First of all, I apologize to my millions (six, actually) of readers for not blogging for almost three months. Well, I'm back!
This post goes perfectly with the title of my blog. I read an article today and said out loud, "Seriously?!" Maybe some of you have heard about this already; but if not, here is the story. Recently, Rush Limbaugh criticized congressional Republicans for not putting up enough of a fight against President Obama's stimulus plan (I make no statement as to the plan's merits; not important). First let me say that while I have no respect for Rush Limbaugh, it is his right to say what he wants on his show. He is, after all, paid to do just that. Representative Phil Gingrey (a Republican) of Georgia made a statement in response to that pointing out that "...it's easy if you're Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party."
These statements prompted many conservatives to contact Rep. Gingrey's office to complain about what he said. When I say 'many', I mean that it was enough for the congressman to issue another statement apologizing for the statements, and that he felt the need to defend his conservatism. Does anyone else see the problem here?
Had the story ended after the congressman's first statement, I would have applauded him. I believe he is right. It is easy for media personalities to criticize from their positions. They don't have to take the calls from the constituents who are suffering right now, asking their elected representatives to make tough decisions.
Unfortunately, it did not end there. When did a politicians alignment with the opinions of a morally-questionable shock-jock become a litmus test for his conservative qualifications? I myself (and many of the conservative people I call friends) have complained often about the power of the liberal (by "liberal" we mean evil, let's be honest) media, and its influence on the people of this nation. Here we have an example of the power of the conservative media. The folks who called the congressman's office called to complain about his criticism of three media personalities, not his policies in regards to the Democrat-supported stimulus package. Are we really that enamored with these media idols?
Sadly, it gets worse. Representative Gingrey gave in. He tucked his tail between his legs and submitted to the almighty power of loudmouth-influenced public opinion. I imagine Limbaugh, Hannity, and Gingrich making disparaging comments about how weak it was that Gingrey let them push him around. I can see it now...the three of them sitting around a table with cigars and tumblers of whiskey, laughing at how easy it is to lead the conservative sheep of this nation...
January 29, 2009
October 28, 2008
#5 - Election Blues
Well, we are now one week away from the big day. Who's excited?! If you are like me, you probably just muttered, "Eh." I'm getting pretty apathetic about the election. It's so discouraging to see the same old partisan, mudslinging politics over and over again. I can't even watch debates. Is anyone else sick of it?
I think I get my hopes up every two or four years for something different. Six months ago, when the primaries were starting to thin out the candidates, and it was beginning to look like a McCain/Obama matchup, I got pretty excited. I think I expected more out of these two. I was hoping for a cordial campaign where we were really exposed to the candidates' policies. Instead we were given the same past-dredging cat fights that have defined politics for the past ten years. I do blame the media for much of it, but the American people love a scandal. Even worse is the fact that this election has turned into a contest between Palin and Obama. What happened to the actual Republican candidate for PRESIDENT?
I suggest a stronger third party. I know we have the Green Party and Libertarian Party, but they haven't proven capable of changing the face of American politics. While I may not necessarily agree with the platforms of these parties, strengthening them will force representatives in the government to work together. If you are forced to gain the support of another party to promote a policy, you cannot constantly play the us vs. them game that promotes negative politics.
On a side note, as the future looks ever-more ominous for the Republican party, I'm not sure how bad of a thing that is. While I consider myself an Independent, I am obviously conservative leaning due to moral convictions. For at least two years out of the last eight years, the government was controlled by Republicans (House, Senate, White House). They had two years to accomplish what many Americans elected them to accomplish, yet we are still killing babies in this country. Maybe playing the underdog for a while can rally this party to get back to what is truly important.
In the meantime, even if you are as discouraged as I am, you had better get out and vote next Tuesday. Men and women died to give you (and to preserve for you) that right.
