So beginith the rant:
If you know me you know that I have a raw seething hatred of all things "reality TV" I have a hard time watching the Ultimate Fighter on SPIKE even though I have been an avid MMA fan for years (thanks God for allowing us to have the brainpower to invent the DVR allowing me to pre-record the whole show and fast forward to the actual fights... Really who wants to see grown men bickering over who stole their stickers and who said whose butt was fat... Or whatever they talk about between the fights.) Back on topic. For some reason this reality crap continues to grow and mouth breathers continue to watch it allowing for a parade of stupidity to overrun my airways. Even the most educational of television stations have fallen prey to this disease of stupidity.
Starting with Discovery, and their deadliest catch, but I don't mind it. Not because I enjoy the show but it falls under the scope of documentary with Mike Roe narrating the story and filling in the situations with facts. Yes, the show has leaned toward the obvious "drama" but still holds to the, "see what happens when people risk their lives on the frozen sea to yank crab from the mud on the bottom" premise.
But the station that has fallen farthest from grace is History "H". I used to have this station trained on all the time. One could do a brief run through the tripe being peddled on the other stations and find their dials on H and know that they would be educated. Either by how the stuff we have came about with Modern Marvels. Or, you could get the opportunity to get a in depth view of a classic battle from WW2 or some ancient civilization. My personal favorite was the Gunny's Mail Call that told me about obscure weapons used in past and present warfare. You could even find some shows about the Bible and some were even well done showing the historical context of some of the more common known stories.
Now, the stations is held together with Pawn Stars, Ice Road Truckers, not one, not two, but three logging shows, and a show called American Pickers about two junk peddlers digging through hillbilly hoarder's trash piles. How did that become history? How is that educational?
When did the people at the station go:
"Well ladies and gentlemen. We have had a good run with shows with educational value. Yes, I know we have thrown in some weird stuff about Roswell and UFO's in the world wars, but even those obscure shows feature some historical context. But now we are going in a new direction. We are going to make shows that feature nothing educational. In fact most of these shows will rob people of intellect, possibly undoing years of our programmings good work. Why? you may ask. Money. More people want to stay dumb than learn stuff. More people want to watch people bleep cussing out of conversations and react to normal daily situations... Well scripted normal daily situations. I know. I know. It seems like we are selling our soul here, but we can't put all our eggs in that "people who actually like quality educational informative programs to learn new stuff" basket. All in favor?.... I see the I's have it."?
But I'm not here to talk about H's dive to the dark side of reality TV. No, I'm here to point out the ripple effect that crap programming has. As the mind numbing garbage of reality spread to more time slots more and more "stupid" people... Wait why did I use parenthesis for stupid there? I'm not one to try not to offend. If you watch reality TV you like stupid TV. And unfortunately you are part of a demographic of people with sub par scholastic goals. No, I'm not calling you stupid, but if you were to gather with your peers who also enjoy those shows you would call them stupid. If not.. then you are too stupid to know and you probably gave up reading this when you saw the words.
Dang it... back on task. The other shows had to watered down to make the other not crap reality time slots appealing for this demographic of trash eaters. Which I'm sure is how we got the programming gold that was "Ancient Aliens".
This show went about "proving" or "offering" that the greatest achievements of man were in fact the work of aliens. A professor from a college that I was too bored to remember, the moral of the story is this jackass is teaching people for a living, was convinced that the great pyramid was a power plant that turned hydrogen to a focused beam of microwaves that could charge up the batteries of passing mother ships... Just let that sink in for a minute.... An f'n pyramid with no moving parts... made of rock...
The next and what I think was the creme de la creme (or is it crem de la crem... who cares) was the three educated men, doctors, professors who all agreed that he Ancient of Days (AKA GOD) who delivered manna from heaven was in fact a nuclear powered algae refining machine that used water vapor from the morning air to start the process of cultivating and producing a high protean green algae that could sustain an entire nation of people while roaming the desert of the middle east. (turns out NASA lets astronauts eat green algae, and it work as a super food... kind of like soilent green only less peopley) No the ancient Hebrews didn't come up with the machine on their own. Some nice aliens dropped it off for them. Wait there is more. These "experts" also came to the conclusion that the ark of the covenant was probably the nuclear reactor core of the device which is why those who touched it, came close to it, and opened it died. In case the question of "How did an ancient people handle nuclear materials let alone a reactor core?" was the wrench keeping the cogs of this idea from spinning in your mind.
