I don't know about you, but I'm really being rocked by the news lately.
400 billion, mostly in earmarks, on the new "stimulus" bill and Obama says, "next time, we'll make sure to carefully check out those earmarks first."
Next time? Where is the incentive to believe someone will be honest the next time when this time he could've stripped the bill of pet projects and he didn't?
Two college students in California are trying to get a law passed that changes the usage of the term "marriage" to "domestic partnership." So, even married people would legally be referred to as "domestic partners."
Remember when southern Californians elected Arnold for their governor and then it almost instantly burst into flames (circa 2003)? I'm waiting for the whole darn state to erupt into fire any day now. (Hyperbole, Californians! Don't hate me, please.)
Pro-abortion advocates Kathleen Sebelius and David Ogden being nominated into key positions of the new cabinet.
Sebelius is nominated to the secretary of health and human services! This appointment for a woman who opposed the clean clinics act, which would set higher standards for abortion clinic cleanliness!
Also, embryonic stem cell research- which has been shown time and time again to be fruitless in finding cures to diseases- is back on the table, and with government funding to boot! Embryonic stem cell research has, so far, yielded no results in the form of cures or health-improvement.
Oddly enough, more adult stem cell (donated by individuals) research and treatment is not approved, despite the vast amounts of data detailing cures to spinal cord injuries, MS, autoimmune diseases such as Chrohn's, Parkinson's disease and diabetes!
How am I to make sense of any of this?
I can't afford Laura Ingraham, Glenn is giving people way too much credit in the "common sense" department, Hannity annoys me, Savage is on too late and Rush is giving me a headache.
I guess I have to figure it all out myself.
I still listen to Crosstalk, but it always leaves me feeling guilty that I should do more than just send out e-mails to my senators. But what? I'm broke, the vote's not for a couple of years, and I have little to no influence on anyone I know. Why keep up with it all? I can't do anything about it- except spread my anger to others, or make snarky comments. Even stupid Bill Maher can do that!
The whole thing makes me want to take a cue from the Bible and rest. Meaning, take a breather from it all. How far are we supposed to take that? We're supposed to be vigilant, too, right?
Until I figure it out, please enjoy the next few interspersed posts on random things, including spring crafts. I'll be waiting to hear from you.
March 11, 2009
Stimulate This
How are you all holding up with the economy crashing down around you?
While Wall Street takes another 300 point dive and everyone is jumping on the "money-saving tips" bandwagon, I'm sitting in my studio apartment (which houses 2 adults and a cat), typing away on a refurbished (read: cheapy cheap) laptop, with a dinner of Indian dal and garbanzo beans (cooked from dry beans) waiting to get started on the stove.
We have one car. I walk or ride my bike most of the time, and avoid going out unnecessary places, to save the gas cost. We eat vegetarian meals at least once a week, and I usually don't even eat meals by myself at home outside of vegetables, noodles and rice. I shop at Aldi and Wal-Mart and thrift stores. I turn off lights, we don't go out to eat and I only do laundry once a week (if that). I don't think I could save more money if I tried!
Yet, I'm not asking the government for anything in the way of a handout.
As an unemployed person, I could easily qualify for welfare or at least unemployment benefits. I could even go to food pantries and demand they give me a box of canned items. For all intents and purposes, I'm a regular person who happens to be out of work. Now add my debts and student loans into the picture, and the fact that Michigan's high unemployment rate means I'm probably not likely to find a job soon, and I'm a prime candidate for government assistance.
Yet, all I want is for them to make more jobs so that I could get one!
I don't understand why Democrats feel the need to make every low income person beholden to the government. I don't understand why they want people to be on assistance. It seems to come from a position of condescension, that we low income folks just don't know how to take care of ourselves.
But I do know how to take care of myself. When I had a job, I paid bills on time, paid down debt, took care of my health, ate better and generally didn't feel obligated to agree with my government because, though I enjoy certain freedoms upheld by them, I was not reliant on them for my daily functioning. I felt free to criticize or agree with whatever policies fit my worldview.
However, how would my views have been different if I was being sustained by the government? Would I feel like I owed them my allegiance? My blog posts? My voice? My vote? Would I feel like I must defend all policies, whether or not I agreed with them personally? Would I feel as though I must check in with the party line before I decided which companies to shop at, where to live or what to do in my spare time?
Perhaps these are some reasons our government now is pushing to have financial control over more Americans. Big government already owns big banks and mortgages- which means your savings and your house. This creates a culture of fear; if we dare to speak out against the policies of our administration, our homes, money and livelihood may suffer the consequences.
I don't want to live in a totalitarian state. I want America to stay free, so that I can simply work and live and participate in politics like our Constitution encourages us and upholds our right to.
While Wall Street takes another 300 point dive and everyone is jumping on the "money-saving tips" bandwagon, I'm sitting in my studio apartment (which houses 2 adults and a cat), typing away on a refurbished (read: cheapy cheap) laptop, with a dinner of Indian dal and garbanzo beans (cooked from dry beans) waiting to get started on the stove.
We have one car. I walk or ride my bike most of the time, and avoid going out unnecessary places, to save the gas cost. We eat vegetarian meals at least once a week, and I usually don't even eat meals by myself at home outside of vegetables, noodles and rice. I shop at Aldi and Wal-Mart and thrift stores. I turn off lights, we don't go out to eat and I only do laundry once a week (if that). I don't think I could save more money if I tried!
Yet, I'm not asking the government for anything in the way of a handout.
As an unemployed person, I could easily qualify for welfare or at least unemployment benefits. I could even go to food pantries and demand they give me a box of canned items. For all intents and purposes, I'm a regular person who happens to be out of work. Now add my debts and student loans into the picture, and the fact that Michigan's high unemployment rate means I'm probably not likely to find a job soon, and I'm a prime candidate for government assistance.
Yet, all I want is for them to make more jobs so that I could get one!
I don't understand why Democrats feel the need to make every low income person beholden to the government. I don't understand why they want people to be on assistance. It seems to come from a position of condescension, that we low income folks just don't know how to take care of ourselves.
But I do know how to take care of myself. When I had a job, I paid bills on time, paid down debt, took care of my health, ate better and generally didn't feel obligated to agree with my government because, though I enjoy certain freedoms upheld by them, I was not reliant on them for my daily functioning. I felt free to criticize or agree with whatever policies fit my worldview.
However, how would my views have been different if I was being sustained by the government? Would I feel like I owed them my allegiance? My blog posts? My voice? My vote? Would I feel like I must defend all policies, whether or not I agreed with them personally? Would I feel as though I must check in with the party line before I decided which companies to shop at, where to live or what to do in my spare time?
Perhaps these are some reasons our government now is pushing to have financial control over more Americans. Big government already owns big banks and mortgages- which means your savings and your house. This creates a culture of fear; if we dare to speak out against the policies of our administration, our homes, money and livelihood may suffer the consequences.
I don't want to live in a totalitarian state. I want America to stay free, so that I can simply work and live and participate in politics like our Constitution encourages us and upholds our right to.
March 10, 2009
Yes, We Did? (aka Bumper Sticker Politics, Pt. II)
Here in south-liberal-fanatic-west Michigan, we see an awful lot of "coexist" and anti-Republican bumper stickers. The other day, at the University (go figure!), Nic saw an extra dose of delusion in this one:
"Yes, We Did!"
This rivals many entries for 'most idiotic bumper sticker of all time,' but I think it might trump even "McCain Insane!" with its absolute absence from the real world (and not just the world that exists on car bumpers!).
Yes, you did... what? Get a black president elected? Ok. Some questions:
1. Was the goal just to get him into office? This wasn't a means, but the end of your cause? That's pretty shallow of you!
** If you remember, the chant of "yes, we can!" came as a response to then-candidate Obama's rallying questions: "Can we fix health care? Can we heal the nation? Can we turn back the tide of rampant consumerism?" So, to claim now that they (Obama's supporters) weren't referring to those campaign promises, but merely the promise of a black president, is not only disingenuous, but a complete rewriting of history!!
2. You did it, past tense. So, it's all over now? The war against racism has been won? If winning the war against racism was so easy, why didn't you try harder to get a black candidate years ago??
3. Now that the election is over, will you go back to not caring about any of the platform policies your candidate supports? Rephrased, are you happy to admit your interest in the election was only in supporting a black candidate and that you care nothing of the agenda he wants to put forth? That's pretty racist!
If I thought this sticker's home was on the back of a parents-paid-for, neon green hybrid that belongs to a indoctrinated college student, I might be less enraged. But I can almost assure you it's home is the bumper of a neon green hybrid that belongs to an indoctrinated adult professor (that's right, folks- someone with a PhD...in bs).
And actually, I'd be just as incensed either way. Viva la dumbed-down resistance.
Just for fun, I'd like to change every:
"Democrats Serve the People!" into "Democrats Serve the People a Steaming Plate of S---!"
(Pardon my french.)
"Yes, We Did!"
This rivals many entries for 'most idiotic bumper sticker of all time,' but I think it might trump even "McCain Insane!" with its absolute absence from the real world (and not just the world that exists on car bumpers!).
Yes, you did... what? Get a black president elected? Ok. Some questions:
1. Was the goal just to get him into office? This wasn't a means, but the end of your cause? That's pretty shallow of you!
** If you remember, the chant of "yes, we can!" came as a response to then-candidate Obama's rallying questions: "Can we fix health care? Can we heal the nation? Can we turn back the tide of rampant consumerism?" So, to claim now that they (Obama's supporters) weren't referring to those campaign promises, but merely the promise of a black president, is not only disingenuous, but a complete rewriting of history!!
2. You did it, past tense. So, it's all over now? The war against racism has been won? If winning the war against racism was so easy, why didn't you try harder to get a black candidate years ago??
3. Now that the election is over, will you go back to not caring about any of the platform policies your candidate supports? Rephrased, are you happy to admit your interest in the election was only in supporting a black candidate and that you care nothing of the agenda he wants to put forth? That's pretty racist!
