Ah, the newest nonsense response, right up there with "whatever!" and "Sez who?!?"
It isn't really an answer, just a way to duck an observation, question, or fact.
Tyra and her followers have started this campaign in response to the pressure on women to stay in shape. For example... "I've put on a few pounds. So what???"
Well, that's all fine if you have millions of dollars and can take care of yourself, but many women out there are relying on a "Prince Charming" to come along and rescue them, to pay off their debts and then pay their bills, allowing them to work if they want to or not.
Guess what? Generally, men are attracted to young women who are in shape (usually that means thin) and beautiful. What do men consider beautiful? Look to the mens magazines that appeal to the widest spectrum of male attraction. That's what most men are attracted to - that's why those women are on the covers and in the pictorals.
The better off a man is (in wealth/income level, which people equate with security), the more women want him.
"So what?" Well, this is what... a man who has more women who are willing to date him is more likcly to choose the most attractive women to date. And a man can't fall in love with and marry a woman he doesn't ever date. So, girls, by deciding you don't need to look after yourself, you are going to alienate yourself from the very men who could afford to pay off your debts and pay your bills.
Tyra doesn't need a man to pay her bills, but most of her viewers are hoping for just that sort of man to come into their lives.
So, to those girls that say "So What?" - I say, "So, get ready to work for the rest of your lives to pay your bills." That's what.
What if men took that attitude? What if men said "I don't need a good job or a decent car. I don't need to pay for her dinner. I'm comfortable with myself!!!"
Think about it.
You have to catch a man's eye first before he'll be able to look into your heart.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Feminists Not All That Happy With the World They Created
I came across something that caught my eye.
Radio For Men With a Daddy Complex
Published by Auguste February 14th, 2007
As for “othering” - anyone who is not me is someone other than me. Also, men and women are different. Leykis wants something from women he can’t get from himself or other men. They are “other”. He advises men about how not to get used by women who "other" men and want to use them for their money. Again, if you aren't such a woman, you have nothing to worry about.
Here’s the bottom line.
Tom Leykis is the result you get with the following factors (facts, convictions, and personal preferences):
There is no G-d.
Hedonism - men should do what they want to do (have sex).
-They should not do what they don't want to do.
-Either way, they should use as little of their resources (time, energy, money) as possible to get what they want..
-There is no need for a man to bond with women, and attempting to do so in the workplace can lead to charges of sexual harassment.
-Sexual pleasure is worth the remaining risk of STDs and pregnancy that exists with condom use.
-People should comply with the law - that is almost the extent of morality. This includes abortion being okay because it is legal.
-Leykis 101 is an efficient way for men to get sex without commitment using as few resources as possible.
Men and women are different.
-A woman decides if she's going to have sex with you before money is spent.
-A woman who keeps seeing a man who is a jerk to her has low self-esteem and is therefore likely to have sex with him without commitment. Some women will have readily have sex with jerks but will pretend to be more chaste with a “nice guy” in the hopes that he will commit to her, because he can be better provider than an unreliable jerk.
-Women are more likely to have sex if they have been drinking.
Marriage Offers No Benefit to a Man While Subjecting and Exposing Him to Negatives
-Having a Wife (for girlfriend, or children) places certain demands and restrictions on a man's autonomy, lifestyle, and resources.
-Laws/court rulings, and social customs (women marrying up, not working, high divorce rate) make marriage a contract in which a man agrees to pay a woman if she leaves him, and to pay child support to her children, even if they are not biologically his.
-Men can get the benefits of marriage (sex, companionship, home cooking, a kept home, even children) for “free” or by paying less to a professional without being married.
-Men are attracted to physical beauty, which almost always diminishes with time. Women are attracted to money, power, and fame (which translates to security and confidence), which almost always increases for a man over time.
-Even if true, marriage giving a man longer life and more income isn't worth the other negatives, risks, and loss of personal autonomy.
-Husbands are expected to go without sex whenever their wife is not agreeable to it, while an unmarried man will find it easier and more socially acceptable to seek sex elsewhere.
-Men are almost always the ones arrested in a domestic dispute, and women have attacked and killed men and children and successfully used hormonal defenses in court.
Tom Leykis Doesn't Want Kids
Men should live within their means, including saving for the future. This includes not spending more money than necessary on a date/woman.
Given the needs of children, a woman should not give birth to a child unless she is in a stable marriage to the child's biological father, they both want and have agreed to raise children at that time, they are both suitable parents, and they can afford to raise children and give them the attention they need.
Which one of those do you disagree with? If you want kids, that's fine - does everyone else have to want kids, too? Does everyone else have to want to get married?
If you don't like what Leykis is promoting...
You can listen to something else or nothing at all.
You can (tell women you love to) avoid men like this. Simply “hold out” more than three dates. That should be enough to avoid avid students of Leykis.
You can encourage women to “reward” nice guys and stop rewarding jerks.
You can change the core beliefs of men, such as encouraging a belief in G-d that supersedes their libidos.
There are a lot of things you can do, but whining about Leykis is silly. He is logically consistent given the "facts" I cite above. If you agree with all of those facts, then you can hardly fault Leykis.
Here’s where/why I disagree with Leykis:
I’m convinced there is a G-d.
I want kids, and I want my kids and all kids raised in the best possible environment (marriage).
I believe marriage was created by G-d.
I believe marriage can be good for a man.
I believe fornication is an affront to the holiness of G-d and is damaging to the soul and spirit of man.
I’m convinced that it is wrong to kill human beings even if they haven’t been born yet.
But just because other men disagree with me and will not lead the same lifestyle I think is best doesn’t mean I think they should be getting into relationships they don’t want or for which they aren’t prepared, should be doing things they don’t want to do, should be spending their time and money on high-maintenance women when all the guys really want is sex, or should be conceiving children they don’t want.
Either a woman should be put on a pedestal or she shouldn’t. Women demanding postfeminist rights, freedoms, entitlements, protections, privileges, independence, and lack of traditional obligations and moral restrictions for themselves while demanding financial support, chivalrous manners, and fidelity from men is what has prompted the rise of people like Leykis.
Traditional women can still find a traditional man who will treat them "right", no matter how popular Leykis gets.
Radio For Men With a Daddy Complex
Published by Auguste February 14th, 2007
I’m always surprised when I find out that my feminist friends haven’t heard of Tom Leykis. He’s a syndicated talk radio host whose show puts the “lowest common denominator” into “men’s rights activism.”She says this like that is a bad thing. Oops. Wait a minute. This person is allegedly a guy. Wow.
His show, The Tom Leykis Show, is probably best captured by the description on his web site about a segment called “Leykis 101″:[SNIP]
An unapologetic primer to help men get laid with minimum effort, its “rules” - a retort to the women’s self-help guide - include Never spend a lot of money impressing her on the first date, Stop seeing her if you don’t get laid by the third date, and Never date single mothers…
On paper, Leykis’ schtick is bad enough - if you look up “patriarchal sense of entitlement” and “othering of women” in the dictionary, you might find the above paragraph.I don’t think a sense of entitlement has anything to do with it, and certainly not patriarchy, since Leykis is not a father and has made it clear he doesn’t want to be. The truth is, there are women who are willing to have sex with men without any sort of commitment. It is not entitlement - it is what is available, and Leykis is advising men how to find and interact with such women. If you’re not one of those women, then you have nothing to worry about.
As for “othering” - anyone who is not me is someone other than me. Also, men and women are different. Leykis wants something from women he can’t get from himself or other men. They are “other”. He advises men about how not to get used by women who "other" men and want to use them for their money. Again, if you aren't such a woman, you have nothing to worry about.
Now here’s where I’m going to get into difficult-to-prove territory: Leykis doesn’t believe what he says.It’s an interesting accusation, but it doesn’t address the truth or falsity of what he says. This is an appeal to sincerity, another example of how what matters to Leftists is intention and sympathy, not facts or results.
As time went on, though, he began to develop some of his more patriarchal impulses into bigger segments of the show until it pretty much became four hours of misogyny daily.He developed a money-making program. As he freely admits, he’s there to make money. What kind of ratings do the Leftist political radio programs get? Very low ratings. Leykis is going for ratings, which are converted into dollars.
And here the Leykis devotees are going to start getting really annoyed with me. “Misogyny?” they’ll be saying. “It’s not misogyny, it’s just telling it like it is. It’s just standing up for men, who are getting the shaft, and all because of feminists!”No, there are a lot of men who contributed to this situation, too. Men let this happen to them.
All straight out of the MRA handbook, and all essentially quoted from Leykis.I’m not sure what that MRA is. I’ve tried to find out. Perhaps a reference to the Australian organization? Men’s Rights Activism? If that is the case, why shouldn’t men be able to protect their rights? Has this guy ever peed standing up? If you define “misogyny” as “hatred of women”, one need not hate women to agree with Leykis, if you’re using a secular standard of hate. If you define it as “distrust of women”, well, I get the impression Leykis doesn’t trust anybody, and Leykis is advising men who are having casual sexual encounters not to trust their sex partners - and why should they trust them? The women shouldn’t trust the men, either. This is what happens when people fornicate so casually.
I don’t have much evidence for that other than the way the program metamorphosed as segments became more popular with his listeners, and events like the time a woman called into the show complaining that her boyfriend was becoming more and more violent; Leykis convinced her to leave immediately, essentially speaking the truth about how abusers never stop and only escalate. His siding with men only goes so far.I’ve never heard him advocate violence. He tells woman AND men not to tolerate abuse. This is not inconsistent with the rest of his philosophy.
The same, however, is generally untrue for his listeners.Oh come now. You’ve surveyed enough of his millions of listeners?
They do idolize Leykis - they even call him “Dad” - but they wouldn’t need him to be angry at women.So then you are not placing the blame on him?
At a Portland live broadcast - I wasn’t there, but I tuned in for the local interest and to “watch” the trainwreck - a woman called in with the message that men should start taking responsibility for birth control, that if they don’t want to be “saddled” with kids they should wear a condom - some guy in the crowd could clearly be heard yelling, “Well try keeping your legs closed, then!” (That he wasn’t immediately torn apart by the crowd like hyenas on a gazelle is just another sign that MRA-types aren’t really interested in consensual sex, or they’d spend a lot less time trying to browbeat women into being ashamed of having it.)Um, first of all, Leykis advocates that men always wear condoms when they fornicate. Secondly, these men do want consensual sex because it is the path of least resistance and the fewest negative consequences. Maybe your experience has been different - and that wouldn't surprise me, but there are some very easy women out there. Finally, they maintain that since it is women who get pregnant and condoms are only so effective, women should use one of the many forms of effective birth control if they are having sex with a man who does not want kids - or they should abstain/move on to another man.
He’s creating an army. Like the right-wing noise machine, he’s presenting easy talking points for the MRAs to utilize when, say, trolling a feminist web site - or elsewhere: There’s a promo running on our local Leykis affiliate which quotes Leykis saying something like “If it was a Men’s Night, with half-priced drinks for men, Gloria Allred would go ballistic.” Sound familiar?I’m trying hard to find what’s “wrong” about this. Freedom of speech. right? Shouldn’t men avoid getting into relationships they don’t really want to be in? Shouldn’t men stick up for their rights? Shouldn’t men make wise use of their time and money? Shouldn’t men avoid getting women they aren’t married to pregnant? Shouldn’t men fight double standards that hurt them?
Here’s the bottom line.
Tom Leykis is the result you get with the following factors (facts, convictions, and personal preferences):
There is no G-d.
Hedonism - men should do what they want to do (have sex).
-They should not do what they don't want to do.
