Dynamic Thoughts

Listening Before Speaking

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:55:00 +0000

Those of you who know me know that I am in the middle of a job search in the middle of "the worst economy since the Great Depression". Of course, I am in the hardest demographic to employ, the "over 50 white guy". I don't get any credit for being a female or a minority and even though I would love to talk about taking less money than I was making 5 1/2 months ago, I have not been given the pleasure as of yet. Anyway, you would think that someone who is unemployed would have so much time on their hands that he would keep up with his blog. But NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! (apologies to Steve Martin). It is actually more than a full time job looking for work, so I am a bit behind in my update schedule.

I took a test today online for a federal government job that I had applied for. The job market of course has changed quite a bit since the last time I was very seriously looking for a new position. This test took almost 2 1/2 hours and was set up in the craziest way. The first part was about 40 questions, multiple choice, with questions dealing with situations that could possibly arise in the potential job. Now if you are familiar with the federal job application process, just getting to this point to be able to take a test like this is a major accomplishment. For me to be able to even take this test means I have jumped over some MAJOR hurdles. I had to pass this part of the test to be able to go on to the second part.

The second part of the test was the weirdest part. It was a simulation of what a typical day at this job would be. I was given my calendar, with preloaded appointments and mandatory meetings. I was given a list of clients I would be working with. And I was given an online "pamphlet" of rules and procedures I would have to use in dealing with my clients. I had to go through 4 scenarios of dealing with these customers, applying the procedures I was given, and scheduling any follow-up appointments, keeping in mind to avoid conflicts and not schedule myself for overtime. The part of this exercise I found intriguing was that the simulation was sound driven. My "person" would introduce themselves, and then there was a "conversation" between me and my client. After an exchange, I would be given four possible responses to what my client had said. I had to take what they said and apply the procedure or policy I was given and then choose the proper response. If a follow-up appointment had to be made, I had to check my calendar to make sure I avoided any conflicts.

The part that really caught my attention was the "Listen" button. Before I had to make a choice as to my response, I could press a button that said "Listen". I could hear what I was about to say (virtually) before I actually said it. If I thought an answer was right, I could press that button first to see if it sounded right. I could hear that my words were not only correct but they were said in a way that would aid in achieving the purpose of saying them in the first place.

It occurred to me that the Scriptures tell over and over to think about what we say. To not just mouth off about something. That words have power to hurt and to heal, to build up and tear down, to give birth to or to kill. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a "Listen" button built in to our conversations so that we could "hear" what we are REALLY going to say? Yes, if you are a believer, you already have that built in. The Word says in Luke 12:12 that Holy Spirit will teach you what to say. Listen to Him! Let Him be your "Listen" button and help you say the right thing. Be blessed!

Work Ready Tests

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:34:00 +0000

As many of you know, I am currently unemployed and have been for over 3.5 months. For whatever reason, I was selected to go through a bunch of training on how to find a job, since I have not been officially on the market for 15 years. I guess it would be like finding a new partner after being married for over 30 years. Someone wants to make sure you don't make a fool of yourself in a bar somewhere. As part of this process, Georgia has instituted that they call the Work Ready test. The idea is to have you take a test of basic workplace skills so an employer can tell that you can add two plus two. At least that was my initial thought. I was told that many employers are requiring this test for ALL new employees, no matter what your education level. The incentive to take this test for someone unemployed is that you will receive a $100 Visa gift card to offset expenses that one might incur in the job hunting process. They tell you that the test will take about 4 hours. I'm a pretty intelligent guy, and I have always been a pretty good test taker, so I figure that maybe 2 hours and I'll be out of there.

I am here to say that this is the most useful test for documenting job skills that I have seen used on such a large scale. It takes basic math and reading skills and applies them to day to day job situations. The first part is applied math. A typical question was: "A pipe full of oil is leaking. It must be drained before it can be repaired. The pipe is 400 feet long and 6 inches in diameter. How many 55 gallon drums do you need to drain the pipe?" I haven't needed to do this before, but I can see where there are jobs that would require you to know how to figure this out. The reading section would give you, for example, a section out of an employee manual that tells you who is eligible for certain benefits, and you have to make the determination based on the regulation. The last section concentrated on retrieving information from 2 or 3 related charts and graphs in order to figure out what needed to be done. For example, a new copper alloy is in development and its properties are being compared to the old alloy. Based on test data, compare the electrical and heat conductivity between the old and new alloys based on copper composition.

Now, I did very well on the test. But it took me over 3 hours, and I almost ran out of time on the locating info portion. Here is why I am impressed with this test. The entire exam took basic skills and applied them to the workplace. I was a retail store manager for over 15 years. Imagine how useful it would be to have something in hand a a job interview that indicated if your prospective employee knew how to figure out a discount, or could determine how much runtime a particular battery would give you based on a simple formula, or could read and apply information that came with a certain product.

I know that they are giving this test to graduating seniors in Georgia now. I am going to suggest that this same exact test be given to 8th graders also. You may wonder "Why give a test designed to show your readiness for the workplace to kids that are at least 3 years away from even a McDonalds job?" One of the biggest complaints kids have about school is, "Why do I have to learn that? I'm never going to use it. This is just wasting my time." Yet, every question on this test took knowledge that should have been learned at least by the junior year of high school if not much sooner and translated it to the job market. I am not saying that teachers should be penalized if kids don't do well. We have too much "teaching to the test" education going on. It will, however, let these almighty 8th graders know before they get to high school that what they are going to be learning in the next four years is very important, and that this "junk" they are studying does in fact have a purpose.

Thanks again for your prayers and support as I continue my job search. God bless you!

Just the Facts, Ma'am

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:17:00 +0000

Don't you just love email forwards? I know web sites like truthorfiction.com and snopes.com do. They make their living running down internet rumors and innuendo that spread rampant through email mailing lists and Facebook status updates. These typically take one of two forms nowadays. The first is the joke/funny picture variety. Someone sees something funny on a web site. The particular joke/picture has been floating around cyberspace for over a decade now, yet there is always a person or persons who haven't seen it before. Next thing you know, you get an email (sent to a person's entire contact list) with said decade old joke/picture in the body of the email. BTW, if you want to send something to a lot of people at a time, use the BCC (blind carbon copy) option. That doesn't expose your email list to spammers.
The other type is the political type. You recognize it. Someone has done something and the American people need to KNOW! It is full of "facts" and collaboration, so you just KNOW it's true AND YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!! My wife just received the following from a person I am not going to name. I changed the formatting, because it was in the typical 24 point multi-colored font with a ton of spaces in between points. In case you didn't notice, this is the actual email.

