Due to the tremendous spiritual and economic pressures placed upon Christmas, it tends to be a very polarizing time of year.
Maybe that helps to "explain" how people can be trampled to death, or shot, during this time of year in the average American store.
Once again (yes, tragically, this has happened before) there have been deaths associated with shopping during the Christmas season. Most recently, a temp employee working at the illustrious Wal-Mart was trampled to death when the store opened early the day after Thanksgiving. To make matters worse, he died trying to shield a pregnant woman who had been knocked down by the hostile hoards of bargain hunting Mart-ites. As of this writing, this author does not know the condition of the woman being protected.
Much can be said at this point about the average Wal-Mart shopper. My family owns and operates a relatively small business in a very small town that was visited by the Wal-Mart franchise way back in the mid 80's. 4 or 5 long time businesses closed their doors the day Wal-Mart opened theirs, which was cowardly but probably a wise decision in the long run. Sam Walton was a totally ruthless businessman, much like Ted Turner, and his mantra was to eliminate the competition. He had no intention of just competing. Anywho, I have known for decades that Wal-Mart caters and focuses upon the lowest common denominator among humans, and more often that not, succeeds in that quest. It's not as if you find America's brightest and best shopping there. In fact, on any given day, you can tally up the TOTAL IQ numbers for all of Wallys shoppers at any given time and fall short of 100, easily. Not a smart lot. And Wally knows it. He made hundreds of millions counting on it.
As to the tramplers, what do you think they will be giving thanks about this Christmas season? Wonder if their minds will wander back to that day when they got a "terrific" deal on some second hand, reconditioned game box, and..........oh yeah, trampled a worker? Wonder if those who actually stepped all over him will say a small prayer for his family? One thinks that of the dozens who actively participated in the MURDER of this man, at least a few will consider their implication in the matter and say a prayer of repentance. Lord knows (based upon viewing the type of people identified in the security camera tapes) no one is going to turn themselves in for murder. Gracious -- these poor people were just trying to save themselves a few dollars on some life giving entertainment items that due to George Bush, they have been denied all this time.
But you have to think......there are people out there today, right now, who KNOW they trampled this man. They killed him. Others went by, watching it happen, but not slowing down on their way to the bargains Wally held for them. They know they took part in his death.
So what happens when the gifts they bought on that day, all wrapped up for Christmas, are opened? Will that child know this gift was bought just after a man was trampled to death? Will it be worth it? Will the giver of the gift even make this correlation? Will there be a shred of conscience about it all?
Sadly, this author doubts any of this will happen. Wal-Mart, evil empire that it is, is not liable for any of this. They put on a sale, opened early, but did nothing to incite this behavior. There is absolutely no reason why any store in America should have to anticipate this kind of behavior. Any why not? Well, are we giving away free rice to starving people in Sudan? No, we're selling X-boxes and other worthless plastic trinkets. The people who rushed in to that Wal-Mart (among others, and other similar stores that morning) behaved like crazed animals, and in my humble opinion, should have been treated that way. I would have had the police lock everyone in the store, bring in lots more police, question everyone, review the tapes, and haul them all down to the station for retention until it could be sorted out. Instead, talk began immediately about suing the store. Shame on you America.
This incident reveals the horrible underbelly of America -- a class of people who will kill, maim, and destroy without conscience or contrition. We're not talking about starving, desperate people, but just ordinary people with cars, cell phones, a home, and income, even if it comes from the tax payers. When a man can be trampled to death by a crowd running to buy unnecessary gifts, in a Wal-Mart, of all places, and nothing is said about those who trampled him.....we are in serious trouble.
I believe our society, as a whole, is still relatively conservative in nature, respecting God to a degree, abiding to laws in general, and has some degree of respect for the fellow man, but we are losing ground in those respects. Morality has become relative, punishment has become passe', and right and wrong are made up on the spot. Some days it seems as if all everyone wants is to be on T.V., have lots of money via suing, and whine about life in general. Everyone thinks that they can never be implicated in anything, can never suffer even a little bit, and can never be told "no." Just watch any child in any grocery store for affirmation on those 3 points.