-Either way, they should use as little of their resources (time, energy, money) as possible to get what they want..
-There is no need for a man to bond with women, and attempting to do so in the workplace can lead to charges of sexual harassment.
-Sexual pleasure is worth the remaining risk of STDs and pregnancy that exists with condom use.
-People should comply with the law - that is almost the extent of morality. This includes abortion being okay because it is legal.
-Leykis 101 is an efficient way for men to get sex without commitment using as few resources as possible.
Men and women are different.
-A woman decides if she's going to have sex with you before money is spent.
-A woman who keeps seeing a man who is a jerk to her has low self-esteem and is therefore likely to have sex with him without commitment. Some women will have readily have sex with jerks but will pretend to be more chaste with a “nice guy” in the hopes that he will commit to her, because he can be better provider than an unreliable jerk.
-Women are more likely to have sex if they have been drinking.
Marriage Offers No Benefit to a Man While Subjecting and Exposing Him to Negatives
-Having a Wife (for girlfriend, or children) places certain demands and restrictions on a man's autonomy, lifestyle, and resources.
-Laws/court rulings, and social customs (women marrying up, not working, high divorce rate) make marriage a contract in which a man agrees to pay a woman if she leaves him, and to pay child support to her children, even if they are not biologically his.
-Men can get the benefits of marriage (sex, companionship, home cooking, a kept home, even children) for “free” or by paying less to a professional without being married.
-Men are attracted to physical beauty, which almost always diminishes with time. Women are attracted to money, power, and fame (which translates to security and confidence), which almost always increases for a man over time.
-Even if true, marriage giving a man longer life and more income isn't worth the other negatives, risks, and loss of personal autonomy.
-Husbands are expected to go without sex whenever their wife is not agreeable to it, while an unmarried man will find it easier and more socially acceptable to seek sex elsewhere.
-Men are almost always the ones arrested in a domestic dispute, and women have attacked and killed men and children and successfully used hormonal defenses in court.
Tom Leykis Doesn't Want Kids
Men should live within their means, including saving for the future. This includes not spending more money than necessary on a date/woman.
Given the needs of children, a woman should not give birth to a child unless she is in a stable marriage to the child's biological father, they both want and have agreed to raise children at that time, they are both suitable parents, and they can afford to raise children and give them the attention they need.
Which one of those do you disagree with? If you want kids, that's fine - does everyone else have to want kids, too? Does everyone else have to want to get married?
If you don't like what Leykis is promoting...
You can listen to something else or nothing at all.
You can (tell women you love to) avoid men like this. Simply “hold out” more than three dates. That should be enough to avoid avid students of Leykis.
You can encourage women to “reward” nice guys and stop rewarding jerks.
You can change the core beliefs of men, such as encouraging a belief in G-d that supersedes their libidos.
There are a lot of things you can do, but whining about Leykis is silly. He is logically consistent given the "facts" I cite above. If you agree with all of those facts, then you can hardly fault Leykis.
Here’s where/why I disagree with Leykis:
I’m convinced there is a G-d.
I want kids, and I want my kids and all kids raised in the best possible environment (marriage).
I believe marriage was created by G-d.
I believe marriage can be good for a man.
I believe fornication is an affront to the holiness of G-d and is damaging to the soul and spirit of man.
I’m convinced that it is wrong to kill human beings even if they haven’t been born yet.
But just because other men disagree with me and will not lead the same lifestyle I think is best doesn’t mean I think they should be getting into relationships they don’t want or for which they aren’t prepared, should be doing things they don’t want to do, should be spending their time and money on high-maintenance women when all the guys really want is sex, or should be conceiving children they don’t want.
Either a woman should be put on a pedestal or she shouldn’t. Women demanding postfeminist rights, freedoms, entitlements, protections, privileges, independence, and lack of traditional obligations and moral restrictions for themselves while demanding financial support, chivalrous manners, and fidelity from men is what has prompted the rise of people like Leykis.
Traditional women can still find a traditional man who will treat them "right", no matter how popular Leykis gets.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Christian Research Institute - My Response to Their Latest Fundraising Letter
Let me preface my comments by saying that the Christian Research Institute - in the past - helped educate me, helped me to clear a lot of bad thinking from my head, and helped me to avoid some serious pitfalls. I was introduced to some great authors and ministries through CRI.
It has been a while now since I have let my monthly support for CRI’s “The Bible Answer Man” radio program lapse, as my credit card expired and I didn’t give CRI the information for the new one. However, I still get mailers from the Christian Research Institute. These kinds of mailers are standard for charitable, religious, and political organizations... you send them money once and they will spend more than your donation sending you pleas for more money for years to come.
This mailing contains a basic survey, probably to gage what topics are important to the people who will donate the most money – if the surveys will be examined at all.
I’m guessing I will be more likely to get my opinion to someone in a prominent place in the organization if I write it here than if I send back the mailer - at least that has been my experience with other organizations. That’s why I’m writing this.
Now, you can’t be an organization like CRI, or have a program like “The Bible Answer Man”, or a host like CRI President Hank Hanegraaff without all kinds of controversy. First of all, they ask for donations, and there are always people who are leery of that and people who hate anything Christian. Hanegraaff was also accused of misleading donors about a postal mix-up in order to get them to donate more. And then there are people who identify as Christian who condemn anyone who doesn’t adhere to their exact form of Christianity in every minute detail and likewise condemn anyone who doesn’t, and thus they hate CRI. There are the cults, organizations, and personalities that CRI exposes as teaching things counter to the essentials of the Christian faith, or having harmful practices - you can be certain they yell about CRI. There are Roman Catholics who think the Protestant ministry is too anti-Catholic, and Protestants who think that it isn’t anti-Catholic enough. There are people who disagree with how CRI is run, or the tactics and practices of Hanegraaff.
Organizations that are built from the ground-up around a dynamic founder, especially innovative ones, always are the subject of controversy once that founder is gone. It never fails, whether they are churches, businesses, nonprofits… whatever. Someone will always say they are drifting from their original mission, values, and methods, and others will always point out that change must come with changing times and needs, and there are a whole bunch of people somewhere in the middle of it all. CRI was founded by Walter Martin, who certainly was a dynamic personality, and has been headed by Hanegraaff since Martin’s death. Walter Martin’s familial heirs have since expressed their concerns about Hanegraaff, but other than influencing supporter opinion, they don’t have the ability to remove Hanegraaff.
I’ve read criticisms of “The Bible Answer Man” radio program that have focused on what the show isn’t. Those critics want the show to be a more detailed, extensive Bible study. That’s like criticizing paramedics because they don’t treat cancer. There is a place for programs that give some basic answers to questions people have about the Bible, and what the Bible does and does not teach.
For the most part, I’m not writing this to focus on those controversies and criticisms (despite all of the space I have used up writing about them). For most of them, I have no way of even knowing if they are true. Rather, I want to let CRI know what would motivate me to start supporting them again.
I first caught on to “The Bible Answer Man” (and thus, CRI) in 1990 or 1991 when I caught the show on KKLA, running in the 3 p.m. hour. (I had found KKLA through the late Wally George, of all people, who once had a political talk show on the station.) Friday shows were tapes of the late Walter Martin, who had passed away in 1989, lecturing on topics like The Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Mormonism, Christian Scientists, the New Age movement, the Occult, Atheism, Mary, and more. I had never heard anything like it. Here was this guy exposing the methods and mistakes of the leaders of pseudo-Christian cults, contrasting false teachings with what the Bible actually teaches, and defining and defending the essential doctrines of the Christian faith in a logical, linear, researched way.
The shows Monday through Thursday consisted mainly of people like Ron Rhodes, Paul Carden, Ken Samples, and Elliot Miller taking calls. I liked the explanations regarding Christian doctrine and practice and what was orthodox and what wasn’t, and the exposing of heresy and fluff masquerading as Christianity on too many TV shows and in too many books. I liked the warnings about cults and the tips for witnessing to people in cults – they were helpful. I liked the defense of the Bible from attacks by atheists and the like.
It was still good when Hanegraaff took over hosting duties most of the time, especially when he’d play audio clips of these bizarre-but-popular televangelists making their outrageous statements, as it was good to hear with my own ears where these people were making serious errors. Christianity in Crisis, Counterfeit Revival, and the countering of “millennial madness” and the Jesus Seminar were all very helpful for me.
Now, I don’t listen much. Why? Los Angeles radio, on the stations that are still broadcasting in English, has a lot competing for my attention at 3 p.m., and if I can listen to the radio, I prefer to listen to something that is teaching me something and keeping me informed. Over the last few years, it seems like whenever I check in on “The Bible Answer Man”, it is Hanegraaff talking with someone selling a book, DVD, album, or software in what amounts to an infomercial without much useful, practical information other than “buy this resource.” If it is a program where Hank is taking calls, there seems to be little practical information given out – usually it is “I wrote a book that addresses this – I’ll send it to you.” Everyone else can call the toll-free number or go on to the website to order it.
To be sure- the last time I checked out their magazine – the Christian Research Journal - it was chock full of great information and in-depth analysis. But I can listen to the radio at times I can’t read… like, oh, when I’m driving, and I stopped getting the Journal when I let my monthly payments to CRI lapse. I wasn’t motivated to go resubscribe to the Journal because I wasn’t lacking in reading material or mail to go through.
Also, I’m not criticizing Hanegraaff for putting out books where he sees a need. For example, even though there seemed like an endless number of other books exposing the “factual” elements of The Da Vinci Code as fictional or erroneous; it was good for Hanegraaff to offer another because he does have a way of making things clear and memorable for the average person. In fact, he was accused of wrongly using CRI resources to promote his memory-building business and himself - he is good enough at making things memorable to have had a business around it. While I do not know if such accusations were true, I do know my own perceptions. Over the years, many of the prominent authors and experts that used to be on staff at CRI either left or were pushed out. Does CRI even distribute any books written by staffers other than Hanegraaff anymore? Ron Rhodes, for example, has authored many great books over the years, but he’s long been gone from CRI. My perception is that CRI has become mainly a bookstore that also publishes a great magazine, and a radio infomercial for promoting the books that bookstore sells, especially the books of Hank Hanegraaff. Again, I have bought many of Hanegraaff’s books, and I have found them extremely helpful, but where are the days of having the kind of people on staff who could also write books?
CRI’s store used to be one of the only places I could find a good collection of books that weren’t sandwiched between nonsense from Benny Hinn and Bob Larson, but since then, online book buying has brought an unlimited selection to my fingertips at low prices, and since CRI moved across the country, I can’t physically go to their store anyway. If I'm going to order a book online, I might as well do it elsewhere, unless CRI has a special deal.
Maybe the lack of authors on staff and a (perceived) diminishing of primary research is the inevitable result of an innovative organization “growing up.” When CRI first took off, there was nothing else like it out there. However, as people leave the organization to start their own and as others are inspired to form similar ministries, it became inefficient for CRI to keep that in-house. Perhaps CRI is more efficient as a conduit for the movement it spawned? Still, I’d think there would be something to be said for having a large, integrated organization doing primary research with various specialists on staff, instead of only having a loosely-connected group of smaller ministries contributing material. The website has some good information (especially the articles from the Journal), but there are many websites out there I find more helpful and timely when I’m looking for answers and research.
I’m an outsider – so maybe I just don’t have a clue.
But I was a donor, and I’m willing to be one again if I like what I see – which gets me back to the reason I’m writing this in the first place. There are probably other people like me, too.