I have come to terms with people trying to use science to explain some of the great mysteries of God's powered chronicled in the old and new testaments. Even though I see this a fools errand because at best they are just describing the "how" not the, "how could that happen at just the right moment?" I also understand that intellectuals are terrified of God because His existence makes them just people, and they must be more important than that.
Sadly, that show went on the air. Which means money was spent to make it. Which means that the idea was pitched to investors. Which means that people with means saw this subject matter as valid and in need of dissemination. Or even worse that these morons received grant money from a government or used university money to produce this.
Why does this crawl in my craw?
Because it makes a mockery of my God?
Because it proves that those who can't teach?
Because I fear my tax dollars made it?
No, because this show was allowed to exists and FIREFLY was canceled. The only way I sleep at night in a world like this is with the knowledge that there is a just and loving God who will right the wrongs of this world... Or beep and whip me up an algae smoothie.
So Endith the rant:
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
a trip
So beginith the rant:
I recently took a trip to Oklahoma to visit my family. This trip was long over due and I have recently found myself in a position to take a week long jaunt. My visiting of family and friends was great and recharged the batteries, if you will. The only downside, if you consider it a downside, is I chose to drive rather than fly. The drive is 13 to 15 hours depending on the method of driving and traffic, and takes me across 4 states.
On this drive I made one observation, which I will first context with this phrase, "If everyone is supposed to strive to be rich and famous we would have no janitors." I like this phrase. I can't remember where I heard it but I know I didn't come up with it. If I did then I'm pretty awesome, and have come up with a phrase that I often think about.
You see this phrase implies two things.
One, that not everyone will be rich and famous. Which is true. We will not all get fifteen minutes let alone fifteen seconds.
Two, if everyone strove to be rich and famous the jobs on the low end of glamor such as custodial work would be left vacant. Because we all know the best way to get noticed and become rich is to be scrubbing a toilet.
Why is this phrase significant? Why is it in my mind after two 14 hour road trips a week apart?
On my travels I stopped for gas three times coming and three times going. Each in a different area of the states I crossed. When on these short stops I generally like to do some jumping jacks, stretch my legs, and relieve myself. This has allowed me to see a cross section of bathrooms in truck stops. And one thing I can say is "Grrrmnthmmgag" that's my typing of the that dry heave noise we all make when we trigger our gag reflex.
I know that at times the rigors of being a gas station worker can be busy. Every now and then you'll have a rush of people and a line at the register that may even take 20 minutes to clear. I know this because I have worked at a convenience store. But the fowl condition of these restrooms rivaled any privy I may have had to use in the backwoods while camping. In more than one case I could smell the offending water closet before I could see the door. These dank urine soaked hell holes showed days of neglect, and no convenience store is so busy that a person can't find ten minutes to run a mop and broom, maybe even a rag and a cleaner.
The moral of this story is sometime in our society we have made it so stigmatizing to take pride in your job, even if its just a lowly gas station attendant whose responsibility could include the frequent mopping and cleaning of a bathroom, that those who find themselves in that position just provide a warm body to push buttons on a register and get offended if you ask them to print a gas receipt.
I guess what I'm going to wrap up with is this. Too many people just show up to work for their paycheck. They feel because they have graced the place with their presence they are entitled to pay and those paying are lucky that they did. This entitlement mindset keeps people from looking at where they work and thinking, "Wow, I'm lucky to even have a job. What can I do to make this place better and therefore my job better?"
Yes, I connected the filthiness of gas station bathrooms to the decline of the United States work ethic, and they both stink.
So endith the Rant.
I recently took a trip to Oklahoma to visit my family. This trip was long over due and I have recently found myself in a position to take a week long jaunt. My visiting of family and friends was great and recharged the batteries, if you will. The only downside, if you consider it a downside, is I chose to drive rather than fly. The drive is 13 to 15 hours depending on the method of driving and traffic, and takes me across 4 states.
On this drive I made one observation, which I will first context with this phrase, "If everyone is supposed to strive to be rich and famous we would have no janitors." I like this phrase. I can't remember where I heard it but I know I didn't come up with it. If I did then I'm pretty awesome, and have come up with a phrase that I often think about.
