People, Glenn Beck is so back on my side bar.
About six months ago, he deviated from his normal "Americans, it's not your fault but you aren't getting the real news" line to a "common sense" (meaning, the common sense he imagines Americans have) approach. At the time I balked against it because all I could think - it being only a short time after the election - was, "No way! Americans have just shown how sensible they are by electing a socialist!"
But I underestimated Beck in both his understanding of just how deep the socialist ties run in the new White House, and his tenacity to unearth them.
I've been looking for a new companion in conservatism to fill the void in my soul where Michael Savage used to comfortably reside. The personal hit Savage took when added to the British black list has left him more disillusioned than ever and, understandably, primarily focused on getting his name off the list. While I appreciate his instinct of self-preservation, as well as his desiring public recognition that he was named very injustly, I do think his show has suffered because of it. You can tell by the phone-ins; the spirited urges from passionate listeners for him to run for office are much fewer and farther between, and have taken on a resolutely disappointed tone. So long as Savage remains on that list, I can't listen to his show. It just doesn't have the heart it used to. I sincerely worry that the whole ordeal will sour him to radio permanently. He's said as much on the air already.
But what's a girl to do? Give up on talk radio altogether because her favorite is in a funk? No. The idea of intentionally seeking out a new host seemed weird, though, too. So it was with a kind of welcomed happenstance that Glenn Beck caught my ear again.
There are times when, despite the conglomoration of fellow reporters being in agreement, someone steps up and says, "You're all 180 degrees off." The time when the emperor having no clothes needs to be exposed (pun intended) is now. Peter Schiff is the child pointing fingers in the financial realm, and Glenn Beck is the new go-to guy for exposing the socialist tendencies of our President and his newly-appointed czars.
If you're keeping up, Van Jones is the most recent of these, and a triple whammy at that. Not only is he a black nationalist, but it turns out he's a 9/11 truther and a supported of the re-trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal, a man who murdered a police officer in Philadelphia about ten years ago.
Glenn Beck manages to stay on top of all this via both his radio show and his t.v. program, choosing to report exactly what he digs up, regardless of the mainstream media's bullying of him as being a conspiracy theorist.
If anyone can be called a conspiracy theorist, it's Van Jones, not Beck.
I've even heard other conservative hosts chide him a little. Once Dennis Miller said Beck is, "a little too pro-wrestling" style for his liking. But, to Miller's credit, he did cite Beck as being on top of stories like no one else.
Glenn Beck has been taking a lot of flack this week, from msm sources as well as the online prank group "Anonymous," who launched a multisite attack on Beck a couple of days ago, in an attempt to slander him viciously. Their allegation is that he raped and murdered an underage girl in 1990. Sorry, but if Beck has gotten this group to perpetrate such allegations, he must be saying something they don't want him to. I wonder which of his recent shows has them really riled up? Perhaps the one where he said what many people are thinking, that President Obama seems to have a problem with white people, and it comes out in his "social justice" rhetoric.
Below is a clip from Beck's Thursday show, talking about Van Jones first, then discussing the recent coverage of his hometown's decision to give him the key to the city. My favorite moment is when he reveals the number of protesters to that decision. The guy is human, he's got some great insight and deserves your attention.
Enjoy, have a nice weekend and a great Labor Day.
September 4, 2009
September 3, 2009
The "Energy Czar" is Not Only a Communist, but a 9/11 Truther
You'd almost think someone had planned this information to come out so close to the eight year anniversary marking the Twin Towers attack. But who?
Major kudos to the Washington Times for covering this story. Finally, some news outlets are owning up to their amateurish free pass on Obama-related stories of critical importance. The fact that Van Jones is a self-labeled communist hasn't been too publicized yet (unless you are counting Glenn Beck's coverage as multiples), but at least his incredulity over the 9/11 terrorist attack is being talked about.
The question is, of course, will he be allowed to remain in his White House position, given these facts? Or is Obama so audacious as to eschew basic rational - and perhaps his re-election - and keep Jones in such a prominent spot?
Here's the story from the Washington Times online.
Bonus footage: Van Jones on the "white polluters" influence on the black community. Someone needs to tell Jones that we're living in a post-racial world...
Major kudos to the Washington Times for covering this story. Finally, some news outlets are owning up to their amateurish free pass on Obama-related stories of critical importance. The fact that Van Jones is a self-labeled communist hasn't been too publicized yet (unless you are counting Glenn Beck's coverage as multiples), but at least his incredulity over the 9/11 terrorist attack is being talked about.
The question is, of course, will he be allowed to remain in his White House position, given these facts? Or is Obama so audacious as to eschew basic rational - and perhaps his re-election - and keep Jones in such a prominent spot?
Here's the story from the Washington Times online.
Bonus footage: Van Jones on the "white polluters" influence on the black community. Someone needs to tell Jones that we're living in a post-racial world...
September 1, 2009
Kittens and the Games They Play
In lieu of having anything insightful or original to say, I am offering you a super fun GAME instead!
The game is, "Where's Pousse-Pousse?"
If you didn't know, my lovely adopted cat (found in a tree when he was a six month old ball of fluff) is Pousse-Pousse. Unlike other cats, he spends equal daytime snoozing and inventing new games for himself. He scales bookshelves, leaps onto upright mattresses, plays his own version of soccer and much more.
With much less space in the new apartment, he can't sprint as he most enjoys, so he improvises the space by finding new hiding places. This is guaranteed to both cause intense anxiety when I think he's run out the door because I can't find him, then hilarious relief when I do. Today you are welcome to play the game along with me.