The mailer CRI sent said “Please indicate how interested you are in learning more about each of the following topics.” So, here goes…
The creation/evolution debate
I’m extremely interested. However, other organizations specialize in this, so CRI’s role should be examining/explaining the work of those different organizations, such as the Discovery Institute, Reasons to Believe, and the “young earth” folks like Answers in Genesis.
The Intelligent Design movement
See above.
Mormonism
I’m extremely interested. With a major Presidential candidate being a Mormon, this is very timely.
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Extremely interested.
Scientology
Quite interested, due to the front groups and celebrities it uses.
The cults in general
Quite interested. I don’t have the impression that they are as big of a problem as they used to be – maybe because I’m not being informed.
Islam
Extremely interested. What is more relevant right now?
The Prosperity Gospel and other false Christian teachings
Quite interested. These people make Christians look bad and draw many astray.
Spiritual warfare against satanic/demonic forces at work in this world
Mildly interested. Let’s face it – if we focus on Him, we need not focus on the enemy.
“Scholarly” attacks on the Bible or Jesus by secular “experts,” such as The Gospel of Judas
Quite interested. We need to continue to show that Christianity embraces good scholarship and can be defended from such attacks.
Popular attacks on our faith in books and movies, such as The Da Vinci Code
Extremely interested. Our society is obsessed with pop culture.
Attacks on biblical Christianity in the mainstream media
Extremely interested. See above.
Human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.
Abortion
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.
Homosexuality and same-sex “marriage”
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.
How to raise children who will stand firm in their faith
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.
How to read the Bible for all it’s worth
Not interested, if it means more infomercials.
End times biblical prophecy
Mildly interested. Explain the difference between the various constructs while keeping alarmists and newspaper prophets in check. Do not focus on only Hank's conclusions on the matter, though they are good to hear.
How to share your faith
Quite interested, but you can cover this by having Greg Koukl on the program frequently.
Personal spiritual growth
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.
Other
Mildly interested in discussion about “paranormal” and occult topics that are so popular today – expose the bogus and potentially demonic.
Quite interested in countering “liberal” church stances (universalism, extreme pacifism, acceptance of fornication) that go against clear Biblical teaching.
What I’d really like to see is CRI get back to extensively researching churches, cults, and religious movements; helping callers and thus listeners by explaining the very real differences between other belief systems and Christianity, and defending the Bible, debunking false teachings and perceptions, and investigating claimed phenomenon.
Maybe Hank will get bored talking in depth about the same topics over and over, but there are new listeners all of the time who need this kind of help, and Hank can avoid boredom by having other authors on-staff who can host the program.
Get a blog going on your website that covers the topics raised in the radio program, and news of what is going on in media, churches, religious movements, and cults. Bring on an established blogger if need be.
End the desperate pleas for money. Really. Fundraising is needed, of course, but there is a tone to take here. I had a pastor who mocked appeals that hinted a ministry was on the brink of shutting down with “Good – maybe it’s not serving a purpose anymore.” CRI isn’t nearly that bad in their appeals, but they do tend to make it look like getting money in by June 30 and December 31 each and every year is going to save the ministry from drastic cutbacks. You know, if I don’t eat, I’ll starve! Technically, it is true. But guess what? It’s going to take a long time of not eating for me to starve to death. I could stand to skip a few meals.
I’ll be more likely to resume supporting CRI if I see it being more than a bookstore with its own magazine. As I wrote at the start of this post - CRI has helped me a lot over the years. Hank has done some great work. People who expect Hank to be perfect are asking too much. They have a great magazine. I want to support CRI. Please restore my motivation.
PLEASE SEE MY UPDATE POSTED ON 12/29/2011
It has been a while now since I have let my monthly support for CRI’s “The Bible Answer Man” radio program lapse, as my credit card expired and I didn’t give CRI the information for the new one. However, I still get mailers from the Christian Research Institute. These kinds of mailers are standard for charitable, religious, and political organizations... you send them money once and they will spend more than your donation sending you pleas for more money for years to come.
This mailing contains a basic survey, probably to gage what topics are important to the people who will donate the most money – if the surveys will be examined at all.
I’m guessing I will be more likely to get my opinion to someone in a prominent place in the organization if I write it here than if I send back the mailer - at least that has been my experience with other organizations. That’s why I’m writing this.
Now, you can’t be an organization like CRI, or have a program like “The Bible Answer Man”, or a host like CRI President Hank Hanegraaff without all kinds of controversy. First of all, they ask for donations, and there are always people who are leery of that and people who hate anything Christian. Hanegraaff was also accused of misleading donors about a postal mix-up in order to get them to donate more. And then there are people who identify as Christian who condemn anyone who doesn’t adhere to their exact form of Christianity in every minute detail and likewise condemn anyone who doesn’t, and thus they hate CRI. There are the cults, organizations, and personalities that CRI exposes as teaching things counter to the essentials of the Christian faith, or having harmful practices - you can be certain they yell about CRI. There are Roman Catholics who think the Protestant ministry is too anti-Catholic, and Protestants who think that it isn’t anti-Catholic enough. There are people who disagree with how CRI is run, or the tactics and practices of Hanegraaff.
Organizations that are built from the ground-up around a dynamic founder, especially innovative ones, always are the subject of controversy once that founder is gone. It never fails, whether they are churches, businesses, nonprofits… whatever. Someone will always say they are drifting from their original mission, values, and methods, and others will always point out that change must come with changing times and needs, and there are a whole bunch of people somewhere in the middle of it all. CRI was founded by Walter Martin, who certainly was a dynamic personality, and has been headed by Hanegraaff since Martin’s death. Walter Martin’s familial heirs have since expressed their concerns about Hanegraaff, but other than influencing supporter opinion, they don’t have the ability to remove Hanegraaff.
I’ve read criticisms of “The Bible Answer Man” radio program that have focused on what the show isn’t. Those critics want the show to be a more detailed, extensive Bible study. That’s like criticizing paramedics because they don’t treat cancer. There is a place for programs that give some basic answers to questions people have about the Bible, and what the Bible does and does not teach.
For the most part, I’m not writing this to focus on those controversies and criticisms (despite all of the space I have used up writing about them). For most of them, I have no way of even knowing if they are true. Rather, I want to let CRI know what would motivate me to start supporting them again.
I first caught on to “The Bible Answer Man” (and thus, CRI) in 1990 or 1991 when I caught the show on KKLA, running in the 3 p.m. hour. (I had found KKLA through the late Wally George, of all people, who once had a political talk show on the station.) Friday shows were tapes of the late Walter Martin, who had passed away in 1989, lecturing on topics like The Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Mormonism, Christian Scientists, the New Age movement, the Occult, Atheism, Mary, and more. I had never heard anything like it. Here was this guy exposing the methods and mistakes of the leaders of pseudo-Christian cults, contrasting false teachings with what the Bible actually teaches, and defining and defending the essential doctrines of the Christian faith in a logical, linear, researched way.
The shows Monday through Thursday consisted mainly of people like Ron Rhodes, Paul Carden, Ken Samples, and Elliot Miller taking calls. I liked the explanations regarding Christian doctrine and practice and what was orthodox and what wasn’t, and the exposing of heresy and fluff masquerading as Christianity on too many TV shows and in too many books. I liked the warnings about cults and the tips for witnessing to people in cults – they were helpful. I liked the defense of the Bible from attacks by atheists and the like.
It was still good when Hanegraaff took over hosting duties most of the time, especially when he’d play audio clips of these bizarre-but-popular televangelists making their outrageous statements, as it was good to hear with my own ears where these people were making serious errors. Christianity in Crisis, Counterfeit Revival, and the countering of “millennial madness” and the Jesus Seminar were all very helpful for me.
Now, I don’t listen much. Why? Los Angeles radio, on the stations that are still broadcasting in English, has a lot competing for my attention at 3 p.m., and if I can listen to the radio, I prefer to listen to something that is teaching me something and keeping me informed. Over the last few years, it seems like whenever I check in on “The Bible Answer Man”, it is Hanegraaff talking with someone selling a book, DVD, album, or software in what amounts to an infomercial without much useful, practical information other than “buy this resource.” If it is a program where Hank is taking calls, there seems to be little practical information given out – usually it is “I wrote a book that addresses this – I’ll send it to you.” Everyone else can call the toll-free number or go on to the website to order it.
To be sure- the last time I checked out their magazine – the Christian Research Journal - it was chock full of great information and in-depth analysis. But I can listen to the radio at times I can’t read… like, oh, when I’m driving, and I stopped getting the Journal when I let my monthly payments to CRI lapse. I wasn’t motivated to go resubscribe to the Journal because I wasn’t lacking in reading material or mail to go through.
Also, I’m not criticizing Hanegraaff for putting out books where he sees a need. For example, even though there seemed like an endless number of other books exposing the “factual” elements of The Da Vinci Code as fictional or erroneous; it was good for Hanegraaff to offer another because he does have a way of making things clear and memorable for the average person. In fact, he was accused of wrongly using CRI resources to promote his memory-building business and himself - he is good enough at making things memorable to have had a business around it. While I do not know if such accusations were true, I do know my own perceptions. Over the years, many of the prominent authors and experts that used to be on staff at CRI either left or were pushed out. Does CRI even distribute any books written by staffers other than Hanegraaff anymore? Ron Rhodes, for example, has authored many great books over the years, but he’s long been gone from CRI. My perception is that CRI has become mainly a bookstore that also publishes a great magazine, and a radio infomercial for promoting the books that bookstore sells, especially the books of Hank Hanegraaff. Again, I have bought many of Hanegraaff’s books, and I have found them extremely helpful, but where are the days of having the kind of people on staff who could also write books?
CRI’s store used to be one of the only places I could find a good collection of books that weren’t sandwiched between nonsense from Benny Hinn and Bob Larson, but since then, online book buying has brought an unlimited selection to my fingertips at low prices, and since CRI moved across the country, I can’t physically go to their store anyway. If I'm going to order a book online, I might as well do it elsewhere, unless CRI has a special deal.
Maybe the lack of authors on staff and a (perceived) diminishing of primary research is the inevitable result of an innovative organization “growing up.” When CRI first took off, there was nothing else like it out there. However, as people leave the organization to start their own and as others are inspired to form similar ministries, it became inefficient for CRI to keep that in-house. Perhaps CRI is more efficient as a conduit for the movement it spawned? Still, I’d think there would be something to be said for having a large, integrated organization doing primary research with various specialists on staff, instead of only having a loosely-connected group of smaller ministries contributing material. The website has some good information (especially the articles from the Journal), but there are many websites out there I find more helpful and timely when I’m looking for answers and research.
I’m an outsider – so maybe I just don’t have a clue.
But I was a donor, and I’m willing to be one again if I like what I see – which gets me back to the reason I’m writing this in the first place. There are probably other people like me, too.
The mailer CRI sent said “Please indicate how interested you are in learning more about each of the following topics.” So, here goes…
The creation/evolution debate
I’m extremely interested. However, other organizations specialize in this, so CRI’s role should be examining/explaining the work of those different organizations, such as the Discovery Institute, Reasons to Believe, and the “young earth” folks like Answers in Genesis.
The Intelligent Design movement
See above.
Mormonism
I’m extremely interested. With a major Presidential candidate being a Mormon, this is very timely.
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Extremely interested.
Scientology
Quite interested, due to the front groups and celebrities it uses.
The cults in general
Quite interested. I don’t have the impression that they are as big of a problem as they used to be – maybe because I’m not being informed.
Islam
Extremely interested. What is more relevant right now?
The Prosperity Gospel and other false Christian teachings
Quite interested. These people make Christians look bad and draw many astray.