How does this grab you???
HB 1388 PASSED
You just spent $20,000,000 to move members/supporters of Hamas, a terrorist organization, to the United States ; housing, food, the whole enchilada.
HB 1388 PASSED
Whether you are an Obama fan, or not, EVERYONE IN THE U.S. needs to know....
Something happened... H.R. 1388 was passed, behind our backs.
You may want to read about it... It wasn ' t mentioned on the news... just went
by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.
Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA . This is the news that didn't make the headlines...
By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims"
in Gaza .
The "presidential determination," which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States , was signed and appears in the Federal Register.
Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.
Now we learn that he is allowing thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to,
and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense.
These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in the blinding bail-outs
and "stimulation" packages.
Doubtful? To verify this for yourself:
www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488
PLEASE PASS THIS ON... AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW
WE are losing this country at a rapid pace.

If you support Israel, or if you think we have a terrorist threat to our country, or you have a problem with illegal immigration, or if you don't like President Obama, you are now stirred up! HE'S GOING TO DO WHAT!!!!?!?!?!?!? Libby just received this email last week, after there was a big stir in the Gaza strip over Israel enforcing its blockade and stopping some "humanitarian" ships from entering the area. Here is the problem with the email. First, the House bill referenced has nothing to do with immigration. It passed the G.I.V.E. legislation which essentially tweaked the already-existing Americorps programs. There was a fuss about this bill because it says that anyone in this program cannot evangelize for their religious faith in the performance of their government duties, which we understand to be the case. You cannot as a federal employee set up a church as a part of your official duties.
Second, the executive order referenced was issued January 27th, 2009. It does not allow or permit ANY Palestinians to relocate to the US, much less at taxpayer expense. It provides for $20 million of humanitarian aid to be released to the Palestinians in Gaza. That was the point that made me stop and think. If "hundreds of thousands" of Palestinian refugees were going to be relocated here, it would take a lot more that $20 million. Without spending a couple of hundred thousands on a study, I'm pretty sure it would cost more like 20 BILLION dollars to relocate "hundreds of thousands" of Palestinians.
Here's my point. Don't react, but respond! Pay attention! Flailing out with a knee-jerk reaction makes whichever side is doing it look, well, reactionary. The difference is that a response requires thought and consideration. If you just react, then you set yourself up for the worst kind of ridicule. But if you thoughtfully respond, and are known for that, even your enemies should respect your opinion. They may not agree, but the seed is planted for understanding.

How to Listen to a Sermon

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:36:00 +0000

Just came across this on Facebook as posted by Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill. We want to get tickled and affirmed in our own beliefs and if the preacher DARES to challenge us to Biblical truth we get upset and want to run off and find someone who agrees with us instead of us listening to what the Word of God has to say to our situation. Funny thing is, this popped up on my news feed right before a note from a former pastor in which the majority response was that "I don't go to church." The Scripture says, "Do not forsake the assembly of yourselves together." I NEED YOUR GIFTS!!! MY CHILDREN NEED YOUR GIFTS!!! MY FRIENDS NEED YOUR GIFTS!!! These people will wholly accept the parts of 1 Corinthians that talk about the gifts of the Spirit yet reject the parts that talk about the Body of Christ being made up of various parts that are of EQUAL importance. Anyway, preaching mode off. Following is the excerpt, How to Listen to a Sermon by George Whitefield, one of the greatest evangelists in American History.
How to Listen to a Sermon
by George Whitefield

Keys for getting the most out of what the preacher says

Jesus said, 'Therefore consider carefully how you listen' (Luke 8:18). Here are some cautions and directions, in order to help you hear sermons with profit and advantage.

1. Come to hear them, not out of curiosity, but from a sincere desire to know and do your duty. To enter His house merely to have our ears entertained, and not our hearts reformed, must certainly be highly displeasing to the Most High God, as well as unprofitable to ourselves.

2. Give diligent heed to the things that are spoken from the Word of God. If an earthly king were to issue a royal proclamation, and the life or death of his subjects entirely depended on performing or not performing its conditions, how eager would they be to hear what those conditions were! And shall we not pay the same respect to the King of kings, and Lord of lords, and lend an attentive ear to His ministers, when they are declaring, in His name, how our pardon, peace, and happiness may be secured?

3. Do not entertain even the least prejudice against the minister. That was the reason Jesus Christ Himself could not do many mighty works, nor preach to any great effect among those of His own country; for they were offended at Him. Take heed therefore, and beware of entertaining any dislike against those whom the Holy Ghost has made overseers over you.

Consider that the clergy are men of like passions with yourselves. And though we should even hear a person teaching others to do what he has not learned himself, yet that is no reason for rejecting his doctrine. For ministers speak not in their own, but in Christ’s name. And we know who commanded the people to do whatever the scribes and Pharisees should say unto them, even though they did not do themselves what they said (see Matt. 23:1-3).

4. Be careful not to depend too much on a preacher, or think more highly of him than you ought to think. Preferring one teacher over another has often been of ill consequence to the church of God. It was a fault which the great Apostle of the Gentiles condemned in the Corinthians: 'For whereas one said, I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos: are you not carnal, says he? For who is Paul, and who is Apollos, but instruments in God’s hands by whom you believed?' (1 Cor. 1:12; 2:3-5).

Are not all ministers sent forth to be ministering ambassadors to those who shall be heirs of salvation? And are they not all therefore greatly to be esteemed for their work’s sake?

5. Make particular application to your own hearts of everything that is delivered. When our Savior was discoursing at the last supper with His beloved disciples and foretold that one of them should betray Him, each of them immediately applied it to his own heart and said, 'Lord, is it I?' (Matt. 26:22).

Oh, that persons, in like manner, when preachers are dissuading from any sin or persuading to any duty, instead of crying, 'This was intended for such and such a one!' instead would turn their thoughts inwardly, and say, 'Lord, is it I?' How far more beneficial should we find discourses to be than now they generally are!

6. Pray to the Lord, before, during, and after every sermon, to endue the minister with power to speak, and to grant you a will and ability to put into practice what he shall show from the Book of God to be your duty.

No doubt it was this consideration that made St. Paul so earnestly entreat his beloved Ephesians to intercede with God for him: 'Praying always, with all manner of prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and for me also, that I may open my mouth with boldness, to make known the mysteries of the gospel' (Eph. 6:19-20). And if so great an apostle as St. Paul needed the prayers of his people, much more do those ministers who have only the ordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit.

If only all who hear me this day would seriously apply their hearts to practice what has now been told them! How ministers would see Satan, like lightning, fall from heaven, and people find the Word preached sharper than a two-edged sword and mighty, through God, to the pulling down of the devil’s strongholds!

