite sides?
We all know that private citizens get riled up for their chosen party, often engaging in heated debates with those who disagree with them. Clubs, churches, bars, even schools can be highly centered around a certain political party affiliation. Whether we call ourselves a liberal or conservative can make a huge difference in who we talk to, where we go, and how we spend. It can also spark debates so hot you could cook on them. But do the actual politicians have these same highly charged, biased feelings too? Do they really try to advance their staunchly held beliefs, or do they walk into their group meetings and deal with the opposite party with kid gloves, a random scowl, and end the day with a back slap and a good laugh? One wonders.
Football fans can sometimes be set off by seeing members of the opposing team shake hands, smile, hug, and even have prayer after a hard fought game. Of course, the actual players are far more tired than the spectators, so all they might want to do is talk a moment and lean on each other, but the rabid fan is still shouting and carrying on in the living room, livid at such a display. Makes you wonder if the guys on the field have a much better grasp of the notion "it's just a game" than does the fan.
Do they guys and gals in our senate and congress have a similar perspective? Do they know that name calling, fighting, and fierce anger only slows things down? Is their 'game' more cloak and dagger, forcing them to pretend, or actually get along, make deals, concessions, and coalitions in order to get any work done? If this were so, would the average citizen be sickened by this revelation, or would they be enlightened? Can it be that the actual politicians act like professional ball players when no one is looking, but resort to acting like the fans when they are looking?
I don't know about you, but I want any so-called conservative representative to be conservative to the core, always fighting out of principal, but doing so with a suave and methodical demeanor. I would rather have a conservative senator who fights in vain, than to have one that only pretends to fight as they attempt to hide their weak constitution. Similarly, I want liberal politicians to be liberal across the board, unless they are truly double minded, which, in either case, their leanings will get them out of office. It is said that nature abhors a vacuum, and in politics, the public abhors someone who tries to be two faced. Either be conservative, or liberal, but don't try to ride the fence. Most of the public does not reside in that magic "middle" the press pretends is there, and Joe Liberman can tell you much about that desolate waste land. George W. may be able to speak to it soon.
The fight in our nations senate halls is not over legislation and bills, it is over world views and the outcome of those world views as they are reflected within legislation and bills. The left-wing liberals do not want to mix conservative views with their own -- they want purity in their godless, chaotic intentions and abhor Republicans who hold to standard conservatism. For liberals, it is a fight to the death, and no quarter is afforded their intended victims. It is about time conservative Republicans took the same approach, and stood large and in charge for their principals that do not need or warrant any liberalism in them. It may sound counter intuitive, but we as a republic are far better off with highly principled representatives who hold fiercely to their respective conservative or liberal views, than with politicians whose only fight is to remain a politician.
I believe America is still largely conservative in their views and principals, but that may not always be the case. Americans are far more interested in being entertained than in being free and responsible, and when the populace is lead by limp wristed, middle of the road politicians, it is no wonder so many citizens are tuned out to politics as a whole. But give the masses a politician who is decidedly left or right, and suddenly, they get involved, listen up, and choose sides, which is a good thing for all. Why do we have 40 and sometimes 50% turnout for elections? Because the middle-roader, bottom feeding politicians neither lead nor inspire as they seek only to appease and remain in office. How do we increase voter turnout? Run a candidate who takes a decided stand, be it liberal or conservative, and let them be consistent in their views and principals. Look no further than Ronald Reagan to see what happens when a presidential candidate "sticks to their guns." He truly won by landslide votes, and he did so being a unapologetic conservative.
Christians ruin their witness by being wishy-washy in their alliances and allegiances. Politicians ruin their opportunities to represent when they seek only to be electable, rather than principled.
BHO (Barak Hussein Obama), in these last few days before the election, is FINALLY being called out as the extreme left wing liberal that he is. His Achilles heel is that he, like all liberals, is trying to hide it before the election. John McCain has been consistently a middle-roader, which by definition as per this article, is a losing proposition with the public. His saving grace is two fold: he doesn't hide his vanilla/chocolate demeanor, and he brought on a decidedly conservative running mate.
Will the citizens of this great country cover their eyes and elect a wolf in sheep's clothing, or will they vote for a guy who is a middle-roader, albeit a honest one? It's hard to say, but if nothing else is learned in this election cycle, hopefully it will be this -- the party that hopes to win in the future had better decide which end of the moral and political spectrum they are on, accept it, and stick to it, or else the citizens will revolt until they do. And that is fine. There IS right and wrong, black and white, conservative and liberal, and there always should be. The "middle" is for art teachers, florists, and weenies. Make up your mind! Take a stand! Be committed! And then, welcome a good scrap.
Jesus said a man cannot have total allegiance to both God and material wealth. Can't be double minded. Choose life, or death. I think God knows what He is talking about.
And by the way......conservative principals are the ONLY principals that will bring peace, prosperity, and passion back to this country.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Movie Review
"An American Carol" is not your conventional movie.
To say the least. Call it a cross over between "Airplane III" and....well.....something you've never seen in a movie theater before.
Conservatism.
Hollywood doesn't do conservatism. At least not in large doses. Sure, Saving Private Ryan showed soldiers as hero's and the Chronicles of Narnia had an implicit Christian theme, but overall, la la land does not cater to any pro-conservative or pro-Christian themes. And even when they do, they don't acknowledge the positive impact it has upon their bottom line.
American Carol is a very pro-military, pro-America, anti-Michael Moore flick that tries to be funny, but makes much more sense when it gets a little serious and reflective. In fact, the director (who apparently did past movies like "Airplane," a really stupid-funny film) would have been very wise to make a more contemplative movie that used a little humor to break the ice from time to time. Instead, the more serious and poignant moments broke the ice for the tepid humor, which many times wandered off into a decidedly crass area that embarrassed the point of the picture. When godless dim-wits have kids cuss in flicks, it's bad enough, but in this movie, it makes the producers and writers seem low rent.