Here is the photo to look for him in. I know, this is an awful introduction to my mostly well-managed closet office space, but it's a necessary evil. Look closely and see if you can spot him.
Keep looking... examine every nook and cranny (there are a lot in this picture)...
...
...
...
Give up?
If you said, next to the blue and purple striped shirt, you've won the game!
Join me again next time for more delightful domestic adventures.
Oh, and if you're curious what I've been doing that's keeping my mind out of politics, imagine long (9-10 hour) days spent applying for jobs, sewing products for the etsy account, cooking and food blogging, decorating on a baby shoestring budget, and scheming for creative ways to earn money while unemployed. Take a look at my cooking blog for details (will be updated today also). But, can't say I'm bored!
The game is, "Where's Pousse-Pousse?"
If you didn't know, my lovely adopted cat (found in a tree when he was a six month old ball of fluff) is Pousse-Pousse. Unlike other cats, he spends equal daytime snoozing and inventing new games for himself. He scales bookshelves, leaps onto upright mattresses, plays his own version of soccer and much more.
With much less space in the new apartment, he can't sprint as he most enjoys, so he improvises the space by finding new hiding places. This is guaranteed to both cause intense anxiety when I think he's run out the door because I can't find him, then hilarious relief when I do. Today you are welcome to play the game along with me.
Here is the photo to look for him in. I know, this is an awful introduction to my mostly well-managed closet office space, but it's a necessary evil. Look closely and see if you can spot him.
Keep looking... examine every nook and cranny (there are a lot in this picture)...
...
...
...
Give up?
If you said, next to the blue and purple striped shirt, you've won the game!
Join me again next time for more delightful domestic adventures.
Oh, and if you're curious what I've been doing that's keeping my mind out of politics, imagine long (9-10 hour) days spent applying for jobs, sewing products for the etsy account, cooking and food blogging, decorating on a baby shoestring budget, and scheming for creative ways to earn money while unemployed. Take a look at my cooking blog for details (will be updated today also). But, can't say I'm bored!
August 24, 2009
The REAL Townhall Mob
I'm sure it occurred to you, as it did me, that the media and congressional digs on the townhall attendees were outrageously uncalled for, patronizing and un-American.
Individuals expressing their concern over major changes in their health care coverage is not only legal in this country, but encouraged by the Constitution. Organized groups, however, brought together to represent big money or big power industries should be a cause for questioning; what exactly are their motives, and should we be concerned that their interests are more valuable to our government officials than ours are?
In the case of the UAW unions, the motive seems obvious. They, as a million-plus person organization themselves, have a huge stake in making sure their health care remains both primo and unaltered. But why should the President and congress give them what they want? The UAW and SEIU unions offer a large voter turnout, as well as the strongman presence that Obama cabinet members has asked them to provide to "quiet down" the naysaying general public.
This could all be my paranoia - and internal ickiness detector of things like unions - if not for the following article (hotair.com) outlining findings of the very sort I'm talking about. It's so important that I'm re-posting it here instead of just linking it. Please take the time to read it; it not only exposes the unions for what they are (benefits-clamoring bullies) but the President as well. And what is he? Well, from this article it seems like he's a bit of a liar.
**********************
posted at 2:18 pm on August 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Individuals expressing their concern over major changes in their health care coverage is not only legal in this country, but encouraged by the Constitution. Organized groups, however, brought together to represent big money or big power industries should be a cause for questioning; what exactly are their motives, and should we be concerned that their interests are more valuable to our government officials than ours are?
In the case of the UAW unions, the motive seems obvious. They, as a million-plus person organization themselves, have a huge stake in making sure their health care remains both primo and unaltered. But why should the President and congress give them what they want? The UAW and SEIU unions offer a large voter turnout, as well as the strongman presence that Obama cabinet members has asked them to provide to "quiet down" the naysaying general public.
This could all be my paranoia - and internal ickiness detector of things like unions - if not for the following article (hotair.com) outlining findings of the very sort I'm talking about. It's so important that I'm re-posting it here instead of just linking it. Please take the time to read it; it not only exposes the unions for what they are (benefits-clamoring bullies) but the President as well. And what is he? Well, from this article it seems like he's a bit of a liar.
**********************
Why unions are “Astroturfing” health-care town halls
posted at 2:18 pm on August 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
After enraged constituents started showing up at Congressional town-hall forums to oppose ObamaCare, the unions acted quickly to counterdemonstrate on behalf of the Democratic agenda item. In at least one case, union representatives used violence to intimidate and harrass ObamaCare opponents. The same union, which represents a large percentage of government workers and would be presumably immune from any health-care reform action, issued memos demanding volunteers to “drown out” opposition to ObamaCare. But why?
This report from the Detroit Free Press explains that the unions have a good reason — actually, ten billion good reasons:
Antilabor forces say it’s welfare for the UAW and Democrats’ union allies. Labor supporters say it falls short of what’s needed as tens of thousands of union members are pushed into early retirement as employers cut back health care coverage.
They’re both talking about a $10-billion provision tucked deep inside thousands of pages of health care overhaul bills that could help the UAW’s retiree health-care plan and other union-backed plans.
It would see the government — at least temporarily — pay 80 cents on the dollar to corporate and union insurance plans for claims between $15,000 and $90,000 for retirees age 55 to 64. …
Greg Mourad of the National Right to Work Committee called it “a shameless case of political payback,” saying Democrats and President Barack Obama are trying “to force the rest of us to pay billions to cover those unions’ health care.”