This excerpt is adapted from Sermon 28 from The Works of the Reverend George Whitefield. Published by E. and C. Dilly, 1771-1772, London. George Whitefield (1714-1770) was a British Methodist evangelist whose powerful sermons fanned the flames of the First Great Awakening in the American colonies.

I Caught a Fish!!! Sort of...

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:16:00 +0000

church

Now the biggest reason I was excited about going on this little trip was that I was GOING FISHING! I am not a huge fisherman. In fact, I hadn't been fishing in almost 10 years. The last time I went, I bought a few rod and reel combos and one of those preloaded tackle boxes and took my sons down to the Ogeechee River in Savannah. Didn't catch anything that day. No wonder none of them get excited about going fishing even now. I grew up fishing with my family at least 4-6 times a year. We would water down the yard the night before and pull up the nightcrawlers that appeared and put them in a coffee can that we then filled with dirt and put the lid punched with holes on top. Before dawn the next morning the crew was loaded up and off we went to one of the many lakes within a two hour drive. There we would spend most of the day. At the time I didn't have a lot of patience for fishing. I got bored with it pretty quickly, but I would usually have a book to read and once it got to the afternoon I would listen to the Reds game on the transistor radio. If everything went well, we could look forward to some fried catfish or blue gill or occasionally a bass.

As I've gotten older, I see fishing as a chance to get out into the fresh air. I never got too hung up on it if I didn't catch anything. After all, relaxation was the purpose of the exercise. Back to my story. Our tents were only about 150 yards away so I gathered up my gear and walked down to the pier. A couple of the little guys wanted to join me and one of them had his own pole, a Batman rod that was about a foot and a half long. I set one of my poles up with a bobber and had the other boy watch my pole. The first boy got his gear set up and did a good job casting out. Of course, being 5 years old, they grew tired of this very quickly. One of the other men took charge of them and I continued on my mission. I really wanted to catch something. Anything. At least anything alive. I tried spincasting for a bit with one pole and kept the other out with a piece of fake lizard that was supposed to be as good as live bait. Wasn't getting anything with the spincast so I went ahead and tried the bottom with some dough bait I had picked up at Wally World. Sat their for a while watching the bobber with one eye and the tip of the other pole with the other eye. Wait a minute! Did that pole twitch? It sure looked like it moved. I slowly picked it up and held it. Nothing more during the next few minutes so I went ahead and reeled it in. Hook was bare. Try it again. Wondering did something strip the hook or did the bait just come off? Cast out to the same area. Minute later, there's that twitch again. Slowly grabbed the pole right away this time, gave it a small turn on the reel, then THERE IT WAS! I gave a pull to the right then started reeling. There was something on there. The line starts moving back and forth as I continue to reel. Closer and closer it comes until it is right by the pier. I go to pull it out of the water and my pole goes doubled over as that catfish comes out of the water. 3 pounds? I don't know. I just know my pole is bent all the way over with this thing and I'm afraid it's going to wiggle off before I get it up the 6 feet I've got to come up from the water to over the edge of the pier. Holding the pole now halfway down, I start to pull the end toward me so I can grab the line when, KERPLOP! and there I am looking at the end of my line. Once I get to the end of it I can see that the knot I used on the hook had come loose at the wrong time. At least I had a witness that I had a fish hooked, but my ultimate prize was gone.

So what does that mean to you and me? Things like that happen in life. An opportunity comes up, you race to take advantage of it. You get the proper equipment and paperwork and put yourself in the right place and its the right time and everything is looking great and KERPLOP! Something unforseen comes up. You make a small mistake. Doesn't matter. You still don't have fish for dinner. What to do?

Don't quit! You will never "catch your fish" if you don't put the line back out there. The only sure failure is the one who gives up. As long as you are in the game you have the opportunity to win.
Figure out what went wrong and fix it. In my case it was a simple case of not double knotting the line. As a store manager, I would tell my people "Don't be afraid of making a mistake. Just don't make the same one over and over!" Use them as stepping stones to reach your goals.
Put it behind you. Dwelling on what "might have been" saps your energy, discourages your will, and confuses your mind. The Bible tells us to forget those things which lie in the past and press on! It is not just referring to sin. It is referring to our very lives. Keep going, keep going, keep going!

This is the day!

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:50:00 +0000

Just ran across this quote from a very unlikely source and wanted to share it.

Each morning when I open my eyes I say to myself: “I, not events, have the power to make me happy or unhappy today, I can choose which it shall be. Yesterday is dead, tomorrow hasn’t arrived yet. I have just one day, today and I’m going to be happy in it.

~ Groucho Marx

Of course, Groucho Marx was a famous comedian in the mid 1900's. Although he came across as a smart-alec womanizer, he was actually a very thoughtful philosopher. He makes a great point here and references Isaiah 25:9 which states "And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this [is] our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this [is] the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation." We sing the chorus, "This is the day that the Lord has made; we shall rejoice and be glad in it". We really want to fight against living in today. Either we want to dwell on the hurts and pains and rejections (or live in the glory of past victories and triumphs and successes) or we want to fret and worry (or sugar-coat our prospects and indulge in wishful thinking) about the future. Jesus had a lot to say about past, present, and future and I want to take a deeper look at each of these. The bottom line is to get free of the past mistakes and to not fret about the future, but to take each day as a gift from the Lord and to be glad in it. Keep a lookout and I will talk to you soon.

Elder Ed

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:29:00 +0000

We all remember the "Wizard of Oz". Dorothy is transported by a whirlwind to a wonderful, colorful land, slays a wicked witch, inherits a magical pair of shoes, and finds out she go to the Emerald City to meet the marvelous wizard in order to get back to her roots. She acquires several off-the-wall characters on the road who also need the wonderful gifts the wizard can bestow. After many adventures, they meet the wizard via a loud magnified screen, pouring forth smoke, who lays an almost impossible task before them. When they succeed in meeting the stringent requirement, the wizard tries to send them away as being unworthy of receiving his vast knowledge and power. As they are leaving, the discerning pet Toto sniffs out the subterfuge, pulls back the curtain, and reveals a mere man hiding in a room with a lot of controls making noise and smoke and mirrors. As he was exposed, the wizard tried one last appeal. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN. THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ HAS SPOKEN" Of course, we know that the facade was exposed for what it was. Today, Senator Barack Obama has deemed this people he would lead unworthy and cried out, "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN"! And today, he has been exposed for what he is: a politician who has to do and say whatever he needs to in order to protect his position.

