I thought I'd take a moment and see how to post photos to the blog. This is the Queen. You may now bow before her. No touching allowed.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Searching For What's Next
Hi. Remember me? My name is K. It’s been eight days since my last blog entry. That sounds pathetically like an opening line to a “blog writer’s anonymous” meeting or something. The truth is that, in addition to being busier than the proverbial one armed, one legged wallpaper hanger and butt kicker, I am completely distracted. It’s not just Netflix either. I just finished Lost Season 4, and season 5 isn’t out yet. I’m current on Burn Notice and Leverage, and CSI, NCIS and The Unit are in summer reruns at the moment. So, I’ve got a little down time from my non-stop, marathon TV show episode watching addiction until the Doctor Who DVDs come in the mail.
I wish I could explain this away as a garden variety mental unhinging, but I haven’t gone on a shooting rampage yet. Not that I would right now anyway. There’s the whole “Thou shall not murder” thing in the way, and people generally frown on having semi-random gunfire aimed in their general direction. Not to mention the fact that I’d have to clean the guns first after my last outing to the range (which has been a while). I have procrastination issues in addition to my many other character flaws. Besides, I’m running low on ammo and there’s not really anyone or anything that I think just really needs to be shot right now. That is, unless you count corrupt politicians and televangelists. They’ve always got it coming.
I think the source of my detour from coherent mental processing and the ability to put two sentences together is the realization that my life is boring, I no longer enjoy what I do for a living (mainly because of corporate seagulls adding plenty of fertilizer to my already overgrown workload) and I am generally not in a position to do anything about it in the immediate future. It didn’t help that I got in touch with a high school classmate via Facebook who owns his own engineering company making racecar parts and races cars on the weekends. Yes, I’m jealous.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t blame anyone else for the current state of affairs. Well, actually, I could be like everyone else and blame my parents. They’re easy targets. Sadly, though, I mostly did it to myself. My dad’s dad, before he died, would occasionally ask me “what I wanted to do as my life’s work” to which my reply was usually something like “Huh?”. It was supposedly Confucius who said, “Choose a job you love, and you will never work a day in your life.” Somewhere along the way, I started working and never took the time to find a job that I loved.
Now that I’m closing in on middle age, I’m trying to rectify that defect in my existence; however, I’m finding it difficult due to my upbringing (see I told you it was my parents’ fault) which gave me the mistaken impression that I was capable of doing anything. Actually, it’s not an entirely mistaken impression. I really am capable of doing just about anything I want to. The secret, however, is to figure out how to do what I want and get paid enough for my efforts to support the Queen in the manner to which she should be accustomed and support my various less profitable interests. I’m mean, shooting guns is fun and all; but, it just doesn’t pay enough to support my Netflix bill much less a wife and a mortgage unless you’re a professional hit man. That “Thou shall not murder” thing gets in the way of me of taking up that particular vocation. Morals really interfere with earning a conspicuously luxurious living sometimes.
To achieve my occupational renovation, obviously, I need a plan. This may be more of a challenge for me than others as I was not exactly a poster child for career planning when I was in school and not much has changed since I graduated. Fortunately, I have discovered several things that I do NOT want to do which I consider to be a good start. For instance, despite the fact that several people have told me that I’d be really good at it and that it would be a natural progression from what I am doing currently, I have absolutely no desire to become a lawyer. I have had my fill of the legal profession and the American judicial system thank you very much, and I’d be very pleased to walk away from it with my soul intact. Everyone thinks being a lawyer is prestigious, honorable, and respectable. The truth is closer to making sausage. It can be messy, disgusting, undignified and you really don’t want to know what goes on. I have thought about going back to school to study aerospace engineering given my love of airplanes, but the math really scares the stuffing out of me. I barely made it through calculus with a C. Then again, that may have been due, at least in part, to my lack of academic diligence at the time. I may come back to that one.
Or I may just work at being a starving writer/artist/pilot/potter/chef/etc. until I hit it big and become sufficiently wealthy such that I don’t care about being taxed into oblivion anymore. Hey, if you’re going to dream, dream big.
I wish I could explain this away as a garden variety mental unhinging, but I haven’t gone on a shooting rampage yet. Not that I would right now anyway. There’s the whole “Thou shall not murder” thing in the way, and people generally frown on having semi-random gunfire aimed in their general direction. Not to mention the fact that I’d have to clean the guns first after my last outing to the range (which has been a while). I have procrastination issues in addition to my many other character flaws. Besides, I’m running low on ammo and there’s not really anyone or anything that I think just really needs to be shot right now. That is, unless you count corrupt politicians and televangelists. They’ve always got it coming.