Spiritual warfare against satanic/demonic forces at work in this world
Mildly interested. Let’s face it – if we focus on Him, we need not focus on the enemy.
“Scholarly” attacks on the Bible or Jesus by secular “experts,” such as The Gospel of Judas
Quite interested. We need to continue to show that Christianity embraces good scholarship and can be defended from such attacks.
Popular attacks on our faith in books and movies, such as The Da Vinci Code
Extremely interested. Our society is obsessed with pop culture.
Attacks on biblical Christianity in the mainstream media
Extremely interested. See above.
Human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.
Abortion
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.
Homosexuality and same-sex “marriage”
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.
How to raise children who will stand firm in their faith
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.
How to read the Bible for all it’s worth
Not interested, if it means more infomercials.
End times biblical prophecy
Mildly interested. Explain the difference between the various constructs while keeping alarmists and newspaper prophets in check. Do not focus on only Hank's conclusions on the matter, though they are good to hear.
How to share your faith
Quite interested, but you can cover this by having Greg Koukl on the program frequently.
Personal spiritual growth
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.
Other
Mildly interested in discussion about “paranormal” and occult topics that are so popular today – expose the bogus and potentially demonic.
Quite interested in countering “liberal” church stances (universalism, extreme pacifism, acceptance of fornication) that go against clear Biblical teaching.
What I’d really like to see is CRI get back to extensively researching churches, cults, and religious movements; helping callers and thus listeners by explaining the very real differences between other belief systems and Christianity, and defending the Bible, debunking false teachings and perceptions, and investigating claimed phenomenon.
Maybe Hank will get bored talking in depth about the same topics over and over, but there are new listeners all of the time who need this kind of help, and Hank can avoid boredom by having other authors on-staff who can host the program.
Get a blog going on your website that covers the topics raised in the radio program, and news of what is going on in media, churches, religious movements, and cults. Bring on an established blogger if need be.
End the desperate pleas for money. Really. Fundraising is needed, of course, but there is a tone to take here. I had a pastor who mocked appeals that hinted a ministry was on the brink of shutting down with “Good – maybe it’s not serving a purpose anymore.” CRI isn’t nearly that bad in their appeals, but they do tend to make it look like getting money in by June 30 and December 31 each and every year is going to save the ministry from drastic cutbacks. You know, if I don’t eat, I’ll starve! Technically, it is true. But guess what? It’s going to take a long time of not eating for me to starve to death. I could stand to skip a few meals.
I’ll be more likely to resume supporting CRI if I see it being more than a bookstore with its own magazine. As I wrote at the start of this post - CRI has helped me a lot over the years. Hank has done some great work. People who expect Hank to be perfect are asking too much. They have a great magazine. I want to support CRI. Please restore my motivation.
PLEASE SEE MY UPDATE POSTED ON 12/29/2011
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Let's Just Be Friends
This is one of those things that gets sent around in e-mail and on MySpace. It’s bad enough when schoolgirls do it, but for grown women to send it around is ridiculous.
====================================
Am I pretty enough now? sad but true
Girl:I have to tell you something.
Boy: What?
Girl: I really like you. And I... I think I'm falling in love with you.
Boy: Ok...
Girl: What do you mean "ok"?
Boy: I don't like you like that...
Girl: Why not?
Boy: I can't tell you... maybe another time...
From then on, the girl kept asking the boy "Why not?" whenever she saw him, and he kept answering the same answer of "I'll tell you later." Finally the girl got fed up.
Girl: I'm tired of this! Tell me why you don't like me!
Boy: Do you really wanna know why?
Girl: Yes!
Boy: It's because you're uglier than ANYTHING! What's the point of going out with someone when they're not pretty?!
Girl: But... I...
Boy: Just shut up and leave me alone!
The boy leaves and the girl is sitting there alone, crying her heart out. Then her cell phone rings.
Girl: Hello?
Mom: Sweetheart? I want you to go home, ok? I'lI be home from work in a few hours.
Girl: Alright Mom.
Mom: I love you.
Girl: I love you too, Mom.
Mom: Bye Bye.
Girl: Bye
The girl heads home and once she got there, she went in the bathroom and looked at herself in the mirror.
Girl: I'm not pretty enough...
She set to work, knowing fully well what she was going to do. 2 hours later, her Mom came home and heard the bath water running. She went upstairs to find the hallway flooded so she knocked on the door.
Mom: Honey? Are you alright?
She opened the door and was shocked at the site. The bath was overflowing onto the floor, and the water was tinted red. She walked over to see what was inside and screamed. There, her little girl was lying with cuts all over her face and wrists. Her Mom backed away and was going to run to call the police when something caught her eye. On the mirror, am I pretty enough now?
No one deserves to be told that by someone they love. If you find it messed up then forward this to everyone you know.
A person's appearance doesn't count. What counts is their heart inside of them and their personality. No one wants to be told they're not good enough...
Repost this in 5 Min or something bad will happen 2 U tomorrow
=================================
Yes, it was finished off with the always-lame threat that you’d better forward it our something bad would happen.
Any girl who’d kill herself over this already had problems, and it isn’t the responsibility of every boy in the world to lie to her and tell her he’s attracted to her when he’s not.
Well, I think it is time to offer a similar story from a male perspective. I don’t hate women, I don’t hate girls. I’m just a man who needs to vent and needs to mock such tripe, and I do disdain women who shun traditional roles, use and manipulate men, date and marry jerks, and then have the audacity to expect men to still live by old rules and to treat them like ladies. Here goes
Am I rich enough now? sad but true
Boy: I have to tell you something.
Girl: What?
Boy: I really like you. And I... I think I'm falling in love with you.
Girl: Ok...
Boy: What do you mean "ok"?
Girl: I don't like you like that...
Boy: Why not?
Girl: I can't tell you... maybe another time...
From then on, the boy kept asking the girl "Why not?" whenever he saw her, and she kept answering the same answer of "I'll tell you later." Meanwhile, she ran to the school administration and filed a sexual harassment complaint, and the boy got kicked out of school. Finally the boy got fed up.
Boy: I'm tired of this! Tell me why you don't like me!
Girl: Do you really wanna know why?
Boy: Yes!
Girl: It’s because you don’t have any money. Look at your CAR! What's the point of going out with someone when they can’t buy me an expensive dinner?!?
Boy: But... I...
Girl: Just shut up and leave me alone! I have a restraining order!
The girl leaves and the biy is sitting there alone, crying his heart out. Then his cell phone rings.
Boy: Hello?
Mom: Sweetheart? I want you to go home, ok? I'lI be home from work in a few hours.
Boy: Alright Mom.
Mom: I love you.
Boy: I love you too, Mom.
Mom: Bye Bye.
Boy: Bye
The boy heads home and once he got there, he went in the bathroom and looked at himself in the mirror.
Boy: I'm not rich enough… time to get over that chick.
He set to work, knowing fully well what se was going to do. 2 hours later, his Mom came home and heard the bath water running. She went upstairs to find the hallway flooded so she knocked on the door.
Mom: Honey? Are you alright?
She opened the door and was shocked at the site. Her teenage boy was in the shower with the neighborhood tramp, too involved in his sin to notice that they were no longer alone. And now he has the clap.
A person's bank account doesn't count. What counts is their heart inside of them and their personality. No one wants to be told they're not good enough...
====================================
Am I pretty enough now? sad but true
Girl:I have to tell you something.
Boy: What?
Girl: I really like you. And I... I think I'm falling in love with you.
Boy: Ok...
Girl: What do you mean "ok"?
Boy: I don't like you like that...
Girl: Why not?
Boy: I can't tell you... maybe another time...
From then on, the girl kept asking the boy "Why not?" whenever she saw him, and he kept answering the same answer of "I'll tell you later." Finally the girl got fed up.
Girl: I'm tired of this! Tell me why you don't like me!
Boy: Do you really wanna know why?
Girl: Yes!
Boy: It's because you're uglier than ANYTHING! What's the point of going out with someone when they're not pretty?!
Girl: But... I...
Boy: Just shut up and leave me alone!
The boy leaves and the girl is sitting there alone, crying her heart out. Then her cell phone rings.
Girl: Hello?
Mom: Sweetheart? I want you to go home, ok? I'lI be home from work in a few hours.
Girl: Alright Mom.
Mom: I love you.
Girl: I love you too, Mom.
Mom: Bye Bye.
Girl: Bye
The girl heads home and once she got there, she went in the bathroom and looked at herself in the mirror.
Girl: I'm not pretty enough...
She set to work, knowing fully well what she was going to do. 2 hours later, her Mom came home and heard the bath water running. She went upstairs to find the hallway flooded so she knocked on the door.
Mom: Honey? Are you alright?
She opened the door and was shocked at the site. The bath was overflowing onto the floor, and the water was tinted red. She walked over to see what was inside and screamed. There, her little girl was lying with cuts all over her face and wrists. Her Mom backed away and was going to run to call the police when something caught her eye. On the mirror, am I pretty enough now?
No one deserves to be told that by someone they love. If you find it messed up then forward this to everyone you know.
A person's appearance doesn't count. What counts is their heart inside of them and their personality. No one wants to be told they're not good enough...
Repost this in 5 Min or something bad will happen 2 U tomorrow
=================================
Yes, it was finished off with the always-lame threat that you’d better forward it our something bad would happen.
Any girl who’d kill herself over this already had problems, and it isn’t the responsibility of every boy in the world to lie to her and tell her he’s attracted to her when he’s not.
Well, I think it is time to offer a similar story from a male perspective. I don’t hate women, I don’t hate girls. I’m just a man who needs to vent and needs to mock such tripe, and I do disdain women who shun traditional roles, use and manipulate men, date and marry jerks, and then have the audacity to expect men to still live by old rules and to treat them like ladies. Here goes
Am I rich enough now? sad but true
Boy: I have to tell you something.
Girl: What?
Boy: I really like you. And I... I think I'm falling in love with you.
Girl: Ok...
Boy: What do you mean "ok"?
Girl: I don't like you like that...
Boy: Why not?
Girl: I can't tell you... maybe another time...
From then on, the boy kept asking the girl "Why not?" whenever he saw her, and she kept answering the same answer of "I'll tell you later." Meanwhile, she ran to the school administration and filed a sexual harassment complaint, and the boy got kicked out of school. Finally the boy got fed up.
Boy: I'm tired of this! Tell me why you don't like me!
Girl: Do you really wanna know why?
Boy: Yes!
Girl: It’s because you don’t have any money. Look at your CAR! What's the point of going out with someone when they can’t buy me an expensive dinner?!?
Boy: But... I...
Girl: Just shut up and leave me alone! I have a restraining order!
The girl leaves and the biy is sitting there alone, crying his heart out. Then his cell phone rings.
Boy: Hello?
Mom: Sweetheart? I want you to go home, ok? I'lI be home from work in a few hours.
Boy: Alright Mom.
Mom: I love you.
Boy: I love you too, Mom.
Mom: Bye Bye.
Boy: Bye
The boy heads home and once he got there, he went in the bathroom and looked at himself in the mirror.
Boy: I'm not rich enough… time to get over that chick.
He set to work, knowing fully well what se was going to do. 2 hours later, his Mom came home and heard the bath water running. She went upstairs to find the hallway flooded so she knocked on the door.
Mom: Honey? Are you alright?
She opened the door and was shocked at the site. Her teenage boy was in the shower with the neighborhood tramp, too involved in his sin to notice that they were no longer alone. And now he has the clap.
A person's bank account doesn't count. What counts is their heart inside of them and their personality. No one wants to be told they're not good enough...