Michael Moore and anti-military liberals are the brunt of the joke of this satire, which is fine, and helps a movie searching for genre keep a point running through the theme. Chris Farley's brother plays the part of the pseudo-Moore, and does an admirable job of it. He looks the part but is so much like his late brother in speech and body language, you think more about Chris than Michael. Other notable actors such as Kelsey Grammer and John Voigt lend a certain seriousness to the scenes, and after about 20 minutes in, you find yourself wondering who else is going to be seen in this anti-Hollywood flick. The "terrorists" were probably the most forgettable characters, reminding one of Laurel and Hardy, which was funny once 50 years ago. A little stale now.
Moore is portrayed just as he really is -- a dumpy, uninformed, angry liberal who hates business, the military, guns, conservatives, and decent clothing. Much fun (too much, really) is made of documentaries being low rent rags. Moore, by proxy, is shown to be in need of a trip through history to show why America is not only great, but in need of constant defending. JFK even makes an appearance, and the director does a good job of convincing the audience that even that skirt chaser had a hard stand upon aggressive enemies in various speeches. To be pointed, the movie suggests that if Moore would really pay attention to ALL of our history, he would change his mind and views. Maybe that's a huge step in wishing, but that's what movies are made of.
You will not laugh too hard during this movie, but you will also not be too turned off by cheesy scenes, because there are few of them. Actually, as the movie progresses and little snippets of scenes showing tid bits of history are viewed, you may find yourself wishing that the movie had been a far more serious affair. Particularly effective was the section exposing the extreme liberalism that blossomed on the West coast and pervaded colleges from then on.
Some really strong conservative statements are uttered through out the movie, which is the biggest disconnect the audience experiences. It is strange to sit in any movie theater and hear someone say that Islamic countries are our vowed enemies and need to be defeated. The shame comes from feeling uncomfortable hearing that in a movie theater.
There are a few really dumb scenes that are repetitive and show disabled children being "hurt," innocently, of course, a la Airplane, and the 4 or 5 times a child cusses for no real effect, and some cleavage scenes that add not a thing to the purpose, but other than that and the fact that it gets a "D" on the comedy scale, it is a refreshing movie to watch. Besides, at 1 hour and 20 minutes, it doesn't take that much time.
This movie had great potential, if the director/producers could have either made it really funny (which was certainly possible, given the ridiculous nature of liberals), or really pointed with a little humor thrown in to keep it palatable. Based loosely upon Charles Dickens work as it was, it had that potential. Just a word to the wise -- when conservatives do take a chance and make a movie, they undermine their message when they use juvenile humor and gutter language and references. Not everyone who is conservative is high brow or Christian, but all conservatives need to understand that they are seen through a different lens by liberals.
Go see American Carol, if for no other reason than to just experience conservatism in a movie theater. Don't expect to howl in laughter, nor cry in emotionalism. But if you are a true conservative, you will experience delight and spontaneous applause at least 6 times guaranteed.
Grade scale: 1 is poor, 10 is excellent
Comedy: 3
Drama: 4
Clarity of purpose: 8
Use of dialogue: 6
Cinematography: 5
Continuity: 6
Special effects: 3
Character development: 4
Lead actor(s): 5
Supporting actor(s): 5
To say the least. Call it a cross over between "Airplane III" and....well.....something you've never seen in a movie theater before.
Conservatism.
Hollywood doesn't do conservatism. At least not in large doses. Sure, Saving Private Ryan showed soldiers as hero's and the Chronicles of Narnia had an implicit Christian theme, but overall, la la land does not cater to any pro-conservative or pro-Christian themes. And even when they do, they don't acknowledge the positive impact it has upon their bottom line.
American Carol is a very pro-military, pro-America, anti-Michael Moore flick that tries to be funny, but makes much more sense when it gets a little serious and reflective. In fact, the director (who apparently did past movies like "Airplane," a really stupid-funny film) would have been very wise to make a more contemplative movie that used a little humor to break the ice from time to time. Instead, the more serious and poignant moments broke the ice for the tepid humor, which many times wandered off into a decidedly crass area that embarrassed the point of the picture. When godless dim-wits have kids cuss in flicks, it's bad enough, but in this movie, it makes the producers and writers seem low rent.
Michael Moore and anti-military liberals are the brunt of the joke of this satire, which is fine, and helps a movie searching for genre keep a point running through the theme. Chris Farley's brother plays the part of the pseudo-Moore, and does an admirable job of it. He looks the part but is so much like his late brother in speech and body language, you think more about Chris than Michael. Other notable actors such as Kelsey Grammer and John Voigt lend a certain seriousness to the scenes, and after about 20 minutes in, you find yourself wondering who else is going to be seen in this anti-Hollywood flick. The "terrorists" were probably the most forgettable characters, reminding one of Laurel and Hardy, which was funny once 50 years ago. A little stale now.
Moore is portrayed just as he really is -- a dumpy, uninformed, angry liberal who hates business, the military, guns, conservatives, and decent clothing. Much fun (too much, really) is made of documentaries being low rent rags. Moore, by proxy, is shown to be in need of a trip through history to show why America is not only great, but in need of constant defending. JFK even makes an appearance, and the director does a good job of convincing the audience that even that skirt chaser had a hard stand upon aggressive enemies in various speeches. To be pointed, the movie suggests that if Moore would really pay attention to ALL of our history, he would change his mind and views. Maybe that's a huge step in wishing, but that's what movies are made of.