I think the source of my detour from coherent mental processing and the ability to put two sentences together is the realization that my life is boring, I no longer enjoy what I do for a living (mainly because of corporate seagulls adding plenty of fertilizer to my already overgrown workload) and I am generally not in a position to do anything about it in the immediate future. It didn’t help that I got in touch with a high school classmate via Facebook who owns his own engineering company making racecar parts and races cars on the weekends. Yes, I’m jealous.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t blame anyone else for the current state of affairs. Well, actually, I could be like everyone else and blame my parents. They’re easy targets. Sadly, though, I mostly did it to myself. My dad’s dad, before he died, would occasionally ask me “what I wanted to do as my life’s work” to which my reply was usually something like “Huh?”. It was supposedly Confucius who said, “Choose a job you love, and you will never work a day in your life.” Somewhere along the way, I started working and never took the time to find a job that I loved.
Now that I’m closing in on middle age, I’m trying to rectify that defect in my existence; however, I’m finding it difficult due to my upbringing (see I told you it was my parents’ fault) which gave me the mistaken impression that I was capable of doing anything. Actually, it’s not an entirely mistaken impression. I really am capable of doing just about anything I want to. The secret, however, is to figure out how to do what I want and get paid enough for my efforts to support the Queen in the manner to which she should be accustomed and support my various less profitable interests. I’m mean, shooting guns is fun and all; but, it just doesn’t pay enough to support my Netflix bill much less a wife and a mortgage unless you’re a professional hit man. That “Thou shall not murder” thing gets in the way of me of taking up that particular vocation. Morals really interfere with earning a conspicuously luxurious living sometimes.
To achieve my occupational renovation, obviously, I need a plan. This may be more of a challenge for me than others as I was not exactly a poster child for career planning when I was in school and not much has changed since I graduated. Fortunately, I have discovered several things that I do NOT want to do which I consider to be a good start. For instance, despite the fact that several people have told me that I’d be really good at it and that it would be a natural progression from what I am doing currently, I have absolutely no desire to become a lawyer. I have had my fill of the legal profession and the American judicial system thank you very much, and I’d be very pleased to walk away from it with my soul intact. Everyone thinks being a lawyer is prestigious, honorable, and respectable. The truth is closer to making sausage. It can be messy, disgusting, undignified and you really don’t want to know what goes on. I have thought about going back to school to study aerospace engineering given my love of airplanes, but the math really scares the stuffing out of me. I barely made it through calculus with a C. Then again, that may have been due, at least in part, to my lack of academic diligence at the time. I may come back to that one.
Or I may just work at being a starving writer/artist/pilot/potter/chef/etc. until I hit it big and become sufficiently wealthy such that I don’t care about being taxed into oblivion anymore. Hey, if you’re going to dream, dream big.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Rhetoric vs. Reality
I don't know if there has ever been a time in which debate, civilized or otherwise, hasn't been slave to rhetoric instead of cold, hard, undeniable facts. I guess there would be nothing to debate if everyone had to concede that the facts were undeniable. That would kind of defeat the purpose of a debate, and some folks just plain need something to argue about. Besides, from what I've seen, any "facts" mentioned in a debate are nothing more than self serving fabrications manufactured by the side using them to support their position.
One of the problems, I think, is that people are no longer taught how to separate fact from fiction. We seem to have lost our ability to critically think and assess the validity of information. I mean, if you can find it on the internet, it must be true. At least until you find the next website with completely opposite information. I think Mark Twain said it best: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."
Facts are really irrelevant in debate, though. The side that is able to control of the rhetoric controls the terms of the debate. For example, the end of George W. Bush's presidency saw a rip roaring, howling debate over immigration reform. I personally think it was nothing more than a mid term ploy by the Democrats to get minority groups angered at Republicans in the run up to the 2008 presidential elections in which the American public somehow managed to elect a post turtle with a teleprompter. For those of you who have not heard the term, a post turtle is a turtle that is found sitting on top of a post. You know full well it didn't get up on top of the post by itself, you know it has no clue what to do while it's up there or how to get down, and you have to question the sanity of the person that put it there in the first place.
Speaking of President Obama, I found it profoundly amusing that he dignified Congressman Wilson's "You lied" outburst during Obama's address to Congress on Wednesday by saying "That's not true." I guess he told him. Did we suddenly have a mass regression to first grade that I missed? The only thing that would have made it funnier is if it had degenerated into "did not/did so", "my dad can beat up your dad", "I'm gonna tell my mommie." Now boys, play nice or go play somewhere else.