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Zeus is Back (No, Not Tiny Lister Playing a Pro Wrestler)
Paris Ayiomamitis of the Associated Press brings us a story about a bunch of wackos who long for the days of human sacrifice and superstition that existed when Greece was still pagan.
I'm sure these people are all successful, well-adjusted, and thoroughly grounded in reality.
Uh, yeah. Zeus never showed up and saved me from my sins.
A right to an education? Oh brother. Yeah, that was always high on Zeus' list. These are just a bunch of Leftist freaks who don't want to live by a strict moral code.
These kinds of people would have you believe that paganism has been prominent all along, even though it hasn't.
A clutch of modern pagans honored Zeus at a 1,800-year-old temple in the heart of Athens on Sunday — the first known ceremony of its kind held there since the ancient Greek religion was outlawed by the Roman empire in the late 4th century.
Watched by curious onlookers, some 20 worshippers gathered next to the ruins of the temple for a celebration organized by Ellinais, a year-old Athens-based group that is campaigning to revive old religious practices from the era when Greece was a fount of education and philosophy.
I'm sure these people are all successful, well-adjusted, and thoroughly grounded in reality.
Dressed in ancient costumes, worshippers standing near the temple's imposing Corinthian columns recited hymns calling on the Olympian Zeus, "King of the gods and the mover of things," to bring peace to the world.
Uh, yeah. Zeus never showed up and saved me from my sins.
"Our message is world peace and an ecological way of life in which everyone has the right to education," said Kostas Stathopoulos, one of three "high priests" overseeing the event, which celebrated the nuptials of Zeus and Hera, the goddess of love and marriage.
A right to an education? Oh brother. Yeah, that was always high on Zeus' list. These are just a bunch of Leftist freaks who don't want to live by a strict moral code.
Christianity rose to prominence in Greece in the 4th century after Roman Emperor Constantine's conversion. Emperor Theodosius wiped out the last vestige of the Olympian gods when he abolished the Olympic Games in A.D. 394. Several isolated pockets of pagan worship lingered as late as the 9th century.
These kinds of people would have you believe that paganism has been prominent all along, even though it hasn't.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Slap on the Wrist For False Accuser?
***Oct 3 2007 Update*** I have received at least three anonymous comments on this post, but I have not published them. Since they make claims about this woman I can't verify and the persons writing the comments do not identify themselves or provide a way to verify their identity, I do not want to run the risk of libeling someone, even someone I think did a horrible, horrible thing.
False Rape Report Leads to 1-Year Sentence
By Mai Tran
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
Quotes:
>>A Dana Point woman who told police she was kidnapped at gunpoint and raped by six men was sentenced Thursday to 360 days in jail after confessing that she had made up the crime.<< She could have ruined the lives of these six guys and others who love them. They had their lives disrupted, and police and court resources were squandered because of this LIAR.
>>Tamara Anne Moonier, 30, was arrested after one of the men brought forth a video that showed the woman was a willing participant in a night of sex.<< Slut AND Liar, according to the court. Tamara Anne Moonier. Tamara Anne Moonier. Hopefully, the search engines will archive that name as a LIAR, whose actions make it more difficult for women who really are assaulted.
>>Moonier, who works as a receptionist at a woman's fitness center, said she had suffered from mental illness, depression and bipolar disorder since her teenage years, and is on prescription medication.<< Boo frickin' hoo. I love talk like this. If a woman kills her child, it is okay because of hormones or mental illness. If a man kills his child, it was just because he didn't want to be tied down. What a load of CRAP. Where are the feminist leaders calling for equality?
>>She is currently in divorce proceedings and a custody battle for her 14-month-old child.<< Divorce? Gee, who would want to divorce a lying, psychotic, slut? And she wants custody?
>>Orange County Superior Court Judge Carla M. Singer said that if Moonier was well behaved during the first 90 days in jail, she could serve the remaining time under house arrest, officials said.<< Well behaved? What does that mean... that she won't falsely accuse the guards of rape? That's like saying a male rapist of women was well behaved in prison. Of course he was... there were no women there!
Moonier was also ordered to repay more than $2,000 to the state for financial aid she received for being an alleged victim of violent crimes.
>>Moonier went to Fullerton police June 6 and reported that she had been abducted outside a bar at gunpoint then taken to an unknown location and raped, authorities said. But police later determined that she agreed to go to a house and have sex with the men, which was videotaped.
One of the men showed police the 40-minute tape that depicted Moonier orchestrating some of the sex, authorities said.<< What kind of a man does this sort of thing? Now doing this with one man and multiple women, that would be okay.
>>The six men, who were not arrested or charged, would have faced life sentences had they been convicted.<< The laws and the courts are stacked unfairly towards women. Men, you let that happen.
False Rape Report Leads to 1-Year Sentence
By Mai Tran
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
Quotes:
>>A Dana Point woman who told police she was kidnapped at gunpoint and raped by six men was sentenced Thursday to 360 days in jail after confessing that she had made up the crime.<< She could have ruined the lives of these six guys and others who love them. They had their lives disrupted, and police and court resources were squandered because of this LIAR.
>>Tamara Anne Moonier, 30, was arrested after one of the men brought forth a video that showed the woman was a willing participant in a night of sex.<< Slut AND Liar, according to the court. Tamara Anne Moonier. Tamara Anne Moonier. Hopefully, the search engines will archive that name as a LIAR, whose actions make it more difficult for women who really are assaulted.
>>Moonier, who works as a receptionist at a woman's fitness center, said she had suffered from mental illness, depression and bipolar disorder since her teenage years, and is on prescription medication.<< Boo frickin' hoo. I love talk like this. If a woman kills her child, it is okay because of hormones or mental illness. If a man kills his child, it was just because he didn't want to be tied down. What a load of CRAP. Where are the feminist leaders calling for equality?
>>She is currently in divorce proceedings and a custody battle for her 14-month-old child.<< Divorce? Gee, who would want to divorce a lying, psychotic, slut? And she wants custody?
>>Orange County Superior Court Judge Carla M. Singer said that if Moonier was well behaved during the first 90 days in jail, she could serve the remaining time under house arrest, officials said.<< Well behaved? What does that mean... that she won't falsely accuse the guards of rape? That's like saying a male rapist of women was well behaved in prison. Of course he was... there were no women there!
Moonier was also ordered to repay more than $2,000 to the state for financial aid she received for being an alleged victim of violent crimes.
>>Moonier went to Fullerton police June 6 and reported that she had been abducted outside a bar at gunpoint then taken to an unknown location and raped, authorities said. But police later determined that she agreed to go to a house and have sex with the men, which was videotaped.
One of the men showed police the 40-minute tape that depicted Moonier orchestrating some of the sex, authorities said.<< What kind of a man does this sort of thing? Now doing this with one man and multiple women, that would be okay.
>>The six men, who were not arrested or charged, would have faced life sentences had they been convicted.<< The laws and the courts are stacked unfairly towards women. Men, you let that happen.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Unitarian Universalists Evangelizing?
Let's check in on the Unitarian Universalists, shall we? David Haldane, staff writer with the Los Angeles Times, writes about their newly-launched "evangelism" effort.
Quotes:
>>A denomination with no formal creed, a low profile and a strong tradition against proselytizing,<<
If you had something great and could share it with others without losing anything, wouldn't you pass it along?
>>Unitarian Universalists — Unitarians for short — are trying something new: a splashy dose of evangelism. Using radio spots, newspaper ads and mass mailers, they hope to spread the word (lower case) about their faith's openness, diversity and undogmatic approach.<<
Uh, there's a problem here. They don't have a faith per se. The only thing they have is an organization. So why exactly would they be "evanglizing", except to swell their ranks for no other reason than the perpetuate an organization with no solid goal or purpose? "Openness, diversity, and undogmatic" are buzzwords for saying they will not actually try to influence toward improving, specifically in your morality or your relationship with God.
>>"Imagine a religion where people with different beliefs worship as one faith."<<
That's nonsense, on the order of asking us to imagine a square circle. How can that be one faith, when they all believe different things? It's like saying people who do not speak each others' languages are carrying on a conversation because they are all talking. Words mean things. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is place. I can have all of the faith in the world that Madonna is a virgin, but it would be faith in vain.
>>The roots of Unitarian Universalism can be traced back to two Christian denominations. Unitarianism, which took root in Eastern Europe in the 1500s, rejected the Trinity in favor of G-d as one entity."<<
Sigh. The Trinity is an essential of the Christian faith, and is a word used to describe G-d because there is one G-d, and three distinct "persons" exist eternally as G-d - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The the Father is G-d, the Son is G-d, and the Holy Spirit is G-d, but the three aren't each other. I don't think it can be fully apprehended by our tiny minds in their current state, but then we are talking about the Almighty, and why should we believe we could completely and totally understand G-d?
Anyway... you dump the Trinity and you are no longer Christian. It is that simple.
>>Universalism, started formally in 18th century America, believed in the eternal salvation of all souls.<<
So Jesus Christ suffered and died either for no reason, or for our salvation, but if it was for our salvation, nobody is left out? The foulest, most vile and evil rejector of G-d is still saved? Hitler was saved? Then pray tell, what is the point of life? What is the point of living a good life and fellowshipping with G-d now, if G-d will fellowship with all of us, even the unrepentant?
>>Often associated with liberal political and social causes, the church today upholds seven principles promoting tolerance, compassion, justice, spiritual growth, the search for truth, democratic participation and respect for the "independent web of all existence of which we are a part."<<
Tolerance? Really? Do they tolerate Trinitarianism?
Compassion? Is is compassionate to encourage people to continue in their sin?
Justice? Who's definition of justice?
Spiritual growth? How? What would that look like?
Search for truth? Well, I guess when you claim it doesn't really matter what people believe, you'll have to keep searching because you never can arrive at something you don't really believe exists.
>>Donald E. Miller, executive director of USC's Center for Religion and Civic Culture, says he's not surprised that Unitarianism is on the march at a time when membership of most mainline Protestant denominations is in decline.>>
It is mainly theologically liberal denominations at are in decline. Denominations that teach orthodox Biblical doctrines are growing.
>>By borrowing outreach techniques of evangelicals and targeting gays, liberals and others "trying to escape fundamentalism," Miller said the current Unitarian revivalism was "a very smart marketing move."<<
"Escape fundamentalism"? What would life look like if people decided they could "escape fundamentalism" in traffic laws? In math? If by fundamentalism, you mean the basic teachings of the Bible, then go ahead and "escape", but don't pick and choose terms and concepts from the Bible and then claim any sort of legitimacy. The Bible itself does not give you that option.
>>"We don't have some fixed-in-stone creed or list of beliefs required of members," said Millspaugh, who describes himself as a "naturalistic theist" influenced by Buddhism.
"You don't have to believe certain things about G-d or no G-d, Jesus or Buddha, one truth or many truths. We come from many different paths, all seeking a religion with room for deep questions that might have more than one answer."<<
This is the kind of thinking that happens when you dump logic and reason. There are different religions out there, and they should worship seperately. Should a vegetarian and and someone who wants to keep kosher join in eating pork chops with me? Some questions have more than one answer, such as "What two numbers can you add to reach the sum of 4?" "What is the nature of G-d?" is a question that can't have conflicting true answers.
>>"I like that it embraces all religions," said newcomer Teresa Geldmacher, 50, who said she was raised Roman Catholic but hadn't been to church in years.<<
You can't embrace all religions, because many are mutually exclusive. And again, I ask... do they accept Trinitarianism? The answer is no.