If I thought this sticker's home was on the back of a parents-paid-for, neon green hybrid that belongs to a indoctrinated college student, I might be less enraged. But I can almost assure you it's home is the bumper of a neon green hybrid that belongs to an indoctrinated adult professor (that's right, folks- someone with a PhD...in bs).
And actually, I'd be just as incensed either way. Viva la dumbed-down resistance.
Just for fun, I'd like to change every:
"Democrats Serve the People!" into "Democrats Serve the People a Steaming Plate of S---!"
(Pardon my french.)
March 5, 2009
Have Vogue, Will Travel
Do y'all have perennial favorites? I mean besides flowers. I have a few that seem to crop up every season. They are:
1. choosing one super bright color to wear for the season (this year it's purple)
2. listening to Juanes and other latin music
3. exercising for the enjoyment of it
4. buying the Spring and Fall issues of Vogue.
As for the first three re-occurrences, I have no qualms. What's wrong with rediscovering (every year) that bright colors can be your friend, singing in another language makes you feel smart and exercise isn't just for punishment?!
But I'd love to say in my older and less fashion-forward years I have been able to wean myself off the 700-plus page editions of this magazine and the accompanying cost, both in finite numbers and in seemingly endless yearnings for better clothes which are sparked by this glossy's eye candy.
I wish I could say I wasn't still enthralled by the images therein, making mental notes of dress trends and which designers seem to have finally gone off the deep end. It's actually the most fun to peruse either spring or fall Vogue with a friend, as I found out last year (and man alive, did that one get passed around!).
Since I am not in page-flipping distance from the friends (sisters) most likely to comment loudly along with me, I am posting this virtual Vogue walk instead.
*******************
A few things about March Vogue:
1. It was a mere 510 pages! I feel a little cheated, even though spring issues are always smaller than fall. Why is that?
2. Many designers seem to have stuck with their same old, same old styles, hence there are no pics here from Chanel, Chloe, Marc Jacobs, Valentino, or Ralph Lauren (well, there is one pic from him...a crazy one!). Others have gone so wild I can't bear to publish the evidence! My beloved Etro being one of these.
3. The best and worst are shown here, in four categories: casual, pretty little frocks, sequins for daytime, and what were they thinking?! An additional two features in trends precede the fashion photos.
4. It's mostly neutrals. Sorry, folks, I guess as soon as white can be worn, it MUST. Go figure.
Enjoy! And comment!
***************************
First up: make-up trend in bold color!
I'm probably the most excited about this than anything else here in the post. I am a strong believer that a little bit of lipstick goes a long way to brighten one's face, make a girl feel put together and overall bring a sophisticated edge to an ensemble.
Vogue shares its takes on the bright lip: in red. And before you groan about the too-cherry-pie shades, be comforted knowing that LOTS of designers (nars, MAC, chanel, etc.) and drugstore staples (Maybelline, Revlon, NYC, etc) are creating sheer, powder-soft, orange- and pink-tinged versions of the classic red so everyone can find something that works with her style and skin tone. Let's bring back the color, ladies!
Vogue's second beauty feature was about the "new length" for hair: just grazing the shoulders. It's not short, it's not long, it's not soccer mom or bob-length. It's just what it is. And, oddly enough, within days of cutting my own hair this length I bought the magazine and found several others doing the same. I guess I'm just a trendsetter.. :)
***************
Next up: super casual
This is the type of casual I am; somewhat preppy, but mostly of the boatneck-shirt-and-slightly-loose-jeans variety. I'd love to get back to my menswear-influenced style of past years in something like this. It also incorporates another semi-annual favorite of mine- stripes, particularly in a "boating" style. (p.s. everything pictured here cost less than $100!)
If I had the legs... You can't hate on Liya Kebede (the model) too much though, since she's pretty careful as to who she works with, and started a (somewhat) affordable kids clothes line as well. I love the pairing of a neutral sweater and a kicky little skirt. It's another type of casual I like: what I call "half and half," as in half dressed up, half dressed down.
The most effortlessly beautiful dress on anyone is a draped, knit jersey shift like this. Literally anyone can look good in a dress like this with cap sleeves and a modest skirt length. Just watch those khaki colors with your skin tone. A little warmer hue is better for pale skin.
Ok, not really feelin' the cinched pants! But the swingy jacket and big, fabric baubles? Plain white tee? Yes, ma'am.
***************
Next up: sequins for the daytime?
In another world, this tiger-mauled shirt and sequin Hammer pants combo is both chic and classy. But where is that world, Mr. Lauren, where is that world?
My favorite photo from the whole magazine! Not because I love it, or think it's wearable (what event calls for a sequined, city short-length jumpsuit?), but for it's sheer pop on the page. You gotta hand it to Yves St. Laurent- they know how to draw your eye to them.
Prada stuns me with these items. I actually can't decide if I like any of this or not. Anyone?
****************
Next up: what were they thinking?
Miu Miu gives us this step into the future (?) past (?) with this spacy suit and accompanying claw gloves. Taking a page from Beyonce's most recent video... except she's wearing a costume and this lady isn't.
Calvin Klein sends out his most luxurious visions of paper-bag wear with these two creations. Makes me think of the Ben Stiller skit: "Bags, bags, bags! What'll I do with all these bags? Help meeee!"
Here's another bag dress. Sort of hides the figure, eh? Maybe this is exemplary of Klein's compassion for the post-winter woman's figure?? Sheesh, I hope he has a higher opinion of us than that!
Roberto Cavalli manages to hang onto his spot as 'most consistently garish' with this two-pager. I admit to owning a dress with chain graphic, but not photorealistic. Sorry, but it makes me think of Isaac Mizrahi duvet covers!
Not to leave you with a bad visual from the last one... here is part of a three page Prada spread which, for the life of me, I just can't figure out what this is supposed to be. Daywear? Nighttime? Special event?
Lastly: pretty little frocks
Whoa! Cavalli redeems himself a little with this flirty, modest frock. I love the detailing on the bodice and the flowiness of the skirt. Botanical prints can be tricky and make one look older, but this is definitely youthful and fun.
Remember Calvin Klein's goofy bag dresses? His ready-to-wear line boasts this little black and white dotted sundress. Graphics done just right. Now just stick to the normal shapes, pleeeease?
I'm normally not a fan of Moschino (or Alberta Ferretti, or Ferragamo, or Missoni or basically any other Italian designer!) because I just don't get their style. I admit it! I don't understand it, or find it intriguing enough to try to. But I like this LBD from Moschino mostly for the shape and fun ruffles. Black for spring... eh, not my favorite. But it's tolerable.
Narcisco Rodriguez was somewhat of a feature in this issue, since he clothes Michelle Obama regularly (including twice during election big media press events; hello, free publicity!). I like this white frock for it's juxtaposition of feminine flocked dots and bold, black swipes of cinch. It does makes her look a little big pregnant, but maybe it's a maternity dress? Cute, nonetheless.
Versace, another Italian designer I don't like! I find the label to be somewhat too mafia housewife (yes, I used a stereotype; get over it) for me, but I like this cruise wear white dress for the sand dollar-esque bodice. Remarkable to me is that Donatella Versace can tone down pattern so much with monochromatic pieces like this while retaining the extrovertedness of her style... and yet only turn out one dress like this every 5-6 years!
Fendi puts a nice twist on eyelet with this graphically cutout piece. Fendi is another Italian... yikes, it's like I'm redefining myself in pictures or something... I appreciate the freshness of this look, and hope they do more like it!
Last, but not least, Lanvin offers up the only piece in COLOR! Well, the embellishment is in color at least. And check out the shoes! My only concern is that the weight of this strapless number would pull down the top, making room for the dreaded wardrobe malfunction. Whew! Good thing I'm broke and will never wear it! Let's just enjoy it for the glamour...
***************
1. choosing one super bright color to wear for the season (this year it's purple)
2. listening to Juanes and other latin music
3. exercising for the enjoyment of it
4. buying the Spring and Fall issues of Vogue.
As for the first three re-occurrences, I have no qualms. What's wrong with rediscovering (every year) that bright colors can be your friend, singing in another language makes you feel smart and exercise isn't just for punishment?!
But I'd love to say in my older and less fashion-forward years I have been able to wean myself off the 700-plus page editions of this magazine and the accompanying cost, both in finite numbers and in seemingly endless yearnings for better clothes which are sparked by this glossy's eye candy.
I wish I could say I wasn't still enthralled by the images therein, making mental notes of dress trends and which designers seem to have finally gone off the deep end. It's actually the most fun to peruse either spring or fall Vogue with a friend, as I found out last year (and man alive, did that one get passed around!).
Since I am not in page-flipping distance from the friends (sisters) most likely to comment loudly along with me, I am posting this virtual Vogue walk instead.
*******************
A few things about March Vogue:
1. It was a mere 510 pages! I feel a little cheated, even though spring issues are always smaller than fall. Why is that?
2. Many designers seem to have stuck with their same old, same old styles, hence there are no pics here from Chanel, Chloe, Marc Jacobs, Valentino, or Ralph Lauren (well, there is one pic from him...a crazy one!). Others have gone so wild I can't bear to publish the evidence! My beloved Etro being one of these.
3. The best and worst are shown here, in four categories: casual, pretty little frocks, sequins for daytime, and what were they thinking?! An additional two features in trends precede the fashion photos.
4. It's mostly neutrals. Sorry, folks, I guess as soon as white can be worn, it MUST. Go figure.
Enjoy! And comment!
First up: make-up trend in bold color!
I'm probably the most excited about this than anything else here in the post. I am a strong believer that a little bit of lipstick goes a long way to brighten one's face, make a girl feel put together and overall bring a sophisticated edge to an ensemble.Vogue shares its takes on the bright lip: in red. And before you groan about the too-cherry-pie shades, be comforted knowing that LOTS of designers (nars, MAC, chanel, etc.) and drugstore staples (Maybelline, Revlon, NYC, etc) are creating sheer, powder-soft, orange- and pink-tinged versions of the classic red so everyone can find something that works with her style and skin tone. Let's bring back the color, ladies!