Anyway, back to our main story. The immigration reform debate got hijacked by rhetoric pretty quickly. If you were in favor of building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out, or against amnesty for illegal aliens already here, or for enforcing existing laws and rounding up and deporting illegals; the rhetoric painted you as "anti-immigrant" and against the very melting pot that made America great. If, however, you were in favor of letting millions of people who entered the country illegally have a "path to citizenship" (a.k.a blanket amnesty), the rhetoric painted you as Ceasar Augustus watching Rome burn as the Visigoths raped, pillaged and plundered our great nation. What? You've got to be kidding me. Instead of focusing on real issues, we're going to demonize our opponents and their positions?!?!?
Preachers are getting into the act now, too. I recently started seeing billboards pop up in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area with a couple of variations on the theme: "Would Jesus Discriminate? Why Should We?". Well, the short answer is: No, He wouldn't and neither should we. The problem I have with this billboard campaign is the blatant misrepresentation of scripture to support an agenda.
If you go to the website advertised on the billboards (http://www.whywouldwe.org/), you will find that this ad campaign is supported by a group of churches primarily catering to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transsexual community. They cite Matthew 8:5-13 to claim that Jesus "affirmed a gay couple". They also cite Acts 8:26-40 to claim that "the early church welcomed a gay man." As you probably have guessed, this group's position is that we Christians shouldn't discriminate against those of the GLBT persuasion because Jesus and the early church didn't either. So now, if I don't accept homosexuality, I am somehow discriminating against GLBTs and being hypocritical of my Christian faith at the same time?
I don't think so. Let's look at some ugly facts for a moment. The folks at whywouldwe.org would have you believe that Matthew 8 is the story of a Roman Centurion (an officer in charge of 100 men) who comes to Jesus to have his gay lover healed of an affliction. The term in question in this section of the scripture is the word translated in English as "servant" from the Greek word "pais". Whywouldwe.org claims that this word can mean "his master's male lover." According to my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and it's Greek Dictionary, pais means "a boy (as often beaten with impunity), or a girl, and a child; specifically a slave or servant (especially a minister to a king...).
Similarly, whywouldwe.org says that the eunuch mentioned in Acts 8 was actually a homosexual. They claim that homosexuality was widely associated with eunuchs in the ancient world. Here again, Strong's tells another story. The Greek word translated in English as "eunuch" is "eunouchos". The definition is "a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man, by implication a chamberlain (state officer).
Now, I am gracious enough to concede that understanding cultural and historical context is as important to understanding the Bible as anything else. However, just because a Roman officer might have used a male servant as a sex toy or that a eunuch might have been gay does not mean that those verses cited by whywouldwe.org automatically mean what they say it means. Further, you can't take one verse out of context and ignore what the rest of the Bible says. There is plenty of other scripture that condemns homosexuality as sin (just as it does for adultery, murder, and several other things).
The rhetoric whywouldwe.org is using would have you believe that condemning the sin is the same as condemning the person, but that is not the example that Christ set for us. Look at John 8 and the story of how He handled the adulterous woman who was brought before Him for stoning. He didn't tell her that it was okay to be an adulterer. He told her: "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." He had compassion on her and forgave her the punishment prescribed by the Law, but He did so with the strict admonishment for her to cease her sinful ways.
To borrow from Congressman Wilson, you lied whywouldwe.org. Would Jesus discriminate against a GLBT person? Absolutely not. Would He accept them into the church after repentance and baptism? Absolutely. Would He condone homosexuality? Absolutely not. He would love the person but hate the sin. We as Christians (literally followers of Christ) should do the same.
One of the problems, I think, is that people are no longer taught how to separate fact from fiction. We seem to have lost our ability to critically think and assess the validity of information. I mean, if you can find it on the internet, it must be true. At least until you find the next website with completely opposite information. I think Mark Twain said it best: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."
Facts are really irrelevant in debate, though. The side that is able to control of the rhetoric controls the terms of the debate. For example, the end of George W. Bush's presidency saw a rip roaring, howling debate over immigration reform. I personally think it was nothing more than a mid term ploy by the Democrats to get minority groups angered at Republicans in the run up to the 2008 presidential elections in which the American public somehow managed to elect a post turtle with a teleprompter. For those of you who have not heard the term, a post turtle is a turtle that is found sitting on top of a post. You know full well it didn't get up on top of the post by itself, you know it has no clue what to do while it's up there or how to get down, and you have to question the sanity of the person that put it there in the first place.