You will not laugh too hard during this movie, but you will also not be too turned off by cheesy scenes, because there are few of them. Actually, as the movie progresses and little snippets of scenes showing tid bits of history are viewed, you may find yourself wishing that the movie had been a far more serious affair. Particularly effective was the section exposing the extreme liberalism that blossomed on the West coast and pervaded colleges from then on.
Some really strong conservative statements are uttered through out the movie, which is the biggest disconnect the audience experiences. It is strange to sit in any movie theater and hear someone say that Islamic countries are our vowed enemies and need to be defeated. The shame comes from feeling uncomfortable hearing that in a movie theater.
There are a few really dumb scenes that are repetitive and show disabled children being "hurt," innocently, of course, a la Airplane, and the 4 or 5 times a child cusses for no real effect, and some cleavage scenes that add not a thing to the purpose, but other than that and the fact that it gets a "D" on the comedy scale, it is a refreshing movie to watch. Besides, at 1 hour and 20 minutes, it doesn't take that much time.
This movie had great potential, if the director/producers could have either made it really funny (which was certainly possible, given the ridiculous nature of liberals), or really pointed with a little humor thrown in to keep it palatable. Based loosely upon Charles Dickens work as it was, it had that potential. Just a word to the wise -- when conservatives do take a chance and make a movie, they undermine their message when they use juvenile humor and gutter language and references. Not everyone who is conservative is high brow or Christian, but all conservatives need to understand that they are seen through a different lens by liberals.
Go see American Carol, if for no other reason than to just experience conservatism in a movie theater. Don't expect to howl in laughter, nor cry in emotionalism. But if you are a true conservative, you will experience delight and spontaneous applause at least 6 times guaranteed.
Grade scale: 1 is poor, 10 is excellent
Comedy: 3
Drama: 4
Clarity of purpose: 8
Use of dialogue: 6
Cinematography: 5
Continuity: 6
Special effects: 3
Character development: 4
Lead actor(s): 5
Supporting actor(s): 5
Thursday, October 2, 2008
How Do I Count?
I first met Tony Areno in the grocery store where I worked. He was a hard charging, fast talking, energetic young man who was the produce manager. He moved fast, talked to almost everyone as if he was commander in chief, and let it be known that he was going places.
Tony came from what could be called an average family. He had also served a 4 year stint in the army. When I met him, he was newly married, fresh out of the army, and was working at this store because good jobs in that small southern town were hard to find, unless you had family ties. He was also seeking significance in his life. The store owner was a Christian, and a bi-vocational preacher, and Tony was highly influenced by this man. He wanted to impress him. I was not a Christian at the time (but would become one just a year later) but I could tell that Tony's referral to Christian themes and morals were in his head, and not in his heart. You might say Tony had a NFL-esque Christian view -- "it's good to give props to God, but living it out is another thing."
Fast forward some 12 years or so later. Tony moved on to other things, I continued to work at that store for many more years, and in the meantime, moved out of town, but eventually came back to finish school. Not long after coming back, I was in my home church, reacquainting myself with old friends and some new faces. An old friend asked me if I recognized the guy across the room. I said I did not, but he did look familiar. He was beckoned over, and as he hobbled his way across the room, I was told his name. "This is Tony Areno." The reason I had difficulty making the connection was more in the way he carried himself, rather than the difference 12 years can make in appearance. This small, skinny, wobbly middle-aged looking man did not resemble the Tony I once knew. Sure, the old Tony was slight in stature, but he had a fire in his eyes and a quick tongue. The man standing in front of me held out a shaky hand, spoke with a slow, determined stutter, and could not stand fully straight. And there was no fire in his eyes.
The short version of the story is that Tony tried to "apply" a Christian label to himself all those years ago, but he lived a reckless life full of drugs and alcohol. He was motivated and determined, and wanted his life to count for something big. But one night, after he and his wife left a party, stoned and drunk, he had a bad auto accident. Massive head trauma. Some surgeries and lots of rehabilitation later, he was able to walk, talk, and get around, but in a way that resembled a 80 year old man. When I met Tony the second time, he was single (his wife left him after the accident), broken, slow talking, slow walking, but he had one thing going for him -- Christ was no longer someone he "admired," Christ was now someone he worshipped as Lord and Savior.
Tony's fundamental personality was still intact -- he liked to play jokes, laugh, and get really serious and pointed on certain issues -- but his testimony about Christ now was real and believable. That fire that used to be in his eyes had moved into his bones, because he could not help but tell people about a Christ that he now knew. Tony was unable to work, barely able to drive (very scary!) but he was always at church, always positive, and always an inspiration to others. And he still wanted his life to count. But unlike in his previous life, when he wanted life to count for him, he now wanted his life to count for Christ.
Tony died some 7 years ago. After his accident, it was found out that he had Cystic fibrosis, and that, along with other medical issues on-going from his accident, eventually claimed his life. But many times when I spent time with Tony playing softball, talking at church, or going on outings with him, he would tell me, "I thought I was really going somewhere and going to be somebody when you knew me before. But now, I see that I was heading no where. I wouldn't take back what happened to me for anything, because I see that God used that to show me I needed Him."
Most people are looking for significance in their lives. "Most" is used intentionally, because there are people out there who just don't care at all. But for the majority of humans, there is a need deep inside for our lives to "count." Defining what "count" means divides us up into many splintered communities, but possibly all of that could be reduced in to two camps: Those who want life to count for them, and those who want their lives to count for something bigger.