Vogue's second beauty feature was about the "new length" for hair: just grazing the shoulders. It's not short, it's not long, it's not soccer mom or bob-length. It's just what it is. And, oddly enough, within days of cutting my own hair this length I bought the magazine and found several others doing the same. I guess I'm just a trendsetter.. :)***************
This is the type of casual I am; somewhat preppy, but mostly of the boatneck-shirt-and-slightly-loose-jeans variety. I'd love to get back to my menswear-influenced style of past years in something like this. It also incorporates another semi-annual favorite of mine- stripes, particularly in a "boating" style. (p.s. everything pictured here cost less than $100!)
If I had the legs... You can't hate on Liya Kebede (the model) too much though, since she's pretty careful as to who she works with, and started a (somewhat) affordable kids clothes line as well. I love the pairing of a neutral sweater and a kicky little skirt. It's another type of casual I like: what I call "half and half," as in half dressed up, half dressed down.
The most effortlessly beautiful dress on anyone is a draped, knit jersey shift like this. Literally anyone can look good in a dress like this with cap sleeves and a modest skirt length. Just watch those khaki colors with your skin tone. A little warmer hue is better for pale skin.
Ok, not really feelin' the cinched pants! But the swingy jacket and big, fabric baubles? Plain white tee? Yes, ma'am.***************
In another world, this tiger-mauled shirt and sequin Hammer pants combo is both chic and classy. But where is that world, Mr. Lauren, where is that world?
My favorite photo from the whole magazine! Not because I love it, or think it's wearable (what event calls for a sequined, city short-length jumpsuit?), but for it's sheer pop on the page. You gotta hand it to Yves St. Laurent- they know how to draw your eye to them.
Prada stuns me with these items. I actually can't decide if I like any of this or not. Anyone?****************
Next up: what were they thinking?
Miu Miu gives us this step into the future (?) past (?) with this spacy suit and accompanying claw gloves. Taking a page from Beyonce's most recent video... except she's wearing a costume and this lady isn't.
Calvin Klein sends out his most luxurious visions of paper-bag wear with these two creations. Makes me think of the Ben Stiller skit: "Bags, bags, bags! What'll I do with all these bags? Help meeee!"
Here's another bag dress. Sort of hides the figure, eh? Maybe this is exemplary of Klein's compassion for the post-winter woman's figure?? Sheesh, I hope he has a higher opinion of us than that!
Roberto Cavalli manages to hang onto his spot as 'most consistently garish' with this two-pager. I admit to owning a dress with chain graphic, but not photorealistic. Sorry, but it makes me think of Isaac Mizrahi duvet covers!
Not to leave you with a bad visual from the last one... here is part of a three page Prada spread which, for the life of me, I just can't figure out what this is supposed to be. Daywear? Nighttime? Special event? ****************
Whoa! Cavalli redeems himself a little with this flirty, modest frock. I love the detailing on the bodice and the flowiness of the skirt. Botanical prints can be tricky and make one look older, but this is definitely youthful and fun.
Remember Calvin Klein's goofy bag dresses? His ready-to-wear line boasts this little black and white dotted sundress. Graphics done just right. Now just stick to the normal shapes, pleeeease?
I'm normally not a fan of Moschino (or Alberta Ferretti, or Ferragamo, or Missoni or basically any other Italian designer!) because I just don't get their style. I admit it! I don't understand it, or find it intriguing enough to try to. But I like this LBD from Moschino mostly for the shape and fun ruffles. Black for spring... eh, not my favorite. But it's tolerable.
Narcisco Rodriguez was somewhat of a feature in this issue, since he clothes Michelle Obama regularly (including twice during election big media press events; hello, free publicity!). I like this white frock for it's juxtaposition of feminine flocked dots and bold, black swipes of cinch. It does makes her look a little big pregnant, but maybe it's a maternity dress? Cute, nonetheless.
Versace, another Italian designer I don't like! I find the label to be somewhat too mafia housewife (yes, I used a stereotype; get over it) for me, but I like this cruise wear white dress for the sand dollar-esque bodice. Remarkable to me is that Donatella Versace can tone down pattern so much with monochromatic pieces like this while retaining the extrovertedness of her style... and yet only turn out one dress like this every 5-6 years!
Fendi puts a nice twist on eyelet with this graphically cutout piece. Fendi is another Italian... yikes, it's like I'm redefining myself in pictures or something... I appreciate the freshness of this look, and hope they do more like it!
Last, but not least, Lanvin offers up the only piece in COLOR! Well, the embellishment is in color at least. And check out the shoes! My only concern is that the weight of this strapless number would pull down the top, making room for the dreaded wardrobe malfunction. Whew! Good thing I'm broke and will never wear it! Let's just enjoy it for the glamour...***************
February 24, 2009
Miley Strikus Again
New video! Here is my favorite publicly confessing Christian touting the anti-virtues of a woman who gives her heart away to an undeserving boy at a very young age. Check the girls starring; are they 11? 12?
One more reason to raise your little girl to be chaste? So that she doesn't find herself crying over the memory of her first kiss, many years and boyfriends before she meets her husband.
One more reason to raise your little girl to be chaste? So that she doesn't find herself crying over the memory of her first kiss, many years and boyfriends before she meets her husband.
February 23, 2009
"Taking Chance" on HBO
HBO Films presents, "Taking Chance," the story of a highly-ranked officer who volunteers for the duty of escorting a fallen private soldier home, and all the people he meets along the way.
For those of us without cable, or even a tv, I will update with where to find it post-airing. My guess is that Netflix will pick it up quickly. Ironically, as films about fallen soldiers are increasingly rare, the number of Americans who wish to honor these heroic men skyrockets.
For those of us without cable, or even a tv, I will update with where to find it post-airing. My guess is that Netflix will pick it up quickly. Ironically, as films about fallen soldiers are increasingly rare, the number of Americans who wish to honor these heroic men skyrockets.
February 20, 2009
Friday Funny (a.k.a Oh, Ann...)
... Ann Coulter, that is.
I have never been a fan of hers. Honestly, I haven't! Nor can I say that somehow, by this video clip, my mind has been forever changed... nope, not quite.
I will, however, give her props for doing her best to answer Behar's asinine questions ("Is it because they [Republican women] have more money and are more relaxed? Is that why they have better orgasms?") and, in the process, managing to make herself look composed, competent and - surprise!- less confrontational than the co-host of the View.
There are some truly great moments here, not the least being when Ann starts rattling off some of the elements of the "stimulus" bill, to which Behar replies that they don't have time for long answers because she has more questions for Ann!
Another one: Behar sets Ann up to cry foul at her [Ann's] recent treatment on the View (for which she does not take the bait). When there is a legitimate dispute over Barbara Walters's reading of Coulter's book, Behar says Ann should've been more sensitive to Walters's Jewish background and not said she was reading Ann's book like it was "Mein Kompf." Seriously?
Enjoy your Friday!!
I have never been a fan of hers. Honestly, I haven't! Nor can I say that somehow, by this video clip, my mind has been forever changed... nope, not quite.
I will, however, give her props for doing her best to answer Behar's asinine questions ("Is it because they [Republican women] have more money and are more relaxed? Is that why they have better orgasms?") and, in the process, managing to make herself look composed, competent and - surprise!- less confrontational than the co-host of the View.
There are some truly great moments here, not the least being when Ann starts rattling off some of the elements of the "stimulus" bill, to which Behar replies that they don't have time for long answers because she has more questions for Ann!
Another one: Behar sets Ann up to cry foul at her [Ann's] recent treatment on the View (for which she does not take the bait). When there is a legitimate dispute over Barbara Walters's reading of Coulter's book, Behar says Ann should've been more sensitive to Walters's Jewish background and not said she was reading Ann's book like it was "Mein Kompf." Seriously?
Enjoy your Friday!!
February 18, 2009
Keep Black History month going: support pro-life in these communities!
February is Black History month. To celebrate, in a roundabout way, here is a young girl speaking passionately on an event that affects and effects tens of thousands of black Americans every year: abortion.
For more information on the rates of pre-natal death in the black communities of America, and how Planned Parenthood is a perpetrator of these crimes against our fellow Americans, go to www.blackgenocide.org, then visit www.lifedynamics.com to find out how you can help aid the cause of pro-life efforts in your city.
For more information on the rates of pre-natal death in the black communities of America, and how Planned Parenthood is a perpetrator of these crimes against our fellow Americans, go to www.blackgenocide.org, then visit www.lifedynamics.com to find out how you can help aid the cause of pro-life efforts in your city.
February 17, 2009
Stimulus package requires all the money in the world
Just how much is this "stimulus" package going to cost, now and in the years of interest to come?
All the U.S. currency in circulation around the world. Oh, and by the way, that wouldn't be quite enough to fund it...
All the U.S. currency in circulation around the world. Oh, and by the way, that wouldn't be quite enough to fund it...
February 16, 2009
Craftin' on a Saturday
I spent part of this past Saturday at a craft event at a local coffee shop. I sold three items: bubble magnets, Cinnamon Foot Scrubbers and aromatic Salt Scrubs.
Some of the magnets- neutral designs.
Some more magnets- green living, leaves and polka dots designs.
My four scents of salt scrub: Rosemary Vanilla, Lavender Peppermint, Tea Tree and Lemon Verbena.Nic sat with me until we couldn't stand the dj house music anymore! The facilitators of the event have a few kinks to work out yet, and hopefully with some good feedback we could make it really neat.
I had stopped by last week to check out what other people were selling, because I did not want to sell anything similar. The month of February is free so lots of people are taking advantage. But last week was pitiful, with mostly punk rock teenagers and one hippy girl selling odd items. This last Saturday, however, everyone was out in full force and there was a lot of variety to the crafts being sold.
Apparently recycling sweaters into new items is hot, because there were three girls there who made sweater mittens, re-spun yarn and sweater squids. Yup, I said sweater squids. But they were cute, if you ask me. Not that I like aquatic creatures! In fact I hate squid. But I digress...
