This year's Stanley Cup playoffs, and in particular, the finals, have been a delight to watch. As ardent hockey fans, my eight-year-old son and I enjoy our tradition of not only watching hockey games very regularly throughout the year (even though we don't have cable, we always find a way), but we really embrace the frequency of exciting games during the playoff season. This year's finals between Boston and Vancouver have been nothing but exceptional.
That is, until after game seven was won by Boston in Vancouver.
I was watching the Stanley Cup presentation, some post-game interviews, and such, and my son had just gone to bed, so I decided to contact my brother to see what he thought about the game. He replied fairly quickly at that time of night, inquiring, "are you watching the riots?"
"What riots?" I countered. He told me to turn the TV to the local public station, which I did and I was pretty shocked to say the least. Cars on fire, looting, fighting with police, damaging public and private equipment and items, and just uncontrolled chaos and mayhem.
In watching this coverage, I was angry. Yes, I am a huge hockey fan. Yes, I was hoping that the Canucks would win. But the fact is, Boston won 4-0 through a strong team performance. Vancouver lost fairly, and to their credit, those who had the opportunity to attend the game in person in the arena, rose to their feet and saluted the Bruins. Very classy move by Vancouver fans. So you can understand my perplexity in seeing the behaviour outside of the arena.
There has been much talk about why the riots occurred, and how they were "allowed" to occur, given that Vancouver experienced something similar in 1994 when the Rangers won the Stanley Cup, besting the Canucks in the finals. Some have blamed a lack of police presence. Others blame easy availability to alcohol in a public place. Some have blamed the mob mentality and peer pressure. Some have blamed mis-directed energies of the youth of today. I am not so certain that all of those are truly the core cause or catalyst behind what happened.
I would suggest that the core cause of what happened can be summed up in four areas: 1) a failure of those people's parents to properly raise their kids, 2) the lack of an inherent personal responsibility for those who caused the problems, 3) the lack of immediate decisive and serious consequences from the police in response, and 4) A lack of people who are willing to act decisively to stop this themselves, even if it means the risk of personal peril. I will quickly summarize each of these, and you can tell me whether I hit the nail on the head, or am way off base.
1. A Failure of Those People's Parents To Properly Raise Their Kids. Now you may find this somewhat insulting, that I am waving a general blanket statement towards people who I do not personally know. Well, consider the following: if statistics are correct, half the kids in Western society are reared in divorced homes, or do not have two married parents (father and mother) providing a stable home environment. Does that mean all kids from divorced families turn out to be hooligans? Of course not. But I'd bet my whole retirement savings on the fact that more often than not, trouble kids come from broken homes. Also consider that in many of these homes, the single parent has to work, so whether as an infant, toddler, child or teenager, the child has been raised by someone else, most probably daycare. I happen to know first-hand how the government mandates daycares to run. You literally cannot do anything to punish a child. You can't even raise your voice. Given the fact that most kids nowadays have attended daycare at one point or another, they learn at an early age that if they scream loud enough, they will get what they want. And if they break stuff, or hurt another kid, there are really no consequences, aside from a "time-out" (ooooh, I'm so scared!). Even if a child is raised by two parents, the two parents can still do a crappy job by not being around, or letting the distractions of a materialistic society drive the way they live their lives. As such, children from any of these families will not get real boundaries set for them. They don't grow up knowing that if you misbehave, there are consequences like being spanked, etc. They are just given continuous warnings without actions. And so they grow up with a serious "screw you" attitude towards society.
2. The Lack of Inherent Personal Responsibility, Restraint, and Morality For One's Actions. This ties into how they were raised, but blaming one's parents can only go so far. For instance, I may know that setting fire to a police car is wrong, but if I am not willing to restrain myself when I am angry, but instead feel that I am entitled to vent my emotions without boundaries, I am a walking recipe for a potential disaster. Ultimately, we all have to own up to the choices we make, whether it be good or bad. We can't blame the alcohol, peer pressure, a lack of stable home environment, or even a hockey game that didn't quite go your way. Ultimately your response and your actions rest solely on your shoulders. That includes thinking through one's actions before doing something, considering the consequences and the effects of one doing something like drinking too much alcohol or hanging out with other people who are not necessarily good influences on you. This also includes how you respond particularly to unfavourable circumstances in your life.
3. A Lack of Quick, Immediate, and Decision Police Response. If you watched the clips of the riot, you will see the police just standing around, and in some cases, they are retreating when the crowd is throwing stuff at them. While I am a huge advocate and proponent of our law enforcement groups, I believe that for police to be effective, they have to instinctively and purposefully establish their presence, and establish it with the authority which has been vested to them by society. Forget about the fact that it appears as if Vancouver Police may have been both under-numbered and out-numbered. Think about this - if a hooligan were to toss expletives and toss beer bottles and trash at a police officer, and the police officer retreats slowly, what message is this sending? That the police are soft, that they are afraid to act and beat your ass for insubordination, not to mention breaking the law. I personally would have liked to see the police equipped with things like tasers and tranquilizer guns, so that the disruptive and criminal hooligan element are stopped cold in their tracks. That would not allow anger and anarchy to escalate to the volatile levels that resulted in actual violence to occur. Am I advocating the police shooting their glocks at a crowd? No. But they should have stayed their ground and been equipped with weapons that can incapacitate an individual rather quickly. That would have diffused the situation rapidly.
4) A Lack of People in the Crowd Willing to Stand Up and Be Counted, Personally Standing Their Ground To the Mob, Even at the Risk of Personal Peril. OK, I know you are thinking that I am crazy here. Perhaps you may be thinking that I am advocating that people essentially commit suicide by standing up the crowd and refusing to not only participate in the criminal behaviour, but physically defending those who were getting beat up, and those whose property was being trashed. There is at least one instance of this happening, with a guy who tried to stop a crowd from looting a store. You may say that my point is unrealistic because that guy was dragged into the crowd and beaten silly. What if more than a few people bonded together and did that. These mobs usually go for the path of least resistance. If you are not willing to stand up for yourself, who will do that? Certainly not the police. If someone broke into my house, I wouldn't be reaching for the phone to call 911 - I'd be reaching for my Remington 870 and loading it with #3 buckshot. The left wing people will consider this vigilantism, but you know, if that was your store, your home, your workplace, or your friends getting beat up, would you just call the cops and hope for the best? I'd dare say that had more people in Germany had the balls to stand up to the Nazis, the lives of many Jews would have been saved. I am not an advocate of personal revenge or vendettas. But I am a huge proponent of personal responsibility, whether it be for your actions, your words, or you decisions.
Could this riot have been prevented? Maybe. Maybe not. Sociologists will debate that one for years. But one thing is for certain. Nothing will change if parents don't install in their kids a sense of right and wrong (and punish them in a meaningful way when their kids act in a manner that is not right), nothing will change if people don't take personal responsibility for their actions, nothing will change if the police let the mainstream media and vocal minority in society dictate their response levels, and nothing will change if people stop being bystanders and spectators, but rather jump in and be part of the solution. I believe that if all four of these factors were to be in play last Wednesday, the resulting negative fallout from the Canucks losing would have been far lessened, and the riots may even have been averted.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Private Vs. Public School
It is late, I haven't posted here in a while, and there are lots of things I can talk about (like last month's Conservative Party majority victory), but maybe another time. I thought I'd write a quick blurb about a dilemma with which I have been wrestling.
When I started in public school, oh so many eons ago, it was at the tail end of the 1970s and the start of the 1980s. Schools (at least where I grew up) still had corporal punishment (the strap) as a disciplinary alternative. I remember my buddy Shane in grade 2, who was subject to a strap session after school due to some apparent misbehaviour on his part. I was only threatened with it once after some not so chivalrous behaviour with the other grade 2 girls at the time. But the fear of God was put into me when the vice-principal simply pulled out his desk drawer and showed me the strap. I must have crapped my pants tenfold upon seeing the potential instrument of punishment, which served as a sufficient deterrent.
I now have my own little kid in grade two, and man, how the educational system has changed over the years in the public school system. In Ontario, aside from having some politically correct elements placed into the curriculum, apparently I found out that they don't fail kids anymore, and morever, the school administration at times has their hands tied when a parent disagrees with the level of discipline (which in most cases is pretty mild anyway).
My son is doing well in school, getting As and Bs on his report card, so academically, I have no concern. Last year he was bullied but through working with the principal, they managed to somehow isolate the bully, especially after I hinted tot he principal that if their methods don't work, I will give my son both permission and encouragement to defend himself, regardless of the outcome to the bully. The principal knew what I was getting at and said that if that happens, he would understand (look the other way). Though the thought of imagining my kid beat the crap out of his aggressor bully would give me much satisfaction, cooler heads prevailed and we decided to do it the principal's way.
This year, my son has had some peer pressure problems, from a set of twins in his class who have been verifiably classified as troublemakers since kindergarten. These twin boys are disruptive, feed off each other, and seem to corral the other boys into misbehaving. Their use bad language, sexual terms (for a grade two, that is so sad) - apparently all picked up from their older brother in grade six. The sad thing about that family is that their father is some Greek orthodox priest. He must be spending all his time at his church/parish and neglecting his kids, since honestly, why else would they turn out like this? If it was my son, I'd beat on his butt with a stick, a long time ago and he'd learn his lesson.
In talking with the teacher, she says that these twins are in the office several times a week since September (it's May, for crying out loud!) My first reaction - why can't the school split up the twins, since they obviously are trouble when together. Her response - the parents won't allow it. So when did the parents override the school's principal and teachers, who essentially are watching out for the welfare of the students as a whole. I also found out that the school system (at least in Ontario) does not allow for kids to fail a grade, unless...you guessed it...the parents agree (and what parents would want to admit that their child did not make the grade). So they are passing many kids which I am sure that 30 years ago they would have failed. Add to that the ridiculous leftist propaganda in being "tolerant" to stuff like Muslim holidays and crap like that. Yet, Christians can't openly pray in school or bring Bible stuff for show and tell.
It is in light of all this that I am seriously considering putting my son in a Christian private school next year. There are several problems with this at this juncture of time: 1. I have another baby on the way, our third, and as a result my wife will not be working for the next year (employment wise, she won't be working but she will definitely be working for sure). 2. I am losing my job at the end of this calendar year. So money's tight for us. I also don't believe in getting myself in debt to fund my son's education. But as I am pondering all these things, several questions have come to mind.
1. Will having him in a private school make that much of a difference? Remember, he's good academically, it's just the bad influences coupled with the public school's inability to take a stand against the parents or enforce serious discipline, are starting to irk me. I talked with my brother today and he believes that the yahoos and the bad kids' behaviour may either be lessened or better controlled in private school, but make no bones about it, kids will be kids and some of the behaviour may just go underground.
2. Should I leave him in public school so that he can learn with some pracical, real-life scenarios, how to make smart decisions? Otherwise, am I just shielding him from learning life lessons the hard way, since obviously he will encounter problem people throughout his life in school, at work, etc.
3. Should I leave him in public school and I take up the cause to change how things are done there. I suspect this may be futile since the school takes its orders and policies from the board, who take it from the provincial government.
It just burns me that my kid can't just go to school to learn academics. I understand there is no perfect school, but have we really slid down the slope so badly in 30 years that now we are letting the inmates run the asylum, so to speak?
Do you have kids in public or private school? Did you ever wrestle with this decision? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your perspective, whatever it is.
When I started in public school, oh so many eons ago, it was at the tail end of the 1970s and the start of the 1980s. Schools (at least where I grew up) still had corporal punishment (the strap) as a disciplinary alternative. I remember my buddy Shane in grade 2, who was subject to a strap session after school due to some apparent misbehaviour on his part. I was only threatened with it once after some not so chivalrous behaviour with the other grade 2 girls at the time. But the fear of God was put into me when the vice-principal simply pulled out his desk drawer and showed me the strap. I must have crapped my pants tenfold upon seeing the potential instrument of punishment, which served as a sufficient deterrent.
I now have my own little kid in grade two, and man, how the educational system has changed over the years in the public school system. In Ontario, aside from having some politically correct elements placed into the curriculum, apparently I found out that they don't fail kids anymore, and morever, the school administration at times has their hands tied when a parent disagrees with the level of discipline (which in most cases is pretty mild anyway).
My son is doing well in school, getting As and Bs on his report card, so academically, I have no concern. Last year he was bullied but through working with the principal, they managed to somehow isolate the bully, especially after I hinted tot he principal that if their methods don't work, I will give my son both permission and encouragement to defend himself, regardless of the outcome to the bully. The principal knew what I was getting at and said that if that happens, he would understand (look the other way). Though the thought of imagining my kid beat the crap out of his aggressor bully would give me much satisfaction, cooler heads prevailed and we decided to do it the principal's way.
This year, my son has had some peer pressure problems, from a set of twins in his class who have been verifiably classified as troublemakers since kindergarten. These twin boys are disruptive, feed off each other, and seem to corral the other boys into misbehaving. Their use bad language, sexual terms (for a grade two, that is so sad) - apparently all picked up from their older brother in grade six. The sad thing about that family is that their father is some Greek orthodox priest. He must be spending all his time at his church/parish and neglecting his kids, since honestly, why else would they turn out like this? If it was my son, I'd beat on his butt with a stick, a long time ago and he'd learn his lesson.
In talking with the teacher, she says that these twins are in the office several times a week since September (it's May, for crying out loud!) My first reaction - why can't the school split up the twins, since they obviously are trouble when together. Her response - the parents won't allow it. So when did the parents override the school's principal and teachers, who essentially are watching out for the welfare of the students as a whole. I also found out that the school system (at least in Ontario) does not allow for kids to fail a grade, unless...you guessed it...the parents agree (and what parents would want to admit that their child did not make the grade). So they are passing many kids which I am sure that 30 years ago they would have failed. Add to that the ridiculous leftist propaganda in being "tolerant" to stuff like Muslim holidays and crap like that. Yet, Christians can't openly pray in school or bring Bible stuff for show and tell.
It is in light of all this that I am seriously considering putting my son in a Christian private school next year. There are several problems with this at this juncture of time: 1. I have another baby on the way, our third, and as a result my wife will not be working for the next year (employment wise, she won't be working but she will definitely be working for sure). 2. I am losing my job at the end of this calendar year. So money's tight for us. I also don't believe in getting myself in debt to fund my son's education. But as I am pondering all these things, several questions have come to mind.
1. Will having him in a private school make that much of a difference? Remember, he's good academically, it's just the bad influences coupled with the public school's inability to take a stand against the parents or enforce serious discipline, are starting to irk me. I talked with my brother today and he believes that the yahoos and the bad kids' behaviour may either be lessened or better controlled in private school, but make no bones about it, kids will be kids and some of the behaviour may just go underground.
2. Should I leave him in public school so that he can learn with some pracical, real-life scenarios, how to make smart decisions? Otherwise, am I just shielding him from learning life lessons the hard way, since obviously he will encounter problem people throughout his life in school, at work, etc.
3. Should I leave him in public school and I take up the cause to change how things are done there. I suspect this may be futile since the school takes its orders and policies from the board, who take it from the provincial government.
It just burns me that my kid can't just go to school to learn academics. I understand there is no perfect school, but have we really slid down the slope so badly in 30 years that now we are letting the inmates run the asylum, so to speak?
Do you have kids in public or private school? Did you ever wrestle with this decision? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your perspective, whatever it is.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Church Leadership is a Tough Gig
Hard to believe a year has passed since I posted anything here. My kids are now older, I am now greyer, and while I am not pushing 40 just yet, it's only a couple of years away now. It has been a really interesting year at church since I last posted about anything church related (July 2009 I think). Well, since then I was voted in as an elder (which was strange given how short of a time I was there) and God seemed to have used me fairly well immediately into the tenure, with some more seasoned elders remarking that I have quickly become a "key member of the board". I would say that some of the more interesting moments came in 2010, when, without going into gruesome details, the Senior Pastor left (something that to this day I should have done more to fight against), and I was called on to address a congregational meeting that very same day. I was asked to give a quick recap of some of the things that the board and the leadership are doing, and to provide some encouragement and I ended up talking for 10 minutes on the stage, answering a congregant's submitted question. I was the only board member who got applause for his answering the question, so hopefully that is a sign that it was well received.
Then perhaps the highlight of my whole church experience came on October 17 of last year (2010) where I was invited to be the featured preacher in front of a large audience of 400 people or so on a Sunday. This wasn't just an announcement, it was the exposition and teaching of God's Word. What a privilege and honour it was. It took me 4-6 weeks to prepare the sermon and in the end, it seemed to have gone really well, judging by the 30+ people who stopped by and gave some words of encouragement. To this day, people ask me if I will ever preach again, and it looks like I will, on May 1 of this year (I haven't given our interim Sr. Pastor the answer yet, but I am leaning towards yes).