So what do you want for Christmas? To be trampled in a dump store like Wal-Mart? Or to be the trampler? Maybe the murderers who killed this man will rename some of the seasonal favorites as:
I'll be trampling you for Christmas
You'll have a blue Christmas under my shoes
All I want for Christmas is a chance to breathe
Hark, hear the yells
I saw mommy stepping on a man today
Well, to those of you who actively took part in this man's death, here's hoping that you are filled with guilt, shame, and fear this Christmas season as you play your games covered in innocent blood. And God help you if you ever try something like that again while I am around.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Undeniable Identifiers
There is a war going on in America.
In the late 1800's, it was a war between geographic regions, ideology, and financial balance. In the early 1900's, it was a war to stave off hostile regimes that threatened American sovereignty. In the 1940's, the war was defined by evil dictators who gathered a huge following by lies and deceit, and establishing hatred among the unwashed masses. Currently, the war we are fighting as a nation is from within, and it is a war of world views.
Make no mistake about it -- this war is far beyond the scope of the White House, even as we now have the most radically liberal candidate elect ever, salivating in the wings, ready to take over.
In our 200+ year history, we as a nation have never been so divided by liberalism and conservatism. We have always had people who were liberal, but never has liberalism been so entrenched in key areas that offer that particular world view so much leverage. If our history is accurately investigated, there is no doubt that decidedly conservative views and standards were thoroughly woven into the fabric of our constitution and bill of rights. We began as a nation of hard working, common people with a dream of religious freedom, limited government, and personal achievement through self discipline and accountability. These identifying traits are indisputable in nature and reality, unless, of course, you are one who wants to "re-write" our history.
This is where the liberal left comes in, with their worldview that does not have room for serious Christian religion, absolute truth, moral decency, and accountability. Liberalism is, by nature, a rusty cancer that cannot tolerate order, truth, laws, and a moral standard. Liberals are, by nature, people who eschew any notion of moral living by rules established in the word of God. One of the best analogies to use is to think of the most spoiled, loud, uncontrollable brats you have ever had to endure anywhere. Think of the traits: obnoxious, disorderly, pushy, a bully, self absorbed, loud, erratic in nature, and totally committed to breaking any rule imposed. My dear friend, you just described liberalism to its very core.
Is it any wonder that America is beginning to see a rise in liberals? And not the closet type, but in-your-face, militant liberals who DEMAND that you accept their worldview, and adopt it as well. Why the rise? When was the last time you saw any parent truly discipline their child? The average parent has long ago given up parenting, and has instead replaced discipline with negotiations. Children who are clearly and openly breaking rules are given a series of "choices" in reaction to their disobedience. Spanking is now see universally as a malicious, medieval form of child abuse. A parent can risk arrest by just simple grasping a bratty child with some degree of force. And we wonder where liberals come from?
In the late 1800's, it was a war between geographic regions, ideology, and financial balance. In the early 1900's, it was a war to stave off hostile regimes that threatened American sovereignty. In the 1940's, the war was defined by evil dictators who gathered a huge following by lies and deceit, and establishing hatred among the unwashed masses. Currently, the war we are fighting as a nation is from within, and it is a war of world views.
Make no mistake about it -- this war is far beyond the scope of the White House, even as we now have the most radically liberal candidate elect ever, salivating in the wings, ready to take over.
In our 200+ year history, we as a nation have never been so divided by liberalism and conservatism. We have always had people who were liberal, but never has liberalism been so entrenched in key areas that offer that particular world view so much leverage. If our history is accurately investigated, there is no doubt that decidedly conservative views and standards were thoroughly woven into the fabric of our constitution and bill of rights. We began as a nation of hard working, common people with a dream of religious freedom, limited government, and personal achievement through self discipline and accountability. These identifying traits are indisputable in nature and reality, unless, of course, you are one who wants to "re-write" our history.