Success and failure, based solely upon human conventions, is an exercise in arbitrary futility at best. Donald Trump is a very rich man. He builds huge buildings. He also sucks at relationships. He infuriates thousands. He has lost millions and gained it back, and many people associated with him went down with him and never got back. Michael Jordan was a highly recognized basketball player. He made hundreds of millions. He also has a massive gambling habit, and now a divorce. Brittany Spears is one of the most recognized and wealthy young entertainers in the world. She also suffers from the pressures of her "success" in the forms of mental illness, drunkenness, and public humiliation.
Success and failure, based solely upon God's reckoning, is an exercise in understanding position and power. Jesus was once asked, 'what is the greatest commandment?' He replied that we are to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength (with all we have), and then, to love our neighbors as ourselves (put others first). Success, in God's eyes, is for us to recognize our position with God, and that is, that He is King, and we are His subjects. Second, it is to recognize that He has all power, and we have none, or none that counts. A "successful" person in God's view is one that worships God and God alone, and then, as a result of that proper position, serves God first, and their fellow person second. Maybe, somewhere down the line, they find time to serve their own interests. Yeah, that is exactly the point.
Wanting our lives to count is as human as wanting to breathe. But how we define 'count' really defines our overall view of the world, and He who made it. For the Christian, this can only mean that we are counted among those who worship God with all we have, making sure that all our dreams and plans and activities ultimately are motivated by wanting to glorify the God who made us. We recognize that being the best teacher or doctor, or a highly recognized personality, or making a lot of money is not going to result in "counting" for anything. In fact, by God's standards, those whose lives have counted the most have been lived in relative obscurity. How many "celebrities" in Hollywood know that Lottie Moon died of starvation, all 50 lbs. of her, because she gave all her money and food away so that starving Chinese people around her could live one more day?
Even Christians need to be reminded daily (or remind themselves) that this "counting" business is serious, and it's not a fairy tale. We have to be determined in our thinking and motivations to keep before ourselves that a life that counts is a life of service to God, on His terms, in His timing, and in His way. This is a VERY dangerous way to live, because God does not seek our glory, but His, and as His servants, it is His sovereign right to use us as He wishes. No wonder so many turn away, seeking their own temporary glory in futility.
Tony Areno lost so much, mostly due to seeking a life that counted for him, but in the ensuing tragedy, he was given a second chance to live a life that counted toward the glory of God. I knew him in both lives, and the 'second life' was far more inspirational and moving than the first.
Tony came from what could be called an average family. He had also served a 4 year stint in the army. When I met him, he was newly married, fresh out of the army, and was working at this store because good jobs in that small southern town were hard to find, unless you had family ties. He was also seeking significance in his life. The store owner was a Christian, and a bi-vocational preacher, and Tony was highly influenced by this man. He wanted to impress him. I was not a Christian at the time (but would become one just a year later) but I could tell that Tony's referral to Christian themes and morals were in his head, and not in his heart. You might say Tony had a NFL-esque Christian view -- "it's good to give props to God, but living it out is another thing."
Fast forward some 12 years or so later. Tony moved on to other things, I continued to work at that store for many more years, and in the meantime, moved out of town, but eventually came back to finish school. Not long after coming back, I was in my home church, reacquainting myself with old friends and some new faces. An old friend asked me if I recognized the guy across the room. I said I did not, but he did look familiar. He was beckoned over, and as he hobbled his way across the room, I was told his name. "This is Tony Areno." The reason I had difficulty making the connection was more in the way he carried himself, rather than the difference 12 years can make in appearance. This small, skinny, wobbly middle-aged looking man did not resemble the Tony I once knew. Sure, the old Tony was slight in stature, but he had a fire in his eyes and a quick tongue. The man standing in front of me held out a shaky hand, spoke with a slow, determined stutter, and could not stand fully straight. And there was no fire in his eyes.
The short version of the story is that Tony tried to "apply" a Christian label to himself all those years ago, but he lived a reckless life full of drugs and alcohol. He was motivated and determined, and wanted his life to count for something big. But one night, after he and his wife left a party, stoned and drunk, he had a bad auto accident. Massive head trauma. Some surgeries and lots of rehabilitation later, he was able to walk, talk, and get around, but in a way that resembled a 80 year old man. When I met Tony the second time, he was single (his wife left him after the accident), broken, slow talking, slow walking, but he had one thing going for him -- Christ was no longer someone he "admired," Christ was now someone he worshipped as Lord and Savior.
Tony's fundamental personality was still intact -- he liked to play jokes, laugh, and get really serious and pointed on certain issues -- but his testimony about Christ now was real and believable. That fire that used to be in his eyes had moved into his bones, because he could not help but tell people about a Christ that he now knew. Tony was unable to work, barely able to drive (very scary!) but he was always at church, always positive, and always an inspiration to others. And he still wanted his life to count. But unlike in his previous life, when he wanted life to count for him, he now wanted his life to count for Christ.
Tony died some 7 years ago. After his accident, it was found out that he had Cystic fibrosis, and that, along with other medical issues on-going from his accident, eventually claimed his life. But many times when I spent time with Tony playing softball, talking at church, or going on outings with him, he would tell me, "I thought I was really going somewhere and going to be somebody when you knew me before. But now, I see that I was heading no where. I wouldn't take back what happened to me for anything, because I see that God used that to show me I needed Him."
Most people are looking for significance in their lives. "Most" is used intentionally, because there are people out there who just don't care at all. But for the majority of humans, there is a need deep inside for our lives to "count." Defining what "count" means divides us up into many splintered communities, but possibly all of that could be reduced in to two camps: Those who want life to count for them, and those who want their lives to count for something bigger.