I think I get my hopes up every two or four years for something different. Six months ago, when the primaries were starting to thin out the candidates, and it was beginning to look like a McCain/Obama matchup, I got pretty excited. I think I expected more out of these two. I was hoping for a cordial campaign where we were really exposed to the candidates' policies. Instead we were given the same past-dredging cat fights that have defined politics for the past ten years. I do blame the media for much of it, but the American people love a scandal. Even worse is the fact that this election has turned into a contest between Palin and Obama. What happened to the actual Republican candidate for PRESIDENT?
I suggest a stronger third party. I know we have the Green Party and Libertarian Party, but they haven't proven capable of changing the face of American politics. While I may not necessarily agree with the platforms of these parties, strengthening them will force representatives in the government to work together. If you are forced to gain the support of another party to promote a policy, you cannot constantly play the us vs. them game that promotes negative politics.
On a side note, as the future looks ever-more ominous for the Republican party, I'm not sure how bad of a thing that is. While I consider myself an Independent, I am obviously conservative leaning due to moral convictions. For at least two years out of the last eight years, the government was controlled by Republicans (House, Senate, White House). They had two years to accomplish what many Americans elected them to accomplish, yet we are still killing babies in this country. Maybe playing the underdog for a while can rally this party to get back to what is truly important.
In the meantime, even if you are as discouraged as I am, you had better get out and vote next Tuesday. Men and women died to give you (and to preserve for you) that right.
October 8, 2008
#4 - 'Communism' and the Apostolic (1st Century) Church
I found it interesting that just as I decided that I should read through the book of Acts the 
economic crisis in our country is climaxing. I've always been struck by the incompatibility between true capitalism and the first Christian Church. With what is going on in our nation now (and with me happening to read the first couple of chapters of Acts), I've really been thinking about it.
I've always been taught that our nation is the best. It has the best system. More importantly, it has the best economic system. I wouldn't call myself a product of the Cold War (I was 11 when it really ended), but my parents and most of the people I learned from were. I learned that Capitalism was good; Communism was bad. Those were fundamental truths. As I got into high school, college, and graduate school, I learned about the 'Protestant Work Ethic', and how it is arguably the foundation of Capitalism. I figured since I was a protestant, capitalism must be good. Then I really paid attention to what I was reading in Acts...
Acts 2:44-45 reads "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." Acts 4:34-35 reads "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."
The commentary in the Life Application Bible claims that this was not communism because it was voluntary; it wasn't government mandated. I wonder if that comment was a product of the Cold War. The only communism we have seen in practice is the government controlled systems of the old Soviet Union, China, and other smaller nations.
Is unregulated capitalism really a good thing? I argue that it is not. Human nature is greedy. Can we really trust the 'Capitalists' (big businesses) to have the best interests of the entire nation in mind when they make decisions. By putting full trust in the capitalist system, we are essentially making that assumption. That assumption sounds ridiculous to me. I don't know these men and women. I don't know their hearts. How can I put that trust in them? We are called to put our trust only in God and His son Jesus. If the direct students of Jesus thought having all things common was a good thing, why do we shudder at the thought?
Disclaimer: I am not a communist, because I do not believe that we could establish a government with enough truly godly people to make that system work. I merely question the fear of anything remotely anti-capitalist. Also, I love my country, and I only wish to see every one in it come to know the Lord and live a happy and fulfilling life.
economic crisis in our country is climaxing. I've always been struck by the incompatibility between true capitalism and the first Christian Church. With what is going on in our nation now (and with me happening to read the first couple of chapters of Acts), I've really been thinking about it.I've always been taught that our nation is the best. It has the best system. More importantly, it has the best economic system. I wouldn't call myself a product of the Cold War (I was 11 when it really ended), but my parents and most of the people I learned from were. I learned that Capitalism was good; Communism was bad. Those were fundamental truths. As I got into high school, college, and graduate school, I learned about the 'Protestant Work Ethic', and how it is arguably the foundation of Capitalism. I figured since I was a protestant, capitalism must be good. Then I really paid attention to what I was reading in Acts...