This is where the liberal left comes in, with their worldview that does not have room for serious Christian religion, absolute truth, moral decency, and accountability. Liberalism is, by nature, a rusty cancer that cannot tolerate order, truth, laws, and a moral standard. Liberals are, by nature, people who eschew any notion of moral living by rules established in the word of God. One of the best analogies to use is to think of the most spoiled, loud, uncontrollable brats you have ever had to endure anywhere. Think of the traits: obnoxious, disorderly, pushy, a bully, self absorbed, loud, erratic in nature, and totally committed to breaking any rule imposed. My dear friend, you just described liberalism to its very core.
Is it any wonder that America is beginning to see a rise in liberals? And not the closet type, but in-your-face, militant liberals who DEMAND that you accept their worldview, and adopt it as well. Why the rise? When was the last time you saw any parent truly discipline their child? The average parent has long ago given up parenting, and has instead replaced discipline with negotiations. Children who are clearly and openly breaking rules are given a series of "choices" in reaction to their disobedience. Spanking is now see universally as a malicious, medieval form of child abuse. A parent can risk arrest by just simple grasping a bratty child with some degree of force. And we wonder where liberals come from?
We know that Liberals are ever more adamant, ever more militant in their desire to re-make American culture in their image. That is a fact. Their methodologies are consistent, which makes their identifying traits consistent, discernible, and descriptive. Let's take a look at some of those undeniable identifiers now.
Identifying traits of Liberals:
- Diminished view of God: Liberalism is by nature, a world view that has to diminish the authority and personality of God. The sovereignty of God intrudes upon the liberal views of relative truth and situational morality. Liberal theology consistently questions the deity of Christ and the particulars of His work and life.
- Truth is relative: Truth cannot be absolute in a liberal world view. Truth is what truth is to you. Truth is what you need, when you need it, and it may not be truth to someone else.
- Intolerance: Liberals consistently parade themselves as agents of tolerance, but in fact, they only tolerate other liberal world views. Liberals are highly intolerant of conservative Christian views, and have the audacity to declare conservatives 'intolerant' even as they beat down conservatives with their own intolerance. Just look at how many places where prayer is no longer "allowed."
- Disdain for rules: liberalism by nature is always attempting to re-write rules where ever they find them. This trait ties in neatly with relative truth and intolerance. Liberals make up rules as they go, depending upon the situation. This is why it is so hard to pin a liberal on any one point. Think of Clinton trying to define what "is" means. There ya go.
- Worship of the Creation: Liberal world view dictates that the creation that we can see and touch is more important than the Creator who made it. Ties in with diminished view of God. Liberals desire to worship the planet because they see it as far more important and pressing than worshipping the Creator who is eternal. This is not a slight paradigm shift - it is outright idolatry.
- Diminished view of Life: Liberals support abortion because the right for an individual to make their own choice relative to their present situation is more precious than life itself. This ties in with worship of the creation in this way -- liberals will cry and whine much more about saving whales or some insect than they ever will about saving unborn human babies.
- Diminished expectations of Morality: Liberalism is guided by the old mantra, "if it feels good, do it" that was so popular in the 70's. Tying in with relative truth and disdain for absolute rules, liberals demand that morality be defined by the individual, not some institution or commonly held mores. Also, liberal thinking consistently moves back the 'no cross line' for morality as society devolves. Again, with no absolute standard, the standard is always changing.
- Pseudo intellectualism: Liberals hold the view that their more worldly sciences and views are far more sophisticated and empirical than the 'superstitions' of religious conservatives. Never mind that Darwinism, if it is to be believed, is rife with conjecture, speculation, and massive gaps in data that demand a leap of faith after every step. Never mind that there is absolutely no empirical evidence for any process of evolution in the current world. Never mind that the further science goes, the more complicated and intricate the world and universe is revealed to be. No, liberals must believe that their human reasons surpasses the eternal wisdom of God, or else they will be forced to deal with God on His own terms.