You see this phrase implies two things.
One, that not everyone will be rich and famous. Which is true. We will not all get fifteen minutes let alone fifteen seconds.
Two, if everyone strove to be rich and famous the jobs on the low end of glamor such as custodial work would be left vacant. Because we all know the best way to get noticed and become rich is to be scrubbing a toilet.
Why is this phrase significant? Why is it in my mind after two 14 hour road trips a week apart?
On my travels I stopped for gas three times coming and three times going. Each in a different area of the states I crossed. When on these short stops I generally like to do some jumping jacks, stretch my legs, and relieve myself. This has allowed me to see a cross section of bathrooms in truck stops. And one thing I can say is "Grrrmnthmmgag" that's my typing of the that dry heave noise we all make when we trigger our gag reflex.
I know that at times the rigors of being a gas station worker can be busy. Every now and then you'll have a rush of people and a line at the register that may even take 20 minutes to clear. I know this because I have worked at a convenience store. But the fowl condition of these restrooms rivaled any privy I may have had to use in the backwoods while camping. In more than one case I could smell the offending water closet before I could see the door. These dank urine soaked hell holes showed days of neglect, and no convenience store is so busy that a person can't find ten minutes to run a mop and broom, maybe even a rag and a cleaner.
The moral of this story is sometime in our society we have made it so stigmatizing to take pride in your job, even if its just a lowly gas station attendant whose responsibility could include the frequent mopping and cleaning of a bathroom, that those who find themselves in that position just provide a warm body to push buttons on a register and get offended if you ask them to print a gas receipt.
I guess what I'm going to wrap up with is this. Too many people just show up to work for their paycheck. They feel because they have graced the place with their presence they are entitled to pay and those paying are lucky that they did. This entitlement mindset keeps people from looking at where they work and thinking, "Wow, I'm lucky to even have a job. What can I do to make this place better and therefore my job better?"
Yes, I connected the filthiness of gas station bathrooms to the decline of the United States work ethic, and they both stink.
So endith the Rant.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Middle
So beginith the rant:
My friend Brett hit on a subject today on his blog that put my wheels a spinning. Our president has scrapped the manned space mission. I remember reading this in a headline a few weeks back, and thinking nothing of it. The focus of my political ire has been environmental policies based on lies and a health care "reform" based on statistics that no single group can agree on.
Now that the killing of the NASA manned space program has been brought to the forefront of my mind I can't help but start drawing conclusions about how this decision will negatively affect our societies future.
For starters my sarcasm will take a big hit. When someone is struggling with some simple task my goading, "Come on, it's not rocket science." will not hold the same weight. Sure there will still be rockets and therefore rocket scientists, but without the idea that mistakes in rocket science resulting in charred spacemen this comment loses intensity... For me anyway.
Next is when a preschool student is asked what he/she wants to be when they grow up the response of spaceman or astronaut will no longer be acceptable. It will be lumped in there with the princesses and wolfman categories possibly pigeonholing potentially intelligent children with unfocused dreamers and mouth-breathers. (by the way I wanted to be wolfman when I grew up)
Finally the cost to the public school systems as a whole will be staggering. You see every single poster that reads, "reach for the stars" or some variation of this must be removed and replaces with "look at the stars" or "shoot stuff at the stars" which I find slightly less motivating.
But really are we shocked at all that our government has found yet another way to "nerf" the childhood dreams and potential of the children of our great nation. I'm sure everyone will get a trophy.
"If you set the bar low, when you miss you have short to fall."
YEAH middle of the road!!
Thus endith the rant:
My friend Brett hit on a subject today on his blog that put my wheels a spinning. Our president has scrapped the manned space mission. I remember reading this in a headline a few weeks back, and thinking nothing of it. The focus of my political ire has been environmental policies based on lies and a health care "reform" based on statistics that no single group can agree on.
Now that the killing of the NASA manned space program has been brought to the forefront of my mind I can't help but start drawing conclusions about how this decision will negatively affect our societies future.
For starters my sarcasm will take a big hit. When someone is struggling with some simple task my goading, "Come on, it's not rocket science." will not hold the same weight. Sure there will still be rockets and therefore rocket scientists, but without the idea that mistakes in rocket science resulting in charred spacemen this comment loses intensity... For me anyway.