>>"I was brought up Christian, but couldn't accept the teaching that Jesus died on the cross for our sins."<<
Okay, so you reject the Bible. Do you believe you are without sin, or that there is some other way of dealing with sin?
>>The service, she said, "was much more along the lines of what I consider true spiritual teachings, which look to accept rather than to reject."<<
They reject the Trinity. They reject the Bible. And I'll believe Jesus over you, thank you.
The Bible and orthodox Christianity promote some basic essential beliefs about the nature of G-d and the nature of man, and our relationship with G-d. It's okay... people have the freedom to believe different things. But stop the nonsense of saying that it is all the same. It isn't. If the UU Church is advertising, it means you believe you have something better to offere people, or, maybe, you are just doing it to get their money.
Ultimately, though, evangelism means spreading the good news, which the UU Church is definitely not doing.
Quotes:
>>A denomination with no formal creed, a low profile and a strong tradition against proselytizing,<<
If you had something great and could share it with others without losing anything, wouldn't you pass it along?
>>Unitarian Universalists — Unitarians for short — are trying something new: a splashy dose of evangelism. Using radio spots, newspaper ads and mass mailers, they hope to spread the word (lower case) about their faith's openness, diversity and undogmatic approach.<<
Uh, there's a problem here. They don't have a faith per se. The only thing they have is an organization. So why exactly would they be "evanglizing", except to swell their ranks for no other reason than the perpetuate an organization with no solid goal or purpose? "Openness, diversity, and undogmatic" are buzzwords for saying they will not actually try to influence toward improving, specifically in your morality or your relationship with God.
>>"Imagine a religion where people with different beliefs worship as one faith."<<
That's nonsense, on the order of asking us to imagine a square circle. How can that be one faith, when they all believe different things? It's like saying people who do not speak each others' languages are carrying on a conversation because they are all talking. Words mean things. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is place. I can have all of the faith in the world that Madonna is a virgin, but it would be faith in vain.
>>The roots of Unitarian Universalism can be traced back to two Christian denominations. Unitarianism, which took root in Eastern Europe in the 1500s, rejected the Trinity in favor of G-d as one entity."<<
Sigh. The Trinity is an essential of the Christian faith, and is a word used to describe G-d because there is one G-d, and three distinct "persons" exist eternally as G-d - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The the Father is G-d, the Son is G-d, and the Holy Spirit is G-d, but the three aren't each other. I don't think it can be fully apprehended by our tiny minds in their current state, but then we are talking about the Almighty, and why should we believe we could completely and totally understand G-d?
Anyway... you dump the Trinity and you are no longer Christian. It is that simple.
>>Universalism, started formally in 18th century America, believed in the eternal salvation of all souls.<<
So Jesus Christ suffered and died either for no reason, or for our salvation, but if it was for our salvation, nobody is left out? The foulest, most vile and evil rejector of G-d is still saved? Hitler was saved? Then pray tell, what is the point of life? What is the point of living a good life and fellowshipping with G-d now, if G-d will fellowship with all of us, even the unrepentant?
>>Often associated with liberal political and social causes, the church today upholds seven principles promoting tolerance, compassion, justice, spiritual growth, the search for truth, democratic participation and respect for the "independent web of all existence of which we are a part."<<
Tolerance? Really? Do they tolerate Trinitarianism?
Compassion? Is is compassionate to encourage people to continue in their sin?
Justice? Who's definition of justice?
Spiritual growth? How? What would that look like?
Search for truth? Well, I guess when you claim it doesn't really matter what people believe, you'll have to keep searching because you never can arrive at something you don't really believe exists.
>>Donald E. Miller, executive director of USC's Center for Religion and Civic Culture, says he's not surprised that Unitarianism is on the march at a time when membership of most mainline Protestant denominations is in decline.>>
It is mainly theologically liberal denominations at are in decline. Denominations that teach orthodox Biblical doctrines are growing.
>>By borrowing outreach techniques of evangelicals and targeting gays, liberals and others "trying to escape fundamentalism," Miller said the current Unitarian revivalism was "a very smart marketing move."<<
"Escape fundamentalism"? What would life look like if people decided they could "escape fundamentalism" in traffic laws? In math? If by fundamentalism, you mean the basic teachings of the Bible, then go ahead and "escape", but don't pick and choose terms and concepts from the Bible and then claim any sort of legitimacy. The Bible itself does not give you that option.
>>"We don't have some fixed-in-stone creed or list of beliefs required of members," said Millspaugh, who describes himself as a "naturalistic theist" influenced by Buddhism.
"You don't have to believe certain things about G-d or no G-d, Jesus or Buddha, one truth or many truths. We come from many different paths, all seeking a religion with room for deep questions that might have more than one answer."<<
This is the kind of thinking that happens when you dump logic and reason. There are different religions out there, and they should worship seperately. Should a vegetarian and and someone who wants to keep kosher join in eating pork chops with me? Some questions have more than one answer, such as "What two numbers can you add to reach the sum of 4?" "What is the nature of G-d?" is a question that can't have conflicting true answers.
>>"I like that it embraces all religions," said newcomer Teresa Geldmacher, 50, who said she was raised Roman Catholic but hadn't been to church in years.<<
You can't embrace all religions, because many are mutually exclusive. And again, I ask... do they accept Trinitarianism? The answer is no.
>>"I was brought up Christian, but couldn't accept the teaching that Jesus died on the cross for our sins."<<
Okay, so you reject the Bible. Do you believe you are without sin, or that there is some other way of dealing with sin?
>>The service, she said, "was much more along the lines of what I consider true spiritual teachings, which look to accept rather than to reject."<<
They reject the Trinity. They reject the Bible. And I'll believe Jesus over you, thank you.
The Bible and orthodox Christianity promote some basic essential beliefs about the nature of G-d and the nature of man, and our relationship with G-d. It's okay... people have the freedom to believe different things. But stop the nonsense of saying that it is all the same. It isn't. If the UU Church is advertising, it means you believe you have something better to offere people, or, maybe, you are just doing it to get their money.
Ultimately, though, evangelism means spreading the good news, which the UU Church is definitely not doing.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Beheadings Common in Mexico
Gang Beheadings Common in Central Mexico
By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer
When is Bush going to pull out of this quagmire?!? Some people can't handle democracy!
By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer
When is Bush going to pull out of this quagmire?!? Some people can't handle democracy!
Saturday, October 14, 2006
It's A Small World With A Lot of Perverts
There's a lesson or two in this short Los Angeles Times blurb.
Quote:
>>A cheerleading coach was in custody after he was arrested this week, accused of giving Ecstasy to a 16-year-old student and engaging in unlawful sex with a minor. Jonathon Rios, 27, is charged with four felony counts: furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, statutory rape, oral copulation, and sodomy with a person 16 or younger.<<
The first lesson is... if you ever let your daughter out of the house before she is 18, never ever let her do anything where she'll be alone with male who has reached puberty.
The second lesson is... If you are an adult male, never ever work or volunteer with anyone under the age of 18. People will automatically think you are a pervert because of stories like this. Kids not having activities to keep them busy shouldn't be your concern. Twenty-five to life should be your concern.
Quote:
>>A cheerleading coach was in custody after he was arrested this week, accused of giving Ecstasy to a 16-year-old student and engaging in unlawful sex with a minor. Jonathon Rios, 27, is charged with four felony counts: furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, statutory rape, oral copulation, and sodomy with a person 16 or younger.<<
The first lesson is... if you ever let your daughter out of the house before she is 18, never ever let her do anything where she'll be alone with male who has reached puberty.
The second lesson is... If you are an adult male, never ever work or volunteer with anyone under the age of 18. People will automatically think you are a pervert because of stories like this. Kids not having activities to keep them busy shouldn't be your concern. Twenty-five to life should be your concern.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
L.A. Area ERs Closing
Pasadena Star-News - Panelists Sound Warning Over ER Closures
Quote:
>>PASADENA - Anticipating the eleventh major emergency room closure in five years next month, experts joined KPCC-FM "Air Talk" host Larry Mantle at Huntington Hospital on Friday to discuss what they called a "crisis" in the state of trauma care in Los Angeles County.
"In the early 1980s, there were 23 emergency rooms in the county," said Stephen Ralph, president and chief executive officer of the hospital. "Now there are 13 or 14. Bottom line, we need an infusion of funding."<<
Uh, no. We need more free-market policies in medical care, and we need to get serious about discouraging illegal aliens from coming to the Los Angeles area. Let's get real about our ERs. They are filled with people who have invaded this country.
Quote:
>>PASADENA - Anticipating the eleventh major emergency room closure in five years next month, experts joined KPCC-FM "Air Talk" host Larry Mantle at Huntington Hospital on Friday to discuss what they called a "crisis" in the state of trauma care in Los Angeles County.
"In the early 1980s, there were 23 emergency rooms in the county," said Stephen Ralph, president and chief executive officer of the hospital. "Now there are 13 or 14. Bottom line, we need an infusion of funding."<<
Uh, no. We need more free-market policies in medical care, and we need to get serious about discouraging illegal aliens from coming to the Los Angeles area. Let's get real about our ERs. They are filled with people who have invaded this country.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Why California Needs to Speed Up That Execution Schedule
Anaheim Boy's Killer Dies in Prison - Los Angeles Times
It's a shame he couldn't have been cornered by an angry mob and slowly tortured to death.
Quotes:
>>Robert Jackson Thompson, a death row inmate convicted of the brutal murder of an Anaheim boy in 1981, died of a heart attack Saturday, leaving his victim's mother still crying for justice.
"I'm angry and feel like I got robbed because he never got executed," said Kay Brenneman, whose son, Benjamin, was sodomized and strangled by Thompson when the boy knocked on his apartment door to sell him a newspaper subscription.
[snip]
Thompson admitted kidnapping and sexually abusing Benjamin, but never admitted killing him. At the time of the killing, he had been out of prison three months after serving a three-year term for child molestation.
[snip]
Thompson was arrested Aug. 27, 1981. He was on parole at the time for a 1978 conviction for the oral copulation and sodomy of a 14-year-old San Bernardino boy. He had previously been convicted in 1967 of a sex crime involving two boys in Long Beach.<<
And some people whine that lethal injection may cause pain? Yeah, I'm sure the people who wrote the Constitution would have thought that lethal injection was way too brutal... right... sure...
It's a shame he couldn't have been cornered by an angry mob and slowly tortured to death.
Quotes:
>>Robert Jackson Thompson, a death row inmate convicted of the brutal murder of an Anaheim boy in 1981, died of a heart attack Saturday, leaving his victim's mother still crying for justice.
"I'm angry and feel like I got robbed because he never got executed," said Kay Brenneman, whose son, Benjamin, was sodomized and strangled by Thompson when the boy knocked on his apartment door to sell him a newspaper subscription.
[snip]
Thompson admitted kidnapping and sexually abusing Benjamin, but never admitted killing him. At the time of the killing, he had been out of prison three months after serving a three-year term for child molestation.
[snip]
Thompson was arrested Aug. 27, 1981. He was on parole at the time for a 1978 conviction for the oral copulation and sodomy of a 14-year-old San Bernardino boy. He had previously been convicted in 1967 of a sex crime involving two boys in Long Beach.<<
And some people whine that lethal injection may cause pain? Yeah, I'm sure the people who wrote the Constitution would have thought that lethal injection was way too brutal... right... sure...
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Arrest in Racist Charter School Attack
Richard Winton of the Los Angeles Times tells us about an arrest in the case where a KABC Radio reporter was attacked outside of a racist school.