Speaking of President Obama, I found it profoundly amusing that he dignified Congressman Wilson's "You lied" outburst during Obama's address to Congress on Wednesday by saying "That's not true." I guess he told him. Did we suddenly have a mass regression to first grade that I missed? The only thing that would have made it funnier is if it had degenerated into "did not/did so", "my dad can beat up your dad", "I'm gonna tell my mommie." Now boys, play nice or go play somewhere else.
Anyway, back to our main story. The immigration reform debate got hijacked by rhetoric pretty quickly. If you were in favor of building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out, or against amnesty for illegal aliens already here, or for enforcing existing laws and rounding up and deporting illegals; the rhetoric painted you as "anti-immigrant" and against the very melting pot that made America great. If, however, you were in favor of letting millions of people who entered the country illegally have a "path to citizenship" (a.k.a blanket amnesty), the rhetoric painted you as Ceasar Augustus watching Rome burn as the Visigoths raped, pillaged and plundered our great nation. What? You've got to be kidding me. Instead of focusing on real issues, we're going to demonize our opponents and their positions?!?!?
Preachers are getting into the act now, too. I recently started seeing billboards pop up in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area with a couple of variations on the theme: "Would Jesus Discriminate? Why Should We?". Well, the short answer is: No, He wouldn't and neither should we. The problem I have with this billboard campaign is the blatant misrepresentation of scripture to support an agenda.
If you go to the website advertised on the billboards (http://www.whywouldwe.org/), you will find that this ad campaign is supported by a group of churches primarily catering to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transsexual community. They cite Matthew 8:5-13 to claim that Jesus "affirmed a gay couple". They also cite Acts 8:26-40 to claim that "the early church welcomed a gay man." As you probably have guessed, this group's position is that we Christians shouldn't discriminate against those of the GLBT persuasion because Jesus and the early church didn't either. So now, if I don't accept homosexuality, I am somehow discriminating against GLBTs and being hypocritical of my Christian faith at the same time?
I don't think so. Let's look at some ugly facts for a moment. The folks at whywouldwe.org would have you believe that Matthew 8 is the story of a Roman Centurion (an officer in charge of 100 men) who comes to Jesus to have his gay lover healed of an affliction. The term in question in this section of the scripture is the word translated in English as "servant" from the Greek word "pais". Whywouldwe.org claims that this word can mean "his master's male lover." According to my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and it's Greek Dictionary, pais means "a boy (as often beaten with impunity), or a girl, and a child; specifically a slave or servant (especially a minister to a king...).
Similarly, whywouldwe.org says that the eunuch mentioned in Acts 8 was actually a homosexual. They claim that homosexuality was widely associated with eunuchs in the ancient world. Here again, Strong's tells another story. The Greek word translated in English as "eunuch" is "eunouchos". The definition is "a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man, by implication a chamberlain (state officer).
Now, I am gracious enough to concede that understanding cultural and historical context is as important to understanding the Bible as anything else. However, just because a Roman officer might have used a male servant as a sex toy or that a eunuch might have been gay does not mean that those verses cited by whywouldwe.org automatically mean what they say it means. Further, you can't take one verse out of context and ignore what the rest of the Bible says. There is plenty of other scripture that condemns homosexuality as sin (just as it does for adultery, murder, and several other things).
The rhetoric whywouldwe.org is using would have you believe that condemning the sin is the same as condemning the person, but that is not the example that Christ set for us. Look at John 8 and the story of how He handled the adulterous woman who was brought before Him for stoning. He didn't tell her that it was okay to be an adulterer. He told her: "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." He had compassion on her and forgave her the punishment prescribed by the Law, but He did so with the strict admonishment for her to cease her sinful ways.
To borrow from Congressman Wilson, you lied whywouldwe.org. Would Jesus discriminate against a GLBT person? Absolutely not. Would He accept them into the church after repentance and baptism? Absolutely. Would He condone homosexuality? Absolutely not. He would love the person but hate the sin. We as Christians (literally followers of Christ) should do the same.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Pavlov Would be Proud
Do you remember those hot, summer days when you were a kid? The days here in Texas seemed endless because, in fact, the sun never set until after your bedtime, and you weren't really sure it went down then either. It felt like you were living on Hell's back porch because the temperature got up to "Dante's Inferno staged inside the sun's corona" hot without even trying hard.