All this stems from the senator's relationship with his longtime pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. There have been murmurings amongst the conservative talking heads for many weeks about their relationship. Rev. Wright is known as a fiery leader of an African-American congregation, the type that permeates much of black American Christiandom. Videos have emerged that have him on record as saying things such as "G__D___ America" over and over, blaming the US for inventing AIDS and contriving the 9/11 attacks, and many other hate inspiring comments. This has caused a problem with Sen. Obama's campaign. After all, the junior senator from Illinois has been all about unity and change. Having his pastor of 20 years speaking of the United K.K.K. of America and calling on the Most High God to damn the country of his birth has made Sen. Obama a little uncomfortable. So much so that the senator did what he does best. He made a speech. "I didn't realize the extent of his rhetoric", Barack says. "I didn't agree with him", sayeth the senator. "I denounce what he has said" Mr. Obama elucidates in such an eloquent way. At the same time, though, he refuses to denounce the right Reverend himself. "We all have ministers and priests and rabbis that we don't agree with."

What to make of this. On the surface, it sounds so smooth and easy. This isn't the issue some are making it out to be. We have to break the loop of hate. All that is well and good. Yes, we have to break racism wherever it rears its head. Bulletin to Black America. Things HAVE changed in the last 50 years. The world is so competitive that no one in their right mind would hold back a person of color who can get the job done. Are there still incidents of racism. Yes. Just like there are sins such as gossip and slander and lying and stealing and every other vice known to man. But to bring it back to our current circumstance, it is contingent on all to not stoke these old embers. And this is where the problem lies.

Senator Obama claims to have not known the extent of his pastor's venom. However, how does someone who says he is a very involved member of this church NOT KNOW what his pastor is teaching after TWENTY YEARS! My current pastor has been in position for a little over 3 years and I can tell you with great precision where he comes down on various issues. The same with his father, who pastored here for over a decade before. Either the senator is not the member of this congregation that he has claimed to be, or he is showing the typical political expediency that he claims to be running against. Or even worse, Senator Obama possibly doesn't have the ability to stand up for what he actually believes in, which doesn't lend itself to successful interaction on the world stage. Or even most worse, he actually does believe and agree with what Rev. Wright preaches and all his talk of unity and change is just a convenient turn of language rivaled only by the convoluted talk of "what the meaning of is is". Pretty speeches can get you so far, but at the end of the day it is your integrity and character that has to carry the day. Where is yours, Senator?

Goodbye, Brett

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:21:00 +0000

I'm a big sports fan, and I was shocked as any sports fan on Monday with the report that Brett Favre was retiring. The gunslinger quarterback of the Green Bay Packers was setting 'em down. Even though he was coming off the best season he had in several years, the all time leader in passing yards, passing touchdowns, and even more impressively, games started, one of the legends of the NFL decided that it was time to pass the baton and call it a career. I almost didn't believe it at first. Brett over the last five years had talked off and on of retiring, to the point that the Packers were driven crazy by his indecisiveness on this issue. Even as the reports started coming Monday on the various news sources, part of me wanted to hear this from Brett's own mouth.

Well, today I got my chance. I listened to Brett Favre announce it himself. (There is a link on the home page at espn if you would like to listen to the news conference online.) Although I will miss seeing his exuberant leadership on the field, I totally respect his decision to hang it up. Brett basically said he wasn't willing to do what he had to do to get ready for the upcoming season. He felt like he could still play, but he "wasn't sure I wanted to." Football, especially at the NFL level, takes much more time than putting on spikes on a Sunday afternoon. It takes a physical commitment and also a very great mental commitment. And remember, Brett Favre has started 275 consecutive games. That's over 15 years of regular season games and playoffs. Fifteen years of week in and week out having 275+ pound linemen and linebackers trying to take off whatever body part they can get their hands on. That's over a decade and a half of running and throwing and deciding and having everything you do scrutinized to the umpteenth-most degree.

Some said that he may regret it and try to come back later. Others said he was upset that the Packers had not landed a prize free agent. In listening to Brett's emotion-laden voice, he had no ulterior motive. It was time to go. And so, the Mississippi born-and-bred quarterback is riding off into the sunset, unsure of a specific future, but fully aware that he has given the fans of the Green Bay Packers, National Football League, and fans of clean competition everywhere everything that they could possibly hope for. So long, Mr. Favre, and God bless you.

2 Michelles, 2 Americas

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:10:00 +0000

If you click the link, you will land on a column by Michelle Malkin. She is a frequent guest on Hannity and Colmes, the O'Reilly Factor, and other conservative news outlets. I actually got this post as an email forward without any attribution, and had to do some homework to find out where it originally came from. In a political environ that consists of "change you can Xerox" (quote from Hillary concerning Barack recycling quotes without proper credit) I want to be sure that individuals get the proper credit for their ideas. Please click on the title of this post and read this article. Ms. Malkin is a great intellect and has a great counterpoint to the other Michelle's lack of patriotism.

Knowing the hearts of men vs the heart of God

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:42:00 +0000

If you are following the news with any regularity, you've heard of John McCain's alleged (by the NY Times only) trysts with a female lobbyist half his age. (You can read the tabloid-like writing here). Basically, the article drags out some unsubstantiated accusations made against Senator McCain eight years ago. They were shown to be false then. Why they would become true almost a decade later is beyond me. You can read Sen. McCain's response and a deeper explanation by clicking on the blog title. What I find interesting in this whole debacle is that just short of a month ago, the NY Times was endorsing John McCain as the Republican candidate for President. (You can read the endorsement here.)

My thoughts today are not so much on Sen. McCain defending himself against these old allegations. They are also not so much on the duplicity of the NY Times. They are more on the account of Jesus in the book of John 2:23-25.

The Discerner of Hearts
23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. 24 But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, 25 and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.

Jesus was doing wonderful things, and many people were saying they believed in Him because of the miracles they saw. Yet, "He did not commit (give Himself over) to them". How often do we turn our heads to the beat of the accolades, to the aplomb and applause of the crowd. Once, we have trusted in the noise of the world, however, we find ourselves caught off guard when the world turns on us. John McCain just a short month ago reaped the accolades of the very paper that now seeks to slander him. What is ironic about that is that the Times was working on this article two months before it gave its endorsement! He hopefully knows better than to trust in the "chariots and horses" of the Times. Let this whole episode remind us to walk as "wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove", walking not by the wind of approval, but by the rock of principle.

Not Proud of your Country?!?!?!?

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:18:00 +0000

First of all, I am glad to be back in the saddle. I took a few days off with my beautiful wife of over 30 years to go and spend some down time. We went to Orlando and spent a day at Universal and relaxed the remainder of the time. Hats off to Universal for having a park that a couple of ** year olds could have a wonderful day and play without feeling like we were going to have an attack.