- Political liberalism needs victims: There really is no way to separate a liberal world view into segments, but speaking particularly about politics, without a victim mentality, liberals cannot achieve any success in politics. They must be seen as the party that "rescues" the victims and stands up for their rights. The kryptonite for liberals is an American society where businesses thrive, individuals work hard, achieve, and do well, and everyone obeys the rules and plays fair. In such a society, liberalism has no place.
- Exaltation of Individuals: Liberals openly seek to exalt individuals as 'gods' in their respective fields, be it entertainment, politics, sports, etc., even as they diminish their view of the authority and power of God. The wildly outrageous expectations and veneration of Barak Obama has recently pointed this out on a grand scale. It is also liberals who constantly exalt so called 'stars' in various entertainment industries, as if they have somehow bettered the world by singing a song or playing a role. We were all created to worship and exalt God, and if we refuse to do so, we turn to something else. Liberals turn to human kind, and the created world.
- Disdain for Punishment: Liberalism by definition favors the protection of perpetrators rather than the protection of their victims. This alone throws yet one more hypocritical wrench in their whole world view, as liberals also want to create a society of 'victims' at the same time. At any rate, copious double standards not withstanding, liberals tend greatly to run to the defense of anyone who deserves punishment. Liberals rarely ever punish their children in any meaningful way. Liberals loathe spanking under any circumstance. The ACLU is run exclusively by liberals, and the ACLU is nothing more than a "no one should ever be punished" organization. Liberalism supports illegal aliens, but forbids capital punishment. Liberalism will promote the killing of unborn babies, but will prosecute fully anyone who dares to intercept abortion clinic clients on a public sidewalk. It seems that the only people liberalism wants to punish are conservatives, and to that end, they seemingly have no mercy or limits. It is helpful to return to the "spoiled child" analogy, to understand where liberals get their inconsistent, twisted world view.
After reading this list of identifiers concerning liberals, one might draw the conclusion that all liberals are godless, disrespectful, morally bankrupt miscreants. Well, to a degree, that might describe many liberals. However, just as conservatives are individuals that tend to agree across a certain plane, liberals are also individuals and so they are not all in total agreement on every issue.
The point being made here is that in general, those who hold to a decidedly liberal world view tend to view God as distant and uninvolved, government as the answer to society's ills, and rules as something you make up at the moment when you need them. There is no way around the fact that liberals eschew absolutes. They always want room to "move." In order to keep from being accountable to someone or something else, liberals love to tout the idea that everything and every issue is in some state of flux, and therefore, needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The same is true for them when it comes to punishment -- liberals are far more concerned with the murderer than the person murdered.
Liberals are the same the world over, so the same liberal attitudes held in America can be mirrored by someone living in Spain, China, or Australia. No matter where you go, there will be people who have a low view of God, a high view of man's ability to solve every problem, and a low view of absolute laws and consequences. They see the earth and nature as something to be worshipped, large businesses as something to distrust, and human life as something that has transient inherent value.
Liberals support abortion, but fervently support animal rights
Liberals support limiting Christian expressions, but support Islam, Buddhism, et al.
Liberals never support any war, but support terrorist and their twisted agendas
Liberals support large government, but detest large businesses
Liberals support openness to new ideas, but totally disregard creationism or intelligent design
Liberals in government always try to sound like centrists in order to get elected
Liberal politicians can actually enhance their image by embracing immorality
Liberal educators have invaded almost all of our nations colleges, and openly spew their leftist agendas, usually without any repercussions. Liberal judges legislate from the bench (a totally illegal move) and continue uncorrected. Liberal groups like the ACLU spend millions of dollars trying to "protect individuals rights" by oppressing the rights of others. In short, liberalism is a completely contradictory, twisted, irresponsible, and flawed world view that has been a cancer in religion, governments, and societies.