The money will be yet another bailout of Detroit, although the Obama administration and the Democrats have it flying under the radar, buried in HR3200:
Thanks to Detroit’s twin auto bankruptcies and other concessions, the UAW’s voluntary employee benefit association, or VEBA, had to take stock of unknown value for $24 billion in claims, while adding thousands of early retirees to its rolls.
Outside experts estimate the funds have about 30 cents in cash for every dollar of future claims, with no guarantee of what its stock assets will be worth. Lance Wallach, a New York-based VEBA expert, says if the funds “don’t get something, they’re out of business in 12 years.” …
Key provisions in House and Senate proposals set aside $10 billion to pay some claims for early retirees covered by employers and VEBAs, before other cost-saving measures kick in. Critics call it a union giveaway, but the union says the money would keep companies from further slashing coverage.
That’s explicitly a bailout. It comes on the heels of tens of billions of dollars committed to GM and Chrysler, as well as politically-motivated bankruptcies that violated the rights of senior creditors in favor of the unions. The unions have overcommitted and underresourced their health plans, and now Congress wants to surreptitiously bail them out from bankruptcy — all while making them more or less immune from the restrictions in the rest of the bill.
That $10,000,000,000 bailout certainly gives the unions a big incentive to crack heads and intimidate people into retreat on ObamaCare, doesn’t it? That’s the granddaddy of all Astroturfing efforts.
Update: My friend Warner Todd Huston wrote about this almost two weeks ago — be sure to read it.
August 21, 2009
Blast from the Non-racially Motivated Past
WHOA DUDE! Here's a fun Friday night watch for you, from the vaults of Hot Air (where do they find this stuff?). It's Obama in a 1995 interview talking about how politicians tend to look for racial scapegoats instead of "focusing on principles."
Irony, anyone?
Irony, anyone?
August 20, 2009
Great Moments in One-Liner History
You can't be a "progressive" without showing any progress!
"Progressive" is yet another word that liberals think they have solitary control of. Yet, none of the programs they introduce as intending to help citizens have allowed them (citizens) to progress beyond the programs! In fact, government-organized and maintained systems of support produce a dependence, making self-sufficiency difficult and, honestly, not at all attractive to people who have become accustomed to living off its benefits.
So who has "progressed?"
Not the people who liberals say they are helping; they've become comfortable, reliant on programs that do not give incentive for paying your own way with the sweat of your own brow. And not the liberals themselves; they have been parading out the same kinds of "solutions" for decades, trying to dress them up in new language when everyone knows it's just clever utilization of buzz words for a different generation.
Thus, the term "progressive." It doesn't mean anything, but it makes them sound good.
"Progressive" is yet another word that liberals think they have solitary control of. Yet, none of the programs they introduce as intending to help citizens have allowed them (citizens) to progress beyond the programs! In fact, government-organized and maintained systems of support produce a dependence, making self-sufficiency difficult and, honestly, not at all attractive to people who have become accustomed to living off its benefits.
So who has "progressed?"
Not the people who liberals say they are helping; they've become comfortable, reliant on programs that do not give incentive for paying your own way with the sweat of your own brow. And not the liberals themselves; they have been parading out the same kinds of "solutions" for decades, trying to dress them up in new language when everyone knows it's just clever utilization of buzz words for a different generation.
Thus, the term "progressive." It doesn't mean anything, but it makes them sound good.
August 17, 2009
PJ Media Twofer
Here are two articles from Pajamas Media on the state of the Obama administration. It's fun to find out what other people are saying about him now that enough time has passed for the propaganda slogans to die down in chorus.
To those that are still trying to shout out "hope and change!" over the passionate outcry from town hall meetings over health care reform I must ask, "To whom are you shouting, and why?"
Frank Fleming:
Aren't They Getting Tired of Calling Obama Opponents Racist?
(Quote from article: "It’s pretty mindless, though some try to dress it up to look smart — as liberals love to do.")
Roger Kimball:
Channeling your inner Goldstein: Obama's Renewable Two-Minute Hate Fest
("He doesn’t explain it. He blames others, especially President Bush.")
To those that are still trying to shout out "hope and change!" over the passionate outcry from town hall meetings over health care reform I must ask, "To whom are you shouting, and why?"
Frank Fleming:
Aren't They Getting Tired of Calling Obama Opponents Racist?
(Quote from article: "It’s pretty mindless, though some try to dress it up to look smart — as liberals love to do.")
Roger Kimball:
Channeling your inner Goldstein: Obama's Renewable Two-Minute Hate Fest
("He doesn’t explain it. He blames others, especially President Bush.")
BLAH - G
I'm thinking about remodeling this whole blog. What do you think? What direction should I go in? I like graphic and bold, that's for sure, but what style should it be?
Thinking... thinking...
Any ideas, shout 'em out.
Thinking... thinking...
Any ideas, shout 'em out.
August 15, 2009
Now Receiving Transmission...
Maybe I mean that blogger will now be receiving my transmissions of posts? Or maybe that the internet is now receiving my messages through my computer?
Er... I think I've confused myself. Not for the first time... nor will it be the last, thanks to the wizardry of Nic and the wireless at the new apartment! I can now blog from the comfort of my own laptop.
Seriously, I thanked Nic profusely for setting this up (which took over three hours to do) because of the ability it gives me to search for jobs and keep myself busy with setting up an etsy account and other things. And, of course, keeping up with my talk radio shows, hotair links and news briefings (what have you people done without me? :)
Everyone say thank you to Nic now in unison for bringing me back into the world. Leave a comment if you like.