I get to come home and spend Monday getting my feet back under me at work. Today, I finally have time to pay some attention to the world around me, and what am I faced with? A potential first lady, Ivy League educated, earning in the 6 figures, talking about how she has never been proud of her country as an adult until now. Now, according to her statement, that seems to be that "people are hungry for change". Now I really do believe she didn't mean exactly what she said. I mean, she is a Harvard educated lawyer. You don't graduate from Harvard Law School unless you know EXACTLY WHAT THE MEANING OF YOUR WORDS ARE! Did I just contradict myself? No, I didn't, and that is the point. Mrs. Obama knew what she said. She knew exactly what she said.

I am so sorry that our "sorry" nation of ours hasn't lived up to her expectations. After all, she had the opportunity to attend one of the top law schools in the world. She had opportunity to go wherever she wanted after she graduated to practice her profession. She had opportunity to do so as not only a minority but as a woman! If you look real hard at the nations of this world, we are the ONLY country that has successfully integrated over its history not just one or two, but several races and cultures in this tumultuous melting pot known as the United States of America. All other countries fight against this mixing of difference. Although the U.S. may not at times seem to embrace it, it is the only country that DOES it.

And for that reason alone, Michelle Obama needs to be proud of her country. And also for that reason alone, she needs to apologize to the citizens of this country; the United States of America.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States, I say ye, Mitt Romney!

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:10:00 +0000

For the good of the party, and to do his part in the war on terror, Mitt Romney has stepped aside. Gov. Romney has realized that he probably cannot win the nomination this time and has conceded the race to John McCain. (You can see the video of his concession speech here. I applaud him even as I am sorry to see him drop out. Mitt Romney is truly the most conservative candidate in this race, and a man that in these current economic times would be extremely valuable to have as the leader of the free world. Governor Romney, I salute you!

So what happened here? Why was this man so sure that he had a shot at winning the nomination to be his party's representative in the race to be President of the United States of America that he spent $40 million (that's $40,000,000!!!) of HIS OWN MONEY to make the attempt? What was Mitt Romney's downfall? First of all, Mitt Romney is coming late to the conservative party, as it were. He has made a lot of comments in the past that tag him as a liberal, especially in social areas such as abortion and sanctity of marriage/gay rights. That already made him a little suspect. Second, Mike Huckabee happened. The little known governor from Arkansas with his Southern Baptist roots was able to energize that group formerly known as the Religious Right to take away the other half of the conservative coalition that was able to put Ronald Reagan and the Bushes in the White House and allow the Republicans led by Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America to hold Congress for 12 years. The result? John McCain, presumed moderate despite his vocal protests, was able on Super Tuesday to forge a lead that looks to be unsurmountable.

My last post noted two things Sen. McCain needs to do. In his speech to the Conservative Political Action Coalition, he proceeded to do just that. He addressed his rhetoric to the Democratic platform and not Mike Huckabee, and he reached out to this very influential conservative group and, though he didn't get all the way back, at least set the stage for a great deal of influence from the conservative side of the G.O.P. I will write more on this later. For now, I want to thank Gov. Romney for a great run, and for his selfless actions today. God bless you, sir.

History Repeating Itself

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:56:00 +0000

Did you ever feel like you were in a time loop? You see the same thing happening over and over again and you know the results are going to be exactly the same yet you are powerless to stop it? This election, at least as far as the Republicans are concerned, feels exactly like 1996. If you remember, Bill Clinton had beaten President Bush I in 1992 mainly because Ross Perot jumped in the race and the president had one of those brain freeze moments when he forgot all the economics he learned at the knee of Ronald Reagan. Senator Dole was the experienced politician whose turn had finally come in '96. His only real competition came from conservative Pat Buchanan and Rev. Pat Robertson. He ended up being the oldest candidate ever to run for an initial term. Compared to the still young looking Clinton, he seemed more like a candidate for the nation's grandpa than the leader of the free world. Bob Dole was known as a Senator who could reach across the aisle to Democrats. Of course, this would come back to haunt him as both right and left had ammunition with which to bombard the embattled senator. Even with these disadvantages, and also facing an incumbent president watching over a strong economy, Sen. Dole might have still won had not Ross Perot jumped back in the spoilers row.

After yesterday's results John McCain looks to be well on his way to the nomination for '08. The similarities are striking. McCain will be 72 at the convention, the second oldest candidate to stand for the first time for his party's nomination. He is being hammered over and over by the Republican right for his wont to "reach across the aisle". His main competitors are conservative Romney and Baptist preacher Huckabee. He very possibly will be facing a very young and energetic Barack Obama. Sound familiar?

What lessons can John McCain learn to ward off another case of history repeating itself? First, he must start now to mend fences with the conservative side of the party. And that doesn't mean showing a video with him and President Reagan. My goodness, Ann Coulter is threatening to campaign for Hillary if it comes down to her and McCain. That's kind of like Billy Graham saying he would support the devil over the Pope! He must seriously reach out to the conservative base that right now really has nowhere to go. Second, he has to take an aggressive initiative from the start of the main campaign. From here on out, McCain has to start focusing not on Romney, but Obama and Hillary. And not even so much on them personally, but on the issues and politics for which they and the Democrats have come to stand. Tax, tax, and tax some more. Take from those who have earned it and give it for the most part to those unwilling to do so. Belittle the United States at every opportunity. John McCain cannot come across as wishy-washy or me-too. He must have strong ideas and show he can exert strong leadership. Only then can we see a result different from that in 1996.

Fighting for the Soul, Part III

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:53:00 +0000

So what's the point of bringing up "ancient" history? Yes, all Republicans respect the memory of President Reagan. "But, things are different now. We really need to show we can work with Democrats. People are tired of divisive politics." Go back and think about the situation when President Reagan took office. We were only a decade away from the pending impeachment of President Nixon. Democrats still held a firm rule in Congress, AND WOULD UNTIL 1994! Yet Ronald Reagan was able to press forth at least the most important part of his agenda. No one since has been able to work their will successfully through our special interest laden Congress like he. That is why Republicans MUST look at their recent history to regain the successes of the eighties and nineties. Compromise with the Democrats can and will be used against you. Just ask George H. W. Bush after signing an increase in taxes after stating "READ MY LIPS. NO NEW TAXES!" Tomorrow is Super Tuesday. For conservatives to have a voice in this election, they must step up big tomorrow. Vote your conscience, but look at the issues! Don't follow attack ads and half-truths and outright lies. Vote for the candidate that most represents the issues you are concerned.