Next is when a preschool student is asked what he/she wants to be when they grow up the response of spaceman or astronaut will no longer be acceptable. It will be lumped in there with the princesses and wolfman categories possibly pigeonholing potentially intelligent children with unfocused dreamers and mouth-breathers. (by the way I wanted to be wolfman when I grew up)
Finally the cost to the public school systems as a whole will be staggering. You see every single poster that reads, "reach for the stars" or some variation of this must be removed and replaces with "look at the stars" or "shoot stuff at the stars" which I find slightly less motivating.
But really are we shocked at all that our government has found yet another way to "nerf" the childhood dreams and potential of the children of our great nation. I'm sure everyone will get a trophy.
"If you set the bar low, when you miss you have short to fall."
YEAH middle of the road!!
Thus endith the rant:
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Good times
So beginith the rant:
Some folks asked me when I moved to Florida 4 years ago if it was better than living in Oklahoma. Today the answer to this question is still the same. I will smile and say, "I can't say living in Florida is better than Oklahoma, but it sure isn't a step down."
Most will laugh it off as me being polite. but today I wish to offer you a comparison about where I live. I live in Santa Rosa Beach FL, my house is on a canal that leads strait to the bay. I am never more than one mile from white sand beaches.
But, living hear I miss out on mingling with the down home folks of Oklahoma. Such as this man trying to barter with law enforcement using a stick as payment... http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12108733
Makes me miss home a little, just a little bit.
So endith the rant:
Some folks asked me when I moved to Florida 4 years ago if it was better than living in Oklahoma. Today the answer to this question is still the same. I will smile and say, "I can't say living in Florida is better than Oklahoma, but it sure isn't a step down."
Most will laugh it off as me being polite. but today I wish to offer you a comparison about where I live. I live in Santa Rosa Beach FL, my house is on a canal that leads strait to the bay. I am never more than one mile from white sand beaches.
But, living hear I miss out on mingling with the down home folks of Oklahoma. Such as this man trying to barter with law enforcement using a stick as payment... http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12108733
Makes me miss home a little, just a little bit.
So endith the rant:
Thursday, March 4, 2010
zobies
So beginith the rant:
Went and saw the movie the Crazies last night. As most of you will know I am a bit of a zombie movie fanatic. I'm also a avid reader of THE WALKING DEAD an awesome comic book, which A&E will be making into a series or mini-series in the fall. All in all I would consider myself a subject matter expert in the field of zombies.
So, the Crazies started out the way any film should with a Johnny Cash song, this alone unfairly tilted my opinion of the film toward awesome. But past that it was a pretty mild plot of people becoming crazed killing machines via some type of biological weapon.
Now, I know zombies will probably never overtake the world, but as any red blooded man I have my plans for the zombie apocalypse worked out. Always be prepared, says the Eagle Scout.
Anyway. I find the most frustrating plot device in all zombie films the person who refuses to kill the infected person for some reason, that reason being some emotional attachment. You know they will become a zombie, and therefor a walking biting bio-weapon, but you can't kill them you "wove them". This plot device is supposed to make you struggle with the idea of killing zombie mom or soon to be zombie mom. How many times can you hit that horse?
In this movie the people of the town were rounded up by the military and separated using a simple test into two groups, soon to be crazies and not infected. The soon to be crazies were then put into two groups the already showing symptoms and the not showing symptoms. Those that weren't spitting screaming zombies were then tied down and administered a blood test to make sure they were actually infected.
Now, the movie had an underling theme that became very obvious here. The enemy was not really the Crazies killing people but the military who made the bio-weapon that was spilled and then tried to clean it up by wiping out a majority of a town to avoid the whole world being destroyed, or at best millions of lives being lost.
My question is this... If it were to happen. If a mistake of biblical proportions was made, and the government actually came and cleaned up a mess, with force, would it be right? Is it right for a town of 1,200 be nearly wiped out to save a world of people? Should we demonize the military for making the hard choice?
Had that been the moral of the story I would have left the movie thinking that was a slightly new spin on the could you kill a sick loved one to save the group. But it wasn't.