Hmm... now all I have to do is think of posts to write...
P.S. Isn't it funny that I'm saying 'the world' when I mean the internet world? I haven't disappeared from the real world! Ah, shows what having friends all long distance will do to your self-perception...
Er... I think I've confused myself. Not for the first time... nor will it be the last, thanks to the wizardry of Nic and the wireless at the new apartment! I can now blog from the comfort of my own laptop.
Seriously, I thanked Nic profusely for setting this up (which took over three hours to do) because of the ability it gives me to search for jobs and keep myself busy with setting up an etsy account and other things. And, of course, keeping up with my talk radio shows, hotair links and news briefings (what have you people done without me? :)
Everyone say thank you to Nic now in unison for bringing me back into the world. Leave a comment if you like.
Hmm... now all I have to do is think of posts to write...
P.S. Isn't it funny that I'm saying 'the world' when I mean the internet world? I haven't disappeared from the real world! Ah, shows what having friends all long distance will do to your self-perception...
August 11, 2009
New Nephew! *Updated with more pics*
Big sister Maia and Baby Joe.
Yup, he's a cutie.
Hey everyone, guess what? My sister Lea had her baby yesterday!
Joseph Nathan arrived at 7:56 ET right on his due date, 8 lb 13 oz, 21 inches long.
I would like to go on record saying I knew it was going to be a boy!
The proud older sister, Maia. If you've ever seen my sister you'd think this was her as a little girl, they look so much alike!
August 7, 2009
Depends on How You Look at It
All those people attending town hall meetings about healthcare reform really give me the willies! After all, aren't they a bunch of fear-mongering, trouble-creating, special interest-concerned, fakers who don't even really care about uninsured people getting helped? What a bunch of jerks!
But, of course, that's just one side's opinion on the protesters. Are they really who and what they are being media whitewashed to be?
I ask you to remember the numerous protests at the onset of the Iraq war. Remember the vitriolic shouts of anti-war protesters, the puppets and name-calling, the outright hatred of President Bush on display for weeks, in major cities and subsequent newspapers. All the protesting against that was considered healthy and productive, an expected by-product of citizens' good intentions and strong convictions.
So why don't the healthcare reform (a.k.a. government owned and operated insurance) protesters get the same respect? It's to be expected from the majority of the media now, after they've sold their souls to the Obama administration. After all, they've got so much invested in towing the line that to speak on behalf of the protesters' rights (Constitutional) would be career suicide within the new pro-President framework of what used to be independent journalism.
Are you surprised, however, that the President himself calls them (non-supporters of his program) people who are "getting in the way" of progress? Are you surprised that he would agree with Nancy Pelosi that they might be extremists and 'right-wing nuts' for not agreeing with him? I wouldn't be at this point. He's said as much already, and he obviously doesn't respect any citizen, least of all those who disagree with him.
I'm disappointed that a man who throughout his campaign told us he wanted to 'bring people together' and work with 'both sides of the aisle' to come up with 'bipartisan solutions' to our nation's complicated problems thinks so little of some of his citizens that he has 1) enouraged pro-President citizes to report suspicious e-mails or conversations regarding the healthcare reform, and 2) told a group at a rally yesterday that these people (dissenters) should just "get out of the way" so he could "clean up the mess" that has been made (presumably by them) in the health insurance arena.
President Obama should be ashamed, but he won't be. He should see how unwise and un-presidential it is to scoff at and place blame on common citizens, and to agree that they are probably motivated by special interest groups.
He should be ashamed, but he won't be precisely because he doesn't care.
And that is really disheartening.
But, of course, that's just one side's opinion on the protesters. Are they really who and what they are being media whitewashed to be?
I ask you to remember the numerous protests at the onset of the Iraq war. Remember the vitriolic shouts of anti-war protesters, the puppets and name-calling, the outright hatred of President Bush on display for weeks, in major cities and subsequent newspapers. All the protesting against that was considered healthy and productive, an expected by-product of citizens' good intentions and strong convictions.
So why don't the healthcare reform (a.k.a. government owned and operated insurance) protesters get the same respect? It's to be expected from the majority of the media now, after they've sold their souls to the Obama administration. After all, they've got so much invested in towing the line that to speak on behalf of the protesters' rights (Constitutional) would be career suicide within the new pro-President framework of what used to be independent journalism.
Are you surprised, however, that the President himself calls them (non-supporters of his program) people who are "getting in the way" of progress? Are you surprised that he would agree with Nancy Pelosi that they might be extremists and 'right-wing nuts' for not agreeing with him? I wouldn't be at this point. He's said as much already, and he obviously doesn't respect any citizen, least of all those who disagree with him.
I'm disappointed that a man who throughout his campaign told us he wanted to 'bring people together' and work with 'both sides of the aisle' to come up with 'bipartisan solutions' to our nation's complicated problems thinks so little of some of his citizens that he has 1) enouraged pro-President citizes to report suspicious e-mails or conversations regarding the healthcare reform, and 2) told a group at a rally yesterday that these people (dissenters) should just "get out of the way" so he could "clean up the mess" that has been made (presumably by them) in the health insurance arena.
President Obama should be ashamed, but he won't be. He should see how unwise and un-presidential it is to scoff at and place blame on common citizens, and to agree that they are probably motivated by special interest groups.
He should be ashamed, but he won't be precisely because he doesn't care.
And that is really disheartening.
August 6, 2009
WHAT????!??!?!?!?!
The Supreme Court just nominated Sotomayor.
Can you believe this is the country we live in?
Can you believe this is the country we live in?