So, what makes liberals tick? Basically, its the need to self govern ones own life without any outside intrusion or limits.
Liberalism, also known as secular humanism, has at its very core the belief that each individual is their own 'god' of their own world. Therefore, people who want to hold to a decidedly liberal world view are in constant conflict with orthodox Christian beliefs and values, even if they fail to see this disconnect.
Even as those with a liberal world view tumble through time, grasping at ego-centric "truths" without a core, unchanging truth to anchor them, they still have undeniable identifiers that tie them all together when you get to the core beliefs and standards. And those standards, when examined in full light, are seen for the inept, unstable, and destructive beliefs that they really are.
Conservatives need to recognize the views of liberals, see them for what they are, and then begin to form their arguments against them as they engage the culture at large on behalf of the good of all people everywhere.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Top Ten Obamarama
Whatever happens on election day, the little socialist squirrel known as BHO will have lots to say and do.
So, in the spirit of levity (which is needed now to keep sane) a top ten should help set this all in perspective.
Top Ten Things that will be heard in Obama headquarters if he WINS:
10. Hey yall! Send my boy Biden out to buy us a case of gin.
9. Lose the ties, bruthers. Break out the 'forms and da FUBU's
8. Somebody call Snoop Dog and ax him if'n he wants to be my secretary of dope!
7. I want the limo replaced with a slammed 61 Chevy.....wit dubs, homey
6. Oprah is on line two dog, and she sounds hongry!
5. Yo! Some white dude wants to know if you're gonna pay back your college loan! Want me to bust a cap in his _ _ _?
4. It's your aunt in Baltimore. She wants a job moppin' flo's!
3. Yo dawg, we gonna call it da black house from now on! Word!
2. Git Bill on the line. Tell him to send up some of those skeezers from Arkansas!
1. Tell Bill Ayres we grillin' at his crib tonight!
So, in the spirit of levity (which is needed now to keep sane) a top ten should help set this all in perspective.
Top Ten Things that will be heard in Obama headquarters if he WINS:
10. Hey yall! Send my boy Biden out to buy us a case of gin.
9. Lose the ties, bruthers. Break out the 'forms and da FUBU's
8. Somebody call Snoop Dog and ax him if'n he wants to be my secretary of dope!
7. I want the limo replaced with a slammed 61 Chevy.....wit dubs, homey
6. Oprah is on line two dog, and she sounds hongry!
5. Yo! Some white dude wants to know if you're gonna pay back your college loan! Want me to bust a cap in his _ _ _?
4. It's your aunt in Baltimore. She wants a job moppin' flo's!
3. Yo dawg, we gonna call it da black house from now on! Word!
2. Git Bill on the line. Tell him to send up some of those skeezers from Arkansas!
1. Tell Bill Ayres we grillin' at his crib tonight!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Blinded by the Black-Light
Can black Americans see beyond Obama's skin color?
Among whites, there is a strong opinion that portends that black Americans will vote for Obama simply because he is bi-racial. The fact that his physical appearance mostly resembles his African heritage is a bonus. The fact that he is a Democrat is icing on the cake.
To make this scenario far more interesting, let's pretend that Obama is a big time conservative Republican. There is every reason to believe that we as a nation have arrived at a place where such a scenario would rock the black American community far more than the conservative Republican community, replete with heated riffs and consternation.
But back in reality-land, Obama is bi-racial, albeit rarely ever called so, and his minions in the mainstream media just casually call him "black" as if there is no white race in him at all. How the black American community was able to claim him all to their selves is a mystery greater than the Bermuda triangle. But before we digress, the question remains, can black Americans see beyond Obama's skin tone?