At the end you find that the military actually exterminated everyone. Even the ones who were not sick... SO, as per usual Hollywood had a pretty good movie idea and a decent plot until the last 10min. At that point they let their hippie friends or a third grader with emotional issues wrap up the story...
Now the movie that started with Johnny Cash ended with the idea that the US military would be willing to separate, test, and quarantine people only to turn around and kill them all. Because that's what our evil military does. Goes through the motions of logic to end up with mindless slaughter.
Because, GOD knows, our military is never actually up to any good. (that was sarcasm)
Stupid hippies (that was a fact).
So endith the rant:
Went and saw the movie the Crazies last night. As most of you will know I am a bit of a zombie movie fanatic. I'm also a avid reader of THE WALKING DEAD an awesome comic book, which A&E will be making into a series or mini-series in the fall. All in all I would consider myself a subject matter expert in the field of zombies.
So, the Crazies started out the way any film should with a Johnny Cash song, this alone unfairly tilted my opinion of the film toward awesome. But past that it was a pretty mild plot of people becoming crazed killing machines via some type of biological weapon.
Now, I know zombies will probably never overtake the world, but as any red blooded man I have my plans for the zombie apocalypse worked out. Always be prepared, says the Eagle Scout.
Anyway. I find the most frustrating plot device in all zombie films the person who refuses to kill the infected person for some reason, that reason being some emotional attachment. You know they will become a zombie, and therefor a walking biting bio-weapon, but you can't kill them you "wove them". This plot device is supposed to make you struggle with the idea of killing zombie mom or soon to be zombie mom. How many times can you hit that horse?
In this movie the people of the town were rounded up by the military and separated using a simple test into two groups, soon to be crazies and not infected. The soon to be crazies were then put into two groups the already showing symptoms and the not showing symptoms. Those that weren't spitting screaming zombies were then tied down and administered a blood test to make sure they were actually infected.
Now, the movie had an underling theme that became very obvious here. The enemy was not really the Crazies killing people but the military who made the bio-weapon that was spilled and then tried to clean it up by wiping out a majority of a town to avoid the whole world being destroyed, or at best millions of lives being lost.
My question is this... If it were to happen. If a mistake of biblical proportions was made, and the government actually came and cleaned up a mess, with force, would it be right? Is it right for a town of 1,200 be nearly wiped out to save a world of people? Should we demonize the military for making the hard choice?
Had that been the moral of the story I would have left the movie thinking that was a slightly new spin on the could you kill a sick loved one to save the group. But it wasn't.
At the end you find that the military actually exterminated everyone. Even the ones who were not sick... SO, as per usual Hollywood had a pretty good movie idea and a decent plot until the last 10min. At that point they let their hippie friends or a third grader with emotional issues wrap up the story...
Now the movie that started with Johnny Cash ended with the idea that the US military would be willing to separate, test, and quarantine people only to turn around and kill them all. Because that's what our evil military does. Goes through the motions of logic to end up with mindless slaughter.
Because, GOD knows, our military is never actually up to any good. (that was sarcasm)
Stupid hippies (that was a fact).
So endith the rant:
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
what I learned from Scrooge today
So beginith the Rant:
If you know me you know I have a distaste for hippies, dislike for liberal minds, and absolutely loathe "progressive" anything (I am referring to the modern use of progressive, verbs need not feel my ire). I have, until recently left my opinions and views to only be shared in the company of a select people. I understand that I can easily overrun a conversation, like a road grater, which can leave weaker conversationalist pushed to the side, or the feelings of folks who don't know me as a kindhearted person bruised by my blunt speaking and matter of fact delivery. Alas, recently I have decided to share my views outside the cabal of like minded people in hopes to educate them on the evils of progressive,liberal thinking.
My beef today is with welfare or entitlement programs in general (low income housing, food stamps, universal health care) These ideas are often pitched as a way to help those who are "in need" by giving them the means to survive when they are without a way to obtain these means on their own. A noble cause. One I can buy into. And possibly understand, if it were ran properly.
The old adage, "Give a man a fish he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish he'll eat for the rest of his life." Tells us that if we just give someone something without equipping them to provide for themselves we are in fact dooming them.
A few more examples.
"Never letting your child read, instead only reading to them." you will have an illiterate child.
"Never letting a person make a decision on their own, and that person will never be able to make a decision without help." you will have a person who cannot lead a life because they are ill equipped.