Acts 2:44-45 reads "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." Acts 4:34-35 reads "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."
The commentary in the Life Application Bible claims that this was not communism because it was voluntary; it wasn't government mandated. I wonder if that comment was a product of the Cold War. The only communism we have seen in practice is the government controlled systems of the old Soviet Union, China, and other smaller nations.
Is unregulated capitalism really a good thing? I argue that it is not. Human nature is greedy. Can we really trust the 'Capitalists' (big businesses) to have the best interests of the entire nation in mind when they make decisions. By putting full trust in the capitalist system, we are essentially making that assumption. That assumption sounds ridiculous to me. I don't know these men and women. I don't know their hearts. How can I put that trust in them? We are called to put our trust only in God and His son Jesus. If the direct students of Jesus thought having all things common was a good thing, why do we shudder at the thought?
Disclaimer: I am not a communist, because I do not believe that we could establish a government with enough truly godly people to make that system work. I merely question the fear of anything remotely anti-capitalist. Also, I love my country, and I only wish to see every one in it come to know the Lord and live a happy and fulfilling life.
September 24, 2008
#3 - Fasting
So I'm fasting again. Some of you may know that I did this about a month ago for 5 days (I was
going for 7, but I started getting sick - not fasting related) and lost 9 pounds. So far, I've been going 2 days (going for six - we're eating out with friends Sat. night), and I've lost 6 pounds. The weight loss is encouraging, but it's kind of hard on me mentally. I get a bit irritable, and with this being our busiest time at work, it is kind of exacerbated. I pretty much want to quit every night when I get home from work. I ask for your prayers that I can keep this up, and pray for my wife and daughter that I can stay positive.
going for 7, but I started getting sick - not fasting related) and lost 9 pounds. So far, I've been going 2 days (going for six - we're eating out with friends Sat. night), and I've lost 6 pounds. The weight loss is encouraging, but it's kind of hard on me mentally. I get a bit irritable, and with this being our busiest time at work, it is kind of exacerbated. I pretty much want to quit every night when I get home from work. I ask for your prayers that I can keep this up, and pray for my wife and daughter that I can stay positive.September 17, 2008
#2a
I just wanted to post a follow up to my #2 post. I feel as if I didn't make myself clear. I was not questioning my 'faith' (Apostolic Christian denomination). The post was more of a reminder that we should meditate on the fundamentals of our faith in Christ, what He did for us, how we can live in His grace in an evil world, and how we can be a light to this evil world. I hope this clears things up.
#2 Didiche
All of you who go to church with me and were there on Sunday got to hear a very thought-provoking sermon by Art M. from Belvidere in the morning (Sorry to those in Sunday School, get the CD). Anyway, he spoke about the fundamentals of Christianity, and if we really meditated on what the fundamentals of our faith are. It's an interesting question. Do we really know what it is that we can fall back on?
Matt K. pointed out after the sermon that there may be a fear in Protestant denominations in general to really have a creed, or list of fundamentals. As children of Christ, we don't want a law, and as Protestants, we shy away from ritual. Is that why Protestantism has seen so many schisms? Is it the struggle to unify around something?
Maybe we do need something, though. Art talked about the Didiche. It is believed by
the Eastern Orthodox Church to be the set of instruction given to the early churches by the Apostles. They claim to be a church unchanged for almost 2000 years. Is it because they had a set of fundamentals to unify around? It is a pretty interesting text. If you would like to check it out, you can go to http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/didiche.htm. Does anyone have any other suggestions for how we can focus on the fundamentals?
Matt K. pointed out after the sermon that there may be a fear in Protestant denominations in general to really have a creed, or list of fundamentals. As children of Christ, we don't want a law, and as Protestants, we shy away from ritual. Is that why Protestantism has seen so many schisms? Is it the struggle to unify around something?