Success and failure, based solely upon human conventions, is an exercise in arbitrary futility at best. Donald Trump is a very rich man. He builds huge buildings. He also sucks at relationships. He infuriates thousands. He has lost millions and gained it back, and many people associated with him went down with him and never got back. Michael Jordan was a highly recognized basketball player. He made hundreds of millions. He also has a massive gambling habit, and now a divorce. Brittany Spears is one of the most recognized and wealthy young entertainers in the world. She also suffers from the pressures of her "success" in the forms of mental illness, drunkenness, and public humiliation.
Success and failure, based solely upon God's reckoning, is an exercise in understanding position and power. Jesus was once asked, 'what is the greatest commandment?' He replied that we are to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength (with all we have), and then, to love our neighbors as ourselves (put others first). Success, in God's eyes, is for us to recognize our position with God, and that is, that He is King, and we are His subjects. Second, it is to recognize that He has all power, and we have none, or none that counts. A "successful" person in God's view is one that worships God and God alone, and then, as a result of that proper position, serves God first, and their fellow person second. Maybe, somewhere down the line, they find time to serve their own interests. Yeah, that is exactly the point.
Wanting our lives to count is as human as wanting to breathe. But how we define 'count' really defines our overall view of the world, and He who made it. For the Christian, this can only mean that we are counted among those who worship God with all we have, making sure that all our dreams and plans and activities ultimately are motivated by wanting to glorify the God who made us. We recognize that being the best teacher or doctor, or a highly recognized personality, or making a lot of money is not going to result in "counting" for anything. In fact, by God's standards, those whose lives have counted the most have been lived in relative obscurity. How many "celebrities" in Hollywood know that Lottie Moon died of starvation, all 50 lbs. of her, because she gave all her money and food away so that starving Chinese people around her could live one more day?
Even Christians need to be reminded daily (or remind themselves) that this "counting" business is serious, and it's not a fairy tale. We have to be determined in our thinking and motivations to keep before ourselves that a life that counts is a life of service to God, on His terms, in His timing, and in His way. This is a VERY dangerous way to live, because God does not seek our glory, but His, and as His servants, it is His sovereign right to use us as He wishes. No wonder so many turn away, seeking their own temporary glory in futility.
Tony Areno lost so much, mostly due to seeking a life that counted for him, but in the ensuing tragedy, he was given a second chance to live a life that counted toward the glory of God. I knew him in both lives, and the 'second life' was far more inspirational and moving than the first.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Pay Day Someday
It's a great time for Christians to express their faith through conservative financial values.
As worldviews continue to collide in America, it is so apparent that the liberally minded media types are determined to make America look destined for destruction unless a Democrat is elected, and a major government bail out is approved. Wow, what a surprise.
A famous sermon preached over a century ago titled "pay day someday" shook the church world with direct hitting remarks towards personal responsibility. Theological discussions aside, the famous sermon made it's point, and it needs to be made again today in relation to Americans and their wallets.
What these two statement have in common is this.....America is due for a real financial whipping. Far too many spoiled baby boomers have been spending and charging and living on the financial edge for decades, and finally, after all those years of unchecked avarice, they are finally losing homes, going bankrupt, and seeing a few major banks go under.
The media is reporting upon all this corrective activity as a dooms day event, where "victims" are "suffering" under hard economic times, no doubt the result of the evil empire of George W. OK, so the liberal media is really showing themselves for what they are these days, which is the understatement of the century. Liberalism has never been so viciously touted and defended as it has been in 2008. This is far more than a war for the white house -- it is a war for the future of the general direction of this nation. But back to finances...
Christians are by and large far more conservative in all arenas of life, and when we are in a time when free spending Americans are having a harder time making ends meet, it is a great time to share our faith in Christ through finances. Maybe in no other day has this been so true. Certainly, this is an unconventional method for sharing Christ with others, but it can be so effective, provided the Christian is truly in a state of financial security.
Let's say that a Christian and his co-worker are having a discussion about today's economy, and the unbeliever is struggling financially. In this author's humble opinion, the Christian should boldly say that due to conservative biblical financial principals lived out in their lives, they are not missing payments, overdrawn on accounts, or struggling with higher gas prices. If this is actually true (and there is no reason why it shouldn't be) it can lead to a great discussion about God's principals of self control and financial stability.
So many Americans are having a difficult time financially because they want it all, want to pay for it later, and want to suffer no consequences. 3 strikes and they are out. We have become a nation of spoiled ego-centric spenders who have never really had to pay for their poor decisions and selfish ambition. With this talk of a government bail out, liberals once again want to create victims of everyone, promise to make it all better (since when did a government run bureaucracy ever solve anything?) and assure everyone that no one will suffer. Sounds like Stalin and Lenin circa 1930's. Make no mistake America -- the Democrats do want to establish socialist principals in our nations government so badly, they can taste it. And make no mistake about this.....a people who do not want to suffer, never pay for their misdeeds, and demand a "safety net" under all of their lives....are prime choice for a socialist government. This CAN happen right before our eyes.
I pray that the bail out fails on all counts, and the banks who ran stupid loans and all the people who spent without a thought for the future all get their financial bottoms spanked good. Let them suffer. Let them lose. Let them be embarassed. Let them have to build back, learning a powerful lesson of doing without and being responsible enough to admit their mistakes and correct them. Let Democrats who demanded low income, high risk loans for people who would never attempt to be faithful to those loans be castigated for ever making such a irresponsible move.
There will be a pay day someday. America had better wake up, quit coddling the irresponsible idiots, and take a good whipping when it is needed. And it is so needed!
As worldviews continue to collide in America, it is so apparent that the liberally minded media types are determined to make America look destined for destruction unless a Democrat is elected, and a major government bail out is approved. Wow, what a surprise.