But some stuff happened in between and it has been a weird journey to say the least. After my preaching time, I really thought that it was an indication to me that deciding to step out in faith and accept the elder role was the right choice. I would have never thought that a little over a month after that fantastic experience, I would decide to tender my resignation in as a board member and an elder at my church. This came as a shock to many people who I guess valued and yearned for the plain and unfiltered and unflashy teaching of God's Word. All the reasons I resigned I will keep to myself, but suffice it to say, some of it was due to an almost exact same experience in serving on an elders nominating committee and seeing how elders were selected and not really vetted. But in the end, there were other reasons and I just chalked it up to personal reasons and just indicated that. In all this I emphasized repeatedly my commitment to staying at the church and serving in other capacities. Which, I suppose, surprised some people, since I guess it is standard fare for people who have a bad experience to just leave the church. I remember having dinner with one of the elders and his wife and she said that she is so glad that I am staying and I said, "why would you think I would leave?" Guess that's the pattern people are used to.
All that being said, I can provide some feedback on my second kick at the can as part of church leadership, and while it would have been nice to be able to give a comprehensive assessment after fulfilling an entire term, I just couldn't do it anymore, despite the overwhelming advice and counsel from other mature believers to stick it out. I had a couple of congregants who I trust, who also pleaded with me to stay. But in the end, I couldn't deal with the church politics anymore, and decided to step down, which I honestly believed is what God had led me to do (for a variety of reasons). This definitely ensured that I did not experience a repeat performance of my last eldership experience, where I simply stuck out the term, but admittedly my heart wasn't in it anymore.
It can be argued that I should have never been placed in such a position of leadership in the first place at my new church, given how short of a time I was at the church at that time. I think there is merit in this argument, and wouldn't disagree with it. All that being said, it was strange that the opportunity came up, and while I was on the board, I had unwavering support from both the congregation and the board members (I often got thanked for my service, even though it was a short one). I really did try my best and yield to God's direction in my time on the board - it made me much more effective in my short time as an elder, than it would have otherwise been, if I had tried to do it on my own efforts.
All this being said, I am am really glad that I am out of official church leadership right now. The biggest reason being: no expectations. I am not saying that I am now free to go out and drink myself into a stupor or smoke pot until the cows come home or go cheat on my wife or whatever, but what I mean is that I no longer feel the pressure to live up to a "standard" to which church leaders are held, either fairly or unfairly. I don't feel the need to attend every single church function because I am on the board (I still attend them now anyway, as a much relaxed congregant). Church leaders, unfortunately, are put on a pedestal and expected, rightly or wrongly, to "perform" to these expectations, most of which are unrealistic and unbiblical. The problem occurs, when the leaders forget to realize their own sinful mortality (Rom 3:23) and instead, decide to put on their best front while they are having difficulty doing this behind the scenes. I honestly don't envy their position, but I also realize how important it is to pray for your church leaders, even when you may not agree with them. It's a tough enough job as it is, and it is a volunteer job, when it comes down to it, so we really should give our church leaders the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, but more importantly, encourage and lift them up in prayer at all times. I am pretty sure one of the reasons why I had a fairly productive year as an elder was due to many people specifically praying for me. Now that I am on the other side of the coin, I do my best to ensure that the leaders have my prayer support. It is a tough job and one, which I dare say is between a rock and a hard place.
Then perhaps the highlight of my whole church experience came on October 17 of last year (2010) where I was invited to be the featured preacher in front of a large audience of 400 people or so on a Sunday. This wasn't just an announcement, it was the exposition and teaching of God's Word. What a privilege and honour it was. It took me 4-6 weeks to prepare the sermon and in the end, it seemed to have gone really well, judging by the 30+ people who stopped by and gave some words of encouragement. To this day, people ask me if I will ever preach again, and it looks like I will, on May 1 of this year (I haven't given our interim Sr. Pastor the answer yet, but I am leaning towards yes).
But some stuff happened in between and it has been a weird journey to say the least. After my preaching time, I really thought that it was an indication to me that deciding to step out in faith and accept the elder role was the right choice. I would have never thought that a little over a month after that fantastic experience, I would decide to tender my resignation in as a board member and an elder at my church. This came as a shock to many people who I guess valued and yearned for the plain and unfiltered and unflashy teaching of God's Word. All the reasons I resigned I will keep to myself, but suffice it to say, some of it was due to an almost exact same experience in serving on an elders nominating committee and seeing how elders were selected and not really vetted. But in the end, there were other reasons and I just chalked it up to personal reasons and just indicated that. In all this I emphasized repeatedly my commitment to staying at the church and serving in other capacities. Which, I suppose, surprised some people, since I guess it is standard fare for people who have a bad experience to just leave the church. I remember having dinner with one of the elders and his wife and she said that she is so glad that I am staying and I said, "why would you think I would leave?" Guess that's the pattern people are used to.
All that being said, I can provide some feedback on my second kick at the can as part of church leadership, and while it would have been nice to be able to give a comprehensive assessment after fulfilling an entire term, I just couldn't do it anymore, despite the overwhelming advice and counsel from other mature believers to stick it out. I had a couple of congregants who I trust, who also pleaded with me to stay. But in the end, I couldn't deal with the church politics anymore, and decided to step down, which I honestly believed is what God had led me to do (for a variety of reasons). This definitely ensured that I did not experience a repeat performance of my last eldership experience, where I simply stuck out the term, but admittedly my heart wasn't in it anymore.
It can be argued that I should have never been placed in such a position of leadership in the first place at my new church, given how short of a time I was at the church at that time. I think there is merit in this argument, and wouldn't disagree with it. All that being said, it was strange that the opportunity came up, and while I was on the board, I had unwavering support from both the congregation and the board members (I often got thanked for my service, even though it was a short one). I really did try my best and yield to God's direction in my time on the board - it made me much more effective in my short time as an elder, than it would have otherwise been, if I had tried to do it on my own efforts.
All this being said, I am am really glad that I am out of official church leadership right now. The biggest reason being: no expectations. I am not saying that I am now free to go out and drink myself into a stupor or smoke pot until the cows come home or go cheat on my wife or whatever, but what I mean is that I no longer feel the pressure to live up to a "standard" to which church leaders are held, either fairly or unfairly. I don't feel the need to attend every single church function because I am on the board (I still attend them now anyway, as a much relaxed congregant). Church leaders, unfortunately, are put on a pedestal and expected, rightly or wrongly, to "perform" to these expectations, most of which are unrealistic and unbiblical. The problem occurs, when the leaders forget to realize their own sinful mortality (Rom 3:23) and instead, decide to put on their best front while they are having difficulty doing this behind the scenes. I honestly don't envy their position, but I also realize how important it is to pray for your church leaders, even when you may not agree with them. It's a tough enough job as it is, and it is a volunteer job, when it comes down to it, so we really should give our church leaders the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, but more importantly, encourage and lift them up in prayer at all times. I am pretty sure one of the reasons why I had a fairly productive year as an elder was due to many people specifically praying for me. Now that I am on the other side of the coin, I do my best to ensure that the leaders have my prayer support. It is a tough job and one, which I dare say is between a rock and a hard place.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Book Addiction - Conquering Pornography - Overcoming the Addition, by Dennis Frederick
I have read many books on pornography addiction, generally the books are in a "highly recommended" pile or a "not worth your time or money pile". This one would be in the second pile. While I applaud the author for tackling a taboo topic, and from a Christian perspective, I found the book lacked great effectiveness in how it was presented/formatted, as well as the author's generalized comments which did not allow a deeper dig into the topic.
First, the format. I hated how the book was set up like a devotional, with each topic being a page or a page-and-a-half in length, followed by 3 or 4 reflection questions and a Bible verse. Nothing wrong with this in and of itself, but for a book on overcoming pornography, this was a very, very poor way to present the material. One could never dig deeper and get more insight on a topic, since it was pretty much glossed over by the author in general terms. Plus, some of the Bible verses (which were only included in the appendix, which later found out) and not on the page itself, were iffy at best, in terms of its connection to the topic at hand. That is the problem with plucking a verse from here and there - the context is not known, and it makes for sloppy Scripture use.
Second, I really did not learn anything new in this book, aside from a few good points about post-addiction living. Most of what he said can be gleaned pretty easily from common sense; but what I really did not like was how some of his comments seemed trite and not recognizing that pornography addiction has some complexity. When the author makes remarks such as "you must simply stop now!" or "if you are tempted, walk away from your computer", those are not helpful. Most men struggle with pornography and it is not that easy to just quit cold turkey. Also, his recurring comments about wives having a sixth sense, etc., get old and tiring pretty fast. He also tends to take a point (which is debatable) and then proceed to flush it out as if there's no other side.
I had a hard time getting past two two areas of weakness in the book. The book actually did not take that long to read, based on how much white space was left due to its format. I gave this book two stars only because I appreciated a Christian attempt to write a book to address this - I just didn't find it very helpful.
Personally, if you are looking for good, solid Christian books that will help you address the issue of pornography addiction, consider Steven Arterburn's "Every Man's Battle" (there's another co-author I don't recall at this moment) for a practical step-by-step process (and he uses Scripture too, but much more appropriately), and also Harry Schuamberg's "False Intimacy" (this deals with more of what goes on in the spiritual sense - very good book). For a secular step-by-step book which I find very helpful as well, consider "The Porn Trap" by Larry and Wendy Maltz.
First, the format. I hated how the book was set up like a devotional, with each topic being a page or a page-and-a-half in length, followed by 3 or 4 reflection questions and a Bible verse. Nothing wrong with this in and of itself, but for a book on overcoming pornography, this was a very, very poor way to present the material. One could never dig deeper and get more insight on a topic, since it was pretty much glossed over by the author in general terms. Plus, some of the Bible verses (which were only included in the appendix, which later found out) and not on the page itself, were iffy at best, in terms of its connection to the topic at hand. That is the problem with plucking a verse from here and there - the context is not known, and it makes for sloppy Scripture use.
Second, I really did not learn anything new in this book, aside from a few good points about post-addiction living. Most of what he said can be gleaned pretty easily from common sense; but what I really did not like was how some of his comments seemed trite and not recognizing that pornography addiction has some complexity. When the author makes remarks such as "you must simply stop now!" or "if you are tempted, walk away from your computer", those are not helpful. Most men struggle with pornography and it is not that easy to just quit cold turkey. Also, his recurring comments about wives having a sixth sense, etc., get old and tiring pretty fast. He also tends to take a point (which is debatable) and then proceed to flush it out as if there's no other side.
I had a hard time getting past two two areas of weakness in the book. The book actually did not take that long to read, based on how much white space was left due to its format. I gave this book two stars only because I appreciated a Christian attempt to write a book to address this - I just didn't find it very helpful.
Personally, if you are looking for good, solid Christian books that will help you address the issue of pornography addiction, consider Steven Arterburn's "Every Man's Battle" (there's another co-author I don't recall at this moment) for a practical step-by-step process (and he uses Scripture too, but much more appropriately), and also Harry Schuamberg's "False Intimacy" (this deals with more of what goes on in the spiritual sense - very good book). For a secular step-by-step book which I find very helpful as well, consider "The Porn Trap" by Larry and Wendy Maltz.
Friday, January 8, 2010
NRA Life Membership
A lot of people who are proponents of defending the right to firearms ownership have been hesitant to get a lifetime membership with the NRA due to the high cost ($1000.00). I've been an NRA member for a few years now, and wanted to spring for a full life membership, but my finances have not allowed me to do this. There is a Easy-Pay-Life (EPL) installment plan, where you can pay by credit card over a default period of 10 years ($25.00 per quarter, per year), but that with that plan, that will take me well into my late 40s. I recently did sign up for EPL, but since then, I have found a couple of ways to get a life membership much more cheaply.
The first depends on someone else - once in a while, the NRA will offer to its existing life members the opportunity to sign up a family or friend (both of these are regarded loosely by the membership office, so essentially anyone can sign you up). This is THE best promotion out there, as life membership is reduced down to only $300.00 (but this depends on an existing NRA life member sponsoring you).
The other method, which I have used, is to sign up for EPL, and then call them a few weeks later and tell them that you'd like to take advantage of the offer to convert the EPL to a lifetime membership. This will require a one-time payment of $500.00 U.S. (which is still much better than having to cough up $1000, either one-time or via installment plan). Any EPL payments will be credited against the one-time fee of $500.00. For me, I got a statue with my name on a nameplate, as thanks for the life membership, as well as my usual subscription to American Rifleman (I really liked the America's First Freedom magazine, but it would cost extra and incur some additional postage charges since I am in Canada).
I should mention that this $500.00 offer is contingent on switching from existing EPL. For 1, 3, 5 year single memberships, there is no way (that I know of) to get the $500.00 life membership. Just get your membership switched to EPL and then in a few weeks, call them and get it switched to lifetime via the one-time payment. If you don't have the cash handy, you can always do EPL for however long you want and then call them and pay the difference between what you have paid and the $500.00.
$500.00 is still a lot of money, but much better than $1000.00. I have no idea if this is a limited offer or not, but if you ever wanted to spring for an NRA Life Membership, hopefully this will save you some money.
The first depends on someone else - once in a while, the NRA will offer to its existing life members the opportunity to sign up a family or friend (both of these are regarded loosely by the membership office, so essentially anyone can sign you up). This is THE best promotion out there, as life membership is reduced down to only $300.00 (but this depends on an existing NRA life member sponsoring you).
The other method, which I have used, is to sign up for EPL, and then call them a few weeks later and tell them that you'd like to take advantage of the offer to convert the EPL to a lifetime membership. This will require a one-time payment of $500.00 U.S. (which is still much better than having to cough up $1000, either one-time or via installment plan). Any EPL payments will be credited against the one-time fee of $500.00. For me, I got a statue with my name on a nameplate, as thanks for the life membership, as well as my usual subscription to American Rifleman (I really liked the America's First Freedom magazine, but it would cost extra and incur some additional postage charges since I am in Canada).
I should mention that this $500.00 offer is contingent on switching from existing EPL. For 1, 3, 5 year single memberships, there is no way (that I know of) to get the $500.00 life membership. Just get your membership switched to EPL and then in a few weeks, call them and get it switched to lifetime via the one-time payment. If you don't have the cash handy, you can always do EPL for however long you want and then call them and pay the difference between what you have paid and the $500.00.
$500.00 is still a lot of money, but much better than $1000.00. I have no idea if this is a limited offer or not, but if you ever wanted to spring for an NRA Life Membership, hopefully this will save you some money.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
John Grisham - The Last Juror - Book Review
I read a lot of books every year, and while it is never my goal here to provide book reviews on all of them, there are some notable ones which are either really good or really bad which I feel is worth either promoting you to read it or dissuading you to the same. John Grisham's "The Last Juror" falls into the latter category.
In truth, it is a bit sad that I have to give a less than stellar review of a Grisham book. I have read about 14-15 of his books, and in general have really enjoyed them. By far the most memorable were "The Firm", "A Time to Kill", "The Rainmaker", "The Runaway Jury", and to a lesser degree "The King of Torts" and "A Painted House". Sure, he has written some real stinkers in my opinion (I'll keep those to myself so as to not bias you), but not many. I don't know what it is, whether it is fame that has gotten to Grisham's head and made him think that anything he writes will be bestsellers, or whether he has simply lost his touch, or perhaps, he has simply run out of good ideas.
When one reads the outline of the book on the back cover, and in the "semi-reviews" on the first page or two, it makes it sound like this will be both a legal thriller, as well as a murder-mystery. I imagine most readers would have sensed that there was some intrigue to be had in picking up this book, and die-hard Grisham fans would hope for a renaissance of classic Grisham storytelling.
First, the good stuff. The book starts out strong, there is a brutal murder in a small town. The rising action is very good here, and the reader wants to know more about how things will pan out. The main suspect is apprehended and tried. A short trial follows, and is outlined at a very good pace, with adequate detail. We learn a little more about the main character, Willie Traynor, the bad guys (the Padgitts) and some of the local characters who will float in and out of the book from time to time. The beginning is strong and near the end of the book it is once again strong. The book is also not innundated with technical law details, which for us non-lawyers, is a good thing.
I also liked the fact that some of the characters from his other books (like Harry Rex and Claude) were brought back. Unfortunately, they were not further developed.