One more.
"Give free money away with no strings attached, with no cut off date, or expectation of repayment" and you will have people who will never learn to work.
Where am I going with this? People are in need, and have been since the dawn of time, and will continue until God stops the record from spinning.
But handouts, with no limit or requirements or ends) will just make needy people. A class of needy people who are not needy from a disability, mental problems, age, or job loss; rather a group of people who are needy because they have become dependent on a system to feed, house, clothe, and take care of them. A system they both blame for their ills yet completely rely on for sustenance. Crazy huh. What kind of dumb people would ever put into place a program that would handicap an entire demographic of people? Oh... yeah... Our government. Let me boil it down so I'm not misunderstood I hate welfare, I hate entitlement programs, and I think they cause more harm than good.
Having said... er. typed that people will compare me with a hateful, close minded curmudgeon, like the pre-enlightened Mr. Scrooge. Where you would think I would be offended I am completely flattered.
Let me set the scene from the story we all know:
"Mr. Scrooge is at the local trading house, where he shows he is a ruthless business man, who knows how to make a profit. He is approached by two gentlemen who are attempting to raise money from the wealthy to help the poor in the area. Mr. Scrooge then remarks are the workhouses, poorhouses, and jails still open?
The men remark with a yes, unfortunately.
Good then let the poor go there, says Scrooge.
The men remark, but most would rather die than go to one of those places.
Scrooge replies, Well I am taxed, largely, to keep them open. Why are they not used?
The men then ask if scrooge has ever set foot into one of those establishments to which he replies never. The men tell him on how dreadful they are. Scrooge then walks away show disinterest in putting more of his hard earned money into helping the poor.
People see this and hate Scrooge. But why? Because he has the audacity to want to keep his money? Because he does not want to help feed hungry people? Because he feels that his taxes, which are raised with promises to help the poor, are not used properly by the government, and he is expected to pick up the slack? Really?
We should hate the government who fails to help the poor. They take money, large quantities of it, and the best they can do is hell holes that split families up and spread disease and sorrow (see also the conversation had by the homeless in the tunnel during the visit of the third spirit).
The same applies today. Look at your paycheck. Look at how much comes out. Are there fewer poor people because of it? Are there being taken off the streets to live a life of milk an honey? Have you ever heard a person who said I once was on welfare, but thanks to the government I am now on top of the world? Nope.
But, are there people abusing the system? Living a life of imprisonment of class because of lack of education? A people who cannot survive on their own unless someone feeds, houses, and takes care of them? Generation upon generations of people completely dependent on a system with no motivation to remove themselves? Yup.
Am I, as a minister, in a church still providing help to those who fall through the cracks and cannot work the system? Yes.
I wonder what would happen if it were completely left up to not for profits to deal with the problem of benevolence? What if the money wasted by the government was still in our pockets and we were allowed to chose where and who to spend our moneys on? Would we help? Would more people, even the evil rich, feel more apt to lend a hand by choice rather than by force? I know that's a crazy idea. Evil rich people will never give to the needy unless they are forced by law. Right?
Well according to every frigg'n article I have ever read on the subject (just google it) rich conservatives give at least twice that of their liberal counterparts to not for profits. Yup. the evil rich are responsible for funding more humanitarian outreach than the screaming liberal masses (put that in you pipe and smoke it hippie).
To wrap this up. I learned from Scrooge today that people are generous by nature. And when the whole Spirit of God (Christmas Spirit) gets a hold of us we can be down right benevolent. Nothing gives our souls better nourishment than giving to those in need, feeding His sheep. Why? Because we are choosing to, we are answering a calling, we are acting out of faith, and that feels good.
Do you feel happy when you donate to a worthy cause? Do you get that same feeling when you pay your taxes?
So Endith the Rant:
If you know me you know I have a distaste for hippies, dislike for liberal minds, and absolutely loathe "progressive" anything (I am referring to the modern use of progressive, verbs need not feel my ire). I have, until recently left my opinions and views to only be shared in the company of a select people. I understand that I can easily overrun a conversation, like a road grater, which can leave weaker conversationalist pushed to the side, or the feelings of folks who don't know me as a kindhearted person bruised by my blunt speaking and matter of fact delivery. Alas, recently I have decided to share my views outside the cabal of like minded people in hopes to educate them on the evils of progressive,liberal thinking.