Ramon Flores, 31, was arrested about 8:15 a.m. Thursday near the Academia Semillas del Pueblo Charter School, Los Angeles Police Lt. Paul Vernon said. Flores was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon and robbery, he said.
Flores is suspected of trying to run down Sandy Wells of KABC-AM (790) radio June 1 after the reporter finished interviewing parents, students and administrators at the school.
Wells was across the street from the school in the 4700 block of Huntington Drive when a silver sedan sped toward him and jumped the curb onto the sidewalk, Vernon said.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
People Fleeing People's Republic of California
Muhammed El-Hasan of The Daily Breeze brings us an article headlined: California Residents Decide Golden State is Tarnishing
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/3937691.html
Does this really account for all of the illegal aliens streaming across the border? Even if it doesn't, the illegal aliens who are here are dropping enough anchor babies to fill in the gap.
Replacing Davis with Schwarzenegger slowed the rate of acceleration towards socialist third world status ever so slightly.
Yeah, and the "affordable housing" schemes only making it worse, increasing the cost of all of the other units.
I'd like to know if those are legal immigrants or illegal invaders and border hoppers.
People are leaving California because they don't want to be forced to learn Spanish just to hold a decent job. They are leaving because the government schools are imposing immorality on their kids and still pleading for yet more money, even though the lottery was supposed to take care of them. They are leaving because the traffic is insane and they have to wait in it next to someone blaring accordion music with Spanish music on one side of their stopped car, and someone else blaring the latest gangsta rap on the other side, and a scammer standing in the median asking for money. They are leaving because they are tired of the gangs and the taxes and having the President of Mexico tell us what to do. They are leaving because you can't hire an employee or rent out your property without putting yourself at the mercy of crushing regulations and government agencies there to make sure you can never get rid of them if things don't work out.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/3937691.html
The Golden State is No. 1 in outward migration of residents to other states, according to the most recent figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.
From July 1, 2004, to July 1, 2005, the net flow of residents from California to other states -- those moving to the state minus those leaving -- was negative 239,000 people. That's higher than any other state in the union.
Does this really account for all of the illegal aliens streaming across the border? Even if it doesn't, the illegal aliens who are here are dropping enough anchor babies to fill in the gap.
And after a lull of a few years, the net departures again seem to be accelerating.
For example, the period from July 1, 2000, to July 1, 2005, saw a net outflow of 664,000 people from California, an average of nearly 133,000 a year.
That average is about half of the latest figure.
Replacing Davis with Schwarzenegger slowed the rate of acceleration towards socialist third world status ever so slightly.
The housing boom has made buying a home or even renting much more expensive than just a few years ago. That has inspired many of the state's residents to eye cheaper homes in other states while giving pause to those considering a move to California.
Yeah, and the "affordable housing" schemes only making it worse, increasing the cost of all of the other units.
Despite California's net loss of residents to other states, in a seeming contradiction, the Golden State remained No. 1 in attracting foreign immigrants, drawing about one in every five entering the U.S., according to Office of Immigration Statistics figures for Oct. 1, 2004 to Sept. 30, 2005, the latest available.
I'd like to know if those are legal immigrants or illegal invaders and border hoppers.
People are leaving California because they don't want to be forced to learn Spanish just to hold a decent job. They are leaving because the government schools are imposing immorality on their kids and still pleading for yet more money, even though the lottery was supposed to take care of them. They are leaving because the traffic is insane and they have to wait in it next to someone blaring accordion music with Spanish music on one side of their stopped car, and someone else blaring the latest gangsta rap on the other side, and a scammer standing in the median asking for money. They are leaving because they are tired of the gangs and the taxes and having the President of Mexico tell us what to do. They are leaving because you can't hire an employee or rent out your property without putting yourself at the mercy of crushing regulations and government agencies there to make sure you can never get rid of them if things don't work out.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Monday, September 04, 2006
More Whining From Invaders
Immigration Activists Spar at Phoenix Rally
By Tim Gaynor
Quotes:
>>About a thousand supporters of a Senate bill offering millions of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship gathered outside the Capitol building in downtown Phoenix on Labor Day, chanting, "We are America" and waving U.S. flags.<<
Imposters. Arrest them.
>>There was no violence, and no arrests.<<
Why no arrests???
>>"We love this country, and we want a better deal," said Mexican construction worker Jose Avardo, 30, as he attended the protest with his wife and two children. "We want Bush to see us and bring us in from the shadows," he added.<<
Yeah, sounds like you are really in the shadows there, criminal.
>>Speaking at a Labor Day Catholic Mass at Los Angeles Cathedral, Cardinal Roger Mahony criticized lawmakers in Washington for dragging their heels over reforms.<<
How about they reform laws about protecting child molestors? As long as his church is willing to pay to keep all of these invaders off of public assistance, then fine.
>>In Illinois, meanwhile, around 3,000 activists gathered at the offices in Batavia of House speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican, and laid crosses to commemorate illegal immigrants who have died crossing the border from Mexico.<<
Yeah, people die doing all sorts of illegal things. Maybe they shouldn't be breaking the law to begin with. These protests should be directed at the corrupt Mexican government.
>>It culminates on Thursday with a march through Washington that organizers hope will attract a million participants from across the eastern United States.<<
They'll be in D.C.? Does that mean less traffic and tagging in Los Angeles?
By Tim Gaynor
Quotes:
>>About a thousand supporters of a Senate bill offering millions of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship gathered outside the Capitol building in downtown Phoenix on Labor Day, chanting, "We are America" and waving U.S. flags.<<
Imposters. Arrest them.
>>There was no violence, and no arrests.<<
Why no arrests???
>>"We love this country, and we want a better deal," said Mexican construction worker Jose Avardo, 30, as he attended the protest with his wife and two children. "We want Bush to see us and bring us in from the shadows," he added.<<
Yeah, sounds like you are really in the shadows there, criminal.
>>Speaking at a Labor Day Catholic Mass at Los Angeles Cathedral, Cardinal Roger Mahony criticized lawmakers in Washington for dragging their heels over reforms.<<
How about they reform laws about protecting child molestors? As long as his church is willing to pay to keep all of these invaders off of public assistance, then fine.
>>In Illinois, meanwhile, around 3,000 activists gathered at the offices in Batavia of House speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican, and laid crosses to commemorate illegal immigrants who have died crossing the border from Mexico.<<
Yeah, people die doing all sorts of illegal things. Maybe they shouldn't be breaking the law to begin with. These protests should be directed at the corrupt Mexican government.
>>It culminates on Thursday with a march through Washington that organizers hope will attract a million participants from across the eastern United States.<<
They'll be in D.C.? Does that mean less traffic and tagging in Los Angeles?
Monday, August 28, 2006
Another "The Lord of the Rings" DVD Set?
And the studios wonder why DVD sales are down? Maybe because we're tired of buying DVDs of films we enjoyed only to see five different versions released later on... DVDs of films we already bought in the VHS format.
So this third set of "The Lord of the Rings" has New Line Cinema offering us BOTH versions of each film. Ooooooh. And new documentaries.
New documentaries?!? What in Hades did they leave off the 12 discs in the second release? You mean to tell me you skimped on those releases? Four freakin' discs per film, two of which are entirely for extras, and you couldn't put everything on them?
And the scary part is that there are people who can't help themselves who already own both previous sets of the films, and they are going to run out tomorrow and buy this third set, because they are compulsive fans and can't help themsevles. Ugh!!!
Hey, I have an idea... get Peter Jackson to cough up a good version of "King Kong." That would be worth something.
So this third set of "The Lord of the Rings" has New Line Cinema offering us BOTH versions of each film. Ooooooh. And new documentaries.
New documentaries?!? What in Hades did they leave off the 12 discs in the second release? You mean to tell me you skimped on those releases? Four freakin' discs per film, two of which are entirely for extras, and you couldn't put everything on them?
And the scary part is that there are people who can't help themselves who already own both previous sets of the films, and they are going to run out tomorrow and buy this third set, because they are compulsive fans and can't help themsevles. Ugh!!!
Hey, I have an idea... get Peter Jackson to cough up a good version of "King Kong." That would be worth something.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
I-5 Santa Ana Freeway is a Failure
It's no secret for commuters in the Los Angeles/Orange County area. The I-5 Santa Ana Freeway, especially between the East L.A. interchange and the 91 Freeway, is a complete failure. Any freeway where traffic slows to a crawl a majority of hours ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, even without accidents or repair/construction work, is a failure.
I don't blame the engineers, although the carpool lane situation further south at the Orange Crush drives me away from using it. No, more immediately, this is a failure on the part of lawmakers and the decisions makers at Caltrans and the MTA. More lanes should have been built a long, long time ago. Adding a lane or two will be of no help by the time the construction is finished, I fear.
I mean, come on. 6am, noon, 7pm... even on weekends... it slows to a crawl, and then when drivers are caught off guard by the constant, irritating stop-and-go, they rear end the car in front of them (probably because their brakes have been worn down by the horrible traffic), and that slows down things even more.
Ultimately, I don't really blame Caltrans or the MTA. Sure, they haven't kept up with the population trends, but the population trends are completely out of whack because we have MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS AROUND HERE WHO AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. Oh, how I wish they'd recreate their May 1 protests. Traffic was so nice. It was a clear indication of just how much damage these criminals are causing. Not only are millions of them streaming across the border, but they're popping out anchor babies who adorn the freeways with their graffiti (like dogs pissing on trees) even before they can drive the cars they've stolen on them.
So when you get down to it, I mostly blame our Federal authorities and politicians who have failed to protect our borders, and to a lesser extent I blame the corrupt Mexican system and the rest of the Latin American slumlords who've created a situation where people are so desperate they risk their lives to break into our country.
I think of idiots like Larry Lopez (he now likes to go by "Nativo") every time I'm stuck in traffic. He actually has the nerve to get in front of TV cameras like the attention whore he is, and claim that these invaders should be treated like royalty. Please Larry, get your criminal friends off of the freeway... organize more protests where they stay off the of the road.
I don't blame the engineers, although the carpool lane situation further south at the Orange Crush drives me away from using it. No, more immediately, this is a failure on the part of lawmakers and the decisions makers at Caltrans and the MTA. More lanes should have been built a long, long time ago. Adding a lane or two will be of no help by the time the construction is finished, I fear.
I mean, come on. 6am, noon, 7pm... even on weekends... it slows to a crawl, and then when drivers are caught off guard by the constant, irritating stop-and-go, they rear end the car in front of them (probably because their brakes have been worn down by the horrible traffic), and that slows down things even more.
Ultimately, I don't really blame Caltrans or the MTA. Sure, they haven't kept up with the population trends, but the population trends are completely out of whack because we have MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS AROUND HERE WHO AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. Oh, how I wish they'd recreate their May 1 protests. Traffic was so nice. It was a clear indication of just how much damage these criminals are causing. Not only are millions of them streaming across the border, but they're popping out anchor babies who adorn the freeways with their graffiti (like dogs pissing on trees) even before they can drive the cars they've stolen on them.
So when you get down to it, I mostly blame our Federal authorities and politicians who have failed to protect our borders, and to a lesser extent I blame the corrupt Mexican system and the rest of the Latin American slumlords who've created a situation where people are so desperate they risk their lives to break into our country.
I think of idiots like Larry Lopez (he now likes to go by "Nativo") every time I'm stuck in traffic. He actually has the nerve to get in front of TV cameras like the attention whore he is, and claim that these invaders should be treated like royalty. Please Larry, get your criminal friends off of the freeway... organize more protests where they stay off the of the road.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Oh, What's the Difference, Anyway?
Wouldn't abortions be easier if they could be performed outside of the womb?