Update on Madison
Tree noise is nice, weather is nice, gardens are pretty.
Finding a job is, as usual, a difficult and arduous process. And I need to find something soon.
Lots of complicated emotions about being here... leaving people... being alone again... fitting in... establishing a routine... enjoying things... being comfortable... staying busy... finding meaning... not getting easily discouraged about not having any of these things...
Trying not to let it all submerge me, even though that is how I feel about it.
Another update to follow, in a week or so...
Finding a job is, as usual, a difficult and arduous process. And I need to find something soon.
Lots of complicated emotions about being here... leaving people... being alone again... fitting in... establishing a routine... enjoying things... being comfortable... staying busy... finding meaning... not getting easily discouraged about not having any of these things...
Trying not to let it all submerge me, even though that is how I feel about it.
Another update to follow, in a week or so...
July 28, 2009
Movin' On Up
Up, as in north. And west.
Yes, folks, we're moving back into the central time zone later today and will be new residents of the state of Wisconsin. Please think of and pray for our safe travels and - also important - retaining our sanity!
Nic and I are both very sad to be leaving this apartment. I will miss my garden, meager and modest as it is, the lawn where I sunbathe, beautiful Michigan skies that go on and on, Stuart Avenue in the fall with its multi-colored trees, Saturday night madness sale at my favorite thrift store and, of course, the crazy squirrels. Mostly I will really miss this quaint and cute apartment on the inside; the way it makes it feel like we live in an urban brownstone is inexplicable but wonderful.
And on that note... it has been strongly suggested to me that I do a series of "before" and "after" posts at the new apartment, to show the process of making a plain, complex-building space into a unique one. So as soon as I figure out the internet in the new apartment, I'll be getting to work on those.
Sitting here in the kitchen right now makes me remember one thing I won't miss - the dripping sink! :)
Anyway, in the meantime and before I write again, here are some photos (promised long ago) of Madison and the university, the new city home! Talk to you soon...
Abe looking down on the town.
Inside at the Capital.
At the University of Wisconsin.
The Capital on the square.
Yes, folks, we're moving back into the central time zone later today and will be new residents of the state of Wisconsin. Please think of and pray for our safe travels and - also important - retaining our sanity!
Nic and I are both very sad to be leaving this apartment. I will miss my garden, meager and modest as it is, the lawn where I sunbathe, beautiful Michigan skies that go on and on, Stuart Avenue in the fall with its multi-colored trees, Saturday night madness sale at my favorite thrift store and, of course, the crazy squirrels. Mostly I will really miss this quaint and cute apartment on the inside; the way it makes it feel like we live in an urban brownstone is inexplicable but wonderful.
And on that note... it has been strongly suggested to me that I do a series of "before" and "after" posts at the new apartment, to show the process of making a plain, complex-building space into a unique one. So as soon as I figure out the internet in the new apartment, I'll be getting to work on those.
Sitting here in the kitchen right now makes me remember one thing I won't miss - the dripping sink! :)
Anyway, in the meantime and before I write again, here are some photos (promised long ago) of Madison and the university, the new city home! Talk to you soon...
Abe looking down on the town.
Inside at the Capital.
At the University of Wisconsin.
The Capital on the square.July 22, 2009
Things That Make Me Angry
Maybe I am justified in the anger, maybe not. You be the judge and let me know in the comments section.
A coworker of mine recently got married. Now, this is a woman who, if I am being honest, I have never really liked from the beginning. She's a product of social justice academia through and through, and one of the first things I heard her talk about was a special on t.v. showing how the Obamas had decorated the White House for some holiday. Gag. Obviously I have a bias against people I think a) have received benefits for relying on minority status and b) anyone who likes Obama :) Kidding!
The thing that really bothers me (again, you be the judge on the justification factor) is that she isn't feminine at all. She doesn't wear any make-up, or brush her hair, or wear clothes that fit. And she's a trim, well-built woman, so she could look very pretty in the right clothes. But she doesn't even try, or it's almost like she doesn't want to be seen as a woman.
I actually tried hard to like her because she comes from a military family, and I thought perhaps we'd share sentiment in that direction. But no, she leans to the left on policy there, too, citing the numerous negative factors of being a "military child." So I tried, but I'm pretty judgmental (surprise), and there you have it.
Anyway, she just got married. After a week-long honeymoon, she returned today with a sparkling ring and a sparkling smile to greet us with. Me being someone who enjoys seeing men and women marry each other greeted her back with, "Good morning, Mrs. ..." trailing off because I didn't know her husband's last name. "Oh, no!" She answered back. "I'm not a 'Mrs.' I didn't want that. I am still Miss B---."
Huh. Ok, let me get this straight. You love the guy, you want to be with him forever (or so the vows say), you want the benefits of a joined life and economics, the security and pleasure of having that man around... but you won't take his name? Sorry, but I don't get it. And I don't like it.
To me, and this is just my opinion, you can't be half-in, half-out in a marriage. You are either, in your mind and heart, committed to the person and whatever comes along with that, or you aren't. You are married, or you are single. There really isn't an in-between. Being engaged may seem like a caveat, but it really is just a waiting period of singleness until you are married.
Now, I know this woman is not Biblical in any way - she said long ago that there would be no priest or pastor at her ceremony, heaven forbid! - and does not desire to please God. Though she knows He exists (because everybody does), she doesn't care what He thinks of her, or her of Him. She has described herself as "definitely not religious," so it's fair to assume that she doesn't care about being "joined" and "becoming one" with her husband. But I still wonder, how can she not see the contradiction in wanting all the serious, long-lasting elements of a marriage without also taking a superficial part, his name?