But, no matter how hot it was or how tired you were, there was always one thing that would make you come running. It was a sound that you could hear blocks away, and you'd go crazy trying to figure out which way it was coming and how many stops it would make before it got to your street. You'd also have to play "beat the clock" with your mom or dad if you had already spent your allowance to get a buck or two before it passed your house; and your parents, being the sick and twisted creatures that they were, would hold out until the last possible second when it was directly in front of your house headed for the neighbor's place. You'd run out the front door waving whatever cash you had scrounged, begged, borrowed or liberated from whatever source was handy hoping that the ice cream truck driver saw you before he made the turn and dropped out of sight up the next street.
The ice cream truck doesn't bring me running anymore as I much prefer a pint of Ben & Jerry's to offerings of your garden variety mobile ice cream vendor who in all probability was a child molester cruising for his next victim, but there is still one sound that brings me running outside like that pre-teen kid I used to be looking for another sugar fix. I heard it again yesterday while I was trying to multi task between real work, Netflix, cooking lunch and taking care of the Queen. I can't help myself. It's downright freakishly Pavlovian.
The sound that gets me every time is the sound of an airplane flying over head. But not just any airplane mind you. It has to be the sound of a big, fat radial engine to get me to come running out into the Texas heat like a 6' 4" radar dish turning every which way to find the source of the noise. I'm not talking about a little 7 or 9 cylinder radial that pulls some of the old biplanes around either. Don't get me wrong. Those are nice, too; but, if you want to see me slobbering like Snoopy waiting on a Scooby snack, it has to be one of the monster Pratt & Whitney radials that they used to hang off the front end of planes back in World War II.
Yesterday was a feast for the eyes and ears alike. As I mentioned, I was knee deep in several crucial tasks all at once when I heard the unmistakable sounds of big, beefy radials growling fairly low above my house. I tried to use a little will power, be a responsible adult and not go running outside with my tongue hanging out yelling "Airpane!!! Boss! De plane, de plane." I'm sure the neighbors find it amusing. The queen just rolls her eyes and sighs. But, I digress.
I ran out the office door into the backyard and looked towards the sound at which point I was briefly rewarded with having my retinas seared because the sound happened to be where the sun was in the sky at that point. Once I remembered to squint and raise a hand, I had the pleasure of seeing not one but four WWII vintage warbirds flying formation headed for points unknown. At least two of those glorious birds were North American AT-6's. One of the birds might have been a P-51 or a P-39 (neither of which has a radial engine, but both still make a lovely noise). I didn't get a good enough look before I lost sight of them behind the trees to say for sure. The last of the four was a smallish, twin engine that I had never seen before, but it didn't matter one bit because of the sounds made by those beautiful, throaty radial engines.
I am not entirely sure fortune smiled on me when the queen and I chose to live nearby to a modestly sized airport. One of these days, I know what's going to happen. I'll be in the middle of a conference call when one or more of those birds decides to make a pass over the house. It'll be interesting to see if the 12 year old boy hiding inside my older, wiser self wins the fight.
But, no matter how hot it was or how tired you were, there was always one thing that would make you come running. It was a sound that you could hear blocks away, and you'd go crazy trying to figure out which way it was coming and how many stops it would make before it got to your street. You'd also have to play "beat the clock" with your mom or dad if you had already spent your allowance to get a buck or two before it passed your house; and your parents, being the sick and twisted creatures that they were, would hold out until the last possible second when it was directly in front of your house headed for the neighbor's place. You'd run out the front door waving whatever cash you had scrounged, begged, borrowed or liberated from whatever source was handy hoping that the ice cream truck driver saw you before he made the turn and dropped out of sight up the next street.
The ice cream truck doesn't bring me running anymore as I much prefer a pint of Ben & Jerry's to offerings of your garden variety mobile ice cream vendor who in all probability was a child molester cruising for his next victim, but there is still one sound that brings me running outside like that pre-teen kid I used to be looking for another sugar fix. I heard it again yesterday while I was trying to multi task between real work, Netflix, cooking lunch and taking care of the Queen. I can't help myself. It's downright freakishly Pavlovian.
The sound that gets me every time is the sound of an airplane flying over head. But not just any airplane mind you. It has to be the sound of a big, fat radial engine to get me to come running out into the Texas heat like a 6' 4" radar dish turning every which way to find the source of the noise. I'm not talking about a little 7 or 9 cylinder radial that pulls some of the old biplanes around either. Don't get me wrong. Those are nice, too; but, if you want to see me slobbering like Snoopy waiting on a Scooby snack, it has to be one of the monster Pratt & Whitney radials that they used to hang off the front end of planes back in World War II.