My beef today is with welfare or entitlement programs in general (low income housing, food stamps, universal health care) These ideas are often pitched as a way to help those who are "in need" by giving them the means to survive when they are without a way to obtain these means on their own. A noble cause. One I can buy into. And possibly understand, if it were ran properly.
The old adage, "Give a man a fish he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish he'll eat for the rest of his life." Tells us that if we just give someone something without equipping them to provide for themselves we are in fact dooming them.
A few more examples.
"Never letting your child read, instead only reading to them." you will have an illiterate child.
"Never letting a person make a decision on their own, and that person will never be able to make a decision without help." you will have a person who cannot lead a life because they are ill equipped.
One more.
"Give free money away with no strings attached, with no cut off date, or expectation of repayment" and you will have people who will never learn to work.
Where am I going with this? People are in need, and have been since the dawn of time, and will continue until God stops the record from spinning.
But handouts, with no limit or requirements or ends) will just make needy people. A class of needy people who are not needy from a disability, mental problems, age, or job loss; rather a group of people who are needy because they have become dependent on a system to feed, house, clothe, and take care of them. A system they both blame for their ills yet completely rely on for sustenance. Crazy huh. What kind of dumb people would ever put into place a program that would handicap an entire demographic of people? Oh... yeah... Our government. Let me boil it down so I'm not misunderstood I hate welfare, I hate entitlement programs, and I think they cause more harm than good.
Having said... er. typed that people will compare me with a hateful, close minded curmudgeon, like the pre-enlightened Mr. Scrooge. Where you would think I would be offended I am completely flattered.
Let me set the scene from the story we all know:
"Mr. Scrooge is at the local trading house, where he shows he is a ruthless business man, who knows how to make a profit. He is approached by two gentlemen who are attempting to raise money from the wealthy to help the poor in the area. Mr. Scrooge then remarks are the workhouses, poorhouses, and jails still open?
The men remark with a yes, unfortunately.
Good then let the poor go there, says Scrooge.
The men remark, but most would rather die than go to one of those places.
Scrooge replies, Well I am taxed, largely, to keep them open. Why are they not used?
The men then ask if scrooge has ever set foot into one of those establishments to which he replies never. The men tell him on how dreadful they are. Scrooge then walks away show disinterest in putting more of his hard earned money into helping the poor.
People see this and hate Scrooge. But why? Because he has the audacity to want to keep his money? Because he does not want to help feed hungry people? Because he feels that his taxes, which are raised with promises to help the poor, are not used properly by the government, and he is expected to pick up the slack? Really?
We should hate the government who fails to help the poor. They take money, large quantities of it, and the best they can do is hell holes that split families up and spread disease and sorrow (see also the conversation had by the homeless in the tunnel during the visit of the third spirit).
The same applies today. Look at your paycheck. Look at how much comes out. Are there fewer poor people because of it? Are there being taken off the streets to live a life of milk an honey? Have you ever heard a person who said I once was on welfare, but thanks to the government I am now on top of the world? Nope.
But, are there people abusing the system? Living a life of imprisonment of class because of lack of education? A people who cannot survive on their own unless someone feeds, houses, and takes care of them? Generation upon generations of people completely dependent on a system with no motivation to remove themselves? Yup.
Am I, as a minister, in a church still providing help to those who fall through the cracks and cannot work the system? Yes.
I wonder what would happen if it were completely left up to not for profits to deal with the problem of benevolence? What if the money wasted by the government was still in our pockets and we were allowed to chose where and who to spend our moneys on? Would we help? Would more people, even the evil rich, feel more apt to lend a hand by choice rather than by force? I know that's a crazy idea. Evil rich people will never give to the needy unless they are forced by law. Right?
Well according to every frigg'n article I have ever read on the subject (just google it) rich conservatives give at least twice that of their liberal counterparts to not for profits. Yup. the evil rich are responsible for funding more humanitarian outreach than the screaming liberal masses (put that in you pipe and smoke it hippie).
To wrap this up. I learned from Scrooge today that people are generous by nature. And when the whole Spirit of God (Christmas Spirit) gets a hold of us we can be down right benevolent. Nothing gives our souls better nourishment than giving to those in need, feeding His sheep. Why? Because we are choosing to, we are answering a calling, we are acting out of faith, and that feels good.