Now for the not-so-good-stuff: The Last Juror does little to affirm the teaser summary and the one-sentence hype, often found in the opening pages of a book. Instead, what we see is a story that starts puttering around for about 150 pages, picks up again, and then ends very weakly. In between all of this, the reader is unfortunately a captive audience to Grisham's not-so-subtle chiding of the Vietnam War, big box stores (think Walmart here), and his social commentary on race relations in the South, Southern cuisine, and denominational differences in various churches in Mississippi (this was interesting for me, as a born-again believer, but I didn't see the connection to the plot whatsoever). The town elections and the various politicians/officials involved - they were in the book as cameo appearances only, and while I thought that perhaps one or more of them would turned out being impact characters, such was not the case. Unfortunately, all of these topics, which Grisham dissects unnecessarily for multiple pages in length, have little or nothing to do with the main storyline. I would say, that the opposite effect happened - it dragged everything down and slowed the story to a snail's pace.
The characters are generally hollow and under-developed. I have noticed a little trend in Grisham's books in the past few years - the "love interest" of the main character is nothing more than a good lay at best, and filler material at worst. The reader really feels little connection to the main character (who many times does not simply possess the enviable qualities of a solid protagonist), and as a result, the main character's friends and acquaintances are given even less attention by the reader. In the case of this book, the main character Willie, meets up with the sister of the murder victim, and within short order, there is a roll in the hay and then some goodbyes are said. The sister of of Rhoda was very wooden and I don't know of any reader who would have anymore than a passing interest in reading further about the character.
Some other characters in this book you wonder about, as Grisham starts to develop them somewhat (ie. see the situation with Sam and the Durant woman) and then goes nowhere with them. I thought for sure that Sam would be not only developed, but that he would have a major impact on the plot at the end, just based on how his character was an anomaly and the situation that he was in. But alas, after reading the ending, Sam would have been completely omitted from the book and the reader would not have noticed a difference except in the weight of the book.
While some people found the human interest story of the Ruffins interesting, I did not. Sure, Calia Ruffin was one of the jurors, but most readers will fail to see the actually connection of her and the title of the book. If she was the only one alive after all is said and done, that would have made for a more interesting story, in line with the title. Further, all of the descriptions about Southern black cooking is lost on me, and I don't think Grisham understands that maybe not all of his readers are from the South and would understand - or even care - about such detail. I've also noticed that Grisham seems rather formulaic in portraying Black people - they never seem to be the bad guys and while I commend him for wanting to bring awareness to race relations, it almost seems that he relishes the opportunity to harp on long-held stereotypes, whether they be for Whites or Blacks.
The ending was not in much doubt. I had written in my book (actually, I highlight and write in all my novels) at one point way before the last third of the book, that I suspected how the "mystery" would be solved in the end. I was disappointed that I was right and that I was able to figure out the book. This was not the case with earlier Grisham novels. The ending here was way too quick, and just like King of Torts and a Painted House, the reader just suspects that the rising action will at some point reach a climax. But it never does and it gets frustrating, because the reader can likely inject his/her own ideas as to how the book should end, and likely those suggestions would be a vast improvement from how the book actually ends.
Overall, I'd give the book maybe a 3 out of 5. It is by no means Grisham's worst work, but it is getting there. I am hoping that he takes a break from writing to mentally regroup and refuse contracts that require him to churn out a book a year. In the 1990s that may have worked for him, but it doesn't anymore.
In truth, it is a bit sad that I have to give a less than stellar review of a Grisham book. I have read about 14-15 of his books, and in general have really enjoyed them. By far the most memorable were "The Firm", "A Time to Kill", "The Rainmaker", "The Runaway Jury", and to a lesser degree "The King of Torts" and "A Painted House". Sure, he has written some real stinkers in my opinion (I'll keep those to myself so as to not bias you), but not many. I don't know what it is, whether it is fame that has gotten to Grisham's head and made him think that anything he writes will be bestsellers, or whether he has simply lost his touch, or perhaps, he has simply run out of good ideas.
When one reads the outline of the book on the back cover, and in the "semi-reviews" on the first page or two, it makes it sound like this will be both a legal thriller, as well as a murder-mystery. I imagine most readers would have sensed that there was some intrigue to be had in picking up this book, and die-hard Grisham fans would hope for a renaissance of classic Grisham storytelling.
First, the good stuff. The book starts out strong, there is a brutal murder in a small town. The rising action is very good here, and the reader wants to know more about how things will pan out. The main suspect is apprehended and tried. A short trial follows, and is outlined at a very good pace, with adequate detail. We learn a little more about the main character, Willie Traynor, the bad guys (the Padgitts) and some of the local characters who will float in and out of the book from time to time. The beginning is strong and near the end of the book it is once again strong. The book is also not innundated with technical law details, which for us non-lawyers, is a good thing.
I also liked the fact that some of the characters from his other books (like Harry Rex and Claude) were brought back. Unfortunately, they were not further developed.
Now for the not-so-good-stuff: The Last Juror does little to affirm the teaser summary and the one-sentence hype, often found in the opening pages of a book. Instead, what we see is a story that starts puttering around for about 150 pages, picks up again, and then ends very weakly. In between all of this, the reader is unfortunately a captive audience to Grisham's not-so-subtle chiding of the Vietnam War, big box stores (think Walmart here), and his social commentary on race relations in the South, Southern cuisine, and denominational differences in various churches in Mississippi (this was interesting for me, as a born-again believer, but I didn't see the connection to the plot whatsoever). The town elections and the various politicians/officials involved - they were in the book as cameo appearances only, and while I thought that perhaps one or more of them would turned out being impact characters, such was not the case. Unfortunately, all of these topics, which Grisham dissects unnecessarily for multiple pages in length, have little or nothing to do with the main storyline. I would say, that the opposite effect happened - it dragged everything down and slowed the story to a snail's pace.
The characters are generally hollow and under-developed. I have noticed a little trend in Grisham's books in the past few years - the "love interest" of the main character is nothing more than a good lay at best, and filler material at worst. The reader really feels little connection to the main character (who many times does not simply possess the enviable qualities of a solid protagonist), and as a result, the main character's friends and acquaintances are given even less attention by the reader. In the case of this book, the main character Willie, meets up with the sister of the murder victim, and within short order, there is a roll in the hay and then some goodbyes are said. The sister of of Rhoda was very wooden and I don't know of any reader who would have anymore than a passing interest in reading further about the character.
Some other characters in this book you wonder about, as Grisham starts to develop them somewhat (ie. see the situation with Sam and the Durant woman) and then goes nowhere with them. I thought for sure that Sam would be not only developed, but that he would have a major impact on the plot at the end, just based on how his character was an anomaly and the situation that he was in. But alas, after reading the ending, Sam would have been completely omitted from the book and the reader would not have noticed a difference except in the weight of the book.
While some people found the human interest story of the Ruffins interesting, I did not. Sure, Calia Ruffin was one of the jurors, but most readers will fail to see the actually connection of her and the title of the book. If she was the only one alive after all is said and done, that would have made for a more interesting story, in line with the title. Further, all of the descriptions about Southern black cooking is lost on me, and I don't think Grisham understands that maybe not all of his readers are from the South and would understand - or even care - about such detail. I've also noticed that Grisham seems rather formulaic in portraying Black people - they never seem to be the bad guys and while I commend him for wanting to bring awareness to race relations, it almost seems that he relishes the opportunity to harp on long-held stereotypes, whether they be for Whites or Blacks.
The ending was not in much doubt. I had written in my book (actually, I highlight and write in all my novels) at one point way before the last third of the book, that I suspected how the "mystery" would be solved in the end. I was disappointed that I was right and that I was able to figure out the book. This was not the case with earlier Grisham novels. The ending here was way too quick, and just like King of Torts and a Painted House, the reader just suspects that the rising action will at some point reach a climax. But it never does and it gets frustrating, because the reader can likely inject his/her own ideas as to how the book should end, and likely those suggestions would be a vast improvement from how the book actually ends.
Overall, I'd give the book maybe a 3 out of 5. It is by no means Grisham's worst work, but it is getting there. I am hoping that he takes a break from writing to mentally regroup and refuse contracts that require him to churn out a book a year. In the 1990s that may have worked for him, but it doesn't anymore.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
What Would You Do If These Were Your Children?
You would think in this day and age, nothing would surprise you, but I continue to be horrified by some of the things I read in the newspaper everyday. It should come as no surprise, from a theological perspective, since those of us who have read Scripture know that people are innately evil and sinful and while the manifestations of this sometimes are kept in check...in 2009, society seems to value individual freedoms over societal responsibility. In other words, pretty much anything goes, and there are no controls and worthwhile deterrents towards certain behaviours. You see it all the time in how young people nowadays spit in the face of authority, whether it be the police, teachers, or their parents. And life seemingly has little value, given how some people will willfully abort children or kill someone over something as trivial as a pack of cigarettes or for looking at them the wrong way.
I cringed as I read a very sad report of a gang rape that occurred in Richmond, California, last weekend. During a homecoming dance, a 15-year-old girl was waiting to meet up with her dad, when she got lured into a secluded area where she was offered alcohol, became intoxicated, and ended up being viciously gang-raped by a number of boys/men, all the while up to 20 people were watching and filming it. It was only through someone who overheard this incident happening several blocks away, when police were finally notified and they found the victim unconscious and barely clinging on to life.
Two people (if I can use that term loosely) have been arrested, one a 15-year-old, whose name cannot be mentioned for some reason, and a 19-year-old, Manuel Ortega, who was caught running from the scene. If Ortega is in fact guilty, I hope that he gets put into a nice prison full of folks who are itching to show this bastard what a real gang rape is like. Honestly, I really don't understand (I really, really don't) why anyone would attack a girl like this, and moreover, why so many people would just look on, laugh about it, tell their friends, and in some cases, participate. My first question is, what kind of parents did these kids have?
Now, there have been more details about the environment - Richmond is apparently a rougher neighbourhood and has a high concentration of hispanics. That may partially explain some of the behaviour - I know it's not PC to say this, but if you look at any ghetto area in the state of California, it's not Whites and it's not Asians who are perpetrating rapes, drive-by shootings, and gang murders. Sadly, these other segments of society (Blacks and Hispanics), while overwhelmingly liberal in their political views, have a higher rate of absentee fathers, a healthy respect for girls and women, and a solid family structure. That kind of environment will foster these types of dregs in society, who believe that they are entitled to sexually take advantage of a young girl who made a bad choice to become inebriated in the presence of teenaged boys. Who knows what will happen to this poor girl - obviously her life has changed and she may end up not being able to cope with such a sad, sad tragedy.
Unfortunately, California is one of the most liberal States in the U.S., and with the ACLU in full force and rape not being a capital crime, that 15-year-old will probably be out in a few years, while Ortega may be out in a few more after that. Let's just hope there is some dispensing of prison justice for these guys as well as the others who will eventually get caught.
I also hope for a speedy physical recovery and for the best outcome possible, emotionally, for this young girl, who, regardless of any bad choices that she may have made that night, did not deserve to be raped in any way, shape or form.
The second story that I read today involves a married father of a three-year-old toddler in Florida. Now, here's a hispanic hero if there ever was one. He had some European guy stay over at his house as an overnight guest. In the morning, after he left, his three-year-old son reported to him that the house guest had molested him in the middle of the night. So what did this upstanding and responsible father do? Did he do what society prescribes and call the cops and let them be frustrated at not being able to make an arrest due to some bureaucratic challenge or the inability to conjure up enough evidence? You know, my son is almost seven and never once has he mentioned to me that anyone has molested him. If he ever does, I know to take it seriously. So for a three-year-old to report to his father that he was molested, any father should take seriously. Kids don't just make this crap up, you know! Anyway, this heroic father did the sensible thing and did not waste the police's time. Instead, he grabbed one of his neighbours (a heroic Black guy, also to be commended to help his friend), and tracked down this pedophile and gave him some home-cooked justice. The cops found the perv bleeding profusely from the head. And sure enough, rather than commending a father for doing his JOB and taking his perental RESPONSIBILITY seriously, what do the cops do? They arrest the father and he's now in jail. The poor boy's mother was interviewed and she, in tears, said she doesn't understand why the father, who was just protecting his son, is now behind bars. Every single neighbour, who was interviewed, said they would have done the same thing, had it been their kid who was molested.
Rather than arrest him, they should have given Mr. Manuel Vega a medal. Same for the Black neighbour, Krish Carter. Good job guys, and I hope that there is enough backlash towards the authorities that they let these guys go and drop the charges. People may complain about "vigilante justice" and such, but remember, if people had total faith in justice system and know that it would fairly prosecute criminals, rather than letting them loose via a plethora of technicalities, stuff like this would never happen. As such, this is what happens the the justice system, and by extension, the government, fails its citizens.
I cringed as I read a very sad report of a gang rape that occurred in Richmond, California, last weekend. During a homecoming dance, a 15-year-old girl was waiting to meet up with her dad, when she got lured into a secluded area where she was offered alcohol, became intoxicated, and ended up being viciously gang-raped by a number of boys/men, all the while up to 20 people were watching and filming it. It was only through someone who overheard this incident happening several blocks away, when police were finally notified and they found the victim unconscious and barely clinging on to life.
Two people (if I can use that term loosely) have been arrested, one a 15-year-old, whose name cannot be mentioned for some reason, and a 19-year-old, Manuel Ortega, who was caught running from the scene. If Ortega is in fact guilty, I hope that he gets put into a nice prison full of folks who are itching to show this bastard what a real gang rape is like. Honestly, I really don't understand (I really, really don't) why anyone would attack a girl like this, and moreover, why so many people would just look on, laugh about it, tell their friends, and in some cases, participate. My first question is, what kind of parents did these kids have?
Now, there have been more details about the environment - Richmond is apparently a rougher neighbourhood and has a high concentration of hispanics. That may partially explain some of the behaviour - I know it's not PC to say this, but if you look at any ghetto area in the state of California, it's not Whites and it's not Asians who are perpetrating rapes, drive-by shootings, and gang murders. Sadly, these other segments of society (Blacks and Hispanics), while overwhelmingly liberal in their political views, have a higher rate of absentee fathers, a healthy respect for girls and women, and a solid family structure. That kind of environment will foster these types of dregs in society, who believe that they are entitled to sexually take advantage of a young girl who made a bad choice to become inebriated in the presence of teenaged boys. Who knows what will happen to this poor girl - obviously her life has changed and she may end up not being able to cope with such a sad, sad tragedy.
Unfortunately, California is one of the most liberal States in the U.S., and with the ACLU in full force and rape not being a capital crime, that 15-year-old will probably be out in a few years, while Ortega may be out in a few more after that. Let's just hope there is some dispensing of prison justice for these guys as well as the others who will eventually get caught.
I also hope for a speedy physical recovery and for the best outcome possible, emotionally, for this young girl, who, regardless of any bad choices that she may have made that night, did not deserve to be raped in any way, shape or form.
The second story that I read today involves a married father of a three-year-old toddler in Florida. Now, here's a hispanic hero if there ever was one. He had some European guy stay over at his house as an overnight guest. In the morning, after he left, his three-year-old son reported to him that the house guest had molested him in the middle of the night. So what did this upstanding and responsible father do? Did he do what society prescribes and call the cops and let them be frustrated at not being able to make an arrest due to some bureaucratic challenge or the inability to conjure up enough evidence? You know, my son is almost seven and never once has he mentioned to me that anyone has molested him. If he ever does, I know to take it seriously. So for a three-year-old to report to his father that he was molested, any father should take seriously. Kids don't just make this crap up, you know! Anyway, this heroic father did the sensible thing and did not waste the police's time. Instead, he grabbed one of his neighbours (a heroic Black guy, also to be commended to help his friend), and tracked down this pedophile and gave him some home-cooked justice. The cops found the perv bleeding profusely from the head. And sure enough, rather than commending a father for doing his JOB and taking his perental RESPONSIBILITY seriously, what do the cops do? They arrest the father and he's now in jail. The poor boy's mother was interviewed and she, in tears, said she doesn't understand why the father, who was just protecting his son, is now behind bars. Every single neighbour, who was interviewed, said they would have done the same thing, had it been their kid who was molested.
Rather than arrest him, they should have given Mr. Manuel Vega a medal. Same for the Black neighbour, Krish Carter. Good job guys, and I hope that there is enough backlash towards the authorities that they let these guys go and drop the charges. People may complain about "vigilante justice" and such, but remember, if people had total faith in justice system and know that it would fairly prosecute criminals, rather than letting them loose via a plethora of technicalities, stuff like this would never happen. As such, this is what happens the the justice system, and by extension, the government, fails its citizens.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Scofield ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible from Oxford University Press - First Impressions
Our new church (been attending for about eight months), in which I am also now a newly minted elder, has been using the English Standard Version (ESV) for many years (the ESV was released as a translation in 2001). As a new guy, and one who has little familiarity with the ESV, it was a bit of an adjustment. And while I know firsthand that many folks at the church continue to use whatever version they used previously, I thought that I would officially adopt the ESV as my translation for study and Scripture memorization, after using the NIV exclusively, since I became a believer in 1991. This, of course, is not an easy task, with almost all of my Scripture memorization coming from the NIV. Furthermore, I was just FINALLY getting used to the layout of my trusty Zondervan NIV slimline Bible. I have since retired it, and have been using the very nice hardcover ESV wide-margin Bible that I received when I became a member of our new church in June. However, while I like that hardcover Bible, it is not a study Bible, and I've always wanted to own a study Bible (IMHO, the Life Application Bible is not a study Bible).