Fighting for the Soul, Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:27:00 +0000

I apologize for the history lesson, but there may be those who don't remember W.I.N. buttons and trying to free our hostages in Iran with ONE HELICOPTER! Of course, we know the answer. Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, came in and, with a purpose of will not seen probably at least since WWII, was able to start our beloved country up the steep climb to a position of prominence and power it may have never seen on a global scale. Although so many issues lay before the founder of the New Conservative Revolution and his allies, President Reagan chose the two most vital. The first was to restore our economy by applying a scarcely taught theory; supply-side economics. The idea that you could grow the economic base and RAISE tax revenue by cutting taxes was so foreign to our "friends" in Washington that they ridiculed the President for promoting "voodoo". An objective look at the results speak otherwise. The Eighties and Nineties were probably the most prosperous stretch of time in U.S. history. (By the way, you cannot change an economy in just a couple of years. It takes time for investment to work its way through the system and once in place it takes time to undercut it by changing policy.)

The second issue was how to deal with the Soviet Union. It was an axiom that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would always be at odds. We saw no possible way that we could ever hope to defeat the Soviets outside of destroying our own country, so America had settled into a defeatist attitude to world affairs. Detente became the buzz word for our relations. In reality, that meant the Soviets could do whatever they wanted. President Reagan knew that true strength lay not in just military might, but in the economic power supporting it. He believed that if he could press the Soviet economy enough, the thread that held the socialists together would unravel and a large portion of the Communist threat would pass into history. Again, President Reagan was ridiculed and mocked by the leftists who admired the Soviet system and the moderates who bought the liberal line. Again, history shows who was correct. Reagan exposed the soft underbelly of the dragon that Lenin and Stalin had built, and that beast fell under its own weight. Ronald Reagan had shown that true conservative ideas and values could be exerted to the betterment of not just a select few, but of this nation and of the world itself.

Where am I going with all this rambling? Stay tuned for part 3!

Fighting for the Soul, Part I

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:55:00 +0000

We are officially down to 4, and practically down to three or maybe two on the Republican side. We are also down to two on the Democratic side, but policy-wise there is such a small difference between Hillary and Barack that it's almost not worth mentioning. (It's kinda funny that Sen. Obama calls himself the candidate of change, yet looking at his voting record, you really can't tell much difference between him and 90 year old and almost 50 year veteran of the Senate, Robert Byrd.) However, there seems to be quite a difference between the two Republican front-runners, John McCain and Mitt Romney, and that difference highlights some critical issues that the Republican party will have to face.

Growing up during the days of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, there didn't seem to be that much difference between them. (Well, at least the first 3) All seem to want a big government role in our lives. None minded raising taxes if they felt the government needed more money. Of course, it was the "wealthy" that needed their taxes raised the most, so the wealthy bore the brunt of the annual tax raising parties the Democratic Congress and the current President held. There was a war (excuse me I mean "police action") that none of them wanted any part of after it was decided that we weren't even going to try and win. That set the tone for the defeatism that followed during the Ford and Carter years. Yet for all their genuine caring about the country, things were going to hell in a hand basket! We were faced with a combination of inflation and recession never before seen on our shores. The Arab oil producers believed they could influence our policies toward Israel by cutting off our oil. The Soviet Union started heating up the Cold War again with an incursion in Afghanistan. Our strong response to that was to boycott games being held in Moscow. Iran unleashes the start of current Islamic jihad against the US and the West in general by storming our embassy and taking hostages. To make it worse, the moderate wing of the Republican Party seemed just as clueless as the Democrats who were running the Congress. Who could help us in our dimmest hour?

Stay tuned for part 2!

HUCKABEE APPLYING FOR VICE-PRESIDENT!?!?!?!?!?!

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:46:00 +0000

I am really confused about the stance Gov. Huckabee is taking about the slander job Sen. McCain is doing on Gov. Romney concerning his "supposed" pronouncement in favor of time tables for leaving Iraq. Although I am not a Baptist currently, I got saved in a Southern Baptist church and spent my junior high and high school years under its tutelage. I was taught that a half-truth was just as bad as a lie. I was also taught to respect those that ministered the Word, and to give them the benefit of the doubt. I have to assume that Gov. Huckabee has not listened to the actual recording that Sen. McCain is twisting to make it sound like Gov. Romney is giving credence to that despicable idea.

While Gov. Romney did use the word "time table" in response to a reporter's question, he made it VERY CLEAR that he would veto any attempt of Congress to put an actual time table on our time in Iraq. He was also VERY CLEAR that any "time table" would be a set of goals between us and the Iraqi government to be used to gage progress AND WOULD BE A PRIVATE MATTER BETWEEN OUR GOVERNMENTS! Gov. Romney emphasized that it would be IDIOTIC to tell our enemies when we would be leaving. He used the example of World War II. How stupid would it have been to tell the Germans that if we didn't cross the Rhine River by December 24th, 1944 that we would pull out? Only a very twisted retelling could come close to accusing Gov. Romney of wanting to telegraph that information to Al Qaeda.

So what is Gov. Huckabee doing? He either doesn't want to know the truth or he and Sen. McCain have worked out a deal for the delegates that Gov. Huckabee controls. How would a McCain-Huckabee ticket play out? The "good" senator gets the nomination he wants and the former governor of the state of a possible candidate gets a chance at almost a decade at national exposure. In fact, give Sen. McCain's age, he may be hoping beyond hope (not that anyone hopes for that) to be the first vice-president since Gerald Ford to advance to the top office.

It is really time to stop it! If you notice, I have been diligent in using the titles of these august men of the Republic. Not only are they men of integrity and accomplishment, they are all striving to represent the Grand Old Party! One thing that has set the Republican Party apart is a mindset that the issues are what are important. When they stoop to tactics that the former President from Arkansas regularly partakes in (I'm sorry, did I say that out loud?) they distract the voters from the very thing that sets them apart, the strength of ideas. Stay with the issues, Sen. McCain. Take what you said you would take in the 200o race. Take the high road. If your ideas are better, your electibility will be better. You are better than that. Please act like it.

Democrats and race: Why African-Americans should reconsider

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:53:00 +0000

It is two days until the South Carolina primary. It is 53 years since Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus. It is almost 44 years since President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. It is 133 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which provided almost the identical rights as the 1964 law. ( Check out the Wikipedia article here.) Why do I mention all this? It is two days until the South Carolina primary. Two days until January 26, 2008. AND STILL, EVEN IN THIS DAY, DEMOCRATS , (not Republicans), are fighting over race issues during the race between Barack Obama and Hillary/Bill Clinton. And this is a prime example why African-Americans need to look to the Republican party as the party that will help them in the long run.