Chris Rock, that foul mouthed "comedian" that has a set of teeth that would make Secretariat envious, claims that black people have to see more in a candidate than their skin color. Amidst lots of cussing and pacing like a crack-addict, he went on to say that no black person will automatically vote for Obama purely due to his being 'black' (Chris apparently didn't want to slow down his act by saying "bi-racial"). Chris Rock is an idiot, but apparently, dumb enough to actually think anyone would buy his sack of garbage.
The black American community is out and out agog over Obama. After decades and even a century of repeating the oppressed and suppressed mantra (some of which was very accurate and needed back in the day), the black community sees Obama as the second coming of sorts, a full-on ephipahany of a new time when blacks in America are fully venerated, recognized, and large and in charge. For the black community, having a bi-racial president is tantamount to Christians seeing Christ come back in the clouds. No irreverence to the Lord is suggested or condoned in that statement, but rather, it is worded that strongly because the truth about how Obama is seen needs to be exposed and see for what it is in the black community.
Obama has the most liberal voting record in the whole senate. He is the least experienced candidate the Democraps have run, next to Hillary, who still wears her bus tire marks well. Think of it....in the past decade, the Dems have run a tree stump, then FrankenHeinz, and now, a socialist who openly supports killing babies in the womb, and without. Sheer lunacy? Apparently not, as Gore lost by a slim margin, and Kerry, by almost as little. Scary stuff. One would think Hitler could be put up and win in this climate. Maybe he has been, in a manner of speaking.
Obama has associations with lots of people who do not like America very much, or at least, not white America. Yep, it's been said, and it stands. Folks like Obama think that America is a very hateful, wicked country that has oppressed minorities and doesn't want to share it's wealth and promise with anyone but those with porcelain skin tones. His banner of "Change" is clearly understood by the crowds that also feel that it's about time that white America finally handed over the keys to the "vast" minorities that make up fully 1/3 (or less, according to actual census bureau findings, to the behest of many), and got out of the way. Change indeed. A "black" president. A new future of wealth, privilege, and power to 10% of our nations population. A population segment that fully believes that their "savior" has arrived, and will set all things right.
Seems as if the Bible gives us a modern day analogy to this situation. Go back to A.D. 2, when the Jewish nation was held under the thumb of a very powerful Roman empire. Sure, the Jewish people could buy and sell, marry who they wanted, and sure, they enjoyed the benefits of being under Roman dominion -- great roads, infrastructure, protection from marauding countries, and so on, but they didn't like Romans very much because they saw them as inferior. Oppressors. Infidels. The Jews wanted to be rid of the Roman presence, regardless of the consequences. The fact that their prophets of old foretold of a coming Savior who would free them was their constant hope. For their problems, all the Jews could see was ROME. For all their solutions, all the Jews could see was a militant Savior who would free them from Rome. They had tunnel vision, if you will, and their handed-down hatred of Rome skewed their view of what God was foretelling.
It's always been a mystery why a race of people who have been truly demonized and hated like the Jews don't get more respect from an ethnic group like black Americans. Could be a lot of reasons, but likely, the most plausible is that once a group of people convince themselves that they are victims once and for all, there is no more objectivity. Maybe this is why the black American community sees Obama as a 'messiah' for them, a symbol of restitution and revenge upon their repression and ill treatment, as they have told themselves. If such a view is held as strongly and adamantly as is suspected, no objectivity can be found. In that light, Obama MUST be elected, must rise to power, and must set right all the wrongs American has harbored for all of its history.
The Jews of the first century turned upon the actual Messiah once they found out that He did not represent a change of power and finances for them. His message and mission was far more eternal in nature, but that didn't matter to those who were blinded by hate and a sense of victimization.
The black American community may have a lesson to learn from the Jewish community, as they place all their hopes and dreams upon a man who is bi-racial, liberal, and holds to failed socialist ideals as his main tools for 'changing' America. His flaws and shortcomings are great, but maybe the greatest is that he eschews completely the very foundations this great country was built upon. He is fueled by godless ideology and resentment, and his only end, if he continues this path, is not a good one. Even if he wins the election, his immoral views and penchant for deceit will take him places he definitely does not want to go. And standing in the smoke of his descent will be millions of disillusioned 'victims' who will likely defend his demise, with no apology and little sanity.