I got a rockin' table next to a cool jewelry maker and her slightly odd (but stylish) friend. I was directly across from a radical NO WAR! items lady, who turned out to be a Quaker and very nice (if not politically misguided). The hippy girl was back and explained avocado seed earrings to me; she was also nice. There was also a girl who recycled clothing into, well, cooler clothing and purses, a typographic card-seller and some other people.
The community was neat and I was excited to be a part of it. I felt like a real salesperson! Although it was TOTALLY nerve wrecking to be put on the spot like that with something you made yourself. It's so different from buying and selling other people's things on ebay. This is my own unique product and I have to sell it to people!
The great news is I DID sell four items, and made a profit! In fact, I made back almost all the money I had spent on supplies to make what I brought, which was a lot more than I sold (if that makes sense). Unfortunately I can't go next week, but I will be there after that. I am also in the process of setting up a blog for my items, so people could order from me like that. I will be including the baby blocks I made for Amelie (not her set!) and accompanying crib quilts.
More to come... pray for this new endeavor for me!
February 12, 2009
Stimulus Bill Would Bring Return to Welfare
Posted By Bobby Eberle On February 12, 2009, "The Loft" on gopusa.com
One of the major accomplishments of the 1990s combination of President Clinton and a Gingrich-led Republican Congress was that of welfare reform. Some may argue that it was Clinton's plan. Others would say that the Republicans forced him to do it.
Regardless of where the credit ends up, the notion and structure of the welfare program was fundamentally changed. Now, through Obama's stimulus plan, all that work and effort may be wasted.
As noted in an editorial in National Review, "Democrats have inserted provisions into the catch-all stimulus bill that will reverse Clinton-era welfare reform, re-establishing the wasteful, incentive-killing system whose transformation was the bipartisan pride of the 1990s."
First, some background. Prior to the welfare reform measures promoted by Clinton and Gingrich, there was no incentive to move off the welfare rolls. Rather than a temporary station in life, welfare became a way of life.
As the editorial explains, before the reforms, "the federal government simply gave the states more money for every family they added to the welfare rolls." Of course, the states wanted all the money they could get. So, the more people on welfare, the more money for the state treasuries.
The Clinton-Gingrich reforms replaced that bounty-hunter system with a flat rate for each state, based on population and other factors. That gave state-level welfare authorities a better set of incentives, encouraging them to use their resources in the most effective manner and to reserve them for the truly needy.
The results were successful—spectacularly so. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was followed by reductions in both the number of families on welfare and the rate of poverty. Single women entered the workforce in substantial numbers and the household incomes of former welfare recipients went up. In other words, the incentives to reduce welfare dependence and help people to find work, worked.
The editorial points to a report by The Heritage Foundation which states that "little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform."
Authors Robert E. Rector and Katherine Bradley note that in Obama's stimulus plan "the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads."
Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.
Votes in the House and Senate could come as early as Thursday or Friday for the stimulus plan. As the American people slowly start to digest the impact of the massive government takeover of the economy, public opinion is starting to fall. Karl Rove points out in National Review that "CBS News polling reveals a 12-point drop in support of the bill over the past month." A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports indicates that 67% of those surveyed believe they could do a better job on the economy than Congress.
We must continue to put pressure on our legislators to fight this plan. This is not just a spending plan that America can't afford. It is massive government intervention and left-wing social engineering. Making more people dependent on welfare is not the American way.
++ Click here to contact Congress about the $1 trillion stimulus bill!
February 8, 2009
New photos...
I have been meaning to go to the cemetery to take photos since I got this new camera.
I know what you're thinking, "the cemetery? eww," but trust me with great light on a 40 degree plus day it's a great place to pull yourself out of a way-too-somber daily grind and focus on something different.
Very different. Do you contemplate dying? And what will happen thereafter? I don't really; certainly not as much as one might expect a pseudo artist like me to reflect on. But I pondered as I walked around the large, rolling hill infused plots, "how do you decide what type of stone will immortalize you?" Amongst other, more heady and profound thoughts, I assure you.
Thus I wondered how someone in 1842 could or would anticipate someone in 2009 walking gingerly around his small, eternal plot of land snapping photos. Was the camera invented yet? I don't even know.
Anyway, here are some photos from today. I don't mean for them to be ominous, or a reminder of anything, and so if they are, please know that I did not intend such things. Just wanted to share some crisp photos taken on a crisp day. Please comment.
I know what you're thinking, "the cemetery? eww," but trust me with great light on a 40 degree plus day it's a great place to pull yourself out of a way-too-somber daily grind and focus on something different.
Very different. Do you contemplate dying? And what will happen thereafter? I don't really; certainly not as much as one might expect a pseudo artist like me to reflect on. But I pondered as I walked around the large, rolling hill infused plots, "how do you decide what type of stone will immortalize you?" Amongst other, more heady and profound thoughts, I assure you.
Thus I wondered how someone in 1842 could or would anticipate someone in 2009 walking gingerly around his small, eternal plot of land snapping photos. Was the camera invented yet? I don't even know.
Anyway, here are some photos from today. I don't mean for them to be ominous, or a reminder of anything, and so if they are, please know that I did not intend such things. Just wanted to share some crisp photos taken on a crisp day. Please comment.
February 4, 2009
Nancy Pelosi: "We lose 500 million jobs per month"
Finally! Someone in Congress is spelling out in no uncertain terms just how urgent this stimulus package really is!
In this video Nancy Pelosi tells reporters that the package couldn't move any faster, due to the tremendous loss of American jobs. Her numbers? 500 million Americans lose their jobs every month we don't do something about the economy.
Here's the video:
And here's the catch: what was that figure again? I checked the U.S. Census today and found the U.S. population to be at 305,748,951. That's 305 mil, folks.
So, wait, how many people are losing their jobs? I must be confused. After all, Speaker Pelosi is the next most powerful government official in line after the President and Vice President.
My pastor (who sent me the video) posed a frightening idea: Pelosi is next in line after these two for the Presidency seat if something happened to both of them!
Just for fun, here she is talking about how birth control will help stimulate our economy. Stimulate something? No question. The economy? Eh, not so much.
In this video Nancy Pelosi tells reporters that the package couldn't move any faster, due to the tremendous loss of American jobs. Her numbers? 500 million Americans lose their jobs every month we don't do something about the economy.
Here's the video:
And here's the catch: what was that figure again? I checked the U.S. Census today and found the U.S. population to be at 305,748,951. That's 305 mil, folks.
So, wait, how many people are losing their jobs? I must be confused. After all, Speaker Pelosi is the next most powerful government official in line after the President and Vice President.
My pastor (who sent me the video) posed a frightening idea: Pelosi is next in line after these two for the Presidency seat if something happened to both of them!
Just for fun, here she is talking about how birth control will help stimulate our economy. Stimulate something? No question. The economy? Eh, not so much.
February 3, 2009
Contact your Representatives to support the DOMA!
This posting spot was reserved for a very lengthy column outlining President Obama's administration, but instead I am asking you to join me in contacting your state Representatives to support the Defense of Marriage Act.
The DOMA was signed into law only twelve years ago, by Congress and President Clinton. It allows each state to set their own rulings as to how marriage is upheld and defined. So far, 30 states have reinstated their wording and definitions of marriage since it was determined Obama would be President. Heck, even California was in on defining marriage between one man and one woman!
Please send an e-mail to Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, President Obama and your state Representatives asking them, urging them, to support a continutation of the DOMA nationwide. Go to the National Organization for Marriage via this link and submit an e-mail. Do it today!
President Obama has already said one of his first important tasks would be to repeal DOMA. Who knows how soon that could be? If you value marriage as defined traditionally- ordained- then please consider voicing your support.
Thank you!!!
The DOMA was signed into law only twelve years ago, by Congress and President Clinton. It allows each state to set their own rulings as to how marriage is upheld and defined. So far, 30 states have reinstated their wording and definitions of marriage since it was determined Obama would be President. Heck, even California was in on defining marriage between one man and one woman!
Please send an e-mail to Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, President Obama and your state Representatives asking them, urging them, to support a continutation of the DOMA nationwide. Go to the National Organization for Marriage via this link and submit an e-mail. Do it today!
President Obama has already said one of his first important tasks would be to repeal DOMA. Who knows how soon that could be? If you value marriage as defined traditionally- ordained- then please consider voicing your support.
Thank you!!!
February 2, 2009
Congratulations to my sister!
My lovely older sister Becky just found out she was accepted with full tuition and a generous stipend to the dietary sciences program at the University of North Carolina! She will be concentrating in gluten-free diet and health.
This is wonderful news, that she will be able to get her Master's while her husband is also stationed there. Currently they are at Fort Benning in Georgia, but will move to North Carolina for the summer, and Becky will begin classes in the fall.
Congratulations to her and her continuing education!
This is wonderful news, that she will be able to get her Master's while her husband is also stationed there. Currently they are at Fort Benning in Georgia, but will move to North Carolina for the summer, and Becky will begin classes in the fall.
Congratulations to her and her continuing education!
January 31, 2009
January 30, 2009
$819 Billion Economic Stimulus package passes
"I'll tell you about the hope and the change he really wants... He's after the change in your pockets. Yep, he's hoping you don't notice him snatching the change from your pockets."
That was my comment earlier tonight to Nic. Call it gloating if you want; I'm ok with that. President Obama has shown in his first few major moves that he never got beyond Econ 101's notion that you have to put money into a system to stimulate it.
Pres. Obama's idea? Give our money to these people: third-world nationals in poverty, illegal immigrants, people who don't work or pay taxes.
Never mind that none of these groups is likely or even able to put money back into a system that they don't participate in! Third-world hunger relief? It's a fine cause, but not one that we taxpaying citizens should be obligated to give to.
Illegal immigrants? They should have no benefits given to them by our government, especially not in the form of a government check (which, in all liklihood, would get cashed in their home country, not the United States).