A couple of other things to note...I find that with my ESV hardcover, that the margin notes are in the middle and very, very, very small - like, impossible to read small. I was doing some reading and saw that a new thinline ESV leatherbound Bible was coming out in January 2010, and originally had a order placed on Amazon for it, but I've obviously since changed my mind, after reading about the less-than-stellar quality of the binding of Crossway Bibles, not to mention issues with font sizes that people have reported. Crossway, as you may know, essentially "owns" the rights to the ESV. I was hoping to find the ESV from another publisher, but from what I understand, Crossway has an essential monopoly on ESV Bibles.
Enter the well-regarded and long-established Oxford University Press, which happens to be licenced to publish the ESV Bible, but only as a "Scofield Study Bible". I had no idea who this Scofield fellow was, so I did some digging and found out that he was quite the avid dispensationalist. I have also read a few folks who advise others to stay away from Scofield as he was a divorced man (who later remarried) and also he fought for the Confederate army, and he had a drinking problem - but again, if you read his WHOLE story, and not just the parts, you'll see that all of that was before he became saved, and after he was saved, he was quite the different man (sort of like a fellow who wrote 13 or so of the NT books?)
I am nowhere close to be a dispensationalist, but rather than less theological bias cloud my judgment, I figured I can always ignore the notes that have to do with that area of theology. Boy, I am glad I made that decision.
So I ordered the ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible in hardcover from Amazon, back in June. It apparently was on backorder, so I literally wanted through the whole summer and early fall, and a deep price cut they gave me (after I complained about such long waiting times), only to find out 3 weeks ago that they are unable to get it from the publisher. I found that hard to believe, but what's done is done and they already cancelled my order (it is the only item that I have never been able to get from Amazon.ca, but it was also the most desired item in all my orders. Oh well...so I, still being an avid eBay buyer (not so much a seller anymore due to fees and such), checked eBay, and I found the ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible in bright blue leatherbound (turns out to be bonded leather, which essentially the particleboard of leather construction). The price was OK, the shipping was high, but it would have still come out to less than what I'd pay in the store or through Amazon.ca (and no retail taxes if I buy from the U.S.), I placed my order. I was relieved to find out it was brand new, still sealed, and that the blue was actually a navy blue, rather than the smurf blue that was on the stock photo.
My trusty new ScofieldRG III leather Bible in navy blue from Oxford Press, showed up today and since I was home with a bad cough and sore throat (and staying up all night due to the cough), it was a welcome addition to my bedside as I was in bed resting anyway... Obviously, I haven't read through it all yet, but I can provide some initial impressions on the Bible.
Obviously, the first thing that anyone experiences with a new Bible is the look and feel. This Bible has about 1890 pages or so and you could feel the weight of the Bible - it was not as heavy as a hardcover, but it was no thinline either. It was also much bigger in size. However, the Bible feels good in the hands, the bonded leather does not look and feel like bonded leather at all (I have many bonded leather Bibles in other translations). There is a thumb indexing system and on this Bible, the tabs are silver and the writing is in black. The overall Bible pages is coated with a layer of silver glitter (or whatever it's called in the industry - I think you know what I'm talking about - collectively the pages are sprayed or treated with a silver looking material).
When I open the Bible, it feels stiff, but not too much so that it stay open properly. The pages are sewn together, not glued, which make for a more long-lasting lifespan (unlike my glued NIV thinline, which has several pages falling out after 13 years).
What impressed me the most was the font size - very readable, even for people with bad eyesight like me. Yet the font is not overly large to make the reader think it is a large-print Bible. In my edition, words of Christ are in red and while I've read some reviews where people have said that it's way too bright read, I didn't find that to be the case. The red text is a neither-here-or-there issue for me, so it really doesn't matter to me either way. The study notes and chain references (on the outer margins) are easy to read and there are tables and charts throughout the Bible. Yes, the dispensationalist theology is there, but it is not rampant like someone would have you believe (I've sampled several chapters already from the Old and New Testaments). Again, if you don't subscribe to dispensationalism, just ignore the notes on it. It is still worthy study Bible otherwise. My one observation for improvement is in the area of balance of notes. By this I mean that at some points in my initial perusal, some books and chapters were heavy with notes, while other books and chapters barely had any. I would have liked to see some balance here, and while I know it's more exciting to talk about more theologically engaging things, even for some of the lesser-known books of the Bible or lesser-read passages (and sometimes there are sparse notes on even well-known passages), some more contextual information would go a long way.
The Bible includes several very colourful maps at the back, made out of thinner pages, so that they don't start falling out like in my NIV Bible. The front of the Bible has a few additional pages which you can record births, deaths, marriages, etc., and this section is done on high quality paper with texturing, so it really does have a old-world, historical feel. Very classy and well done.
The pages are thin, and the accompanying product card said not to use highlighters and such, as they would leak through or bleed through the pages. I can relate, as my NIV did that...however, in using my highlighter already on the Bible, I can tell you firsthand that the pages don't allow for bleeding (that much) and you can highlight to your heart's content - you may see a slight trace of it, but when you turn the page over, you won't see the entire highlighted section bleed through - trust me on this one - of course, it may just be the highlighter I used).
Each book has an introduction and a blurb about key themes and a layout of the book. The Scofield system does pride itself on helping the reader understand Scripture as a whole, and as a result, I really like how the notes and summaries really aid to this end.
The Bible also comes with the standard strip cloth bookmark (in matching blue). There is also a concordance in the back that, while it is not comprehensive, is better than nothing. Included in the back as well is a summary of the chain references, a Bible dictionary and topical index.
Overall, I am impressed with this Bible greatly. The quality of construction does seem very top notch and the readability of the font and typeset shows favour with this reader. I look forward to using this Bible for many more years to come. My wife opened the package and after inspecting it herself, she wanted one as well. If Amazon did start stocking the hardcover version again, I'll probably pick up one those as well. I would give this ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible from Oxford Press top marks.
A couple of other things to note...I find that with my ESV hardcover, that the margin notes are in the middle and very, very, very small - like, impossible to read small. I was doing some reading and saw that a new thinline ESV leatherbound Bible was coming out in January 2010, and originally had a order placed on Amazon for it, but I've obviously since changed my mind, after reading about the less-than-stellar quality of the binding of Crossway Bibles, not to mention issues with font sizes that people have reported. Crossway, as you may know, essentially "owns" the rights to the ESV. I was hoping to find the ESV from another publisher, but from what I understand, Crossway has an essential monopoly on ESV Bibles.
Enter the well-regarded and long-established Oxford University Press, which happens to be licenced to publish the ESV Bible, but only as a "Scofield Study Bible". I had no idea who this Scofield fellow was, so I did some digging and found out that he was quite the avid dispensationalist. I have also read a few folks who advise others to stay away from Scofield as he was a divorced man (who later remarried) and also he fought for the Confederate army, and he had a drinking problem - but again, if you read his WHOLE story, and not just the parts, you'll see that all of that was before he became saved, and after he was saved, he was quite the different man (sort of like a fellow who wrote 13 or so of the NT books?)
I am nowhere close to be a dispensationalist, but rather than less theological bias cloud my judgment, I figured I can always ignore the notes that have to do with that area of theology. Boy, I am glad I made that decision.
So I ordered the ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible in hardcover from Amazon, back in June. It apparently was on backorder, so I literally wanted through the whole summer and early fall, and a deep price cut they gave me (after I complained about such long waiting times), only to find out 3 weeks ago that they are unable to get it from the publisher. I found that hard to believe, but what's done is done and they already cancelled my order (it is the only item that I have never been able to get from Amazon.ca, but it was also the most desired item in all my orders. Oh well...so I, still being an avid eBay buyer (not so much a seller anymore due to fees and such), checked eBay, and I found the ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible in bright blue leatherbound (turns out to be bonded leather, which essentially the particleboard of leather construction). The price was OK, the shipping was high, but it would have still come out to less than what I'd pay in the store or through Amazon.ca (and no retail taxes if I buy from the U.S.), I placed my order. I was relieved to find out it was brand new, still sealed, and that the blue was actually a navy blue, rather than the smurf blue that was on the stock photo.
My trusty new ScofieldRG III leather Bible in navy blue from Oxford Press, showed up today and since I was home with a bad cough and sore throat (and staying up all night due to the cough), it was a welcome addition to my bedside as I was in bed resting anyway... Obviously, I haven't read through it all yet, but I can provide some initial impressions on the Bible.
Obviously, the first thing that anyone experiences with a new Bible is the look and feel. This Bible has about 1890 pages or so and you could feel the weight of the Bible - it was not as heavy as a hardcover, but it was no thinline either. It was also much bigger in size. However, the Bible feels good in the hands, the bonded leather does not look and feel like bonded leather at all (I have many bonded leather Bibles in other translations). There is a thumb indexing system and on this Bible, the tabs are silver and the writing is in black. The overall Bible pages is coated with a layer of silver glitter (or whatever it's called in the industry - I think you know what I'm talking about - collectively the pages are sprayed or treated with a silver looking material).
When I open the Bible, it feels stiff, but not too much so that it stay open properly. The pages are sewn together, not glued, which make for a more long-lasting lifespan (unlike my glued NIV thinline, which has several pages falling out after 13 years).
What impressed me the most was the font size - very readable, even for people with bad eyesight like me. Yet the font is not overly large to make the reader think it is a large-print Bible. In my edition, words of Christ are in red and while I've read some reviews where people have said that it's way too bright read, I didn't find that to be the case. The red text is a neither-here-or-there issue for me, so it really doesn't matter to me either way. The study notes and chain references (on the outer margins) are easy to read and there are tables and charts throughout the Bible. Yes, the dispensationalist theology is there, but it is not rampant like someone would have you believe (I've sampled several chapters already from the Old and New Testaments). Again, if you don't subscribe to dispensationalism, just ignore the notes on it. It is still worthy study Bible otherwise. My one observation for improvement is in the area of balance of notes. By this I mean that at some points in my initial perusal, some books and chapters were heavy with notes, while other books and chapters barely had any. I would have liked to see some balance here, and while I know it's more exciting to talk about more theologically engaging things, even for some of the lesser-known books of the Bible or lesser-read passages (and sometimes there are sparse notes on even well-known passages), some more contextual information would go a long way.
The Bible includes several very colourful maps at the back, made out of thinner pages, so that they don't start falling out like in my NIV Bible. The front of the Bible has a few additional pages which you can record births, deaths, marriages, etc., and this section is done on high quality paper with texturing, so it really does have a old-world, historical feel. Very classy and well done.
The pages are thin, and the accompanying product card said not to use highlighters and such, as they would leak through or bleed through the pages. I can relate, as my NIV did that...however, in using my highlighter already on the Bible, I can tell you firsthand that the pages don't allow for bleeding (that much) and you can highlight to your heart's content - you may see a slight trace of it, but when you turn the page over, you won't see the entire highlighted section bleed through - trust me on this one - of course, it may just be the highlighter I used).
Each book has an introduction and a blurb about key themes and a layout of the book. The Scofield system does pride itself on helping the reader understand Scripture as a whole, and as a result, I really like how the notes and summaries really aid to this end.
The Bible also comes with the standard strip cloth bookmark (in matching blue). There is also a concordance in the back that, while it is not comprehensive, is better than nothing. Included in the back as well is a summary of the chain references, a Bible dictionary and topical index.
Overall, I am impressed with this Bible greatly. The quality of construction does seem very top notch and the readability of the font and typeset shows favour with this reader. I look forward to using this Bible for many more years to come. My wife opened the package and after inspecting it herself, she wanted one as well. If Amazon did start stocking the hardcover version again, I'll probably pick up one those as well. I would give this ScofieldRG III ESV Study Bible from Oxford Press top marks.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Awenda Provincial Park - A Great Experience
Our family has gone camping for years. My wife and I camped even before we had kids, and we have visited many of the provincial parks in Ontario.
We just came back from what we felt was truly the best experience camping (excluding weather). It was at Awenda Provincial Park, near Penetanguishine / Midland. This is a fabulous park, particularly for those with families. While I don't have time to get into all the aspects of what we liked in detail, I would like to point out a couple of tings which may be of benefit to those looking for somewhere to camp, particularly if you have kids, and even if you don't.
I have two big pet peeves when it comes to camping: privacy and noise. I like more of the former and none of the latter. They are inter-related. One can argue that noise is everywhere...maybe, but I find that at campsites which are within close proximity of each other (and you can tell this by whether you feel comfortable taking a wizz in the bushes in broad daylight), you tend to get noise at night, from either rowdy young adults who had too much to drink, or those who can't shut their dogs up.
Most campgrounds offer radio-free sites, but radios have not generally been a problem over the years, for us. Awenda offers radio-free and pet-free sites (we were in the Snake campsites). At night it was so quiet.
But moreover, the camp sites are so spread apart, you cannot see your neighbour and it's not because of simply a dense smattering of trees, but each site really is a bit of a hike from the next. We camped with friends who have kids who are a bit boisterous when they talk and I'm not kidding you, you could not hear them, day or night. And yes, they were talking and shouting. We could hear a bit of other neighbours, but it was so faint, you didn't even know what they were saying...everyone had kids, so it was a great family area. Also, not be awakened by some yappy canine was such a treat! I really do not like dogs period, and I am glad that they had pet-free zones at Awenda.
Another forward-thinking family-friendly aspect to Awenda Provincial Park was that they had kids' educational programs running daily, whether it be learning about the habitat of some animals or the local industry in the surrounding towns. This is great for those parents who want variety and it is also a nice alternative when the weather does not co-operate.
While I did not go to the beach due to my aversion to beaches and my self-imposed avoidance of anywhere scantily clad women may be, my wife and kids went and they said the beach was awesome - white sand, clear water, lots to do.
The entrance to the park was a nice long ride in the car...if you have bladder control problems and are relieved to see the "Welcome to Awenda" sign, be prepared to wait for some time before hitting the registration desk. It's not as bad as Algonquin, but it's not your common short-distance from highway to park entrance either.
Only a few things I didn't like about the park - 1) the outhouses are not lighted, so expect to take a dump in the dark (our last camping experience, which was at Arrowhead, near Huntsville last month, was eased by lighted outhouses). 2) some comfort stations (showers) are nowhere near walking distance - they could have probably put more of them in, but that may simply cause more traffic. 3) Getting to the park was a bit of a challenge - you go into Penetanguishine, and go through a few streets before hitting a concession road, and then more turns. The Awenda signs along the way are very small. If you have a GPS, you'll be fine; if you're using a paper map, study it carefully before heading out.
I didn't get a chance to fish this weekend, mostly due to weather (it rained all weekend and it was freezing cold), so I can't speak on the fishing aspect, but I do plan to go back there next year with the family.
Overall, I really enjoyed Awenda and plan to go back. I really liked the privacy (lots of trees and shade), the quietness, and the stuff for kids to do. Each campsite has a longer-than-usual "driveway" to get into the site, so your campsite is not as close to the road as some are. The beach was great, and there are good hiking trails if you want to burn off your hamburger lunch.
We just came back from what we felt was truly the best experience camping (excluding weather). It was at Awenda Provincial Park, near Penetanguishine / Midland. This is a fabulous park, particularly for those with families. While I don't have time to get into all the aspects of what we liked in detail, I would like to point out a couple of tings which may be of benefit to those looking for somewhere to camp, particularly if you have kids, and even if you don't.
I have two big pet peeves when it comes to camping: privacy and noise. I like more of the former and none of the latter. They are inter-related. One can argue that noise is everywhere...maybe, but I find that at campsites which are within close proximity of each other (and you can tell this by whether you feel comfortable taking a wizz in the bushes in broad daylight), you tend to get noise at night, from either rowdy young adults who had too much to drink, or those who can't shut their dogs up.
Most campgrounds offer radio-free sites, but radios have not generally been a problem over the years, for us. Awenda offers radio-free and pet-free sites (we were in the Snake campsites). At night it was so quiet.