You see, folks, this is a product of liberal politics and education. She has been brainwashed into believing that she doesn't need a man*, that his identity has nothing to do with hers, and that she can take care of herself. Yet, the innate being of this woman, instilled by God (whom she can deny all she wants but is still her Creator), urges her to settle down with a man, to ceremoniously commit to him in front of family and friends, and to vow to serve him (in some respect) for her whole life.
It's a paradox that she doesn't understand, but she is now living it out. Please pray that God would give her the gospel (because Paul says the gospel is not taught, as of men, but given of God) she needs to understand who she really is. Her name is Cat.
*Not every woman will be/should be married, but we do all exist in a partnership with men, not in opposition to them.
A coworker of mine recently got married. Now, this is a woman who, if I am being honest, I have never really liked from the beginning. She's a product of social justice academia through and through, and one of the first things I heard her talk about was a special on t.v. showing how the Obamas had decorated the White House for some holiday. Gag. Obviously I have a bias against people I think a) have received benefits for relying on minority status and b) anyone who likes Obama :) Kidding!
The thing that really bothers me (again, you be the judge on the justification factor) is that she isn't feminine at all. She doesn't wear any make-up, or brush her hair, or wear clothes that fit. And she's a trim, well-built woman, so she could look very pretty in the right clothes. But she doesn't even try, or it's almost like she doesn't want to be seen as a woman.
I actually tried hard to like her because she comes from a military family, and I thought perhaps we'd share sentiment in that direction. But no, she leans to the left on policy there, too, citing the numerous negative factors of being a "military child." So I tried, but I'm pretty judgmental (surprise), and there you have it.
Anyway, she just got married. After a week-long honeymoon, she returned today with a sparkling ring and a sparkling smile to greet us with. Me being someone who enjoys seeing men and women marry each other greeted her back with, "Good morning, Mrs. ..." trailing off because I didn't know her husband's last name. "Oh, no!" She answered back. "I'm not a 'Mrs.' I didn't want that. I am still Miss B---."
Huh. Ok, let me get this straight. You love the guy, you want to be with him forever (or so the vows say), you want the benefits of a joined life and economics, the security and pleasure of having that man around... but you won't take his name? Sorry, but I don't get it. And I don't like it.
To me, and this is just my opinion, you can't be half-in, half-out in a marriage. You are either, in your mind and heart, committed to the person and whatever comes along with that, or you aren't. You are married, or you are single. There really isn't an in-between. Being engaged may seem like a caveat, but it really is just a waiting period of singleness until you are married.
Now, I know this woman is not Biblical in any way - she said long ago that there would be no priest or pastor at her ceremony, heaven forbid! - and does not desire to please God. Though she knows He exists (because everybody does), she doesn't care what He thinks of her, or her of Him. She has described herself as "definitely not religious," so it's fair to assume that she doesn't care about being "joined" and "becoming one" with her husband. But I still wonder, how can she not see the contradiction in wanting all the serious, long-lasting elements of a marriage without also taking a superficial part, his name?
You see, folks, this is a product of liberal politics and education. She has been brainwashed into believing that she doesn't need a man*, that his identity has nothing to do with hers, and that she can take care of herself. Yet, the innate being of this woman, instilled by God (whom she can deny all she wants but is still her Creator), urges her to settle down with a man, to ceremoniously commit to him in front of family and friends, and to vow to serve him (in some respect) for her whole life.
It's a paradox that she doesn't understand, but she is now living it out. Please pray that God would give her the gospel (because Paul says the gospel is not taught, as of men, but given of God) she needs to understand who she really is. Her name is Cat.
*Not every woman will be/should be married, but we do all exist in a partnership with men, not in opposition to them.
Obama Cares... As fas as he knows
Sad news for Obama this week as the public is rejecting his ObamaCare government-run health plan at a recorded 49%. Of course, that doesn't bother him too much, and he continues to urge leftwing news media to support the plan publicly while stalely repeats some of his key talking points, one of which is the notion that "“If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.”
But is that true? A recent Heritage Foundation inquiry into the matter found that, when asked if privately-insured Americans would be able to keep their insurance in light of Section 102 of the House health legislation, which states that, "in order to qualify as an 'Exchange-participating health benefits plan,' all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue" (heritage.org). Particpation in the new regulations would raise costs considerably and likely cause employers to drop their employees from private plans into the lower-cost government health bin.
When the President was asked about Section 102, he said: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
So, Obama doesn't know if private insurance would still be around but, as far as he knows, you can keep your private insurance with no problems. Good. Next issue?
But is that true? A recent Heritage Foundation inquiry into the matter found that, when asked if privately-insured Americans would be able to keep their insurance in light of Section 102 of the House health legislation, which states that, "in order to qualify as an 'Exchange-participating health benefits plan,' all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue" (heritage.org). Particpation in the new regulations would raise costs considerably and likely cause employers to drop their employees from private plans into the lower-cost government health bin.
When the President was asked about Section 102, he said: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
So, Obama doesn't know if private insurance would still be around but, as far as he knows, you can keep your private insurance with no problems. Good. Next issue?
July 16, 2009
Everybody Knows
At one end of the spectrum, a person knows that he can't deny Him, so he goes to some kind of church out of duty, or respect or because he is unsure of the consequences of appearing to deny Him. However, as he doesn't know anything about Him, he never really gets close enough to get to know Him any better. This person knows just enough to know not to disregard Him. But he misses out on so much of God for the uncertain consequences of getting too close.