Lastly, the unemployed, though I myself am frequently counted in their ranks, should not receive more money when they already don't pay any taxes. I could be wrong (I frequently am), but it seems like the President wants to take my tax payments for this year's earnings and loan them into the future to fund all these projects. That's not the kind of loan I'm comfortable with. How about you?
CNNmoney had a recent article (before the package was voted down Wednesday by every single Republican representative and 11 Democratic reps as well) outlining how the stimulus package would "affect you." Take a close look at the absurd amounts of money going into rather vague projects. For example, "$32 billion for a "smart" utility grid and renewable energy production" and "$79 billion to help states offset education costs."*
Does this mean we're going to be required, no, mandated to use "green" energy, environmentally-friendly homes and vehicles? What is this, Russia?
Does the money flooding into "offsetting education costs" mean home-schooling parents will be receiving those vouchers after all, and the lessoned student population will naturally result in lower education costs? What is this, a dream come true?
It'll probably turn out to be neither Russia nor a conservative parent's dream situation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, the stimulus package "embodies President Barack Obama's philosophy... that a nation in crisis has moved beyond 'stale political arguments' over the size and reach of government."
Apparently an economic crisis is a fine time to convince taxpayers that central government should be even bigger than it is, that its almost tentacle-like reach into what should be private sectors of health care, elder care, special education, preventative medicine, housing standards, environmental concerns and so on could and will expand until Obama says 'when.'
My question is, when will this carousel ride that Democrats are on come to an end?
Not a single House Republican voted for this stimulus package; that is more than just a casual difference of opinion. The House Republicans run the gamet from extremist to moderate to liberal conservative. How then can their total solidarity not yield even a murmur amongst Democrats in the House and Senate? Do they (Dems) just not care about the 48% of U.S. voters who would not support a president with such liberal leanings?
What about the 82% of voluntarily-polled Wall Street Journal online readers- some of whom are surely Democrats, even liberal ones- who feel strongly this package will not result in our economy being stimulated? What about the stats showing that the package from last year didn't really help either? Can all these things just be ignored?
More and more I am feeling underrepresented in my government. And not just because I am a hard-line conservative, but because I am a person who believes in representational government at all! There seem to be fewer and fewer elected officials who are even remotely interested in the earnest concerns of informed, educated, passionate, voting citizens like myself.
And that worries me a great deal.
*I found another site that outlines the education makeover offered by the stimulus package. You can access it by clicking on this link.
********************************
That was my comment earlier tonight to Nic. Call it gloating if you want; I'm ok with that. President Obama has shown in his first few major moves that he never got beyond Econ 101's notion that you have to put money into a system to stimulate it.
Pres. Obama's idea? Give our money to these people: third-world nationals in poverty, illegal immigrants, people who don't work or pay taxes.
Never mind that none of these groups is likely or even able to put money back into a system that they don't participate in! Third-world hunger relief? It's a fine cause, but not one that we taxpaying citizens should be obligated to give to.
Illegal immigrants? They should have no benefits given to them by our government, especially not in the form of a government check (which, in all liklihood, would get cashed in their home country, not the United States).
Lastly, the unemployed, though I myself am frequently counted in their ranks, should not receive more money when they already don't pay any taxes. I could be wrong (I frequently am), but it seems like the President wants to take my tax payments for this year's earnings and loan them into the future to fund all these projects. That's not the kind of loan I'm comfortable with. How about you?
CNNmoney had a recent article (before the package was voted down Wednesday by every single Republican representative and 11 Democratic reps as well) outlining how the stimulus package would "affect you." Take a close look at the absurd amounts of money going into rather vague projects. For example, "$32 billion for a "smart" utility grid and renewable energy production" and "$79 billion to help states offset education costs."*
Does this mean we're going to be required, no, mandated to use "green" energy, environmentally-friendly homes and vehicles? What is this, Russia?
Does the money flooding into "offsetting education costs" mean home-schooling parents will be receiving those vouchers after all, and the lessoned student population will naturally result in lower education costs? What is this, a dream come true?
It'll probably turn out to be neither Russia nor a conservative parent's dream situation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, the stimulus package "embodies President Barack Obama's philosophy... that a nation in crisis has moved beyond 'stale political arguments' over the size and reach of government."
Apparently an economic crisis is a fine time to convince taxpayers that central government should be even bigger than it is, that its almost tentacle-like reach into what should be private sectors of health care, elder care, special education, preventative medicine, housing standards, environmental concerns and so on could and will expand until Obama says 'when.'
My question is, when will this carousel ride that Democrats are on come to an end?
Not a single House Republican voted for this stimulus package; that is more than just a casual difference of opinion. The House Republicans run the gamet from extremist to moderate to liberal conservative. How then can their total solidarity not yield even a murmur amongst Democrats in the House and Senate? Do they (Dems) just not care about the 48% of U.S. voters who would not support a president with such liberal leanings?
What about the 82% of voluntarily-polled Wall Street Journal online readers- some of whom are surely Democrats, even liberal ones- who feel strongly this package will not result in our economy being stimulated? What about the stats showing that the package from last year didn't really help either? Can all these things just be ignored?
More and more I am feeling underrepresented in my government. And not just because I am a hard-line conservative, but because I am a person who believes in representational government at all! There seem to be fewer and fewer elected officials who are even remotely interested in the earnest concerns of informed, educated, passionate, voting citizens like myself.
And that worries me a great deal.
____________________________________________
*I found another site that outlines the education makeover offered by the stimulus package. You can access it by clicking on this link.
January 20, 2009
Thoughts on the Inauguration and the New Obama-nation
* I would hate to have you think I didn't care about the "history" that was made today, so I humbly offer my thoughts.
Obama's inauguration went pretty swimmingly, so goes practically every news source today. Predictably, most of the comments are about what Mr. and Mrs. were wearing (irrelevant)*, how the new President had a little "snafu" over the wording of the oath (insignificant), and a permutated slew of "history in the making" cliches.
Missing almost entirely was mention of President Obama's plans for his first few executive weeks. But I remember when he was making plans a year and a half ago at a conference for Planned Parenthood:
"The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do."
In the following months Obama also penned an open letter to the "GLBT" community, promising that he would be an ally to them if elected to our highest office in government. Here is an excerpt from an article concerning the letter:
"He [Obama] once again said he backs the 'complete repeal' of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law passed in 1996 that gives states the option of not recognizing another state's 'gay marriages.' It also prohibits the federal government from recognizing 'gay marriage.' Ever since it was passed homosexual activists have viewed it as a significant legal barrier to nationwide legalization of 'gay marriage.' " (Here is a link to a post about this letter.)
So what about our history is about to feel the wrath of Obama's brand of change?
Marriage and family.
The first two things Obama might like to do in upcoming weeks, to prove he has the cajones to make some things really happen (and make his supporters instantly happy) is to sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice" Act and then repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Would he really do this, you wonder? Would he dare stamp "CHANGED" over two institutions- sanctity of life and sanctity of marriage- that are shown large support nationally, opting instead to rashly throw into question whether or not all babies are worth carrying to term and whether or not we should keep marriage between one man and one woman?
There are dire consequences to these changes that I don't think President Obama has thought through.
Are we to believe that he holds no more esteem for his own heterosexual, two-parent, two-child, long-term, monogamous marriage and family unit than he would for, say, two lesbians who, physiologically, are unable to have children and even if they adopt would be completely unable to provide a father for that child? Are we to believe that one of these situations- the one with the dad and mom and stable home- is not more statistically ideal for raising a child, than the other- two "moms" cannot provide true gender roles- which complicates a vulnerable mind inexplicably?
I am a middle-class, college-educated, liberally raised, multicultural-loving, independent-thinking woman under 30 who voted for democrats twice (forgive me, readers!); I'm in a target group for supporting the abolition of the stale, boring, traditional values of my forefathers. But you know what, Mr. President, I object to your intentions.
I value marriage and gender roles and macho men and delicate ladies. I believe all children can the opportunity to grow in love, nurtured by a mom and a dad who, though they will inevitably fail somewhere, are the only combination to provide archetypes that children need to model. And I value all of the children God makes, even when they're unplanned, even when the life of the parents is rough. There is always someone ready to hold a brand new, adopted son or daughter and love and love him/her like their own.
If you don't believe that these things are still possible, President Obama, then you don't have much hope for America at all.
****************************
*For an article that actually calls Mrs. Obama on her recession-proof wardrobe click here
Please join me in fighting FOCA (click here for link to outside site)
Please join me in keeping the DOMA intact (click here for link to outside site)
Obama's inauguration went pretty swimmingly, so goes practically every news source today. Predictably, most of the comments are about what Mr. and Mrs. were wearing (irrelevant)*, how the new President had a little "snafu" over the wording of the oath (insignificant), and a permutated slew of "history in the making" cliches.
Missing almost entirely was mention of President Obama's plans for his first few executive weeks. But I remember when he was making plans a year and a half ago at a conference for Planned Parenthood:
"The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do."
In the following months Obama also penned an open letter to the "GLBT" community, promising that he would be an ally to them if elected to our highest office in government. Here is an excerpt from an article concerning the letter:
"He [Obama] once again said he backs the 'complete repeal' of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law passed in 1996 that gives states the option of not recognizing another state's 'gay marriages.' It also prohibits the federal government from recognizing 'gay marriage.' Ever since it was passed homosexual activists have viewed it as a significant legal barrier to nationwide legalization of 'gay marriage.' " (Here is a link to a post about this letter.)
So what about our history is about to feel the wrath of Obama's brand of change?
Marriage and family.
The first two things Obama might like to do in upcoming weeks, to prove he has the cajones to make some things really happen (and make his supporters instantly happy) is to sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice" Act and then repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Would he really do this, you wonder? Would he dare stamp "CHANGED" over two institutions- sanctity of life and sanctity of marriage- that are shown large support nationally, opting instead to rashly throw into question whether or not all babies are worth carrying to term and whether or not we should keep marriage between one man and one woman?
There are dire consequences to these changes that I don't think President Obama has thought through.