But moreover, the camp sites are so spread apart, you cannot see your neighbour and it's not because of simply a dense smattering of trees, but each site really is a bit of a hike from the next. We camped with friends who have kids who are a bit boisterous when they talk and I'm not kidding you, you could not hear them, day or night. And yes, they were talking and shouting. We could hear a bit of other neighbours, but it was so faint, you didn't even know what they were saying...everyone had kids, so it was a great family area. Also, not be awakened by some yappy canine was such a treat! I really do not like dogs period, and I am glad that they had pet-free zones at Awenda.
Another forward-thinking family-friendly aspect to Awenda Provincial Park was that they had kids' educational programs running daily, whether it be learning about the habitat of some animals or the local industry in the surrounding towns. This is great for those parents who want variety and it is also a nice alternative when the weather does not co-operate.
While I did not go to the beach due to my aversion to beaches and my self-imposed avoidance of anywhere scantily clad women may be, my wife and kids went and they said the beach was awesome - white sand, clear water, lots to do.
The entrance to the park was a nice long ride in the car...if you have bladder control problems and are relieved to see the "Welcome to Awenda" sign, be prepared to wait for some time before hitting the registration desk. It's not as bad as Algonquin, but it's not your common short-distance from highway to park entrance either.
Only a few things I didn't like about the park - 1) the outhouses are not lighted, so expect to take a dump in the dark (our last camping experience, which was at Arrowhead, near Huntsville last month, was eased by lighted outhouses). 2) some comfort stations (showers) are nowhere near walking distance - they could have probably put more of them in, but that may simply cause more traffic. 3) Getting to the park was a bit of a challenge - you go into Penetanguishine, and go through a few streets before hitting a concession road, and then more turns. The Awenda signs along the way are very small. If you have a GPS, you'll be fine; if you're using a paper map, study it carefully before heading out.
I didn't get a chance to fish this weekend, mostly due to weather (it rained all weekend and it was freezing cold), so I can't speak on the fishing aspect, but I do plan to go back there next year with the family.
Overall, I really enjoyed Awenda and plan to go back. I really liked the privacy (lots of trees and shade), the quietness, and the stuff for kids to do. Each campsite has a longer-than-usual "driveway" to get into the site, so your campsite is not as close to the road as some are. The beach was great, and there are good hiking trails if you want to burn off your hamburger lunch.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Stopping Power - Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns, by J. Neil Schulman - Book Review
That may have been the longest article title yet for this blog. But anyhow...
Tonight I just finished reading J. Neil Schulman's book, "Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns". What follows will be a very short review of the book with my perspectives and opinions on what I have read, in general (I don't want to get too specific, since that will just cause the length of this posting to spiral out of control, and I'm sure no one wants that). I read this book alongside another book (totally unrelated) titled "None of These Diseases - The Bible's Health Secrets for the 21st Century" - more on this another time.
With a title like Stopping Power, my initial thought was that the book would talk at great length about defensive gun use, particularly in the type of firearm and ammunition that it would take to incapacitate an attacker. I was sure that at some point, there would be references to ballistic jelly and bullet expansion, wound channels, what calibre or shot size ammo to use, etc. I thought it would discuss some of the legal ramifications of defensive firearm use and provide real-life scenarios to buttress all the points.
I was wrong on all counts, and it stemmed from my faulty understanding of the title of the book and the subsequent assumptions that I made as a result. The book does not discuss the specifics of ballistic stopping power or anything like that; rather, the reference Stopping Power, refers instead to the curbing of government abuse of powers and limiting liberties and natural rights. It was a bit of a bummer, since I had thought that the book was something else. But I digress...
Schulman, a self-proclaimed libertarian anarchist, spent a large portion of the book railing against perceived government interference in infringing the right for an individual to bear arms. He tackles a variety of topics related to this, and if nothing else, it kept the book fairly interesting, since it didn't get bogged down on legal or philosophical arguments (which I can take, but that's not why I bought the book). He does a good job in providing responses to many common arguments for gun control.
The highlight of the book for me was when he listed his correspondence with Gary Kleck, who many pro-gun writers seemingly quote regarding his assertion that there are an estimated 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use per year. Be that as it may, I have always wondered how that estimate was derived - many books quote the number without explaining how Kleck got to that number. To Schulman's credit, that is discussed in length. To date, it's the only book I've seen that has addressed the numbers behind the number. It's also helpful that Schulman pointed out that Kleck is a lifelong Democrat, is a member of many Democratic organizations, and is for gun control, so it's not like he was a puppet for the NRA or something. Kudos to Kleck for having some journalistic integrity by reporting on something as the facts, even if the conclusion flies against his personal view.
I also liked how Schulman had the second amendment broken down word for word and line by line by well known English professors and linguists. That chapter was helpful in shedding light on the wording of the second amendment, wording which has been used by both sides of the debate to try to buttress their own points.
But that is where the positives end, for me anyway. Since the early parts of the book, I simply could not get past the fact that most of the book is simply a collection of his previous writings, all meshed together in such a way that the flow of continuity is not there. You can really tell that he wrote the various articles at various times, since there is just not that singular sense of fluidity in the book. While it was a collection of topics presented, the cut and pasting of various articles and correspondence made for a very choppy read, which is probably why it took me so long to get through the book. I just find it a bit of a turn-off to see that he just cut and paste various writings he did previously (the audience for these were all different). It's like if I cut and paste an email I wrote to someone and put it here - you would have a hard time getting past the fact that while I wrote it, it wasn't expressly written for this purpose (and my blog entries are written different than an email at work to someone, etc.)
I also found that he included cuts and pastes of internet correspondence and in some cases, letters he wrote to others but could not paste their response. To read a set of letters where he is the only one writing is difficult, since you can't really see how his target responded (you an discern somewhat from his response, but it's not the same). I've always had a bit of an issue with quoting anything from the internet, in a "real book". In his case, he was quoting messages from chat sites and bulletin boards. I think I would have preferred seeing him collect up all this information and then disseminate it all at once in a way that is easier to follow.
Schulman, while pro-gun, reveals that he is left-wing on many other issues (ie. he is pro-choice and pro-gay). That is his opinion, but he goes out of his way to emphasize that, as if he considered it a badge of honour.
Overall, I'd give the book a B-. The content is OK, albeit a bit scatterbrained. I agree with most of what he is saying, but I think that the vehicle or delivery method/presentation could have been greatly improved. I bought his other book "Self-Control, Not Gun Control" and hope that it is structured a little bit better than this one.
Tonight I just finished reading J. Neil Schulman's book, "Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns". What follows will be a very short review of the book with my perspectives and opinions on what I have read, in general (I don't want to get too specific, since that will just cause the length of this posting to spiral out of control, and I'm sure no one wants that). I read this book alongside another book (totally unrelated) titled "None of These Diseases - The Bible's Health Secrets for the 21st Century" - more on this another time.
With a title like Stopping Power, my initial thought was that the book would talk at great length about defensive gun use, particularly in the type of firearm and ammunition that it would take to incapacitate an attacker. I was sure that at some point, there would be references to ballistic jelly and bullet expansion, wound channels, what calibre or shot size ammo to use, etc. I thought it would discuss some of the legal ramifications of defensive firearm use and provide real-life scenarios to buttress all the points.
I was wrong on all counts, and it stemmed from my faulty understanding of the title of the book and the subsequent assumptions that I made as a result. The book does not discuss the specifics of ballistic stopping power or anything like that; rather, the reference Stopping Power, refers instead to the curbing of government abuse of powers and limiting liberties and natural rights. It was a bit of a bummer, since I had thought that the book was something else. But I digress...
Schulman, a self-proclaimed libertarian anarchist, spent a large portion of the book railing against perceived government interference in infringing the right for an individual to bear arms. He tackles a variety of topics related to this, and if nothing else, it kept the book fairly interesting, since it didn't get bogged down on legal or philosophical arguments (which I can take, but that's not why I bought the book). He does a good job in providing responses to many common arguments for gun control.
The highlight of the book for me was when he listed his correspondence with Gary Kleck, who many pro-gun writers seemingly quote regarding his assertion that there are an estimated 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use per year. Be that as it may, I have always wondered how that estimate was derived - many books quote the number without explaining how Kleck got to that number. To Schulman's credit, that is discussed in length. To date, it's the only book I've seen that has addressed the numbers behind the number. It's also helpful that Schulman pointed out that Kleck is a lifelong Democrat, is a member of many Democratic organizations, and is for gun control, so it's not like he was a puppet for the NRA or something. Kudos to Kleck for having some journalistic integrity by reporting on something as the facts, even if the conclusion flies against his personal view.
I also liked how Schulman had the second amendment broken down word for word and line by line by well known English professors and linguists. That chapter was helpful in shedding light on the wording of the second amendment, wording which has been used by both sides of the debate to try to buttress their own points.
But that is where the positives end, for me anyway. Since the early parts of the book, I simply could not get past the fact that most of the book is simply a collection of his previous writings, all meshed together in such a way that the flow of continuity is not there. You can really tell that he wrote the various articles at various times, since there is just not that singular sense of fluidity in the book. While it was a collection of topics presented, the cut and pasting of various articles and correspondence made for a very choppy read, which is probably why it took me so long to get through the book. I just find it a bit of a turn-off to see that he just cut and paste various writings he did previously (the audience for these were all different). It's like if I cut and paste an email I wrote to someone and put it here - you would have a hard time getting past the fact that while I wrote it, it wasn't expressly written for this purpose (and my blog entries are written different than an email at work to someone, etc.)
I also found that he included cuts and pastes of internet correspondence and in some cases, letters he wrote to others but could not paste their response. To read a set of letters where he is the only one writing is difficult, since you can't really see how his target responded (you an discern somewhat from his response, but it's not the same). I've always had a bit of an issue with quoting anything from the internet, in a "real book". In his case, he was quoting messages from chat sites and bulletin boards. I think I would have preferred seeing him collect up all this information and then disseminate it all at once in a way that is easier to follow.
Schulman, while pro-gun, reveals that he is left-wing on many other issues (ie. he is pro-choice and pro-gay). That is his opinion, but he goes out of his way to emphasize that, as if he considered it a badge of honour.
Overall, I'd give the book a B-. The content is OK, albeit a bit scatterbrained. I agree with most of what he is saying, but I think that the vehicle or delivery method/presentation could have been greatly improved. I bought his other book "Self-Control, Not Gun Control" and hope that it is structured a little bit better than this one.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Mr. and Mrs...
I have, over the years, been increasingly convinced that the reason why today's kids, in most part, tend to be less polite than their counterparts from generations past is because adults have failed to instill and pass on something as simple as a basic standard of greeting from their kids towards other adults. One thing that I value tremendously from the partially Asian culture in which I was raised is the whole aspect of greetings towards adults. To many Asian kids, other adults get addressed as Uncle (insert name) and Auntie (insert name), despite the fact that these folks are not biologically related to them. It is a sign of respect and reverence for those who are older than yourself. When the adult is a non-Asian and don't get the Uncle and Auntie bit, we are to address them formally by Mr. (insert name) or Mrs. (insert name) or Miss (insert name) or Ms. (insert name).
The overall culture has gravitated towards little kids calling adults by their first name. While this may seem minor or trite, I think it is the beginning of the erosion of the child's respect system in their developing years.
There was a lady in our pre-natal class, with whose family we were casual friends. She always struck me as a bit pretentious, why with her "keeping up with the Joneses" attitude and her tremendously liberal philosophy - her sister's a lesbian, so what do you expect. Anyhow, I remember she was telling her kid (3 at the time) to call me "Jeremy". That is my name, but I ain't letting no 3-year-old call me by my first name. I kindly corrected, "It's Mr. (my last name) to you." His mom thought that I was nuts - of course, she teaches her son to use all medical terms to describe his body - I mean, how ridiculous does it sound to have a 3-year-old say, "I need to clean my penis." And this lady is a teacher (your taxpayer dollars at work). I also did that with another one of my wife's daycare kids. As much consternation and eye-rolling as parents will give me upon me correcting them to call me Mr. (my last name), I think I am doing a service to their children in the long run.
My son, 6, is continually instructed to call people Mr. and Mrs. (insert last name name). And his father (me) models this for him, in that I call his teacher Mrs. (her surname) when I address her directly in conversation, and I call his principal (who has changed a few times) his her surname, prefaced by the appropriate Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. Now, that being said, don't get me wrong, I don't call everyone I know who is older than me by Mr. and Mrs. I think part of it is discretionary for adults, but I think for kids, calling adults by their first name is out of bounds. I believe that students, no matter what age, should call their teachers Mr./Mrs./Ms./Miss (surname), no different than congregation people should call their minister Pastor (first name or last name). I do this with all my pastors at my church, despite the fact that a number of them have said that I can just call them by their name. I can do that but I will preface it with "Pastor". It just is a sign of respect, in my view. No different if you address an officer, you say "sir" or "Officer (surname" or "Constable (surname)" or "Detective (surname)". All of this sounds rather gay at first, but when you get used to it, it will be second nature. For parents with kids, I think it's important to model respect for authority figures and even adults in general.
This past Sunday, we went to our friends' place, and their last name was hard to pronounce for my son. They were Japanese and so it was not unusual for our friend to suggest to my son, "Why don't you just call me Uncle Doug." Makes sense to me.
I know some parents who have changed their kids' addressing of us when our son addresses them as Mr. or Mrs. Again, it seems counter-intuitive, but there is something about offering respect when respect is due that really gives a child a sense of order and a yielding to those who are either in authority, or have more life experience than us. I am 36, and I still call my parents' friends Uncle (first name) or Auntie (first name), even though I'm not related to them. It's not awkward in the least and it confers the elder-respect that is so often missing in today's me-first culture.
The overall culture has gravitated towards little kids calling adults by their first name. While this may seem minor or trite, I think it is the beginning of the erosion of the child's respect system in their developing years.
There was a lady in our pre-natal class, with whose family we were casual friends. She always struck me as a bit pretentious, why with her "keeping up with the Joneses" attitude and her tremendously liberal philosophy - her sister's a lesbian, so what do you expect. Anyhow, I remember she was telling her kid (3 at the time) to call me "Jeremy". That is my name, but I ain't letting no 3-year-old call me by my first name. I kindly corrected, "It's Mr. (my last name) to you." His mom thought that I was nuts - of course, she teaches her son to use all medical terms to describe his body - I mean, how ridiculous does it sound to have a 3-year-old say, "I need to clean my penis." And this lady is a teacher (your taxpayer dollars at work). I also did that with another one of my wife's daycare kids. As much consternation and eye-rolling as parents will give me upon me correcting them to call me Mr. (my last name), I think I am doing a service to their children in the long run.
My son, 6, is continually instructed to call people Mr. and Mrs. (insert last name name). And his father (me) models this for him, in that I call his teacher Mrs. (her surname) when I address her directly in conversation, and I call his principal (who has changed a few times) his her surname, prefaced by the appropriate Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. Now, that being said, don't get me wrong, I don't call everyone I know who is older than me by Mr. and Mrs. I think part of it is discretionary for adults, but I think for kids, calling adults by their first name is out of bounds. I believe that students, no matter what age, should call their teachers Mr./Mrs./Ms./Miss (surname), no different than congregation people should call their minister Pastor (first name or last name). I do this with all my pastors at my church, despite the fact that a number of them have said that I can just call them by their name. I can do that but I will preface it with "Pastor". It just is a sign of respect, in my view. No different if you address an officer, you say "sir" or "Officer (surname" or "Constable (surname)" or "Detective (surname)". All of this sounds rather gay at first, but when you get used to it, it will be second nature. For parents with kids, I think it's important to model respect for authority figures and even adults in general.
This past Sunday, we went to our friends' place, and their last name was hard to pronounce for my son. They were Japanese and so it was not unusual for our friend to suggest to my son, "Why don't you just call me Uncle Doug." Makes sense to me.
I know some parents who have changed their kids' addressing of us when our son addresses them as Mr. or Mrs. Again, it seems counter-intuitive, but there is something about offering respect when respect is due that really gives a child a sense of order and a yielding to those who are either in authority, or have more life experience than us. I am 36, and I still call my parents' friends Uncle (first name) or Auntie (first name), even though I'm not related to them. It's not awkward in the least and it confers the elder-respect that is so often missing in today's me-first culture.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Changing Commenting Policies Here
While I continue to maintain my policy of no moderation of comments, I have changed, after 2+ years of this blog being in existence, my policy of who is allowed to comment. It has become apparent to me why so many websites require you to register before commenting. While most anonymous comments have been civil and even if you disagree with me, you can say so, I have found that the anonymity of the internet allows anyone to abuse the commenting feature, to turn what would be a normal sensible comment either for or against my position, to one of unrelated ad-hominem attacks on me. I don't really care about this last part as long as you make a concerted effort to address the topic in the blog, irregardless if you agree with it or not. As long as you provide a sensible response, despite the position, I have no issue. What I have an issue with is people abusing the comments privilege and using it to just launch unrelated personal attacks without any type of objective support. If you disagree with something that I am saying, by all means engage the topic and put in your two cents and your supporting and buttressing thoughts. I won't delete you comment, as you can see by the many comments posted that have disagreed with me in one way or another. But I won't have cowards hiding behind anonymous accounts trolling around here looking to just post their non-sensical dribble. If you want to post a comment, have the stones to create an account and engage the topic at hand. The best way to persuade someone towards your position is to do it with facts and supporting evidence, not with childish name-calling and personal attacks. Thus, I am restricting commenting privileges to not allow anonymous comments. I suspect that this will cut down on the number of comments I receive, but I figure for the people who really have something worthwhile to say, they will make the effort to create accounts. At the same time, I will continue my policy of no moderation, which means that even existing unrelated anonymous comments will be kept, if for no other reason, to show why I have made this change in policy.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Eldership...Revisted?