I work with someone like this, who said, "I don't know what I believe, but I go to church every week. And that's something."
It is something, it is a start of sorts. But there could be so much more.
At the other end of the spectrum are those who know deeply that He exists and fear that fact so much that they speak disparaging things about Him, publicly. This is often confused, inconsistant or false theology, misconceptions that come from never actually reading His word.
This would be your Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Amazing Atheist types. They don't believe that He isn't real, they hate God precisely because He exists.
In the middle of these two extremes falls everyone who knows a little about Him - maybe what they've been told by someone else, maybe from their own intuitions - and so ventures out in their own way, mostly determined by what they're comfortable with. Some might participate in social welfare activities, some might read their Bibles and pray diligently on their own and never go to church. Others might be very active in church but don't speak of Him outside of it.
But everybody knows that He is there and cannot be denied. The agnostic says he's not sure who God is, but that is only because he's never taken the time to try to know Him. Even the atheist's behaviors are motivated by a hatred of God, not a true denial of His existence. Or, they know how much they need Him, and so they hate Him because they think He doesn't exist.
I work with someone like this, who said, "I don't know what I believe, but I go to church every week. And that's something."
It is something, it is a start of sorts. But there could be so much more.
At the other end of the spectrum are those who know deeply that He exists and fear that fact so much that they speak disparaging things about Him, publicly. This is often confused, inconsistant or false theology, misconceptions that come from never actually reading His word.
This would be your Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Amazing Atheist types. They don't believe that He isn't real, they hate God precisely because He exists.
In the middle of these two extremes falls everyone who knows a little about Him - maybe what they've been told by someone else, maybe from their own intuitions - and so ventures out in their own way, mostly determined by what they're comfortable with. Some might participate in social welfare activities, some might read their Bibles and pray diligently on their own and never go to church. Others might be very active in church but don't speak of Him outside of it.
But everybody knows that He is there and cannot be denied. The agnostic says he's not sure who God is, but that is only because he's never taken the time to try to know Him. Even the atheist's behaviors are motivated by a hatred of God, not a true denial of His existence. Or, they know how much they need Him, and so they hate Him because they think He doesn't exist.
"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists."
G.K. Chesterton
July 15, 2009
What do you know about "Cap and Trade?"
Here's a good article from Hot Air today, mentioning Sarah Palin's editorial on the subject. Her comments are italicized. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey spells it out for you at the end: cap and trade will ration energy production, and that means higher prices in many areas, as well as an overproduction (if you can call it that) of unemployment.
Not to mention a lower quality of life, as we adjust to only using energy for the things we really, really want. So, you can choose between your laptop or your microwave or your garage door opening. Or something like that.
*******************************
posted at 10:11 am on July 14, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
"Sarah Palin takes on Barack Obama on his home turf, so to speak, by penning an op-ed in the Washington Post. On Sunday, Obama’s own Post column attempted to defend his stimulus package and plead for patience, promising that new jobs will arrive over the next two years. Two days later, Palin assails his cap-and-trade bill as a job killer that will wipe out many more jobs than Porkulus could ever create:
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
Unfortunately, the ironic beauty will only become apparent after cap-and-trade does severe damage to our economy and standard of living. Even then, the most ardent liberals won’t admit a problem at all, because the push for cap-and-trade has other motivations than just lowering CO2 in the atmosphere. Those pushing cap-and-trade and making hysterical pronouncements about having only 96 months until the end of the world want to push people into statist control of energy production. They’re not worried about falling standards of living; most of them think we exploit too many natural resources anyway, and that less energy and less of everything would bring about the kind of harmony they desire — and want to impose on everyone else.
We need to make all of this clear. Cap-and-trade rations energy production, which means there will be less of it for a long time. Alternatives are not ready for the kind of mass production that would allow a complete replacement of energy, and probably won’t be for decades, if ever in some cases (notably wind power, as GreenChoice showed and as T. Boone Pickens finally realized). That means a lower standard of living that will impact America regressively, with the lowest income earners getting hit the hardest. The drain on the economy from high energy prices means less jobs and higher retail prices for goods and services, again a regressive consequence of energy rationing.
Obama and his Utopian allies promise that government will help close the gap by offering more services to the unemployed and the poor at the expense of the “rich”. What will that do? It will further handicap the economy by keeping capital out of the markets. Even worse, it will vastly expand the dependent class in America who have to go on the dole to survive. And many of those ardent liberals will be pretty happy with that outcome, too. "
...And here's a fun video of one of those wind turbines exploding... from high winds.. hmm..
Not to mention a lower quality of life, as we adjust to only using energy for the things we really, really want. So, you can choose between your laptop or your microwave or your garage door opening. Or something like that.
*******************************
posted at 10:11 am on July 14, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
"Sarah Palin takes on Barack Obama on his home turf, so to speak, by penning an op-ed in the Washington Post. On Sunday, Obama’s own Post column attempted to defend his stimulus package and plead for patience, promising that new jobs will arrive over the next two years. Two days later, Palin assails his cap-and-trade bill as a job killer that will wipe out many more jobs than Porkulus could ever create:
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
Unfortunately, the ironic beauty will only become apparent after cap-and-trade does severe damage to our economy and standard of living. Even then, the most ardent liberals won’t admit a problem at all, because the push for cap-and-trade has other motivations than just lowering CO2 in the atmosphere. Those pushing cap-and-trade and making hysterical pronouncements about having only 96 months until the end of the world want to push people into statist control of energy production. They’re not worried about falling standards of living; most of them think we exploit too many natural resources anyway, and that less energy and less of everything would bring about the kind of harmony they desire — and want to impose on everyone else.