Are we to believe that he holds no more esteem for his own heterosexual, two-parent, two-child, long-term, monogamous marriage and family unit than he would for, say, two lesbians who, physiologically, are unable to have children and even if they adopt would be completely unable to provide a father for that child? Are we to believe that one of these situations- the one with the dad and mom and stable home- is not more statistically ideal for raising a child, than the other- two "moms" cannot provide true gender roles- which complicates a vulnerable mind inexplicably?
I am a middle-class, college-educated, liberally raised, multicultural-loving, independent-thinking woman under 30 who voted for democrats twice (forgive me, readers!); I'm in a target group for supporting the abolition of the stale, boring, traditional values of my forefathers. But you know what, Mr. President, I object to your intentions.
I value marriage and gender roles and macho men and delicate ladies. I believe all children can the opportunity to grow in love, nurtured by a mom and a dad who, though they will inevitably fail somewhere, are the only combination to provide archetypes that children need to model. And I value all of the children God makes, even when they're unplanned, even when the life of the parents is rough. There is always someone ready to hold a brand new, adopted son or daughter and love and love him/her like their own.
If you don't believe that these things are still possible, President Obama, then you don't have much hope for America at all.
****************************
*For an article that actually calls Mrs. Obama on her recession-proof wardrobe click here
Please join me in fighting FOCA (click here for link to outside site)
Please join me in keeping the DOMA intact (click here for link to outside site)
The Obamas $lick Wardrobe
Oh, if only I could help myself from providing captions to news photos! But, alas, I just couldn't resist this one. After all the bashing of Sarah Palin (remember her?) I'd love for someone to ask this question. But since they won't, I will.
Happy inauguration (or aggravation) day, everyone!
Any word yet on how much these outfits cost?
Happy inauguration (or aggravation) day, everyone!
Looking Past the Mirror
There are so many reasons we could be cynical, aren't there?
There are undeserving people getting hired to luxurious positions of influence while earnest, hardworking people can't find a job at all.
There are babies having babies, babies killing babies, silly women trying to lead others by the power of their personalities while decent, gracious women who just want to love their kids and bake pies are demeaned as "backwater."
There are agents in popular culture who savagely force-feed us stories of murder, rape, white-collar crime, violence against the vulnerable and sexually perverse exploits while yet gentle teenagers genuinely struggle with whether or not hand-holding is ok.
In my own time and family, I have seen more emotional fallout than material struggle. There have been years of troubling, high-decibel fights, a divorce and remarriage, a difficult custody trial, drug abuse, unpredictable disease, psychological depression, two instances of jailing following arrest, too many "I hate yous" and too few "I love yous."
On the national scale, we have an outgoing President who some feel has been God's punishment on our nation because he helped us go to war. On the other hand, we have an incoming President who some feel has floated into office on a false pretense that his being black means something substantial about racism in America.
And in my own mirror, I have seen my once highly-admired beauty fall strand by strand into the sink, inexplicably, taking with it a great portion of both pride and confidence, leaving behind questions to be answered only by God Himself: How? And why? If you had asked me then, the best part of me had been taken away for no good reason.
There are many, many reasons to be misanthropic. Yet today I find myself an optimist, not a cynic. It is not because I see so many undeniably good, selfless acts committed by people every day, nor because I see myself doing similarly. In fact, it has nothing to do with people at all.
I can be an optimist only because God is One who does everything selfishly for Himself, and because I am one of His people.
There are undeserving people getting hired to luxurious positions of influence while earnest, hardworking people can't find a job at all.
There are babies having babies, babies killing babies, silly women trying to lead others by the power of their personalities while decent, gracious women who just want to love their kids and bake pies are demeaned as "backwater."
There are agents in popular culture who savagely force-feed us stories of murder, rape, white-collar crime, violence against the vulnerable and sexually perverse exploits while yet gentle teenagers genuinely struggle with whether or not hand-holding is ok.
In my own time and family, I have seen more emotional fallout than material struggle. There have been years of troubling, high-decibel fights, a divorce and remarriage, a difficult custody trial, drug abuse, unpredictable disease, psychological depression, two instances of jailing following arrest, too many "I hate yous" and too few "I love yous."
On the national scale, we have an outgoing President who some feel has been God's punishment on our nation because he helped us go to war. On the other hand, we have an incoming President who some feel has floated into office on a false pretense that his being black means something substantial about racism in America.
And in my own mirror, I have seen my once highly-admired beauty fall strand by strand into the sink, inexplicably, taking with it a great portion of both pride and confidence, leaving behind questions to be answered only by God Himself: How? And why? If you had asked me then, the best part of me had been taken away for no good reason.
There are many, many reasons to be misanthropic. Yet today I find myself an optimist, not a cynic. It is not because I see so many undeniably good, selfless acts committed by people every day, nor because I see myself doing similarly. In fact, it has nothing to do with people at all.
I can be an optimist only because God is One who does everything selfishly for Himself, and because I am one of His people.
Romans 8:28-32
"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
Take heart and be encouraged, believers!
January 16, 2009
"Just " Musing
"Will you just pray with us now?"
"We just ask that you hear our prayer..."
**********************
Two different usages of the same word imply two very different meanings.
In the first instance, "just" implies a similarity to "only" or "merely," as in "will you merely do this one thing."
In this example we can assume that the one thing (in this case, a prayer) is either of such great importance that it is the only thing that will be asked of us, or that it is of little significance due to the minimal participation it requires.
In the second instance, "just" implies a similarity to "only" also, but in the sense that it means "simply" or "solely," as in "we simply ask this of you."
In this context it seems the significance is of a more meaningful type, such that the sole asking of this one thing will, if granted, be sufficient to the asker.
I get my first example from a very successful speaker (can't call him a pastor without diminishing the role of a real man of the cloth) who frequently asks his audience (can't call them a congregation...) to participate in "asking Jesus into their hearts." In effect this is a typical "alter call," but with the notable insertion of the term "just," with all its previous indications intact.
Would it not serve his purpose to implore the audience to pray with him without using that word? I fear he does not realize that he reduces the act of addressing God in prayer exponentially by suggesting that they are "just" talking to God.
This is the holy Lord of the universe, the Creator, the Savior, the Comforter, our Priest. And that thing they are asking of Him- a convoluted version of saving grace- is worthy of much, much more than a simple nod of the head and a pre-scribed prayer.
The act of loving sacrifice of His own Son for us is, in fact, the only hope we have in the world. It is not just anything. It is everything.
I have pondered on the use of "just" in our daily prayers, which is where I derive my second example. Are we to diminish ourselves in our asking things of Him? Are we to just thank Him?
The first answer is yes, the second is no.
In our asking of Him, particularly when it is an asking of Him to hear our prayers, we ought to be nothing but humble. We ought to simply, merely be asking of Him that He bend His ear to us. Likewise in our asking of continued sustenance we ought to do the same, with a keen observation of our position (low, bowed) in regards to Him (Most High).
However, when we thank Him, there can be no amount of praise that surpasses that which He deserves. We are not just thanking Him, unless you consider giving your whole life and livelihood up to Him as a small gesture.
"We just ask that you hear our prayer..."
**********************
Two different usages of the same word imply two very different meanings.
In the first instance, "just" implies a similarity to "only" or "merely," as in "will you merely do this one thing."
In this example we can assume that the one thing (in this case, a prayer) is either of such great importance that it is the only thing that will be asked of us, or that it is of little significance due to the minimal participation it requires.
In the second instance, "just" implies a similarity to "only" also, but in the sense that it means "simply" or "solely," as in "we simply ask this of you."
In this context it seems the significance is of a more meaningful type, such that the sole asking of this one thing will, if granted, be sufficient to the asker.
I get my first example from a very successful speaker (can't call him a pastor without diminishing the role of a real man of the cloth) who frequently asks his audience (can't call them a congregation...) to participate in "asking Jesus into their hearts." In effect this is a typical "alter call," but with the notable insertion of the term "just," with all its previous indications intact.
Would it not serve his purpose to implore the audience to pray with him without using that word? I fear he does not realize that he reduces the act of addressing God in prayer exponentially by suggesting that they are "just" talking to God.
This is the holy Lord of the universe, the Creator, the Savior, the Comforter, our Priest. And that thing they are asking of Him- a convoluted version of saving grace- is worthy of much, much more than a simple nod of the head and a pre-scribed prayer.
The act of loving sacrifice of His own Son for us is, in fact, the only hope we have in the world. It is not just anything. It is everything.
I have pondered on the use of "just" in our daily prayers, which is where I derive my second example. Are we to diminish ourselves in our asking things of Him? Are we to just thank Him?
The first answer is yes, the second is no.
In our asking of Him, particularly when it is an asking of Him to hear our prayers, we ought to be nothing but humble. We ought to simply, merely be asking of Him that He bend His ear to us. Likewise in our asking of continued sustenance we ought to do the same, with a keen observation of our position (low, bowed) in regards to Him (Most High).
However, when we thank Him, there can be no amount of praise that surpasses that which He deserves. We are not just thanking Him, unless you consider giving your whole life and livelihood up to Him as a small gesture.
January 13, 2009
You're Not Doing Us Any Favors
Headline today on Telegraph UK:
Student auctions off virginity for offers of more than $3.7 million
"Miss Dylan, from San Diego, California said she was persuaded to offer herself to the highest bidder after her sister Avia, 23, paid for her own degree after working as a prostitute for three weeks.
This is certainly comment-worthy, but it's simple and direct: This is yet another case of academic "feminism" teaching a woman that her body is her own, it is property to be bought and sold, which is ok provided she's the one taking the bids.
Do I need to repeat my own condemnation of "feminism" being taught today, that it seeks to destroy everything gentle, beautiful, sincere, emotive and feminine in women?
I don't really think I do. If you've read this summation of the article and still are unmoved, there is- and I say this with all loving sincerity- something desperately wrong with you.