Friday, August 18, 2006
More Stuff We Can't Judge
Child Sacrifice is On the Rise in Uganda
Now remember... we can't judge, right? No cultures are better than others, right?
Now remember... we can't judge, right? No cultures are better than others, right?
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Letter to Dr. Laura Asks Where the Good Men Are
Subject: What Has Happened To REAL MEN?!
Date: 2006-08-11
Quotes:
>>I'm a 35 year-old single, smart, witty, attractive woman who chose to sign onto the "online dating scene" six months ago.<<
You certainly sound confident. I'll automatically buy that you are "a 35-year-old single" woman. Whether you are smart, witty, and attractive - I don't know. Maybe you come across as stuck-up, self-important, and arrogant in person.
>>I've been on two different sites (one that Dr. Phil McGraw endorses!) & have gone out with about 15 "men" over the last 24 weeks.
I can't tell you how let-down I've been by the majority of "men" I've met.<<
What, they didn't call you back?
>>I'm very curious to know your opinions/thoughts not only on online dating but...really...on what you believe has happened to REAL MEN?
By a real man I mean one who actually calls and PLANS a date.<<
What about you? Can't you call and plan a date? I agree that someone asking for a date should plan ahead, but is there any reason why you can't do likewise?
>>I've had numerous men call me at 6pm to meet them at 8pm. On the same night!<<
Okay, so it sounds like you were one of their back-ups. They were planning on dates with women they found more attractive, but those plans fell through, and so they called you. If these guys just want sex, then I agree 8pm is bad. They should have asked you to meet them for drinks a little later than that.
>>A real man, to me, is one who drives to PICK ME UP.<<
What, so now a date is your chauffer?
>>I've had numerous men ask me to either meet them 1/2 way<<
What's wrong with that?!? If they've never met you before, it is a good idea for your safety AND theirs. Wake up, sister!
>>or, worse, come to them!<<
Yeah, that's not good. These guys should not let you know where they live, or you might show up when they are busy with another date.
>>Many of them start talking sex during the first conversation.<<
So? If you don't like that, then these men are not for you. Why do you think that every man is supposed to be for you? Get up and leave (you see, you can if you bring your own car). That way, you don't waste your time with a man who is upfront and honest about his desire for sex, and he can save his time for a woman who will accomodate him.
>>Too many of them have NO CLUE as to how to treat a lady.<<
Maybe. Or maybe you aren't coming across as a lady. A lady is more than just a woman who saves sex for marriage. Keeping your knees together doesn't automatically mean you are a lady.
>>Many of them believe strongly that a woman should pay "their share." I tell them that I am NOT A LIBERAL FEMINIST so don't expect me to behave like one. I also have told them that I DO NOT think men & women are "equal." Because I don't!<<
Ah HA! Now the truth comes out. She's mad because she's not getting free meals, drinks, and entertainment out of these guys. Traditions, customs, and manners usually have a root in something practical. The tradition of the man paying for date comes from a time when women lived at home until married and did not make their own income. Unless you are living in your father or brother's house and busy with domestic chores instead of income-earning, then stop whining and trying to have your cake and eat it too - and PAY YOUR SHARE. Why is your time more valuable than his? Why should he pay for you? Women who get paid for simply spending time with a man are prostitutes, escorts, strippers, and therapists. Unless you are one of those, pay your own way.
Whether you like it or not, you are in competition with women who will pay their share.
>>I've found that when I let these men know my "rules" upfront, they drop off the face of the earth.<<
Good! They don't waste any more of your time, and you don't waste theirs. See how that works?
>>"Plan a date at least a few days ahead of time." "Call me when you say you will call." "I prefer that you pick me up rather than me coming to you." Are these confusing to men nowadays?! They seem to be because of all 15 men I've met, I dated ONE for about a month & when he found out I wasn't going to stay overnight with him, he ALSO dropped off the face of the earth. I don't understand their thinking Dr. Laura.<<
Men and women think differently. Those men (like almost all healthy men) want sex. Unlike some other men, these men are not willing to wait for marriage to get it, and they don't have to in today's world. Since you aren't going to give them easy sex without all sorts of strings attached, these men are going to women who give them less of a hassle. Yes, it means fewer free meals for you. Boo hoo hoo. But if you stick to your principles, you are more likely to find the rare man who is compatible with you.
I suggust presenting your rules upfront in your online dating profile, and stress that you are serious. That way, you will severely cut back on your interaction with men who do not follow your rules.
>>I BELIEVE all of the liberal feminists have practically ruined dating for those of us who don't believe the way they do.<<
This is very true. The fact is, men have been told over and over again that women want to be treated the same as men, and women are fornicating with men on the first, second, or third date. This makes it easier for men who don't truly share your values to avoid living by them. On the bright side, that means you find a man who is acting according to your values, it is more likely he trily believes in them, and isn't following them only because he has no real choice.
>>NOW...I state in my profile online that I want a MAN WHO IS CLOSE TO HIS FAMILY. I want a man who has cleaned up his past. I want a man who still believes in CHIVALRY.<<
That's all good, and I hope you will likewise be up to treating his family pleasantly, agreeing to his decisions, supporting him emotionally and socially, turning from a restrained maiden while dating into a diligent and enthusiastic wife in the bedroom, keeping the home clean, doing the laundry, cooking the food, etc. If he is going to be asked to keep up his traditional role, you should be ready to keep up your traditional role.
Except for the paying for dates, I'm all for what this woman wants. However, I also recognize that in today's world of rampant divorce, alimony, women feeling entitled to anything they want, and casual sex, that people have more choices about how they are going to live. If you think it is hard for to find a good man - well, it is at least as hard to find a good woman. In today's world, a woman can sit at home doing nothing, cheat on her husband, give birth to another man's child, leave her husband, take half of everything he has AND have him pay to support a child that's not even his, and not suffer social consequences. A man can respect a woman's insistence that they "wait" for sex, and she can be getting a booty call on the side. I can see why some men do not want to bother with marriage.
Only if they find the right woman should they get married.
Date: 2006-08-11
Quotes:
>>I'm a 35 year-old single, smart, witty, attractive woman who chose to sign onto the "online dating scene" six months ago.<<
You certainly sound confident. I'll automatically buy that you are "a 35-year-old single" woman. Whether you are smart, witty, and attractive - I don't know. Maybe you come across as stuck-up, self-important, and arrogant in person.
>>I've been on two different sites (one that Dr. Phil McGraw endorses!) & have gone out with about 15 "men" over the last 24 weeks.
I can't tell you how let-down I've been by the majority of "men" I've met.<<
What, they didn't call you back?
>>I'm very curious to know your opinions/thoughts not only on online dating but...really...on what you believe has happened to REAL MEN?
By a real man I mean one who actually calls and PLANS a date.<<
What about you? Can't you call and plan a date? I agree that someone asking for a date should plan ahead, but is there any reason why you can't do likewise?
>>I've had numerous men call me at 6pm to meet them at 8pm. On the same night!<<
Okay, so it sounds like you were one of their back-ups. They were planning on dates with women they found more attractive, but those plans fell through, and so they called you. If these guys just want sex, then I agree 8pm is bad. They should have asked you to meet them for drinks a little later than that.
>>A real man, to me, is one who drives to PICK ME UP.<<
What, so now a date is your chauffer?
>>I've had numerous men ask me to either meet them 1/2 way<<
What's wrong with that?!? If they've never met you before, it is a good idea for your safety AND theirs. Wake up, sister!
>>or, worse, come to them!<<
Yeah, that's not good. These guys should not let you know where they live, or you might show up when they are busy with another date.
>>Many of them start talking sex during the first conversation.<<
So? If you don't like that, then these men are not for you. Why do you think that every man is supposed to be for you? Get up and leave (you see, you can if you bring your own car). That way, you don't waste your time with a man who is upfront and honest about his desire for sex, and he can save his time for a woman who will accomodate him.
>>Too many of them have NO CLUE as to how to treat a lady.<<
Maybe. Or maybe you aren't coming across as a lady. A lady is more than just a woman who saves sex for marriage. Keeping your knees together doesn't automatically mean you are a lady.
>>Many of them believe strongly that a woman should pay "their share." I tell them that I am NOT A LIBERAL FEMINIST so don't expect me to behave like one. I also have told them that I DO NOT think men & women are "equal." Because I don't!<<
Ah HA! Now the truth comes out. She's mad because she's not getting free meals, drinks, and entertainment out of these guys. Traditions, customs, and manners usually have a root in something practical. The tradition of the man paying for date comes from a time when women lived at home until married and did not make their own income. Unless you are living in your father or brother's house and busy with domestic chores instead of income-earning, then stop whining and trying to have your cake and eat it too - and PAY YOUR SHARE. Why is your time more valuable than his? Why should he pay for you? Women who get paid for simply spending time with a man are prostitutes, escorts, strippers, and therapists. Unless you are one of those, pay your own way.
Whether you like it or not, you are in competition with women who will pay their share.
>>I've found that when I let these men know my "rules" upfront, they drop off the face of the earth.<<
Good! They don't waste any more of your time, and you don't waste theirs. See how that works?
>>"Plan a date at least a few days ahead of time." "Call me when you say you will call." "I prefer that you pick me up rather than me coming to you." Are these confusing to men nowadays?! They seem to be because of all 15 men I've met, I dated ONE for about a month & when he found out I wasn't going to stay overnight with him, he ALSO dropped off the face of the earth. I don't understand their thinking Dr. Laura.<<
Men and women think differently. Those men (like almost all healthy men) want sex. Unlike some other men, these men are not willing to wait for marriage to get it, and they don't have to in today's world. Since you aren't going to give them easy sex without all sorts of strings attached, these men are going to women who give them less of a hassle. Yes, it means fewer free meals for you. Boo hoo hoo. But if you stick to your principles, you are more likely to find the rare man who is compatible with you.
I suggust presenting your rules upfront in your online dating profile, and stress that you are serious. That way, you will severely cut back on your interaction with men who do not follow your rules.
>>I BELIEVE all of the liberal feminists have practically ruined dating for those of us who don't believe the way they do.<<
This is very true. The fact is, men have been told over and over again that women want to be treated the same as men, and women are fornicating with men on the first, second, or third date. This makes it easier for men who don't truly share your values to avoid living by them. On the bright side, that means you find a man who is acting according to your values, it is more likely he trily believes in them, and isn't following them only because he has no real choice.
>>NOW...I state in my profile online that I want a MAN WHO IS CLOSE TO HIS FAMILY. I want a man who has cleaned up his past. I want a man who still believes in CHIVALRY.<<
That's all good, and I hope you will likewise be up to treating his family pleasantly, agreeing to his decisions, supporting him emotionally and socially, turning from a restrained maiden while dating into a diligent and enthusiastic wife in the bedroom, keeping the home clean, doing the laundry, cooking the food, etc. If he is going to be asked to keep up his traditional role, you should be ready to keep up your traditional role.
Except for the paying for dates, I'm all for what this woman wants. However, I also recognize that in today's world of rampant divorce, alimony, women feeling entitled to anything they want, and casual sex, that people have more choices about how they are going to live. If you think it is hard for to find a good man - well, it is at least as hard to find a good woman. In today's world, a woman can sit at home doing nothing, cheat on her husband, give birth to another man's child, leave her husband, take half of everything he has AND have him pay to support a child that's not even his, and not suffer social consequences. A man can respect a woman's insistence that they "wait" for sex, and she can be getting a booty call on the side. I can see why some men do not want to bother with marriage.
Only if they find the right woman should they get married.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)