Yesterday was a feast for the eyes and ears alike. As I mentioned, I was knee deep in several crucial tasks all at once when I heard the unmistakable sounds of big, beefy radials growling fairly low above my house. I tried to use a little will power, be a responsible adult and not go running outside with my tongue hanging out yelling "Airpane!!! Boss! De plane, de plane." I'm sure the neighbors find it amusing. The queen just rolls her eyes and sighs. But, I digress.
I ran out the office door into the backyard and looked towards the sound at which point I was briefly rewarded with having my retinas seared because the sound happened to be where the sun was in the sky at that point. Once I remembered to squint and raise a hand, I had the pleasure of seeing not one but four WWII vintage warbirds flying formation headed for points unknown. At least two of those glorious birds were North American AT-6's. One of the birds might have been a P-51 or a P-39 (neither of which has a radial engine, but both still make a lovely noise). I didn't get a good enough look before I lost sight of them behind the trees to say for sure. The last of the four was a smallish, twin engine that I had never seen before, but it didn't matter one bit because of the sounds made by those beautiful, throaty radial engines.
I am not entirely sure fortune smiled on me when the queen and I chose to live nearby to a modestly sized airport. One of these days, I know what's going to happen. I'll be in the middle of a conference call when one or more of those birds decides to make a pass over the house. It'll be interesting to see if the 12 year old boy hiding inside my older, wiser self wins the fight.
Thou Shalt Not Wear Makeup
I've been recalcitrant in posting my musings lately mainly because I've been doing to many more important things like working and sleeping. It's a shame that the truly mundane things in life take up so much time and get in the way of more exciting adventures like dusting and vacuuming the office. But, I digress as usual.
I've written a few posts taking aim at horse thieves so far. It's time that I took a pot shot at preachers.
I must have led fairly Hedonistic childhood for the youngest child of a nominally Protestant household as I have very few memories of my youth. The memories I do have involve pain and misery to a greater or lesser degree. I find this state of affairs perplexing as I thought those were the memories that were supposed to get repressed only to be recovered in therapy years later. Instead, I get to keep the memories of my grandfather "teaching" me to "fix" a motorcycle by having me hold the spark plug wire while he cranked the motor and other less than joyous occasions. I'm hoping that your life really does flash before your eyes at the end so that I can get the instant replay on the fun things I missed out on remembering the first go around.
To paraphrase Bill Cosby, I told you that to tell you this. I must have slept through several Sunday school classes or generally just didn't pay much attention to the subject of makeup since I'm a guy; but, until about 3 years ago, I had no idea that there was a controversy relating to the spiritual well being of people who wear makeup. I say people and not just women as it has come to my attention that there are some freaks with a Y chromosome that indulge in Mary Kay and Maybeline.
Much to my surprise, there is just such a controversy. You would think that there are bigger salvational fish to fry, but this is apparently a for real "Baptists don't dance and drink but Methodists do" issue.
There are churches and ministers who take the position that there is nothing wrong with a woman using a little makeup. On a side note, if Tammy Faye Baker wears a little makeup, I'd hate to see what a lot of makeup is. On the other hand, there are churches and ministers who take the position that the Bible condemns the use of makeup as a sign of harlotry and that wearers of such vile adornments are in danger of eternal damnation for their sin.
Before I get too much further on this subject, allow me to fully disclose my personal feelings as a man on makeup:
1) Men should never wear makeup. End of story.
2) Ladies, be considerate to your man. Strawberry flavored lipstick isn't. Foundation and blush tastes like clay pancakes with a 30 grit sandpaper syrup. The truth is that makeup tastes nasty, and there is no way for a man to avoid it when there is some serious kissin' to be done.
3) 99% of the women on the planet are beautiful just the way God made them. Makeup won't help the other 1%.
4) There are better things on which to spend your money.
5) There is a fine line between just a little and too much.
Now, back to our story. I've read the Bible cover to cover, and I even took the time to actually study what the Book has to say on the subject of make up. It doesn't take long as there are not very many verses even remotely related to the subject. The first thing you will find is that there is not one single verse in the entire Bible saying, "Thou shalt not wear makeup."
I know that some people who are more passionate about this issue than I am will argue that makeup is a sign of vanity, vanity is sin, and so on. If that's the case, we all need to become Amish and wear plain clothing, stop wearing jewelry, stop driving cars as a symbol or personal wealth and/or expression, and stop spending all our time at the gym trying to make our bodies buff (yeah, right - like I do any of that).