A famous sermon preached over a century ago titled "pay day someday" shook the church world with direct hitting remarks towards personal responsibility. Theological discussions aside, the famous sermon made it's point, and it needs to be made again today in relation to Americans and their wallets.
What these two statement have in common is this.....America is due for a real financial whipping. Far too many spoiled baby boomers have been spending and charging and living on the financial edge for decades, and finally, after all those years of unchecked avarice, they are finally losing homes, going bankrupt, and seeing a few major banks go under.
The media is reporting upon all this corrective activity as a dooms day event, where "victims" are "suffering" under hard economic times, no doubt the result of the evil empire of George W. OK, so the liberal media is really showing themselves for what they are these days, which is the understatement of the century. Liberalism has never been so viciously touted and defended as it has been in 2008. This is far more than a war for the white house -- it is a war for the future of the general direction of this nation. But back to finances...
Christians are by and large far more conservative in all arenas of life, and when we are in a time when free spending Americans are having a harder time making ends meet, it is a great time to share our faith in Christ through finances. Maybe in no other day has this been so true. Certainly, this is an unconventional method for sharing Christ with others, but it can be so effective, provided the Christian is truly in a state of financial security.
Let's say that a Christian and his co-worker are having a discussion about today's economy, and the unbeliever is struggling financially. In this author's humble opinion, the Christian should boldly say that due to conservative biblical financial principals lived out in their lives, they are not missing payments, overdrawn on accounts, or struggling with higher gas prices. If this is actually true (and there is no reason why it shouldn't be) it can lead to a great discussion about God's principals of self control and financial stability.
So many Americans are having a difficult time financially because they want it all, want to pay for it later, and want to suffer no consequences. 3 strikes and they are out. We have become a nation of spoiled ego-centric spenders who have never really had to pay for their poor decisions and selfish ambition. With this talk of a government bail out, liberals once again want to create victims of everyone, promise to make it all better (since when did a government run bureaucracy ever solve anything?) and assure everyone that no one will suffer. Sounds like Stalin and Lenin circa 1930's. Make no mistake America -- the Democrats do want to establish socialist principals in our nations government so badly, they can taste it. And make no mistake about this.....a people who do not want to suffer, never pay for their misdeeds, and demand a "safety net" under all of their lives....are prime choice for a socialist government. This CAN happen right before our eyes.
I pray that the bail out fails on all counts, and the banks who ran stupid loans and all the people who spent without a thought for the future all get their financial bottoms spanked good. Let them suffer. Let them lose. Let them be embarassed. Let them have to build back, learning a powerful lesson of doing without and being responsible enough to admit their mistakes and correct them. Let Democrats who demanded low income, high risk loans for people who would never attempt to be faithful to those loans be castigated for ever making such a irresponsible move.
There will be a pay day someday. America had better wake up, quit coddling the irresponsible idiots, and take a good whipping when it is needed. And it is so needed!
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Problem With Debates
Who won?
It's the predictable first question. Ironically, the liberal press will rush to say that Barry O won, but that's a given. The conservative news outlets are more likely to give each a fair shake, but in the end, asking 'who won' is like asking any other question that is hopelessly subjective. So, those who ask such stupid questions are morons who can't delve into more substantive issues. Yeah, I'm talking about you, George Stepahanaoapholispououss. But great hair, fella. Too bad you're 5'1".
The first presidential debate of 2008 is over, and both candidates presented themselves rather well, in terms of demeanor, clarity of voice, and time discipline. But what do such debates prove? Very little, if history is any teacher.
JFK did well in the first televised debates. JFK was a womanizing, inexperienced joke of a leader who nearly got the U.S. into WWIII by being asleep at the wheel in the infamous Bay of Pigs debacle. He looked better on TV than the flu-riddled Nixon, but that didn't win him the election, and it certainly didn't make him a good president. The most famous thing JFK ever did was get shot. Had he served out his term, he would have gone down as the most over-blown do nothing the libs have ever tried to immortalize.
Debates are window dressing. They relate to the adage that the 'clothes make the man.' They really don't prove anything other than to help establish some proficiency for public speaking. The debates are nothing more than carefully choreographed, pre-conditioned stump speeches that rarely enter the actual arena of a debate. It is comparable to two boxers making rules before a fight, which include the usual no rabbit punches, low blows, etc., but adding - no hitting around the face, no sweating, no dancing around, no left hooks, no right crosses, no upper cuts..... you get the point. That is analogous to presidential debates. By the time they are cooked down by the two camps, they are so emasculated and diluted, they are hardly worth watching. Maybe that's why the press punks start in on, 'so...who looked the best?' Reference their pathetic morning shows entrenched with fashion shows and smart dressers and you know how they think.
We as Americans deserve more than this luke warm tripe, but sadly, few citizens really want to know the issues that should be debated. Americans like their politics watered down, and their beer tarted up. They would rather be emotional than informed. Americans who routinely squander what should be a good income will vote in ignorance for the candidate who 'seems' more concerned about their "plight." (their plight is that they burn money like wood and use credit like water)
As a quick aside, a good constitutional amendment would be to place the following as preconditions necessary to be allowed to vote:
1. Be a college graduate (2 or 4 year)
2. No felony record of any kind
3. No bankruptcy history
4. Registered for selective service
5. Proficiency with English language
6. No government assistance (currently)
7. Absolutely mandatory..... no illegal aliens, and if your citizenship is dependant upon being born in the U.S., you cannot vote until your parents are nationalized
8. Your IRS standing is totally clear
9. You have to name the past 6 presidents, in order, and determine their party affiliation, years served, and one major event in their presidency.