Do you feel happy when you donate to a worthy cause? Do you get that same feeling when you pay your taxes?
So Endith the Rant:
Thursday, December 17, 2009
When is it Christmas?
So beginith the Rant:
When is it Christmas? This is a question I am very opinionated about. For starters the answer to this questions helps to take some of the fire out of the "Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays" debate.
You see some will say Christmas starts around September when walmart and every other center for commerce start hanging up Christmas decorations to prepare for the upcoming "boom time". If you buy into this idea then yes you should be saying "Merry Christmas" to people right after Labor Day.
Others think that it starts early November, right after Halloween. Some say Black Friday is the official start to Christmas. Let's not forget Advent (winter lent) as the official start of the Church year and the Christmas Season. So, when does "Christmas Start" when should you wish someone a Merry Christmas?
I say Christmas is two days long. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Those two days it is completely acceptable to say Merry Christmas. Any time before that it is completely acceptable to wish folks a Happy Holiday, Seeing as it is a holiday season Thanksgiving, Hanuka, Christmas, New Years, and such. Now as of right now I end my conversations with people by saying, "If I don't see you before then, Merry Christmas."
Really, we should be saying Happy Advent, not Happy Holidays. But that just doesn't sound right. During Easter do you start saying Happy Easter at Ash Wednesday?
A good argument can be, "But Marshall, It's the 'Christmas Season', and that is the point we are trying to get across with the Merry Christmas. We are not diluted enough to think that we are able to stretch out the birth of Christ to more than an Eve and a Day. We understand that the focus of this time of year should be Christmas and therefore we will do our best to remind everyone of that fact." I say, "Good Call". But it still brings to question when does the Christmas Season start? Black Friday? Advent? September?
It's different for every person. As I work in the Church my preparation for Christmas begins with Advent. I pray, I do service, I try to tell everyone close to me how much I love them. But my personal Christmas Spirit doesn't kick in until about a week or so before C-day. And that Spirit doesn't really leave the gates until it hears this song.
So now, for me, it's Christmas.
So endith the Rant:
And if I don't see you before then, Merry Christmas.
And for good measure here is the King, because a little Elvis makes everything better.
When is it Christmas? This is a question I am very opinionated about. For starters the answer to this questions helps to take some of the fire out of the "Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays" debate.
You see some will say Christmas starts around September when walmart and every other center for commerce start hanging up Christmas decorations to prepare for the upcoming "boom time". If you buy into this idea then yes you should be saying "Merry Christmas" to people right after Labor Day.
Others think that it starts early November, right after Halloween. Some say Black Friday is the official start to Christmas. Let's not forget Advent (winter lent) as the official start of the Church year and the Christmas Season. So, when does "Christmas Start" when should you wish someone a Merry Christmas?
I say Christmas is two days long. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Those two days it is completely acceptable to say Merry Christmas. Any time before that it is completely acceptable to wish folks a Happy Holiday, Seeing as it is a holiday season Thanksgiving, Hanuka, Christmas, New Years, and such. Now as of right now I end my conversations with people by saying, "If I don't see you before then, Merry Christmas."
Really, we should be saying Happy Advent, not Happy Holidays. But that just doesn't sound right. During Easter do you start saying Happy Easter at Ash Wednesday?
A good argument can be, "But Marshall, It's the 'Christmas Season', and that is the point we are trying to get across with the Merry Christmas. We are not diluted enough to think that we are able to stretch out the birth of Christ to more than an Eve and a Day. We understand that the focus of this time of year should be Christmas and therefore we will do our best to remind everyone of that fact." I say, "Good Call". But it still brings to question when does the Christmas Season start? Black Friday? Advent? September?
It's different for every person. As I work in the Church my preparation for Christmas begins with Advent. I pray, I do service, I try to tell everyone close to me how much I love them. But my personal Christmas Spirit doesn't kick in until about a week or so before C-day. And that Spirit doesn't really leave the gates until it hears this song.
So now, for me, it's Christmas.
So endith the Rant:
And if I don't see you before then, Merry Christmas.
And for good measure here is the King, because a little Elvis makes everything better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)