When I was in college I scorned images of women at "Mtv Spring Break" making out with strangers on the beach, I preached venomously against Playboy, pornography and strip clubs. But I had no compassion for these women taken under by a false sense of who they are. I would sneer and say sarcastically, as if speaking to their at-home audience, "Hi Dad/Mom, aren't you proud?" I not-so-secretly loathed their upfront sexuality, a quality I would never possess.
As Lauryn Hill said, "Don't be a hard rock when you really are a gem, baby girl."
So goes my plea to this as yet unhardened 22-year-old student who has found the "easy" way to pay all her college bills in one fell swoop: You don't know what else you are sweeping away by giving up the specialness of your virginity to someone you don't even know. If you get married your husband will know his only chance to get the key to your heart was at the highest monetary sum.
It's cliche, but still valid to wonder if this girl is willing to pay the price she's putting on herself, or on the rest of us women. Lastly, her conclusion is rather shocking; clearly virginity is worth something, at least to some men it is worth over $2 million dollars. Leave it to a "feminist" to see the physical evidence for the promotion of feminine preservation and conclude the opposite.
In 2009, please, I beg you, please stand up for real femininity in our young women!
Student auctions off virginity for offers of more than $3.7 million
"Miss Dylan, from San Diego, California said she was persuaded to offer herself to the highest bidder after her sister Avia, 23, paid for her own degree after working as a prostitute for three weeks.
"I know that a lot of people will condemn me for this because it's so taboo but I really don't have a problem with that.
"My study is completely authentic in that I truly am auctioning my virginity but I am not being sold into this. I'm not being taken advantage of in any way.
She added: "It's shocking that men will pay so much for someone's virginity, which isn't even prized so highly anymore."
**********************
This is certainly comment-worthy, but it's simple and direct: This is yet another case of academic "feminism" teaching a woman that her body is her own, it is property to be bought and sold, which is ok provided she's the one taking the bids.
Do I need to repeat my own condemnation of "feminism" being taught today, that it seeks to destroy everything gentle, beautiful, sincere, emotive and feminine in women?
I don't really think I do. If you've read this summation of the article and still are unmoved, there is- and I say this with all loving sincerity- something desperately wrong with you.
When I was in college I scorned images of women at "Mtv Spring Break" making out with strangers on the beach, I preached venomously against Playboy, pornography and strip clubs. But I had no compassion for these women taken under by a false sense of who they are. I would sneer and say sarcastically, as if speaking to their at-home audience, "Hi Dad/Mom, aren't you proud?" I not-so-secretly loathed their upfront sexuality, a quality I would never possess.
As Lauryn Hill said, "Don't be a hard rock when you really are a gem, baby girl."
So goes my plea to this as yet unhardened 22-year-old student who has found the "easy" way to pay all her college bills in one fell swoop: You don't know what else you are sweeping away by giving up the specialness of your virginity to someone you don't even know. If you get married your husband will know his only chance to get the key to your heart was at the highest monetary sum.
It's cliche, but still valid to wonder if this girl is willing to pay the price she's putting on herself, or on the rest of us women. Lastly, her conclusion is rather shocking; clearly virginity is worth something, at least to some men it is worth over $2 million dollars. Leave it to a "feminist" to see the physical evidence for the promotion of feminine preservation and conclude the opposite.
In 2009, please, I beg you, please stand up for real femininity in our young women!
January 11, 2009
Let It Be Heard
If you have never had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Paul Washer, this will be a wonderful introduction for you.
Mr. Washer is unlike any other pastor or speaker I've ever heard in his utter devotion to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a measured, thoughtful and, at other times, radical and emotional way. Regardless of his audience, Mr. Washer always points them to Christ, His propitiation for us on the cross and God's justice and desire for us to renew our minds in His Word.
Even if you already went to church today this sermon is worth a listen as you spend time in family worship, or by yourself in contemplation of the new life you have been given in Christ, and by God.
When is it not a good time to contemplate the new life God has given you?
Title of the sermon is, "The Rewards of Discipleship"
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=17091131360
Mr. Washer is unlike any other pastor or speaker I've ever heard in his utter devotion to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a measured, thoughtful and, at other times, radical and emotional way. Regardless of his audience, Mr. Washer always points them to Christ, His propitiation for us on the cross and God's justice and desire for us to renew our minds in His Word.
Even if you already went to church today this sermon is worth a listen as you spend time in family worship, or by yourself in contemplation of the new life you have been given in Christ, and by God.
When is it not a good time to contemplate the new life God has given you?
Title of the sermon is, "The Rewards of Discipleship"
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=17091131360
January 10, 2009
Let It Be
Today, after a two-hour schlep to the grocery store and back, with windshield wipers that are apparently on strike, I swerved and spun through our unplowed driveway, finally sliding to a stop in our just-big-enough parking spot.
I went for three items; I came back with seven. I was sweltering from going in and out of the store twice (because the first time I tried to leave I realized I had forgotten to buy sleds- grr!), bracing kamikaze snow outside and hot, dry air inside. And I do love my boots, but darn if they don't keep my feet at exactly 120 degrees. A bit too warm for my liking.
I clambered at my flimsy plastic bags- already in the process of spilling my newly-purchased goods onto the wet, dingy winter car floor- and fell out of the Accord. The Accord that, to date, I have logged over twelve hours pushing heavy snow off and scraping the unappreciative windows of this winter. With snow flying in my face, I mentally prepared not to explode when N inevitably asked, "How was the trip?"
It was then that I had a completely novel idea (for me): could I go one whole day without complaint?
Now, I know at other times I might advocate this concept for other reasons, spiritual for example: as in, 'try to ask questions and be more compassionate before you get annoyed at their behavior.'
But this is not one of those times. This is a purely self-centered, self-preservative suggestion. The goal is to inhibit oneself from constantly seeing the half empty glass or only half-done pile of laundry. The goal is to keep oneself sane, or at least calm enough in her insanity to remain composed.
So, if it's going to snow twelve inches and that means people are going to drive very liberally (i.e. no turn signals or lane adherence), just let it be. Let the snow do to people's driving what it's going to do and I will accept this. I have enough experience with these kind of conditions to know just to stay home and not make myself crazy- and hoarse from yelling at them!
Here's another one: I know that no matter how much I plan out my day/week/month/trip/job, something is going to go wrong. Let it be. I should just accept that I can't control anything, so I should not be bothered when things go how they go. The thing is, they're not going wrong or going differently, because they're just going how they are going to go.
I'm not talking about letting everything be, so don't think I've gone into some shallow new age pool. All I'm saying is that, if you know that the grocery store is swamped on Saturday afternoons then go on Friday night if you can. If you know that not having everything when you walk out the door annoys you and makes you feel old and forgetful, triple check before you leave!
I'm not telling you anything you don't know. In fact, pretty much everyone could figure this out. But if you're like me- a certified hothead who is far too easily annoyed by insignificant things about life- you can cause yourself to be focused on all that sucks in life (inconsequential things, mind you) instead of everything worthy of your thinking time.
I'll try this method first and let you know if it works. For example, if Blogger refuses to save or publish this blog for me I will just save it somewhere and try again later (instead of smashing my keyboard in frustration until my janky computer shuts itself down- oops!).
Take a cue from this guy; he doesn't sweat anything.
I went for three items; I came back with seven. I was sweltering from going in and out of the store twice (because the first time I tried to leave I realized I had forgotten to buy sleds- grr!), bracing kamikaze snow outside and hot, dry air inside. And I do love my boots, but darn if they don't keep my feet at exactly 120 degrees. A bit too warm for my liking.
I clambered at my flimsy plastic bags- already in the process of spilling my newly-purchased goods onto the wet, dingy winter car floor- and fell out of the Accord. The Accord that, to date, I have logged over twelve hours pushing heavy snow off and scraping the unappreciative windows of this winter. With snow flying in my face, I mentally prepared not to explode when N inevitably asked, "How was the trip?"
It was then that I had a completely novel idea (for me): could I go one whole day without complaint?
Now, I know at other times I might advocate this concept for other reasons, spiritual for example: as in, 'try to ask questions and be more compassionate before you get annoyed at their behavior.'
But this is not one of those times. This is a purely self-centered, self-preservative suggestion. The goal is to inhibit oneself from constantly seeing the half empty glass or only half-done pile of laundry. The goal is to keep oneself sane, or at least calm enough in her insanity to remain composed.
So, if it's going to snow twelve inches and that means people are going to drive very liberally (i.e. no turn signals or lane adherence), just let it be. Let the snow do to people's driving what it's going to do and I will accept this. I have enough experience with these kind of conditions to know just to stay home and not make myself crazy- and hoarse from yelling at them!
Here's another one: I know that no matter how much I plan out my day/week/month/trip/job, something is going to go wrong. Let it be. I should just accept that I can't control anything, so I should not be bothered when things go how they go. The thing is, they're not going wrong or going differently, because they're just going how they are going to go.
I'm not talking about letting everything be, so don't think I've gone into some shallow new age pool. All I'm saying is that, if you know that the grocery store is swamped on Saturday afternoons then go on Friday night if you can. If you know that not having everything when you walk out the door annoys you and makes you feel old and forgetful, triple check before you leave!
I'm not telling you anything you don't know. In fact, pretty much everyone could figure this out. But if you're like me- a certified hothead who is far too easily annoyed by insignificant things about life- you can cause yourself to be focused on all that sucks in life (inconsequential things, mind you) instead of everything worthy of your thinking time.
I'll try this method first and let you know if it works. For example, if Blogger refuses to save or publish this blog for me I will just save it somewhere and try again later (instead of smashing my keyboard in frustration until my janky computer shuts itself down- oops!).
Take a cue from this guy; he doesn't sweat anything.January 5, 2009
Technology Ain't Cute
[1st woman, looking at a photo of a one-year-old holding a cell phone]
"It looks like he's got his finger on the button, ready to text! Like he's saying, "How cool is this?" Oh, that's so cute."
[2nd woman]
"Yeah, he'll do the same thing with a remote control; he'll point it at the t.v. and click the buttons. He knows how to use it!"