My family and I have been attending our new church for 4 1/2 months now, and we are loving it! It's so encouraging to be attending an authentic Bible believing church, which not only teaches sound doctrine, has exceptional expository preaching, and interweaves the Bible into everything from the children's program to upcoming mid-week doctrine and church history classes. It has been more than a decade since I heard a sermon about Hell, man's sinfulness, integrity and moral living, and Biblical study excellence. My wife and I, after a couple of months, quickly realized that this is where God wants us to be and we are being spiritually fed more than any other time in our lives, it was a no-brainer for us to take membership classes and become official members last month. We couldn't be happier - we have entered into some very meaningful friendships with folks in our new community, some of them very deep friendships. We count it joy to entertain, feed, and be hospitable towards our new church family. Our kids have integrated very well - my son just finished an enjoyable fourth day of vacation Bible school / day camp, and for the first time, he is memorizing Bible verses. My walk with the Lord has improved dramatically in that I am spending more and more time in Bible study daily, something that was missing for years (and I have to bear a lot of responsibility for that, in part). My wife's and my marriage is stronger, our kids are getting solid Bible teaching at church and making Christian friends, and through the sheer grace of God, we have discovered fellow church members who are parents in my son's class, fellow parents we have known for years now, yet had no clue that we had a common faith. What really is the icing on the cake are our neighbours and very good friends, whom we met on the first day we attended our new church. It's strange - these neighbours live less than 100 feet away from us, but for the past six years, they didn't know us and we didn't know them and like most people in the bigger city, we all just sort of kept to ourselves. Now, either they are over here daily or we are over there. They just had dinner at our place on Monday, we ate at their place on Tuesday and they were over last night. We watch their kids and they watch ours. They are a solid, solid Christian family and we are just so blessed to have met them and have formed a very, very deep friendship with them even though we've really only known them for 4 1/2 months, but it feels like years. We are vacationing with them in August and are really looking forward to it.
Aside from that, our family has also semi-joined a small fellowship group, where we were made to feel both welcome and accepted. It is so refreshing to not have to deal with drama, pretense, and put on masks. We are part of a community of believers who not only struggle and have good and bad days, but collectively, strive towards understanding the Bible more and practically living out Biblical truths. Now, you may suggest that all churches should be doing this, but that is not the case. Many churches nowadays have become a glorified quasi-spiritual social club, where anything goes. Gossip is not only tolerated, but encouraged, and dependence on God through faith is replaced by self-reliance and pragmatism based on cultural and societal trends. I've been to a number of churches in the past 5 years, either visited or attended, which have personnified the churchy trend to focus on growth and be "contemporary and relevant". It's interesting to read about that behemothic, though misdirected Willow Creek church in the U.S. One of the first mega churches, it prided itself on being bigger, faster, and supposedly better than any other church. Only recently has it published a book detailing what a mistake it was to go in that direction and they are slowly moving back towards a more Biblically-sound model.
Our new church is a considerably more conservative church than any previous church I've attended, and I'm glad for that, since we need back-to-basics teaching. For the first time int he 18 years I've been a Christian, I will be switching Bible versions. Our new church uses the ESV (more conservative, literal version, along the lines of RSV, but not as badly translated as the KJV). When we became members, the church presented my wife and I EACH with a brand spanking new higher-end study Bible (they don't give pew Bibles there, since they want the Bible gift to stand out and as a reminder to the new owner that it was given on a special occasion). I'm OK with moving to ESV, and my Scofield ESV is on its way from amazon.ca (I don't want to use the gift Bible, since I'd rather keep it for home use so that I don't lose it).
I am grateful that I did not attend our new church 5 years ago, as it was embroiled in the same kind of seeker-friendly wishy-washy, lovey-dovey no-meat-on-the-bones "teaching". Doctrine was unwelcome and considered too divisive, but thankfully the denomination sensed the problem, installed a very solid, mature preacher from the outside into the church, and as a result, 400 people left and formed their own liberal-theologically based "church" about 15 mintues away, which cater to "contemporary" thinking by incorporating Nietzsche (sp.), John Lennon, etc. along with Jesus, and considers its worship services "entertainment" (it says that right on their website. Sad, sad, sad. Anyway, our new church is awesome and while we could have moved churches years ago (trust me, we were thinking of it, even back in 2006), I'm glad we didn't - God's timing for us was just right.
Why am I writing all this? In a way, this blog serves in part as a venting point, but at other times, I write here as a means to formulate thoughts and correlate feelings and such, very much like a diary, even though I never kept one growing up (it was always such a girlie thing to do, and in a sense, still is). This is one of the times when I am doing the diary thing.
I outlined the above experiences in a way to really demonstrate to me that not only are there good churches out there, there are excellent churches out there. There is no doubt in my mind that I eventually would have liked to get my feet wet again in serving in the church, but that was the farthest thing on my mind when I received a phone call at work today from the church. I saw it was the church calling on my call display at work, and instantly I thought, "oh man, what happened to my son?", since he was attending a Vacation Bible School or day camp there. Why else would they be calling?
It was the senior pastor's executive assistant. Now, I have gotten to know her fairly well and she is such a friendly lady and has a good sense of humour. I had thought that maybe there was something that got mixed up in a recent tithing cheque, or that perhaps I had left something at the church, for which I had to retrieve from the church office. Maybe she wanted to call and see how I was enjoying membership. Perhaps she wanted to invite our family over for a meet and greet or for a meal.
Little did I expect that I would be hearing these words...I am paraphrasing a bit here as to not use names or identifying information.
"On behalf of the Senior Pastor, I'd like to inform you that he has chosen to nominate you for the office of elder at our church."
First thing I did was grip the phone tighter. Did I just hear what I thought I heard? I asked her to repeat what she just said. She said it again - the Pastor is putting my name in as a candidate to be an elder, and would like to see if I am interested.
Second thing I did was take a breath. And then I reflexively responded, "wow, that's really nice that he is considering me, but I just became a member last month and I've only been coming here for 4 1/2 months..." She paused and said that the Senior Pastor put my name forth.
Now, I should provide some context here. The Senior Pastor is well aware that I was previously an elder at my old church. I don't think I ever shared with him about my experience. But I also did some leadership responsibilities at the church previous to that, running a missions committee and leading a college/career group. Both times I experienced ministry burnout. I think she could sense some trepidation in my voice. I honestly told her that well, I am really honoured that I am even considered, and really, this is totally unexpected, so I'm going to have to pray about it, look to the Scriptures to get some sense of God's direction, and seek Godly counsel from trusted mature Christians.
As I am sitting here typing all this out, I am still hashing these questions in my mind. The first thing I did today was call my wife and told to sit down while I told her about the call. To my surprise, she seemed fairly ecstatic and encouraged me to go for it, and really encouraging me that way - she's really good at that. The next thing I did was email my parents - I know my Mom's a believer, not so sure about my Dad, but I thought I'd include him). They shared some thoughts with me. I then emailed my old boss, and a dear friend and Christian brother who knows the Bible as good as anyone I know - he also shared some thoughts with me. I think that the next order of business is to meet up with another elder at the church (I already know with whom I am going to discuss this) and get his perspective as well as get some insight as to what goes on behind the scenes. And finally, I'm going to arrange a meeting with the Senior Pastor to find out the process that ended with my name being suggested, either by him or someone else.
This is so interesting, because I have a preaching series on eldership that I was planning on starting soon, since I listen to preaching on the way to work every morning.
I am finally, and most importantly, going to spend some time alone with God to seek his voice - I have a really nice place at a local conservation area that I go to to just sit in stillness...it's kind of weird, but really clears out distractions and I can get a better sense of God's direction if I sit quietly. I'll do that next week. And I'll be reading the 1 Timothy and Titus passages on eldership again.
My last foray into the eldership thing left a really bad taste in my mouth. To be quite frank, I had doubts as to my ability to be an effective last time. But I sensed God's calling and proceeded. It was an interesting experience for sure, but what really soured me was two years ago when I led a nominations team and we rejected the name of a prospective candidate. Apparently, it was only the second time in 20+ years that a candidate was rejected, and I was heading the committee that rejected the candidate. In looking back, the right decision was made - the candidate was totally unqualified and showed very little spiritual maturity and fruit. I thought it was a done deal until a couple of other elders and some other meddlers decided to try to reverse the decision and then talk with the people on my committee. Not only was this contrary to our mandate, but it totally undermined our committee. But moreover, it showed the lack of spiritual maturity in these other elders, and while I am not going to start comparing Christian credentials, if an elder is not willing to yield to Biblical standards and qualifications for prospective elders, they probably shouldn't be one in the first place. I saw enough during that process to know that I no longer wanted to be on that board, but since I made a commitment, I tried my best to serve out the rest of the term. Since then, I've seen other things occur at our old church and amongst some of the people there, to unequivocally conclude that there is a serious lack of spiritual maturity at our old church - of course, I am not including everyone in that, since there were some very solid Christians at our old church, but I'd say in retrospect that they were in the minority.
So when I got the call today asking if I'd be willing to stand as a candidate for elder for a church of 820+ people, I hesitated a bit. Did I really want to go through this again? But then again, I know enough about how our new church operates by its fruit that I know that behind the scenes, there are good leaders there. I've actually tested this theory in an unconspicuous way with a couple of elders, asking them some casual Bible questions. I don't expect any elder to be able to answer all Bible questions, but at the very least, you should be able to consider them someone you can ask, knowing that their interest is there. Thankfully, the elders I've talked with showed a very keen interest and understanding of God's Word. You can tell these men take Bible study seriously.
Several people who have provided initial counsel for me so far have commonly re-iterated the obvious point that our new church is a far different church than our old church. In fact, with our old church, it took my wife and I literally years to integrate ourselves into the life of the church: four years to become a member, eight years to actually start forming meaningful friendships, and all in between, we considered trying out another church. With our new church, we became a member in 3 1/2 months, we get to church early every week, have already formed meaningful relationships and are both being fed regularly. I know churches are different, and our new and old church are night and day, but that bad eldership experience really grinds at me to this day. I saw that decisions were oftentimes arrived at discussion only and without really serious prayer - one time, during a congregational meeting, a former elder stood up and suggested that they vote to leave their denomination then and there, that night, due to some denominational authority squabbles. I remember thinking, if a former elder would make a snap decision like that by thinking with his emotions in the heat of the moment rather than logically and objectively, that is not a good sign. I am sure things are done a lot differently at our new church, but to a small degree, I am afraid, since that previous bad experience caused me to leave our old church. I don't want this to happen again.
Then again, I recognize that God is in control and He will place us where He wants us. And that I really shouldn't be thinking of how I feel, but rather whether this is God's will. I also have to keep in mind that just because I'm nominated doesn't mean I'll pass what I am sure will be a much more rigorous selection and interview process. Remember, our new church has about 9 elders for 820+ people (I would potentially be number 10).
I also think about my hang-ups - I have a lot of them. I have some personality quirks and sometimes can be impatient or even a bear. I am very opinionated, as you can tell by my postings here, and sometimes have difficulty in coming across diplomatically. But my wife, who knows me best and has seen me at my worse, is encouraging me to let my name stand, or at least that's the way she's leaning...
You may say, what's the big deal? This is a volunteer position, so don't take it too seriously. Well, I do take it seriously since I think the church's leaders will more often than not influence how the church moves forward. I also see this as also a tremendous potential opportunity to serve God in a capacity that I though I could not handle. I take it seriously because the Bible takes it seriously (see 1 Timothy and Titus).
I really do have to pray about this and dig into God's Word to get some direction.
Aside from that, our family has also semi-joined a small fellowship group, where we were made to feel both welcome and accepted. It is so refreshing to not have to deal with drama, pretense, and put on masks. We are part of a community of believers who not only struggle and have good and bad days, but collectively, strive towards understanding the Bible more and practically living out Biblical truths. Now, you may suggest that all churches should be doing this, but that is not the case. Many churches nowadays have become a glorified quasi-spiritual social club, where anything goes. Gossip is not only tolerated, but encouraged, and dependence on God through faith is replaced by self-reliance and pragmatism based on cultural and societal trends. I've been to a number of churches in the past 5 years, either visited or attended, which have personnified the churchy trend to focus on growth and be "contemporary and relevant". It's interesting to read about that behemothic, though misdirected Willow Creek church in the U.S. One of the first mega churches, it prided itself on being bigger, faster, and supposedly better than any other church. Only recently has it published a book detailing what a mistake it was to go in that direction and they are slowly moving back towards a more Biblically-sound model.
Our new church is a considerably more conservative church than any previous church I've attended, and I'm glad for that, since we need back-to-basics teaching. For the first time int he 18 years I've been a Christian, I will be switching Bible versions. Our new church uses the ESV (more conservative, literal version, along the lines of RSV, but not as badly translated as the KJV). When we became members, the church presented my wife and I EACH with a brand spanking new higher-end study Bible (they don't give pew Bibles there, since they want the Bible gift to stand out and as a reminder to the new owner that it was given on a special occasion). I'm OK with moving to ESV, and my Scofield ESV is on its way from amazon.ca (I don't want to use the gift Bible, since I'd rather keep it for home use so that I don't lose it).
I am grateful that I did not attend our new church 5 years ago, as it was embroiled in the same kind of seeker-friendly wishy-washy, lovey-dovey no-meat-on-the-bones "teaching". Doctrine was unwelcome and considered too divisive, but thankfully the denomination sensed the problem, installed a very solid, mature preacher from the outside into the church, and as a result, 400 people left and formed their own liberal-theologically based "church" about 15 mintues away, which cater to "contemporary" thinking by incorporating Nietzsche (sp.), John Lennon, etc. along with Jesus, and considers its worship services "entertainment" (it says that right on their website. Sad, sad, sad. Anyway, our new church is awesome and while we could have moved churches years ago (trust me, we were thinking of it, even back in 2006), I'm glad we didn't - God's timing for us was just right.
Why am I writing all this? In a way, this blog serves in part as a venting point, but at other times, I write here as a means to formulate thoughts and correlate feelings and such, very much like a diary, even though I never kept one growing up (it was always such a girlie thing to do, and in a sense, still is). This is one of the times when I am doing the diary thing.
I outlined the above experiences in a way to really demonstrate to me that not only are there good churches out there, there are excellent churches out there. There is no doubt in my mind that I eventually would have liked to get my feet wet again in serving in the church, but that was the farthest thing on my mind when I received a phone call at work today from the church. I saw it was the church calling on my call display at work, and instantly I thought, "oh man, what happened to my son?", since he was attending a Vacation Bible School or day camp there. Why else would they be calling?
It was the senior pastor's executive assistant. Now, I have gotten to know her fairly well and she is such a friendly lady and has a good sense of humour. I had thought that maybe there was something that got mixed up in a recent tithing cheque, or that perhaps I had left something at the church, for which I had to retrieve from the church office. Maybe she wanted to call and see how I was enjoying membership. Perhaps she wanted to invite our family over for a meet and greet or for a meal.
Little did I expect that I would be hearing these words...I am paraphrasing a bit here as to not use names or identifying information.
"On behalf of the Senior Pastor, I'd like to inform you that he has chosen to nominate you for the office of elder at our church."
First thing I did was grip the phone tighter. Did I just hear what I thought I heard? I asked her to repeat what she just said. She said it again - the Pastor is putting my name in as a candidate to be an elder, and would like to see if I am interested.
Second thing I did was take a breath. And then I reflexively responded, "wow, that's really nice that he is considering me, but I just became a member last month and I've only been coming here for 4 1/2 months..." She paused and said that the Senior Pastor put my name forth.
Now, I should provide some context here. The Senior Pastor is well aware that I was previously an elder at my old church. I don't think I ever shared with him about my experience. But I also did some leadership responsibilities at the church previous to that, running a missions committee and leading a college/career group. Both times I experienced ministry burnout. I think she could sense some trepidation in my voice. I honestly told her that well, I am really honoured that I am even considered, and really, this is totally unexpected, so I'm going to have to pray about it, look to the Scriptures to get some sense of God's direction, and seek Godly counsel from trusted mature Christians.