America was founded upon Christian principals, a strong belief in God, a strong dream for freedom, responsibility and morality, and hard work, sacrifice, and determination. Our country has defended herself at a great price from true oppressors and dictators who had no desire for God nor democracy, and all along the way, has been the number one contributor of aid and comfort to others who were downtrodden and mistreated. Even though we have a history of abiding slavery, thousands who could have owned slaves back in that day refused to do so, and at great expense to themselves, fought to eradicate slavery from our land. We fought a bloody civil war in part, to defeat slavery. Never mind that the slave trade was minimal in the Americas compared to Portugal and Spain, even in Britain. And don't even mention that slavery of millions of blacks still occurs in the continent of Africa today. The fact is, the world is trying to get into America, not to get out. Not one black American has ever said "enough!" and moved back to Africa to find a better life and opportunities. There is no other country with more of what is good and desireable to the human race.
Obama wants to change that. He would remake America in his image, and he may be given his chance. As sad as that is, what is even more sad is that like the Jews of old, there is another race of people here who will defend his actions to the death, based upon his skin tone, and the supposed ties that has with their need for recompense and revenge.
The fact that he even has a slight chance should cause us all to pray for Gods mercy.
Among whites, there is a strong opinion that portends that black Americans will vote for Obama simply because he is bi-racial. The fact that his physical appearance mostly resembles his African heritage is a bonus. The fact that he is a Democrat is icing on the cake.
To make this scenario far more interesting, let's pretend that Obama is a big time conservative Republican. There is every reason to believe that we as a nation have arrived at a place where such a scenario would rock the black American community far more than the conservative Republican community, replete with heated riffs and consternation.
But back in reality-land, Obama is bi-racial, albeit rarely ever called so, and his minions in the mainstream media just casually call him "black" as if there is no white race in him at all. How the black American community was able to claim him all to their selves is a mystery greater than the Bermuda triangle. But before we digress, the question remains, can black Americans see beyond Obama's skin tone?
Chris Rock, that foul mouthed "comedian" that has a set of teeth that would make Secretariat envious, claims that black people have to see more in a candidate than their skin color. Amidst lots of cussing and pacing like a crack-addict, he went on to say that no black person will automatically vote for Obama purely due to his being 'black' (Chris apparently didn't want to slow down his act by saying "bi-racial"). Chris Rock is an idiot, but apparently, dumb enough to actually think anyone would buy his sack of garbage.
The black American community is out and out agog over Obama. After decades and even a century of repeating the oppressed and suppressed mantra (some of which was very accurate and needed back in the day), the black community sees Obama as the second coming of sorts, a full-on ephipahany of a new time when blacks in America are fully venerated, recognized, and large and in charge. For the black community, having a bi-racial president is tantamount to Christians seeing Christ come back in the clouds. No irreverence to the Lord is suggested or condoned in that statement, but rather, it is worded that strongly because the truth about how Obama is seen needs to be exposed and see for what it is in the black community.
Obama has the most liberal voting record in the whole senate. He is the least experienced candidate the Democraps have run, next to Hillary, who still wears her bus tire marks well. Think of it....in the past decade, the Dems have run a tree stump, then FrankenHeinz, and now, a socialist who openly supports killing babies in the womb, and without. Sheer lunacy? Apparently not, as Gore lost by a slim margin, and Kerry, by almost as little. Scary stuff. One would think Hitler could be put up and win in this climate. Maybe he has been, in a manner of speaking.