"That's crazy talk" you may say. "Every knows that the Democrats are the ones who really care about African-Americans." Or are they? Yes, President Johnson, a Democrat, was the one who pressed for passage of the bill. Yet, when the votes were tallied, the Republican Party was the one who overwhelmingly passed it. The vote was 80-20% in favor by the Republican House, and 82-18% by the Republican Senators. Conversely, the Dems voted 63-37% in the House, and 68-32% in the Senate. So it cannot be said that the Republicans opposed or resisted passage of this bill. The Democratic Party however, came out of this as THE PARTY of African-Americans. Yet the party's support, if history is closely examined, has been more of a subjugation than a help. The Democrats have supported policies that have torn apart the African-American family and work ethic rather than building them up. And now, with an African-American running very ably for President, we see a former Democratic president and his candidate wife repeatedly trying to make race an issue in the race for their party nomination. You can check out my link for comments Bill Clinton made in South Carolina. Just recently, Hillary Clinton made comments which seemed to disparage the role Dr King had in the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Maybe the relationship that Democrats have had with African-Americans is one of convenience?

I am not saying that Republicans have the perfect solutions for African-Americans. However, they have the solutions that are the best fit for all Americans. Give businesses the chance to grow jobs so there are ample opportunities for all to work. Quit allowing illegal immigrants to come in and steal jobs. Provide equal opportunity for all. Fulfill the cry of Dr. King that "... my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Look at the true character of the Democratic Party and judge it for what it is. A party that will say whatever it needs to say to gain power. A party that pushes division and partisanship. A party that coddles and enables instead of moving forward and challenging a nation to drive forward into its destiny. Look at the attitude of former President Clinton and judge for yourself. Does this party really have my best interest at heart?

Poor Fred, we hardly knew ye!

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:55:00 +0000

Well, my newly found neo-Reagan conservative has dropped out. It has been a crazy run for Sen. Thompson. My father-in-law was talking about Brother Fred a year ago, pointing out that he was the only true conservative in the crowd. For almost 9 months, he hemmed and hawed and teased and obfuscated his intentions. In the meantime, the field filled up with Rudy, Mitt, Huckabee, McCain, and the rest. It was September when he finally jumped in. Even then, Sen. Thompson was virtually unheard until three weeks ago. Then he was exploding like the 4th of July! Fred on the left, Fred on the right, Fred down the middle. Of course at this stage of the game as it is played in 2008, it was WAY too little too late. The fact that he finished third in South Carolina is a testimony to the underlying conservative undertow that exists. Reaganites are not comfortable with ANY of this crew.

Which way does the Grand Old Party go? McCain is George H. W. Bush warmed over, moderate almost all the way. Huckabee is a populist as much as he is a Republican, and although populists make some noise, they have never really played well in American politics. Especially with a tax plan that actually hurts the middle and low income working class. Rudy is great fiscally, but he might as well be John Edwards on social and moral issues.

That leaves Mitt. A conservative in almost all areas, the biggest gripe against him is his recent pronouncements against abortion. After all, he was governor of Massachusetts! We know how liberal they are! Yet I see in Mitt Romney a pragmatism that only Ronald Reagan possessed. President Reagan didn't go hard after the abortion laws, but he understood that this was a long term battle that was going to have to be won in the Supreme Court. And even then, the abortion issue, as all morality issues, have to be won in the hearts and minds of the American people. Legislated morality is legalism at its worse, and if our Lord spoke out against anything, it was the legalism in the name of faith. That's a subject for another forum, but suffice it to say that it may be time for Mitt Romney to stand up and carry the banner for the conservatives of this land.

I'm Baaaaaackkkkkk!!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:56:00 +0000

OK. Life goes on whether I write this thing or not. HOWEVER, my unique voice doesn't get added to the mix unless I choose to add it. With an election coming that is very hotly contested on both sides, and a culture whose very soul is in flux, it is time for a common sense look at the issues that we face in these tumultuous times. Look out , blogosphere, here I come!

STOP THE POLITICS!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 02:39:00 +0000

It is ridiculous! Democrat after Democrat stated that the President wasn't taking the war seriously. We weren't doing enough to win the war in Iraq. We needed a troop "surge" to stabilize the situation and bring us to a place where the Iraqis could then take their rightful place as the military force to ensure the peace in their country. Democratic leaders from Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi stated the case to increase the number of US soldiers in Iraq. Here comes January 10th. President Bush calls for the troop "surge" that Democrats and the troops themselves have been asking for.

What happens?

"We don't need to send more troops!" "We won't fund more troops!" "The Iraqis need to do more!" Blah, blah, blah. It was a great idea when the President was hesitant to send more troops. Now that he has seen the advantage of doing so, you can't find a Democrat willing to support it!!! Flippity, floppity, flippity, floppity. Is this the kind of leadership we can expect from the Dems? Say anything to get elected and change our minds once we are in? STOP IT!

The Republicans lost control of Congress for one reason. They had turned from the principles that had given them power to begin with and were acting like Democrats. Spend money on your constituents and avoid divisiveness with anyone except conservatives. The Dems now think that they have carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want. I can pretty much guarantee that none of them have talked to more than the one or two soldiers that back their political stance. I can also pretty much guarantee that most of the United States Army and Marine Corps want the job completed. To pull back now spits in the face of every one of the brave men and women who have served in Iraq. It stomps on the graves of those who have given their all for their country. Is Ted Kennedy ready to stand up to radical Islam when the suicide bombers start working over Boston? Will Speaker Pelosi condemn their actions in San Fransisco? Or will these locations be passed over for targets in Cincinnati, Boise, San Antonio, Macon, Nashville, and many other cities who have a large majority who support the stance against the Al Qaida Nazis? Their desire is for their will to be done. Will we let it be done in Iraq as it is in Iran?

ESPN and the "Sermon on the Mound"

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:06:00 +0000

I was listening to ESPN radio this morning at the 10 am hour. The replacement for the normal host started out the show talking about how he didn't want to talk sports today. Instead, he wanted to talk about his "personal savior" (You will see why I did not capitalize savior in a moment). After a minute, the show's producer stopped him, telling him that it was inappropriate to be speaking about his "faith". The host proceeded to go into a rant about how inappropriate it was for the Atlanta Braves to host a "Faith Day" last Thursday. (The title links to coverage of the event by CBS news. You can also read a more in depth article about it here) The main point this substitute was trying to make was that religion and sports should not mix. People don't want to go somewhere and be hit unexpectantly with a preacher hollering at them. Your faith should be a private thing. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. Can't we all just get along???