I believe in a wiser and smarter than me God and what I've read in the Bible supports that belief. God says what He means and means what He says. He makes sure to address the really important things like don't murder folks or sleep with their spouses. If God doesn't see fit to mention a subject or take a stand on it, I think it's a safe bet that my eternal salvation isn't on the line one way or the other. So, can we get back to more important things like getting Baptists to recognize each other at the liquor store.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Patriarchs Lost
Facebook is something you either just love or hate intensely. I don't know too many people who are ambivalent about it. I know a few who really don't understand it, but that's another subject entirely. Facebook has allowed me to catch up with people from high school and college that I had not heard from in years. More importantly, it's allowed me to connect with a couple of cousins with which I've never been very close.
Here recently, I received a friend request from my uncle's son. I promptly accepted his request since I do, in fact, know who the heck he is, and we began exchanging emails. We keep saying we're going to plan to get together for a beer, but that hasn't happened yet. Mostly because Ericksons are great at talking about planning to arrange a get together that never really coalesces into an actual face to face event. My grandmother, my aunt and I all had birthdays in March. For years, we talked about planning a March birthday get together celebration. Grandma passed away before we ever actually made it happen. It's sad really, but that's for another time.
Anyway, back to the reason for putting these meager thoughts in print. My cousin started our Facebook email conversation with a very insightful question. Specifically, "What the hell happened to our family?" It's a question that I've been thinking about that off and on for a long time since it's the same question that my mother has been lamenting from time to time for years.
Then, today, I read in the news that Senator Edward Kennedy died in the night due to brain cancer. Agree or disagree with Senator Kennedy's politics or personal life or character if you will. That is not my purpose here. What struck a chord with me in the news reports eulogizing the senator was the statement that Mr. Kennedy had assumed the role of family patriarch.
In response to my cousin and my mother, that is what the heck happened to our family. We've lost our patriarchs and matriarchs. The glue that held our families together dissolved, and no one can find the tube of super glue.
On my mother's side of the family, my great grandparents Pennington were the glue that held the family together. They were king and queen holding court over an extended family that spiraled and branched off along several related lines and names. After their deaths, my mother's mother became matriarch for a time; however, she never held sway over the family in the same way as her parents did. The center of the family universe had collapsed. The props and characters were still there, but they were dispersed. The oak table which was venue to many a gin/poker/scrabble/canasta games remains in the family at my mother's house. Great grandmother's artwork is scattered through out the family and parts of central Texas (thanks to a tornado). Unfortunately, no one seems to have whatever it takes to bring it all together again.
It's no different on my father's side of the family. His parents, more so his mother than his father, were the president and first lady of a smaller tribe due, in part, to the fact that the extended family is far more widely scattered. As I mentioned to my cousin, we were a dysfunctional clan before grandmother died, but she had a way of keeping us together despite our weirdness. There were other contributing factors to the falling apart of the family: my parents' divorce, the rift between my uncles, and other things.
I don't know if this sort of family disintegration is common or not since my available data is somewhat limited. Based on what I've seen in my wife's family as well as the families of close friends, I think it must be more widespread than just my little world.
The extremely bright and always insightful queen pointed out that it doesn't have to be this way if people would just make the effort to call each other or get together once in awhile (yes, Dad, this means you). Sure there are things that get in the way from time to time like taking care of a chronically ill loved one (I don't have any idea what you're talking about) or having an overly scheduled life (yes, T, this means you), but that doesn't mean that you can't let your fingers do the walking on a regular basis.
To those who mourn the loss of the way things were: don't. The people we loved as the heads of our families were unique. There was only one grandmother Erickson. There was only one Pennington king and queen. Things change. People grow, mature and do what all people since Adam and Eve have done. We can't get things back to the way they were, but we can make the effort to create new memories and enjoy the uniqueness of those still here.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Bipartisan Health Care
Yesterday after work, I was taking the queen to one of her regular doctor appointments when the topic of Congress' current efforts to rape and pillage the American public. Oops, I meant to say "pass a health care reform bill." I really must watch those Freudian slips.
I've been trying to keep abreast of the news regarding the various plans currently surfing their way through our Byzantine legislative process, and there has been one little tidbit that never really clicked into place until last evening's discussion with the queen. Specifically, I've been seeing several news articles mentioning that hardcore, rabid, ultra liberal Democrats are increasingly frustrated with President Obama's, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Ried's efforts to compromise with Republican members of Congress on key elements of the health care reform bills currently on the table. Apparently, these hardy souls seem to think that, when your party controls two thirds to three fourths of the government, you should be able to damn the torpedoes and enact every piece of liberal progressive legislation your heart has ever desired without having to cater to the demands of poor, pitiful, misguided, evil Republicans.