Obama has associations with lots of people who do not like America very much, or at least, not white America. Yep, it's been said, and it stands. Folks like Obama think that America is a very hateful, wicked country that has oppressed minorities and doesn't want to share it's wealth and promise with anyone but those with porcelain skin tones. His banner of "Change" is clearly understood by the crowds that also feel that it's about time that white America finally handed over the keys to the "vast" minorities that make up fully 1/3 (or less, according to actual census bureau findings, to the behest of many), and got out of the way. Change indeed. A "black" president. A new future of wealth, privilege, and power to 10% of our nations population. A population segment that fully believes that their "savior" has arrived, and will set all things right.
Seems as if the Bible gives us a modern day analogy to this situation. Go back to A.D. 2, when the Jewish nation was held under the thumb of a very powerful Roman empire. Sure, the Jewish people could buy and sell, marry who they wanted, and sure, they enjoyed the benefits of being under Roman dominion -- great roads, infrastructure, protection from marauding countries, and so on, but they didn't like Romans very much because they saw them as inferior. Oppressors. Infidels. The Jews wanted to be rid of the Roman presence, regardless of the consequences. The fact that their prophets of old foretold of a coming Savior who would free them was their constant hope. For their problems, all the Jews could see was ROME. For all their solutions, all the Jews could see was a militant Savior who would free them from Rome. They had tunnel vision, if you will, and their handed-down hatred of Rome skewed their view of what God was foretelling.
It's always been a mystery why a race of people who have been truly demonized and hated like the Jews don't get more respect from an ethnic group like black Americans. Could be a lot of reasons, but likely, the most plausible is that once a group of people convince themselves that they are victims once and for all, there is no more objectivity. Maybe this is why the black American community sees Obama as a 'messiah' for them, a symbol of restitution and revenge upon their repression and ill treatment, as they have told themselves. If such a view is held as strongly and adamantly as is suspected, no objectivity can be found. In that light, Obama MUST be elected, must rise to power, and must set right all the wrongs American has harbored for all of its history.
The Jews of the first century turned upon the actual Messiah once they found out that He did not represent a change of power and finances for them. His message and mission was far more eternal in nature, but that didn't matter to those who were blinded by hate and a sense of victimization.
The black American community may have a lesson to learn from the Jewish community, as they place all their hopes and dreams upon a man who is bi-racial, liberal, and holds to failed socialist ideals as his main tools for 'changing' America. His flaws and shortcomings are great, but maybe the greatest is that he eschews completely the very foundations this great country was built upon. He is fueled by godless ideology and resentment, and his only end, if he continues this path, is not a good one. Even if he wins the election, his immoral views and penchant for deceit will take him places he definitely does not want to go. And standing in the smoke of his descent will be millions of disillusioned 'victims' who will likely defend his demise, with no apology and little sanity.
America was founded upon Christian principals, a strong belief in God, a strong dream for freedom, responsibility and morality, and hard work, sacrifice, and determination. Our country has defended herself at a great price from true oppressors and dictators who had no desire for God nor democracy, and all along the way, has been the number one contributor of aid and comfort to others who were downtrodden and mistreated. Even though we have a history of abiding slavery, thousands who could have owned slaves back in that day refused to do so, and at great expense to themselves, fought to eradicate slavery from our land. We fought a bloody civil war in part, to defeat slavery. Never mind that the slave trade was minimal in the Americas compared to Portugal and Spain, even in Britain. And don't even mention that slavery of millions of blacks still occurs in the continent of Africa today. The fact is, the world is trying to get into America, not to get out. Not one black American has ever said "enough!" and moved back to Africa to find a better life and opportunities. There is no other country with more of what is good and desireable to the human race.
Obama wants to change that. He would remake America in his image, and he may be given his chance. As sad as that is, what is even more sad is that like the Jews of old, there is another race of people here who will defend his actions to the death, based upon his skin tone, and the supposed ties that has with their need for recompense and revenge.
The fact that he even has a slight chance should cause us all to pray for Gods mercy.
Monday, October 27, 2008
A Good Scrap
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)