Once again we see the insidiousness of the media specifically and the "world" in general. Any mention of faith outside of the walls of the church is to be met with opposition and ridicule. "How dare you try to tell me there 's a better way to live? It's not tolerant!" Never mind the specifics of this event. A separate ticket was required for the Christian band concert that followed the game. Pitcher John Smoltz followed with a message relating his faith. Area churches used the event to bring friends to an event where they could hear the gospel in a non-threatening environment. No suits or deacons or old hymns. Just an afternoon at the ballpark and a concert. But I guess that was too much for ESPN to take.

The problem is that the "world" doesn't want to hear it. The enemy of our souls doesn't mind us being religious behind the four walls of the church. Heaven forbid that we take it out from there. Yet that is exactly what Jesus Himself did and what He tells us to do. Wherever He went , He healed the sick, raised the dead, delivered the captives, and preached the good news. He sent the disciples to do the same, and he sends us also. Our faith is only as real as our willingness to live it on our jobs, in our schools, at the stores, and yes, even in our homes! Is using a ballgame to spread the word about Jesus wrong? Different, yes. Wrong, no. May we all be willing to be, not offensive, not obnoxious, but maybe a little "inappropriate" in our world!

The "Code" and the Church

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Tue, 09 May 2006 21:09:00 +0000

I just read the story about the Catholic Church requesting that Ron Howard add a disclaimer to the soon to be released movie, "The DaVinci Code". The church is asking that the statement be added that the film is a work of fiction. I made a couple of comments to reactions to this story that I wanted to repeat here.

I am the last person to defend the exclusivity of the Roman Catholic Church, but standing against the message of this movie is not a "bonehead" move, nor is it knee-jerk or reactionary.
The "Code" is just the latest attempt of the "media" to foist upon an unthinking public the idea that Jesus was anything other than who He said He was. Jesus of Nazareth based the validity of His message and entire life on one thing: that He would be crucified and rise from the dead. Paul wrote that if Jesus did not raise from the dead we are all fools. That statement I believe best summarizes why stories like this prolifigate. The most vicious attacks on His divinity have focused on this exact fact.
The problem is that any other "group" would not have their beliefs so blatently attacked without at least some sort of disclaimer. The fact that Christianity can be disrespected without question goes to show the vehemence the system has for the church. A great portion of the Islamic world rioted for days over one single cartoon. Judaism would never tolerate a movie like this about Moses. Why does the church have to stand by and let the world spread fiction without any disclaimer?

Putting it off

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:55:00 +0000

I'm currently reinstalling my son's (Eran) cirriculum on our family computer. His IBM laptop has apparently eaten the hard drive. Fortunately, I did a backup of his classwork last week so he should only have to go back and make up a few days. What's kind of funny is that on the way to work this morning, the DJ was bemoaning the fact that his hard drive had died and he had lost 6 years of digital pictures. What's worse is that his wife told him over and over to back up the pictures to CD. Recovering the pictures at this point requires a specialist who will charge him over $1,800 to get the photos off of the drive. He got good advice, he knew what to do, but he just put it off a little too long.

How much of our life is like that? We shout "AMEN" at the stirring words of the preacher. We eagerly read motivational and self-help books, all the while nodding our assent to the message. We even recommend the latest "thing" to our friends, neighbors, family, co-workers, and whoever else we can get to listen. But when it comes right to it, we fall victim to "I'll do it later, I've other things to do." Then when we get caught in the snare of our own making, we find ourselves looking for an excuse as to why we didn't make it happen. The bottom line is that we just didn't do it, and we have to pay the price.

What to do? Something! Anything! Don't wait any longer. The car that is moving is MUCH easier to steer that the one that is standing still. At the very worst, you'll be the one that tried and failed instead of the one who rotted in place. DO IT!!!

Winning the battle-Losing the war?

noreply@blogger.com (Ed) — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:54:00 +0000

Like many others last night, I got to watch the debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry. And like many others, I believe that Sen. Kerry's demeanor, speaking skills, delivery, and all the other "outer" apperances were were better than the President's. But is that what determines who "won" the debate? Although the Senator had the style, I question the substance. I want to look at just a couple of points that will shed some light on who actually won the debate.

1. The Senator repeatedly berated President Bush on the lack of multi-national co-operation with regards to Iraq. There's a couple of problems with that view. First of all, he ignores the help and co-operation of about 30 nations in Iraq. I'm sure the British are glad to know they have absolutely no claim to any success in Iraq. Second, this view assumes that those countries (France, Germany, etc) only the best interest of the world at heart. Of course they wouldn't have their OWN self-interest to think about. France stood to gain a windfall in oil contracts from Hussein once embargos were lifted. Even the UN can be faulted in this regard. There are reports surfacing about huge graft and corruption concerning the UN's administration of the "Food for Oil" programs in place before the war. Are these disinterested and impartial groups? Third, Mr. Kerry preached co-operation about Iraq, yet when asked about North Korea, insisted that "bi-lateral" talks must be convened immediately". As the President pointed out, that flies in the face of multi-national talks that are going on right now. I don't think you can have it both ways!

2. The senator never did tell us his own plans for ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home. When asked, he danced and obfuscated about the question, saying only that he would bring in other countries and he would provide leadership to bring them home. I can only surmise that in his arrogance, he truly believes that his superior New England brain will find a quicker solution than the puny Texas intellect of "Dubya". In this arena, though, past performance IS an indicator of futute performance. Senator Kerry voted for sending the troops to war and then voted against appropriations to supply them. This is unacceptable. Nothing kills morale quicker than knowing that you are not being supported by the government that sent you to battle. YOU CAN NOT PLAY POLITICS WITH THE TROOPS' SUPPLIES! Going back further, Lt. Kerry, coming home from Vietnam, chose to join in the opposition to the war that went past the protection of free speech to providing aid and succor to the enemy and bordered the line of treason. How much heart did he give the enemy in the 70s. How much heart is he giving the enemy now?

3. When asked if a president should be able to conduct a pre-emptive war, Senator Kerry gave a resounding "YES!" and proceeded to qualify it with the ability to "pass the global test". Was he saying that France has the ability to veto a war the President of the United States deems necessary? It sounds contradictory, in my opinion.

These highlight the biggest problem that the good senator has. He is so used to trying to stake out a wide position on any issue, as not to offend anyone, that he has lost the ability (if he ever had it) to say "This is what I stand for". So no matter how polished it is said, or how smooth it sounds, the words of the senator are fluid. And that is NOT what a leader, paticularly at war time needs to be. So based on the substance of what was said, the President may have lost the appearance battle, but he has won the substance war.