Maybe we do need something, though. Art talked about the Didiche. It is believed by
the Eastern Orthodox Church to be the set of instruction given to the early churches by the Apostles. They claim to be a church unchanged for almost 2000 years. Is it because they had a set of fundamentals to unify around? It is a pretty interesting text. If you would like to check it out, you can go to http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/didiche.htm. Does anyone have any other suggestions for how we can focus on the fundamentals?
September 14, 2008
#1-First Post
Well all, I welcome myself to Blogland. The purpose of the blog is really to give myself a way to express myself to all those who may be interested or may stumble across this web address. I expect this blog to be a bit random, but the topics will primarily focus on spiritual matters, politics, my pet peeves, and football. I also hope to start a male blogging revolution. Without further ado, on to my first post.
Let me set up the scenario for you: You run into Wal-Mart (I normally do not suggest ever going to Wal-Mart, but that's for a future post) to pick up an emergency tube of toothpaste (really, any single item will do). After making your selection, you quickly head to the front of the store towards the checkout aisles. You scan the aisle identification signs to find the one that will ensure your remaining time in the store will be short: the express lane. The 20 items or less line. You stride confidently toward your goal. As you near the line, you notice that one person that you dread seeing: the customer with the overflowing cart who has bypassed all the regular lines filled with patiently waiting, law-abiding customers. Their eyes dart from you and your solitary item to the "20 items or less" sign and back down as if they had never noticed it. You know that they will beat you to it. The rage begins to build. What gall! What disregard for all that is decent!
Does this not bother anyone else? We live in a world filled with rules. You can't just go into someone else's house and use their stuff just because you are in a hurry or there is a line in front of your house. The express line is essentially someone else's. It "belongs" to the person who is purchasing less than 20 items. What these "thieves" are saying is that because they are impatient, they should just use something that does not belong to them, regardless of how it affects the people it does belong to. Do they not understand that this kind of behavior could lead to the complete breakdown of society?
My dream is that when I retire I would stand at the entrance to the express line with a bullhorn. As customers approach, I would quickly make a count of their items. If they fall within the constraints of the line of which they've chosen, I will smile and wish them well as they contribute to a just society. If they do not, I will quickly block the lane, instruct them to move on to a lane that allows more than 20 items and make an announcement over the bullhorn to all in the store that this customer feels that they do not have to abide by the rules that have been laid down to perpetuate a civil society.
What a beautiful world that would be.
Let me set up the scenario for you: You run into Wal-Mart (I normally do not suggest ever going to Wal-Mart, but that's for a future post) to pick up an emergency tube of toothpaste (really, any single item will do). After making your selection, you quickly head to the front of the store towards the checkout aisles. You scan the aisle identification signs to find the one that will ensure your remaining time in the store will be short: the express lane. The 20 items or less line. You stride confidently toward your goal. As you near the line, you notice that one person that you dread seeing: the customer with the overflowing cart who has bypassed all the regular lines filled with patiently waiting, law-abiding customers. Their eyes dart from you and your solitary item to the "20 items or less" sign and back down as if they had never noticed it. You know that they will beat you to it. The rage begins to build. What gall! What disregard for all that is decent!
Does this not bother anyone else? We live in a world filled with rules. You can't just go into someone else's house and use their stuff just because you are in a hurry or there is a line in front of your house. The express line is essentially someone else's. It "belongs" to the person who is purchasing less than 20 items. What these "thieves" are saying is that because they are impatient, they should just use something that does not belong to them, regardless of how it affects the people it does belong to. Do they not understand that this kind of behavior could lead to the complete breakdown of society?
My dream is that when I retire I would stand at the entrance to the express line with a bullhorn. As customers approach, I would quickly make a count of their items. If they fall within the constraints of the line of which they've chosen, I will smile and wish them well as they contribute to a just society. If they do not, I will quickly block the lane, instruct them to move on to a lane that allows more than 20 items and make an announcement over the bullhorn to all in the store that this customer feels that they do not have to abide by the rules that have been laid down to perpetuate a civil society.
What a beautiful world that would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