We need to make all of this clear. Cap-and-trade rations energy production, which means there will be less of it for a long time. Alternatives are not ready for the kind of mass production that would allow a complete replacement of energy, and probably won’t be for decades, if ever in some cases (notably wind power, as GreenChoice showed and as T. Boone Pickens finally realized). That means a lower standard of living that will impact America regressively, with the lowest income earners getting hit the hardest. The drain on the economy from high energy prices means less jobs and higher retail prices for goods and services, again a regressive consequence of energy rationing.
Obama and his Utopian allies promise that government will help close the gap by offering more services to the unemployed and the poor at the expense of the “rich”. What will that do? It will further handicap the economy by keeping capital out of the markets. Even worse, it will vastly expand the dependent class in America who have to go on the dole to survive. And many of those ardent liberals will be pretty happy with that outcome, too. "
...And here's a fun video of one of those wind turbines exploding... from high winds.. hmm..
July 10, 2009
Tenrikyo Vs. Dutch Reformed
The other day I had to utilize a local radio station's website for a project at work. The registration form asks for the pertinent information- name, work address, phone number- and then asks a number of optional questions that can, presumably, help them cater the radio station to you. Here they are, in order: marital status, ethnicity, number of children in household under 18, income, primarily computer usage location, education, employment, religion, housing status, accessibility to internet.
I'm sure you've seen drop-down lists like this before, but I was absolutely shocked at the options available for selection under the "religion" category. Here is that list, in order:
I'm sure you've seen drop-down lists like this before, but I was absolutely shocked at the options available for selection under the "religion" category. Here is that list, in order:
Amish
Assemblies of God
Atheist
Baptist
Catholic
Jehovah's Witness
Lutheran
Methodist
Seventh Day Adventist
Other Christian
Islam
Hindu
Buddhist
Chinese traditional religion
Primal-indigenous
African traditional/Diaspora
Sikhism
Juche
Spiritism
Judaism
Baha'i
Jainism
Shinto
Cao Dai
Tenrikyo
Neo-paganism
Unitarian Universalist
Rastafarianism
Scientology
Zoroastrianism
Wiccan
Pastafarianism
Animism
Taoism
Notice how far down on the list Judaism is? Also, note that "atheist" is listed third, above Catholicism! Oh, they're in alphabetical order, you'll say. Really? Then why is "Animism" second to last, "Cao Dai" somewhere in the middle, and "Seventh Day Adventist" in the top ten?
Now I'd like to remind you that I live in southwest Michigan; how many Jains or "African Traditional/ Diaspora" member do you suppose live here? My guess is none, if not a severely low number.
And certainly, we have more "Reformed" Christians here than any other type of religion (four located within a half mile of this radio station alone!), yet you will not find it on the list at all. Yet "Pastafarianism" is listed; a joke, I assume, but more important than representing the largest religious denomination in the area?
Cheshire Cat to Kalamazoo radio: Very curious. Very curious indeed.
*Update: Just after I posted this, an ad for scientology appeared on the side of the blogger page. Is that enough proof that google is completely wacked in what ideas they support?? Ugh, google/gmail/blogger (the company) is a whole post of its own...
July 8, 2009
Reason Like a Man
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
1 Corinthians 13:8-12
I've been reading straight through the Bible for the past year. I'm now in 1 Corinthians, which is no great accomplishment because I should be further but for all my fits and starts. (I got stuck on the Psalms, not in the way other people might - because they don't want to leave them - but because I didn't like reading them. I wanted to get to Proverbs, to the meat of the wisdom, so-to-speak. Shows how much I know about wisdom.)Nonetheless, here I am in 1 Corinthians, having imagined, or maybe hoped, that Paul would address them scathingly since they were fond of such obviously sinful activities. He should say, I thought, like Jonah wanted to say to the people of Ninevah, that they deserve to be destroyed. Because, well, don't they? Aren't they evil idolaters who do anything but what is proper in regards to sex and marriage? Don't they love their licentiousness more than God?
However, I'm always surprised to read how Paul addresses them from the outset ("To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours") and the gentle admonishment he gives them throughout the book. He seems to want to instruct more than rebuke, and that brings us to the passage above.
Paul had been addressing the "gift of the Spirit" and the qualities of love that make it eternal just before going into this oft-quoted string of verses, hence the introduction that love never ends (while all the other gifts, though they may be temporarily helpful - in the order he lists them - to the Church, will ultimately pass away with the harbingers of those gifts). That explains, albeit in my simple way, the first two verses.
The last two verses make sense in this context also, that now we only know partially (half-hidden, veiled, shadowed or whatever metaphor you'd like to employ) what will be revealed in our passing into God's presence after death. (*I'd like to recommend the book, "Til We Have Faces" by C.S. Lewis here, as it is an amazing allegorical novel about this veiling period.) This part of his teaching I understand, and reading that book actually helped flesh it out for me a lot more.
I can't make sense of the middle section. Superficially I get it, that Paul used to reason more simplistically and with less wisdom when he was both physically and spiritually a child. But besides that literal reading, I don't get the immediate connection to the wisdom he's imparting. What did he used to believe about knowing God, or seeing him face-to-face? What were the "childish ways" by which he reasoned about God?
It has always struck me when reading this that there is so much more about it I'm not understanding. And perhaps it is because I reason like a child. I suppose that's the reason I ask, too, since I want to "reason like a man" but feel perpetually stuck in a child's mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