As I am sitting here typing all this out, I am still hashing these questions in my mind. The first thing I did today was call my wife and told to sit down while I told her about the call. To my surprise, she seemed fairly ecstatic and encouraged me to go for it, and really encouraging me that way - she's really good at that. The next thing I did was email my parents - I know my Mom's a believer, not so sure about my Dad, but I thought I'd include him). They shared some thoughts with me. I then emailed my old boss, and a dear friend and Christian brother who knows the Bible as good as anyone I know - he also shared some thoughts with me. I think that the next order of business is to meet up with another elder at the church (I already know with whom I am going to discuss this) and get his perspective as well as get some insight as to what goes on behind the scenes. And finally, I'm going to arrange a meeting with the Senior Pastor to find out the process that ended with my name being suggested, either by him or someone else.
This is so interesting, because I have a preaching series on eldership that I was planning on starting soon, since I listen to preaching on the way to work every morning.
I am finally, and most importantly, going to spend some time alone with God to seek his voice - I have a really nice place at a local conservation area that I go to to just sit in stillness...it's kind of weird, but really clears out distractions and I can get a better sense of God's direction if I sit quietly. I'll do that next week. And I'll be reading the 1 Timothy and Titus passages on eldership again.
My last foray into the eldership thing left a really bad taste in my mouth. To be quite frank, I had doubts as to my ability to be an effective last time. But I sensed God's calling and proceeded. It was an interesting experience for sure, but what really soured me was two years ago when I led a nominations team and we rejected the name of a prospective candidate. Apparently, it was only the second time in 20+ years that a candidate was rejected, and I was heading the committee that rejected the candidate. In looking back, the right decision was made - the candidate was totally unqualified and showed very little spiritual maturity and fruit. I thought it was a done deal until a couple of other elders and some other meddlers decided to try to reverse the decision and then talk with the people on my committee. Not only was this contrary to our mandate, but it totally undermined our committee. But moreover, it showed the lack of spiritual maturity in these other elders, and while I am not going to start comparing Christian credentials, if an elder is not willing to yield to Biblical standards and qualifications for prospective elders, they probably shouldn't be one in the first place. I saw enough during that process to know that I no longer wanted to be on that board, but since I made a commitment, I tried my best to serve out the rest of the term. Since then, I've seen other things occur at our old church and amongst some of the people there, to unequivocally conclude that there is a serious lack of spiritual maturity at our old church - of course, I am not including everyone in that, since there were some very solid Christians at our old church, but I'd say in retrospect that they were in the minority.
So when I got the call today asking if I'd be willing to stand as a candidate for elder for a church of 820+ people, I hesitated a bit. Did I really want to go through this again? But then again, I know enough about how our new church operates by its fruit that I know that behind the scenes, there are good leaders there. I've actually tested this theory in an unconspicuous way with a couple of elders, asking them some casual Bible questions. I don't expect any elder to be able to answer all Bible questions, but at the very least, you should be able to consider them someone you can ask, knowing that their interest is there. Thankfully, the elders I've talked with showed a very keen interest and understanding of God's Word. You can tell these men take Bible study seriously.
Several people who have provided initial counsel for me so far have commonly re-iterated the obvious point that our new church is a far different church than our old church. In fact, with our old church, it took my wife and I literally years to integrate ourselves into the life of the church: four years to become a member, eight years to actually start forming meaningful friendships, and all in between, we considered trying out another church. With our new church, we became a member in 3 1/2 months, we get to church early every week, have already formed meaningful relationships and are both being fed regularly. I know churches are different, and our new and old church are night and day, but that bad eldership experience really grinds at me to this day. I saw that decisions were oftentimes arrived at discussion only and without really serious prayer - one time, during a congregational meeting, a former elder stood up and suggested that they vote to leave their denomination then and there, that night, due to some denominational authority squabbles. I remember thinking, if a former elder would make a snap decision like that by thinking with his emotions in the heat of the moment rather than logically and objectively, that is not a good sign. I am sure things are done a lot differently at our new church, but to a small degree, I am afraid, since that previous bad experience caused me to leave our old church. I don't want this to happen again.
Then again, I recognize that God is in control and He will place us where He wants us. And that I really shouldn't be thinking of how I feel, but rather whether this is God's will. I also have to keep in mind that just because I'm nominated doesn't mean I'll pass what I am sure will be a much more rigorous selection and interview process. Remember, our new church has about 9 elders for 820+ people (I would potentially be number 10).
I also think about my hang-ups - I have a lot of them. I have some personality quirks and sometimes can be impatient or even a bear. I am very opinionated, as you can tell by my postings here, and sometimes have difficulty in coming across diplomatically. But my wife, who knows me best and has seen me at my worse, is encouraging me to let my name stand, or at least that's the way she's leaning...
You may say, what's the big deal? This is a volunteer position, so don't take it too seriously. Well, I do take it seriously since I think the church's leaders will more often than not influence how the church moves forward. I also see this as also a tremendous potential opportunity to serve God in a capacity that I though I could not handle. I take it seriously because the Bible takes it seriously (see 1 Timothy and Titus).
I really do have to pray about this and dig into God's Word to get some direction.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Michael Jackson is Dead. Move On.
Being a guy who doesn't give a rat's ass about what goes on in Hollywood and celebrity gossip in general, you can imagine that the constant media focus on the death of Michael Jackson has grated on me. You see, when I turn on the news, I am hoping to hear about various items, whether they be news, business, sports, etc. But the incessant coverage of everything Michael Jackson since his death, has been excessive at best.
Now, you have to realize that growing up, I listened to a lot of Michael Jackson music. But you see, unlike the majority of people, I can differentiate between a product and the producer. I would go out and buy a new camping tent, but I really don't care about the day-to-day goings-on with the tent's inventor or the person who holds the patent for the tent. I view music and movies the same way - it's an end product of an artist and the end product can be appreciated. Perhaps even the artist who produced it. But the simply god-like treatment of a celebrity is something which I have never understood.
It culminated in today's Michael Jackon memorial. My wife watched it and was glued to the set. I refused to watch it. And why would I? Michael Jackson was a talented singer, nothing more. Somehow the media seems to think he is the returning messiah, the way they treated him like some sort of deity. I guess this is what happens when one lives in today's media-saturated world, where the goings on of celebrities seems to pique people's interest (why, I don't know - maybe their own lives are so dull that they have nothing else better to do). I was meeting with one of my customers today and ended up chatting with him about car auctions for a good hour. It was great, and I was thinking, while most people sat in front of their TVs, watching a glorified memorial of a celebrity they have likely never met or do not know personally, I was interacting with a real live person.
It seems to be lost on people that Jackson wasn't exactly a shiny example of an upstanding citizen. His numerous child molestation challenges will likely forever haunt his memory, if you are looking at his biographical sketch objectively. It was telling that the performers at the memorial all had very public affairs, divorces, etc. Kind of fitting, considering the type of person Jackson was.
Also, while I didn't watch any of the coverage, it's kind of hard to ignore it if you are reading the newspaper or going on any news website today. There are pictures everywhere. You ever notice that almost all of the performers were black? For all the media seem to suggest about Jackson breaking down racial barriers, you really don't see that at all, based on the demographics of the performing artists. Further, ever notice that on the day Jackson died, all of the coverage of the "mourners" were undoubtedly almost all black, whether they were in California, Harlem, or elsewhere. It would seem to me that Jackson did not make as big of strides as people thought.
One other thing to mention - and I suppose this is typical of today's pluralistic mindset. Even in curiously persuing some photos of the coverage, it seems that in numerous parts of the ceremony, they were flashing different religious symbols on the screen, as if to suggest all religions were the same or that there is no different in faiths. This is the ultimate moral relativism, which perhaps contributes to why Jackson is so popular - he believed in the age-old "I'm OK, you're OK" type of approach, the "all faiths lead to the same place" type of mentality, in an effort to not offend anyone. What a fallacy this is. No wonder so many people conveniently gloss over the fact that he wasn't exactly someone you'd be comfortable leaving you children with. But that is the world we live in, where character flaws don't seem to matter.
For me, Jackson's death is no different than any other. I grieve for his family, who have lost a dear family member, and I'm sure it's tough for his parents, but you know, all that plastic surgery, drugs that he took and the lifestyle that he chose - well, I can't say that I'm surprised he died at the age he did. But let's be objective here. He's a singer, an artist, an entertainer. Let's not lose sight of that.
Now, you have to realize that growing up, I listened to a lot of Michael Jackson music. But you see, unlike the majority of people, I can differentiate between a product and the producer. I would go out and buy a new camping tent, but I really don't care about the day-to-day goings-on with the tent's inventor or the person who holds the patent for the tent. I view music and movies the same way - it's an end product of an artist and the end product can be appreciated. Perhaps even the artist who produced it. But the simply god-like treatment of a celebrity is something which I have never understood.
It culminated in today's Michael Jackon memorial. My wife watched it and was glued to the set. I refused to watch it. And why would I? Michael Jackson was a talented singer, nothing more. Somehow the media seems to think he is the returning messiah, the way they treated him like some sort of deity. I guess this is what happens when one lives in today's media-saturated world, where the goings on of celebrities seems to pique people's interest (why, I don't know - maybe their own lives are so dull that they have nothing else better to do). I was meeting with one of my customers today and ended up chatting with him about car auctions for a good hour. It was great, and I was thinking, while most people sat in front of their TVs, watching a glorified memorial of a celebrity they have likely never met or do not know personally, I was interacting with a real live person.
It seems to be lost on people that Jackson wasn't exactly a shiny example of an upstanding citizen. His numerous child molestation challenges will likely forever haunt his memory, if you are looking at his biographical sketch objectively. It was telling that the performers at the memorial all had very public affairs, divorces, etc. Kind of fitting, considering the type of person Jackson was.
Also, while I didn't watch any of the coverage, it's kind of hard to ignore it if you are reading the newspaper or going on any news website today. There are pictures everywhere. You ever notice that almost all of the performers were black? For all the media seem to suggest about Jackson breaking down racial barriers, you really don't see that at all, based on the demographics of the performing artists. Further, ever notice that on the day Jackson died, all of the coverage of the "mourners" were undoubtedly almost all black, whether they were in California, Harlem, or elsewhere. It would seem to me that Jackson did not make as big of strides as people thought.
One other thing to mention - and I suppose this is typical of today's pluralistic mindset. Even in curiously persuing some photos of the coverage, it seems that in numerous parts of the ceremony, they were flashing different religious symbols on the screen, as if to suggest all religions were the same or that there is no different in faiths. This is the ultimate moral relativism, which perhaps contributes to why Jackson is so popular - he believed in the age-old "I'm OK, you're OK" type of approach, the "all faiths lead to the same place" type of mentality, in an effort to not offend anyone. What a fallacy this is. No wonder so many people conveniently gloss over the fact that he wasn't exactly someone you'd be comfortable leaving you children with. But that is the world we live in, where character flaws don't seem to matter.
For me, Jackson's death is no different than any other. I grieve for his family, who have lost a dear family member, and I'm sure it's tough for his parents, but you know, all that plastic surgery, drugs that he took and the lifestyle that he chose - well, I can't say that I'm surprised he died at the age he did. But let's be objective here. He's a singer, an artist, an entertainer. Let's not lose sight of that.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Gun Is the Great Equalizer
I am a bit of an anomaly when it comes to my family. It is not a secret, if you have read any part of this blog long enough, that I am a staunch proponent of firearms ownership. My wife, while passably tolerating my gun hobby, leans more towards the very common, yet erronenous notion that "guns are bad". Of course, if you get your information from the mass media, that's the impression you'll get, though you'll have a tough time defending it.
However, out of respect for my wife, I choose to keep my gun interests to myself. My kids, both under 7, don't know I don't own any guns. Of course, if they ever ask me, I won't lie about it, but I won't go out of my way to volunteer this information either (by the way, that's generally a good mindset to have, since you don't want to advertise that you have guns in your house anyway, just in case the wrong people get a hold of this information).
Over the past weekend, our family went camping with some Jewish friends of ours, who, while they are very nice and thoughtful people, are thoroughly indoctrinated in anything that smacks of today's liberal and left-wing mindset. They don't spank their kinds and frown when I say that both my kids get spanked. This weekend was evidence of what happens when you have a lassez-faire, "let the kids run your life" type of parenting style. But anyway, one interesting interchange between my son and one of our friends was when she was taking a photo of my son with her kids and my son decided to use both hands to make guns and point it to the side - you know the posture, the "here's lookin' at you kid" type of gesture. She said, "oh, you shouldn't be doing that - guns are not nice." I quickly remarked to my son, though I was indirectly talking with her, "guns can be used for good or bad", and I knew she shot me a look, but I wasn't really paying attention to her response.
It seems very typical that those who oppose gun ownership are the ones who probably can benefit from it the most. Whether you are a woman, a visible minority, a senior citizen, or someone who is physically in stature, guns are, for all intents and purposes, the great equalizer. I mean, think about it - if you are a woman and are attacked, chances are that your aggressor will be physically stronger than you (as a general rule, based on on the physical attributes of men and woman on a whole). If you are a visible minority, especially if you are black, you would benefit greatly from a firearm for self-defence, since blacks tend to be victims of crimes. It's no different if you're a smaller person like me. In whatever case, a gun evens the odds between potential victim and aggressor. The fact of the matter is, there will always be bigger, badder people out there. There is no shame in utilizing extra tools at your disposal in our own self-defence.
I am a bit surprised at our friend's response. Being Jewish, you would think she would have experienced racism or ethnic jokes at one point in her life or another (but then again, she is from a fairly multicultural country - a real multicultural country, so she may have been fortunate in avoiding all the racial tension those other of us who are minorities would have had to live through. Israel as a country, perhaps only second to Switzerland, has a very high per capita of gun ownership. Yet their crime rates in the cities are infinitely smaller than their North American counterparts. If you look in Canada and the U.S., are the areas where there tends to be more crime tend to be higher and denser-populated metropolitan cities like Toronto, New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. All these areas are high gun-control areas, yet crime remains rampant. Those who live in the poorest of these areas could greatly benefit from owning a firearm as these people are the most likely to have a crime committed on them.
However, out of respect for my wife, I choose to keep my gun interests to myself. My kids, both under 7, don't know I don't own any guns. Of course, if they ever ask me, I won't lie about it, but I won't go out of my way to volunteer this information either (by the way, that's generally a good mindset to have, since you don't want to advertise that you have guns in your house anyway, just in case the wrong people get a hold of this information).
Over the past weekend, our family went camping with some Jewish friends of ours, who, while they are very nice and thoughtful people, are thoroughly indoctrinated in anything that smacks of today's liberal and left-wing mindset. They don't spank their kinds and frown when I say that both my kids get spanked. This weekend was evidence of what happens when you have a lassez-faire, "let the kids run your life" type of parenting style. But anyway, one interesting interchange between my son and one of our friends was when she was taking a photo of my son with her kids and my son decided to use both hands to make guns and point it to the side - you know the posture, the "here's lookin' at you kid" type of gesture. She said, "oh, you shouldn't be doing that - guns are not nice." I quickly remarked to my son, though I was indirectly talking with her, "guns can be used for good or bad", and I knew she shot me a look, but I wasn't really paying attention to her response.
It seems very typical that those who oppose gun ownership are the ones who probably can benefit from it the most. Whether you are a woman, a visible minority, a senior citizen, or someone who is physically in stature, guns are, for all intents and purposes, the great equalizer. I mean, think about it - if you are a woman and are attacked, chances are that your aggressor will be physically stronger than you (as a general rule, based on on the physical attributes of men and woman on a whole). If you are a visible minority, especially if you are black, you would benefit greatly from a firearm for self-defence, since blacks tend to be victims of crimes. It's no different if you're a smaller person like me. In whatever case, a gun evens the odds between potential victim and aggressor. The fact of the matter is, there will always be bigger, badder people out there. There is no shame in utilizing extra tools at your disposal in our own self-defence.