As Neil Postman says, we should always keep one eye fixed on technology- and be wary of our fascination with it. We should always regard book reading as normal, and reading internet news sources as "weird."
With that in mind, my comment on the conversation above is, someone thinking the infant use of technology is 'cute' is just plain weird.
What's cute? That a baby is already preparing to be dependent on cell phones, computers, diagnostic machines, standardized tests and statistics? That, before they even know* anything about themselves, children know that technology is an integral part of human existence, indeed, that these are the methods by which the flurry of information they spew forth can make any sense at all?
Were the concepts in "Brave New World" cute, or downright scary? I support the latter, as well as the notion that technology should be eyed cautiously, especially in regards to what we allow our kids to use. (This is a no-brainer, given our proclivity to watch like hawks every other substance we give to our delicate, vulnerable children.)
I hear your objection to my analysis: the "cuteness" she's referring to is simply the ability of a child to mimic what they see adults doing.
But how is that an objection to my urging against the wholly doe-eyed acceptance of technology, without question, into one's daily existence and our progression as a culture? If anything, the fact that children imitate what they see without knowing the meaning or the consequences of their actions, should hit home to you the necessity of filtering what technology they use.
Apply the same consideration to technology- we don't know the meaning or the consequences of its actions- and you should now be seriously pausing.
Don't get me wrong, I love my computer (well, not my computer, which is a piece of junk, but computers in general) and the internet, Pandora, YouTube and National Review Online. I also love cars and stoplights, libraries, electricity and sewing machines. You might enjoy making a video call to grandkids far away, texting a friend on your cell phone while waiting for an oil change, or the accuracy with which a Meijer register can determine that you'd like a coupon for $2 off your next purchase of Puffs with lotion (not Kleenex, but Puffs).
For you and me alike, it's tempting to view technology as the sum of the things we love about it: the convenience, the efficiency, the deals.
But consider all the elements of technology that don't, for a range of reasons, immediately come to mind, or are taken for granted: the use of statistics, government regulated information (like the IRS), medical coding, standardized tests. Forget about the positive impact of these methods; how might they bring damage to our humanity?
Statistics show the results of many questions, so that we might see popular opinion come alive. But, what questions did they ask? And is the "popular" opinions what we should be aiming to achieve? Someone once said, "What's popular is not always right and what's right is not always popular." They may have been on to something there.
The IRS now keeps electronic files of your taxes and records. All fine and good, right? It takes up less space and it can't burn in a fire or be lost. Except that... it all could still burn in a fire, or get "lost" in the computer's data files, or be erased by accident. But the real burning question is, are you comfortable having the fate of your finances determined by whether or not the computer "says" this or that about you? If it "says" audit, then audit. If it "says" you owe back taxes, then you owe. When the personal responsibility is eliminated by a machine that stores all the answers, to whom will you object when you think the answers are mistaken?
The same can be said for medical coding, but add one element: are you comfortable being a green-tabbed, region A living, insurance 16297-33 carrying patient? Are you ok being the sum total of test results and medical histories, with actual verbal contact with your doctor or personal acknowledgment of symptoms and treatments having been made obsolete?
Lastly, consider standardized tests; what does it say about us as a culture that we value numbers and percentages above the human-to-human process of learning? Are you only an IQ number? And what IS an IQ number anyway, other than a subjective scale of measuring "intelligence." But could it be that there is more to "knowledge" than what is on the test?
Looking at testing from another angle, "No Child Left Behind" has been detrimental to our children's actual educative development because it asks only for the numbers of "passed" students to match the number of "present" students. When a child seems to have fallen behind- in major skills like reading and writing- they are spoon-fed the answers for the test by teachers who teach according to getting the "numbers game" right. Anything below what is expected of them, by testing results, is considered a failure on their behalf. So imagine their motivation for just passing the kids, even if they haven't learned what will prepare them for the next grade.
* Of course, we cannot say without some hesitation that "knowing" is a concept anyone ever comes to, given the current state of philosophy of mind, but that's another story for another day.
All these questions and more, and in a more eloquent and historical context, are to be found in "Technopoly." I can't agree entirely with his arguments, but obviously it has made enough of an impression on me to write this post. I strongly urge you to read it. Published in 1992, it will probably be at your local public library.
"It looks like he's got his finger on the button, ready to text! Like he's saying, "How cool is this?" Oh, that's so cute."
[2nd woman]
"Yeah, he'll do the same thing with a remote control; he'll point it at the t.v. and click the buttons. He knows how to use it!"
____________________________________
As Neil Postman says, we should always keep one eye fixed on technology- and be wary of our fascination with it. We should always regard book reading as normal, and reading internet news sources as "weird."
With that in mind, my comment on the conversation above is, someone thinking the infant use of technology is 'cute' is just plain weird.
What's cute? That a baby is already preparing to be dependent on cell phones, computers, diagnostic machines, standardized tests and statistics? That, before they even know* anything about themselves, children know that technology is an integral part of human existence, indeed, that these are the methods by which the flurry of information they spew forth can make any sense at all?
Were the concepts in "Brave New World" cute, or downright scary? I support the latter, as well as the notion that technology should be eyed cautiously, especially in regards to what we allow our kids to use. (This is a no-brainer, given our proclivity to watch like hawks every other substance we give to our delicate, vulnerable children.)
I hear your objection to my analysis: the "cuteness" she's referring to is simply the ability of a child to mimic what they see adults doing.
But how is that an objection to my urging against the wholly doe-eyed acceptance of technology, without question, into one's daily existence and our progression as a culture? If anything, the fact that children imitate what they see without knowing the meaning or the consequences of their actions, should hit home to you the necessity of filtering what technology they use.
Apply the same consideration to technology- we don't know the meaning or the consequences of its actions- and you should now be seriously pausing.
Don't get me wrong, I love my computer (well, not my computer, which is a piece of junk, but computers in general) and the internet, Pandora, YouTube and National Review Online. I also love cars and stoplights, libraries, electricity and sewing machines. You might enjoy making a video call to grandkids far away, texting a friend on your cell phone while waiting for an oil change, or the accuracy with which a Meijer register can determine that you'd like a coupon for $2 off your next purchase of Puffs with lotion (not Kleenex, but Puffs).
For you and me alike, it's tempting to view technology as the sum of the things we love about it: the convenience, the efficiency, the deals.
But consider all the elements of technology that don't, for a range of reasons, immediately come to mind, or are taken for granted: the use of statistics, government regulated information (like the IRS), medical coding, standardized tests. Forget about the positive impact of these methods; how might they bring damage to our humanity?
Statistics show the results of many questions, so that we might see popular opinion come alive. But, what questions did they ask? And is the "popular" opinions what we should be aiming to achieve? Someone once said, "What's popular is not always right and what's right is not always popular." They may have been on to something there.
The IRS now keeps electronic files of your taxes and records. All fine and good, right? It takes up less space and it can't burn in a fire or be lost. Except that... it all could still burn in a fire, or get "lost" in the computer's data files, or be erased by accident. But the real burning question is, are you comfortable having the fate of your finances determined by whether or not the computer "says" this or that about you? If it "says" audit, then audit. If it "says" you owe back taxes, then you owe. When the personal responsibility is eliminated by a machine that stores all the answers, to whom will you object when you think the answers are mistaken?
The same can be said for medical coding, but add one element: are you comfortable being a green-tabbed, region A living, insurance 16297-33 carrying patient? Are you ok being the sum total of test results and medical histories, with actual verbal contact with your doctor or personal acknowledgment of symptoms and treatments having been made obsolete?
Lastly, consider standardized tests; what does it say about us as a culture that we value numbers and percentages above the human-to-human process of learning? Are you only an IQ number? And what IS an IQ number anyway, other than a subjective scale of measuring "intelligence." But could it be that there is more to "knowledge" than what is on the test?
Looking at testing from another angle, "No Child Left Behind" has been detrimental to our children's actual educative development because it asks only for the numbers of "passed" students to match the number of "present" students. When a child seems to have fallen behind- in major skills like reading and writing- they are spoon-fed the answers for the test by teachers who teach according to getting the "numbers game" right. Anything below what is expected of them, by testing results, is considered a failure on their behalf. So imagine their motivation for just passing the kids, even if they haven't learned what will prepare them for the next grade.
* Of course, we cannot say without some hesitation that "knowing" is a concept anyone ever comes to, given the current state of philosophy of mind, but that's another story for another day.
_________________________________
All these questions and more, and in a more eloquent and historical context, are to be found in "Technopoly." I can't agree entirely with his arguments, but obviously it has made enough of an impression on me to write this post. I strongly urge you to read it. Published in 1992, it will probably be at your local public library.
Things I Want to Do in 2009
I don't usually make these, but this year I decided to. Let's see how many I actually accomplish!
1. Pay off at least three substantial debts
2. Sponsor a child from world vision
3. Learn how to take good photographs (ahem! I could use help!)
(here's a start)
4. Get my health under control: develop healthy eating, sleeping and exercising regimens
5. Put away more savings money; keep a budget
6. Spend significantly less than I earn; donate more than I do
7. Work a higher-wage job with more responsibility
8. Write with more clarity and on more variety of topics
9. Read at least 20 books; decrease dependence on computer and internet for entertainment
10. Get involved with a social group of some kind (church, hobby, charity, sport)
What do you plan on doing differently, or better, or omitting this year? Let's get creative!
*********************************
1. Pay off at least three substantial debts
2. Sponsor a child from world vision
3. Learn how to take good photographs (ahem! I could use help!)
(here's a start)4. Get my health under control: develop healthy eating, sleeping and exercising regimens
5. Put away more savings money; keep a budget
6. Spend significantly less than I earn; donate more than I do
7. Work a higher-wage job with more responsibility
8. Write with more clarity and on more variety of topics
9. Read at least 20 books; decrease dependence on computer and internet for entertainment
10. Get involved with a social group of some kind (church, hobby, charity, sport)
What do you plan on doing differently, or better, or omitting this year? Let's get creative!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
LinkWithin