10. You have to say the pledge to the U.S. flag
OK, so it sounds more like a citizenship test, but by golly, there is a reason why our founding fathers set up the electoral college. We have some of the worlds best and brightest minds, but likely 2/3rds of our population don't even know the true job description of a president, let alone the divisions of government. Just watch that liberal idiot Jay Leno interview people on the streets in Burbank, and cry yourself to sleep. At least he points out the average intelligence quotient of people in lala land.
Televised debates, such as they are, are something we do to assure ourselves that we're staying informed and making rational decisions. Being able to speak reasonably well in such a antiseptic vacuum hardly proves anything about a persons ability to lead.
It is high time that Americans lose their fascination for public speaking (especially with teleprompters) and look further than a nice suit and a tan. In the bible, Israel cried out for a king, even though God didn't want them to have one. God wanted His people to look to Him as their king, but the rebellious and indifferent Israelites were unrelenting. So God told one of His prophets, Samuel, to pick Saul, who was a tall, good looking man with supposed military prowess. In fact, his height and his moderate military experience wowed the crowd, and they thought they had just discovered sliced bread. Problem was.....Saul's height and experience did not come close to making up for his ill temper, bad judgment, disrespect for God, and love of himself. He was a very POOR leader, who eventually turned into a raging maniac and idolater, bent upon murder. The people chose him based upon foolish criteria, and we as Americans today still do the same thing.
Presidents in America actually have less to do with policies and direction than does the congress and House. But their position is very important, and so during this election cycle, it would be wise for our citizens to look a little further into their candidate than their speaking style or appearance.
After all, ol Abe was an ugly fellow, and arguably, one of our finest presidents ever.
It's the predictable first question. Ironically, the liberal press will rush to say that Barry O won, but that's a given. The conservative news outlets are more likely to give each a fair shake, but in the end, asking 'who won' is like asking any other question that is hopelessly subjective. So, those who ask such stupid questions are morons who can't delve into more substantive issues. Yeah, I'm talking about you, George Stepahanaoapholispououss. But great hair, fella. Too bad you're 5'1".
The first presidential debate of 2008 is over, and both candidates presented themselves rather well, in terms of demeanor, clarity of voice, and time discipline. But what do such debates prove? Very little, if history is any teacher.
JFK did well in the first televised debates. JFK was a womanizing, inexperienced joke of a leader who nearly got the U.S. into WWIII by being asleep at the wheel in the infamous Bay of Pigs debacle. He looked better on TV than the flu-riddled Nixon, but that didn't win him the election, and it certainly didn't make him a good president. The most famous thing JFK ever did was get shot. Had he served out his term, he would have gone down as the most over-blown do nothing the libs have ever tried to immortalize.
Debates are window dressing. They relate to the adage that the 'clothes make the man.' They really don't prove anything other than to help establish some proficiency for public speaking. The debates are nothing more than carefully choreographed, pre-conditioned stump speeches that rarely enter the actual arena of a debate. It is comparable to two boxers making rules before a fight, which include the usual no rabbit punches, low blows, etc., but adding - no hitting around the face, no sweating, no dancing around, no left hooks, no right crosses, no upper cuts..... you get the point. That is analogous to presidential debates. By the time they are cooked down by the two camps, they are so emasculated and diluted, they are hardly worth watching. Maybe that's why the press punks start in on, 'so...who looked the best?' Reference their pathetic morning shows entrenched with fashion shows and smart dressers and you know how they think.
We as Americans deserve more than this luke warm tripe, but sadly, few citizens really want to know the issues that should be debated. Americans like their politics watered down, and their beer tarted up. They would rather be emotional than informed. Americans who routinely squander what should be a good income will vote in ignorance for the candidate who 'seems' more concerned about their "plight." (their plight is that they burn money like wood and use credit like water)
As a quick aside, a good constitutional amendment would be to place the following as preconditions necessary to be allowed to vote:
1. Be a college graduate (2 or 4 year)
2. No felony record of any kind
3. No bankruptcy history
4. Registered for selective service
5. Proficiency with English language
6. No government assistance (currently)
7. Absolutely mandatory..... no illegal aliens, and if your citizenship is dependant upon being born in the U.S., you cannot vote until your parents are nationalized
8. Your IRS standing is totally clear
9. You have to name the past 6 presidents, in order, and determine their party affiliation, years served, and one major event in their presidency.
10. You have to say the pledge to the U.S. flag
OK, so it sounds more like a citizenship test, but by golly, there is a reason why our founding fathers set up the electoral college. We have some of the worlds best and brightest minds, but likely 2/3rds of our population don't even know the true job description of a president, let alone the divisions of government. Just watch that liberal idiot Jay Leno interview people on the streets in Burbank, and cry yourself to sleep. At least he points out the average intelligence quotient of people in lala land.
Televised debates, such as they are, are something we do to assure ourselves that we're staying informed and making rational decisions. Being able to speak reasonably well in such a antiseptic vacuum hardly proves anything about a persons ability to lead.
It is high time that Americans lose their fascination for public speaking (especially with teleprompters) and look further than a nice suit and a tan. In the bible, Israel cried out for a king, even though God didn't want them to have one. God wanted His people to look to Him as their king, but the rebellious and indifferent Israelites were unrelenting. So God told one of His prophets, Samuel, to pick Saul, who was a tall, good looking man with supposed military prowess. In fact, his height and his moderate military experience wowed the crowd, and they thought they had just discovered sliced bread. Problem was.....Saul's height and experience did not come close to making up for his ill temper, bad judgment, disrespect for God, and love of himself. He was a very POOR leader, who eventually turned into a raging maniac and idolater, bent upon murder. The people chose him based upon foolish criteria, and we as Americans today still do the same thing.