As much as I hate to admit it, they are technically correct; however, these die hard Democrats ignore one seriously fundamental law of nature: Actions have consequences. That's exactly why the Democrat party leadership is desperate for some level of significant support from Republicans on controversial legislation. Try being an incumbent and showing up at the midterm elections next year after having ignored a majority of Americans and passing a budget busting disaster that sends the economy into a death spiral from which it may not recover WITHOUT having the Teflon coated armor of bipartisanship to protect you. They wouldn't just be voted out of office. They'd be lynched.
However, if Democrats can get enough Republican support to label health care reform as a BIPARTISAN measure, suddenly Republican challengers in the midterm elections won't be able to demonize their opponents for supporting a disastrous, DEMOCRAT health care reform plan because their own party will have supported it.
Will the Teflon coated protection of bipartisan support be fool proof? I doubt it. We Americans have the technology and the know how to make bigger and better fools. Will bipartisan support balance out the elections? More than likely. Disaffected voters will throw out Democrats and Republicans in equal proportions leaving the balance of power in Washington relatively unchanged. Not that there is a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties as it stands now anyway.
Regardless of who is in power, the government will continue to grow, the deficit and the national debt will continue to rise, new entitlements will continue to be enacted. No matter how many elections take place, no matter how many people stand up and say "Yes, we can" without a clue as to what the rhetoric means, no matter how many horse thief scandals are uncovered in the media, those in Washington will continue to do what they have been doing regardless of the names, faces or party affiliations of those in power. The erosion of the Constitution and the American way of life will continue until there is nothing and no one left to remind us that there ever was anything different.
In my opinion, despite all its flaws, American is still the greatest place to live on the planet. We are greatly privileged to have a multitude of freedoms. However, we must always remember that with great privilege comes even greater responsibility. It's time for all freedom loving Americans to stop abdicating their responsibility or face losing their privileges.
I've been trying to keep abreast of the news regarding the various plans currently surfing their way through our Byzantine legislative process, and there has been one little tidbit that never really clicked into place until last evening's discussion with the queen. Specifically, I've been seeing several news articles mentioning that hardcore, rabid, ultra liberal Democrats are increasingly frustrated with President Obama's, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Ried's efforts to compromise with Republican members of Congress on key elements of the health care reform bills currently on the table. Apparently, these hardy souls seem to think that, when your party controls two thirds to three fourths of the government, you should be able to damn the torpedoes and enact every piece of liberal progressive legislation your heart has ever desired without having to cater to the demands of poor, pitiful, misguided, evil Republicans.
As much as I hate to admit it, they are technically correct; however, these die hard Democrats ignore one seriously fundamental law of nature: Actions have consequences. That's exactly why the Democrat party leadership is desperate for some level of significant support from Republicans on controversial legislation. Try being an incumbent and showing up at the midterm elections next year after having ignored a majority of Americans and passing a budget busting disaster that sends the economy into a death spiral from which it may not recover WITHOUT having the Teflon coated armor of bipartisanship to protect you. They wouldn't just be voted out of office. They'd be lynched.
However, if Democrats can get enough Republican support to label health care reform as a BIPARTISAN measure, suddenly Republican challengers in the midterm elections won't be able to demonize their opponents for supporting a disastrous, DEMOCRAT health care reform plan because their own party will have supported it.
Will the Teflon coated protection of bipartisan support be fool proof? I doubt it. We Americans have the technology and the know how to make bigger and better fools. Will bipartisan support balance out the elections? More than likely. Disaffected voters will throw out Democrats and Republicans in equal proportions leaving the balance of power in Washington relatively unchanged. Not that there is a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties as it stands now anyway.
Regardless of who is in power, the government will continue to grow, the deficit and the national debt will continue to rise, new entitlements will continue to be enacted. No matter how many elections take place, no matter how many people stand up and say "Yes, we can" without a clue as to what the rhetoric means, no matter how many horse thief scandals are uncovered in the media, those in Washington will continue to do what they have been doing regardless of the names, faces or party affiliations of those in power. The erosion of the Constitution and the American way of life will continue until there is nothing and no one left to remind us that there ever was anything different.
In my opinion, despite all its flaws, American is still the greatest place to live on the planet. We are greatly privileged to have a multitude of freedoms. However, we must always remember that with great privilege comes even greater responsibility. It's time for all freedom loving Americans to stop abdicating their responsibility or face losing their privileges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)