Presidents in America actually have less to do with policies and direction than does the congress and House. But their position is very important, and so during this election cycle, it would be wise for our citizens to look a little further into their candidate than their speaking style or appearance.
After all, ol Abe was an ugly fellow, and arguably, one of our finest presidents ever.
Debate Advice
Just for fun...
Presidential candidates are prepped for debates like airplanes are for flight, as in, thoroughly - top to bottom. So for a few laughs, here is a top ten for Barry Obama's prep for the first debate.
Top Ten Comments Made to Barry Minutes Before His Debate With McCain:
10. "Yo dog, be fierce!"
9. "Remember, for the next 90 minutes, you are not a left wing extremist -- you are a 'fair and balanced moderate.' So be sure to look both directions when talking."
8. "Point with your thumb with conviction, like Slick Willy did."
7. "Shank dat fool if'n he gets up in yo grill!"
6. "Try your best to look older and more experienced than you are. You can pull that off."
5. "When in doubt, always fall back to, 'George Bush is EVIL!' "
4. "Remember...it's not a lie, if you really believe it."
3. "Remember, it's not a lie unless it's proven otherwise in a court with a really conservative judge presiding."
2. "If you get stuck, just ask yourself, 'what would Oprah do?' "
1. "Be sure not to refer to Iran as a 'little bitty country.' We don't need that again!"
Presidential candidates are prepped for debates like airplanes are for flight, as in, thoroughly - top to bottom. So for a few laughs, here is a top ten for Barry Obama's prep for the first debate.
Top Ten Comments Made to Barry Minutes Before His Debate With McCain:
10. "Yo dog, be fierce!"
9. "Remember, for the next 90 minutes, you are not a left wing extremist -- you are a 'fair and balanced moderate.' So be sure to look both directions when talking."
8. "Point with your thumb with conviction, like Slick Willy did."
7. "Shank dat fool if'n he gets up in yo grill!"
6. "Try your best to look older and more experienced than you are. You can pull that off."
5. "When in doubt, always fall back to, 'George Bush is EVIL!' "
4. "Remember...it's not a lie, if you really believe it."
3. "Remember, it's not a lie unless it's proven otherwise in a court with a really conservative judge presiding."
2. "If you get stuck, just ask yourself, 'what would Oprah do?' "
1. "Be sure not to refer to Iran as a 'little bitty country.' We don't need that again!"
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Worldview Questions
What is a "worldview?"
Today, more than ever, the definition and recognition of one's worldview is critical to communication and understanding. During this particular presidential election cycle, differing worldviews are colliding like bumper cars, replete with sparks flying, yelling, and hap-hazard unfocused encounters that seem out of focus.
It is so important for a person to understand their own worldview (like noses, everyone has one) before they begin to try to understand someone elses. So, to be very brief, if one would like to begin this journey of discovery for their own worldview, the following questions (no matter how disjointed they may seem) will help you get started and begin to focus.
1. Who is in charge?
2. How did we get here?
3. What is the problem with the world?
4. How is morality defined?
5. Who is to blame?
6. What is responsibility?
7. What is truth?
8. When did things go wrong?
9. What is the solution to human suffering?
10. What is fairness?
11. Is there an afterlife?
12. What is success?
13. What defines a "bad" person?
14. What is the purpose of life?
15. What is really important?
16. How do you define justice?
17. Where did we come from?
18. When does life begin?
19. Who is God?
20. How do we find peace?
Very general, broad, and yet -- very defining in scope and practicality -- these questions and more help us find out where we are in our worldviews, and how we got there.
As one takes that journey, it helps to know some of the factors that helped define our worldview, including....
Today, more than ever, the definition and recognition of one's worldview is critical to communication and understanding. During this particular presidential election cycle, differing worldviews are colliding like bumper cars, replete with sparks flying, yelling, and hap-hazard unfocused encounters that seem out of focus.
It is so important for a person to understand their own worldview (like noses, everyone has one) before they begin to try to understand someone elses. So, to be very brief, if one would like to begin this journey of discovery for their own worldview, the following questions (no matter how disjointed they may seem) will help you get started and begin to focus.
1. Who is in charge?
2. How did we get here?
3. What is the problem with the world?
4. How is morality defined?
5. Who is to blame?
6. What is responsibility?
7. What is truth?
8. When did things go wrong?
9. What is the solution to human suffering?
10. What is fairness?
11. Is there an afterlife?
12. What is success?
13. What defines a "bad" person?
14. What is the purpose of life?
15. What is really important?
16. How do you define justice?
17. Where did we come from?
18. When does life begin?
19. Who is God?
20. How do we find peace?
Very general, broad, and yet -- very defining in scope and practicality -- these questions and more help us find out where we are in our worldviews, and how we got there.
As one takes that journey, it helps to know some of the factors that helped define our worldview, including....
- Our family structure
- Any religious influences
- Early feelings of belonging, or isolation
- Performance in school
- Close friends
- Personal predispositions (inherently ill tempered, or settled, or a loner, etc.)
- Impactful situations (a personal tragedy, a personal victory, etc.)
- Things that gave you a feeling of belonging and security
- Things that gave you a feeling of being threatened or alarmed
- Interaction, or lack thereof, with other cultures
- Travel
- Media influences
And many more. A worldview is not developed entirely in our younger years, but like ourselves, it is organic and growing. However, most of the core of one's worldview is usually established by the early years of adulthood.
A particular worldview comes out when we speak about core beliefs, core convictions, and core standards for ourselves, and others.
We all have a worldview. We all need to be very familiar with what ours is, and for Christians, this process carries extra weight, as it can reveal much about our walk with Christ, and where we are in being conformed to His image. And that will be the topic of another entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)