I am a bit surprised at our friend's response. Being Jewish, you would think she would have experienced racism or ethnic jokes at one point in her life or another (but then again, she is from a fairly multicultural country - a real multicultural country, so she may have been fortunate in avoiding all the racial tension those other of us who are minorities would have had to live through. Israel as a country, perhaps only second to Switzerland, has a very high per capita of gun ownership. Yet their crime rates in the cities are infinitely smaller than their North American counterparts. If you look in Canada and the U.S., are the areas where there tends to be more crime tend to be higher and denser-populated metropolitan cities like Toronto, New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. All these areas are high gun-control areas, yet crime remains rampant. Those who live in the poorest of these areas could greatly benefit from owning a firearm as these people are the most likely to have a crime committed on them.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
People Should Not Be Sticking Fingers In Other People's Butts
Well, tomorrow is a milestone of sorts for me, and one which I would hope would never come. I am at the age where I can no longer deny the medical establishment the profound opportunity to violate my anal cavity under the auspices of a health probe. Yeah, I know it's common, but that doesn't make it right. Sure, some people have mentioned to me that based on the fact that my Dad (65 1/2) has had previous issues with his prostate and subsequently required surgery a few years ago, that it would be in my best interests to bend over, and think about the Smurfs while my new doctor (a male, for crying out loud - talk about adding insult to injury) - inserts a digit, hoping to find whatever he is looking for. I will be observing him at all times and should the faintest sign of a smile come on his face, I will not hesitate to, pardon the strong language, kick his ass (no pun intended).
My appointment is tomorrow late afternoon after work. Somehow, if my company's ethics agreement did not forbid the consumption of alcohol in the office, nor did the provincial laws prohibit (rightly so) driving under the influence, I would probably be able to better prepare myself in anticipation of this extremely embarrassing procedure. Needless to say, I have a bottle of Cabernet all ready at home, so that I can quickly and efficiently soothe what will no doubt be a traumatic experience for me.
My wife says that I am a big chicken for fearing tomorrow's impending butt-check. She does have a point, to a degree. Both our kids were born by caesarean section, and with our first, my wife was poked, prodded, and had all sorts of instruments jammed inside her that made even me, a seasoned viewer of Stallone and Rambo movies, squeamish. I remember when they broke her water after doing a number of other very invasive procedures - they stuck this thing like a steel paper towel roll into her and then followed by pushing in these crochet-type of needles. Sheesh, even the thought of this now makes me shiver. But I agree, she was a trooper, and it's hard to argue with someone like her who, while historically has been afraid of surgeries and such, has had to go through two c-sections, and two miscarriages, one of which required invasive surgery. She said for me to get a finger up the butt is nothing, and I have no right to protest.
Still, as a guy, this is not something which I feel is perfectly natural. With the advances in medical technology, you would think that there would be easy ways of running an ultrasound to determine whether I had any issues down there (or is it up there?). I really should not be subjected to an activity which is probably commonplace in the Yonge/Wellesley area of Toronto. Maybe it's my Asian upbringing and the subsequent degree of modesty that I profess to have (even though I admitedly walk around the house with nothing by boxers on). Maybe it's my very heterosexual persona, which will not allow for such privacy-inhibiting activities to be performed upon my very body.
Or maybe my wife is right - I am simply a big chicken.
I have been thinking long and hard (my mental faculties, as limited as they are, have been working overtime) in trying to formulate a way to get out of the appointment. Unfortunately, any attempts to change my fate tomorrow afternoon has failed to materialize. I was thinking of having my wife don some latex gloves and perform a "dry run", so to speak, this evening, but she is biking with a friend. So I am left to wallow in my fears and apprehension and hopes that the Lord takes me before the late afternoon hours tomorrow.
My appointment is tomorrow late afternoon after work. Somehow, if my company's ethics agreement did not forbid the consumption of alcohol in the office, nor did the provincial laws prohibit (rightly so) driving under the influence, I would probably be able to better prepare myself in anticipation of this extremely embarrassing procedure. Needless to say, I have a bottle of Cabernet all ready at home, so that I can quickly and efficiently soothe what will no doubt be a traumatic experience for me.
My wife says that I am a big chicken for fearing tomorrow's impending butt-check. She does have a point, to a degree. Both our kids were born by caesarean section, and with our first, my wife was poked, prodded, and had all sorts of instruments jammed inside her that made even me, a seasoned viewer of Stallone and Rambo movies, squeamish. I remember when they broke her water after doing a number of other very invasive procedures - they stuck this thing like a steel paper towel roll into her and then followed by pushing in these crochet-type of needles. Sheesh, even the thought of this now makes me shiver. But I agree, she was a trooper, and it's hard to argue with someone like her who, while historically has been afraid of surgeries and such, has had to go through two c-sections, and two miscarriages, one of which required invasive surgery. She said for me to get a finger up the butt is nothing, and I have no right to protest.
Still, as a guy, this is not something which I feel is perfectly natural. With the advances in medical technology, you would think that there would be easy ways of running an ultrasound to determine whether I had any issues down there (or is it up there?). I really should not be subjected to an activity which is probably commonplace in the Yonge/Wellesley area of Toronto. Maybe it's my Asian upbringing and the subsequent degree of modesty that I profess to have (even though I admitedly walk around the house with nothing by boxers on). Maybe it's my very heterosexual persona, which will not allow for such privacy-inhibiting activities to be performed upon my very body.
Or maybe my wife is right - I am simply a big chicken.
I have been thinking long and hard (my mental faculties, as limited as they are, have been working overtime) in trying to formulate a way to get out of the appointment. Unfortunately, any attempts to change my fate tomorrow afternoon has failed to materialize. I was thinking of having my wife don some latex gloves and perform a "dry run", so to speak, this evening, but she is biking with a friend. So I am left to wallow in my fears and apprehension and hopes that the Lord takes me before the late afternoon hours tomorrow.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
A Late-Term Abortion Doctor Is Shot Dead. So What?
I find it very strange that some of the anti-abortion groups who have historically been linked to violence are now condemning the recent slaying of Dr. George Tiller, one of about 10 or so doctors in the U.S. who will perform late-term (third trimester+) abortions. They claim that violence is never justified to counter violence and that the execution-style slaying should be roundly condemned.
Maybe.
I generally am not in favour of people taking the law into their own hands - that is, unless the law has utterly failed them and their lives or their loved ones lives are in grave danger as a result. Yes, I know this may be a bit of a controversial stance, but let's face it, justice is not always meted out fairly. Where possible, I am in full favour of letting the judicial system decide things. Lord knows how many wackos are out there who could be set off at a drop of a pin, and we don't need them walking the streets, dispensing vigilante justice without due process being allowed to run its course first.
However, I believe as with all things, there is always another side to consider. In this case, the facts are clear. I remember reading that, according to the U.S. Center of Disease Control (CDC), there were over 820,000 abortions performed in the year 2005 alone. To claim that all of these are medically necessary is spurious. Unfortunately, society has de-valued human life to the point of medically terminating it for a helpless unborn child. These pro-choicers claim that it should be up to the woman, yet no one is speaking on behalf of the poor child who gets murdered. They claim that if abortions were illegal, countless women would die as a result of self-induced abortions. My response is: let them die. Most women who get abortions do so as a means of birth control, not due to rape or the life of the mother being at stake (these two instances are always cited in ethics conversations, but people conveniently gloss over that the majority of abortions are not medically necessary, but simply a means for a female to not accept responsibility for their sexual practices. Since when did we start to value selfish decisions over the rights of an innocent little one?
Fact of the matter is, I would be lying if I told you that I am saddened at the death of Dr. Tiller. While some may argue the validity of life in a fetus, it's very hard to argue that a baby in the third trimester is not a baby, a real human being. Women have delivered prematurely in the third trimester and when it comes out, it is a baby! For Tiller to be willing to terminate such life, I think, brings about it natural consequences. The fact that someone chose to end this murderer's life by way of a bullet, is no doubt a direct consequence of his actions. You reap what you sow. What can I say?
I don't see this any different than someone deciding to kill Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olsen, or Charles Manson in jail. A murderer is a murderer is a murderer. True, the guy who shot Tiller in cold blood at Tiller's church (what kind of church would accept an abortion doctor as a congregant???) is just as much of a murderer as Tiller is and will be judged accordingly. But could this be classified as a situation where one has to be killed in order to save the many? I'm not sure, but I do know that he won't be around to murder any more unborn children in the future.
Maybe.
I generally am not in favour of people taking the law into their own hands - that is, unless the law has utterly failed them and their lives or their loved ones lives are in grave danger as a result. Yes, I know this may be a bit of a controversial stance, but let's face it, justice is not always meted out fairly. Where possible, I am in full favour of letting the judicial system decide things. Lord knows how many wackos are out there who could be set off at a drop of a pin, and we don't need them walking the streets, dispensing vigilante justice without due process being allowed to run its course first.
However, I believe as with all things, there is always another side to consider. In this case, the facts are clear. I remember reading that, according to the U.S. Center of Disease Control (CDC), there were over 820,000 abortions performed in the year 2005 alone. To claim that all of these are medically necessary is spurious. Unfortunately, society has de-valued human life to the point of medically terminating it for a helpless unborn child. These pro-choicers claim that it should be up to the woman, yet no one is speaking on behalf of the poor child who gets murdered. They claim that if abortions were illegal, countless women would die as a result of self-induced abortions. My response is: let them die. Most women who get abortions do so as a means of birth control, not due to rape or the life of the mother being at stake (these two instances are always cited in ethics conversations, but people conveniently gloss over that the majority of abortions are not medically necessary, but simply a means for a female to not accept responsibility for their sexual practices. Since when did we start to value selfish decisions over the rights of an innocent little one?
Fact of the matter is, I would be lying if I told you that I am saddened at the death of Dr. Tiller. While some may argue the validity of life in a fetus, it's very hard to argue that a baby in the third trimester is not a baby, a real human being. Women have delivered prematurely in the third trimester and when it comes out, it is a baby! For Tiller to be willing to terminate such life, I think, brings about it natural consequences. The fact that someone chose to end this murderer's life by way of a bullet, is no doubt a direct consequence of his actions. You reap what you sow. What can I say?
I don't see this any different than someone deciding to kill Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olsen, or Charles Manson in jail. A murderer is a murderer is a murderer. True, the guy who shot Tiller in cold blood at Tiller's church (what kind of church would accept an abortion doctor as a congregant???) is just as much of a murderer as Tiller is and will be judged accordingly. But could this be classified as a situation where one has to be killed in order to save the many? I'm not sure, but I do know that he won't be around to murder any more unborn children in the future.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Gatorade "What's G?" Commercials
I'll keep this very short. I generally can tolerate the most stupidest of commercials, but once in a while, a commercial would grind on me so much, I can't keep my mouth shut. Gatorade's current "What's G?" commercials would fall into this category. I'm not sure if you've seen them. I won't bother to describe them - you can probably find them on YouTube or something, but there is just something that is socially regressive about them. In fact, I think that ultimately, these commercials are a sad reflection of the dumbing down of our English language. Using fad-ridden ebonics, and "urban" language and body language, these commercials attempt to show that Gatorade is behind the success of various sporting athletes. But I think it also perpetuates a long-held stereotype about Blacks and "Black culture", which is probably counter-productive to the socially progressive set (personally, I don't really care about this aspect of it).
That being said, my six-year-old son loves these commercials and to my chagrin, he mimics some of the performers. I haven't said anything to him about my own opinions of the commercials, and is entitled to his own commercial preferences. But if he ends up talking like 50 Cent, then we will have a problem...
That being said, my six-year-old son loves these commercials and to my chagrin, he mimics some of the performers. I haven't said anything to him about my own opinions of the commercials, and is entitled to his own commercial preferences. But if he ends up talking like 50 Cent, then we will have a problem...
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor - Placating Feminist and Hispanic Voters
Well, the worst-kept secret was revealed by U.S. President Barack Obama yesterday: his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy of retiring justice David Souter is New York Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. It's not terribly surprising to hear the news, particularly since it has been reported that Obama was under intense pressure to pick a woman and also a minority (whether it be Hispanic, Black, Asian, etc.). Obama obviously buckled under the pressure of special interest groups, the two U.S. New York Senators, and left-wing advocacy groups everywhere in making his pick. But that is not unusual, given that Obama likes to play to the media and whatever position is popular (which is usually media-driven). That is not to say that Sotomayor may not be qualified, but it takes a lot of guts to make a decision which may not be popular - it happened with President Bush all the time and he was chastised for it from the media to the everyday Joe, who seems to more often than not form their opinions based on the media (you can rag all you want about Bush, I think that while he did make some mistakes, he is a man who acted on his convictions, most of which were not popular with the secular mainstream - yet he continued to stay the course). You may recall Bush nominated Chief Justice John Roberts, despite the fact that his wife Laura wanted him to nominate a woman. Now, that takes guts, going against your wife!!!
I find the response to the Sotomayor nomination from Hispanics to be laughable. Oh, so much pride! It is an exciting day! And on and on it goes. Sort of like when Obama was inaugurated. I remember being in a conference room at work here where they decided to televise the inauguration for curious and politically minded employees here. The room was packed when Obama took the oath of office and of the 80 or so people who were crammed in the room, I was the only one who did not applaud (got some dirty looks, but I don't care). What I found interesting were these two Black ladies who were crying and cheering and "thanking the Lord - someone's there for us now!" I think from the perspective of going from slavery to having a half-Black man become President, is definitely overwhelming for those older Black folks who had to endure racism and prejudice. But underlying some of the racial relief is a sense that somehow a Black President will make things easier for Black people. Isn't that preferential treatment? Reverse discrimination?
I have gathered the same sentiments in how Hispanics have responded to the Sotomayor nomination. To say that it's nice to see someone who, from humble beginnings, was able to apply herself (hopefully that was the case and not through affirmative action - nowadays, who really knows) and get into prestigious law schools and become a lawyer and then a judge, is definitely something to be celebrated, regardless of the race of the person. But the sentiments and responses I have been reading seem more along the lines of "Now, finally, someone to represent us!" and "Now we will be treated fairly." There seems to be a sense that by having someone of your race, ethnicity or culture in an influential position, that they may be able to offer you opportunities, preferential treatment, and cut you slack, based on race. That is, and always has been, wrong.
Now, if Obama picked her because she was the best qualified, then I don't think people would have much of an issue here. But Obama encompasses the same thing that most corporate companies try to push: "diversity". For "diversity's" sake. In other words, make sure you have women, minorities, or gays and lesbians represented in your workforce (or in Obama's case, in his cabinet). I have railed against our company's policy on "diversity" and have been reprimanded more than once for speaking against it, but I have always been the firm belief that if the person is qualified, hire them, regardless of their race or culture. I have practiced this and have hired my fair share of women, not because they were women, but because they were qualified. BUT the prevailing mentality in most companies nowadays is a reverse of this: start with filling out a racial quota, and then once you find enough candidates of a certain demographic, choose from one of them. No wonder white males are peeved as they are not being considered for anything nowadays. That is wrong, regardless of the injustices that have been inflicted in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Although I am not an American, I am leery of seeing a person like Sotomayor on the U.S. bench. After all, us Canadians seem to be the recipient of trickle-down effects of U.S. laws., and our legal system, while originally derived from the British, is influenced today heavily by what goes on the U.S. So what goes on in the U.S. does have an effect in Canada. Besides, I've always been interested in U.S. politics, even back to when I was a little kid.
If I recall in what I have read about her in the past few weeks, she seems to have had a number of decisions that are racially-based. She is firmly an advocate of affirmative action, which makes me wonder whether she has some biased towards racially preferential treatment towards a certain group. She has been quoted as saying that judges make the law, which is a bit worrisome.
Even though she is a Roman Catholic, she holds a pro-choice position, which gives hard-core Catholics indigestion, but obviously to those of us who are virulently pro-life, it is not a great sign. Further, I have read that in university papers and essays, she has written about the second amendment and that she believes that gun ownership is unconstitutional (I believe her paper was called Deadly Obsession or something like that). I really have no idea how George H.W. Bush originally nominated her, with such clear left-leaning views, even though she was classified as a moderate liberal. It is no surprise that the uber-liberal Bill Clinton elevated her to a higher court.
Let's hope that Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and to a lesser degree, Anthony Kennedy live long lives and don't have any plans to retire any time soon.
I find the response to the Sotomayor nomination from Hispanics to be laughable. Oh, so much pride! It is an exciting day! And on and on it goes. Sort of like when Obama was inaugurated. I remember being in a conference room at work here where they decided to televise the inauguration for curious and politically minded employees here. The room was packed when Obama took the oath of office and of the 80 or so people who were crammed in the room, I was the only one who did not applaud (got some dirty looks, but I don't care). What I found interesting were these two Black ladies who were crying and cheering and "thanking the Lord - someone's there for us now!" I think from the perspective of going from slavery to having a half-Black man become President, is definitely overwhelming for those older Black folks who had to endure racism and prejudice. But underlying some of the racial relief is a sense that somehow a Black President will make things easier for Black people. Isn't that preferential treatment? Reverse discrimination?
I have gathered the same sentiments in how Hispanics have responded to the Sotomayor nomination. To say that it's nice to see someone who, from humble beginnings, was able to apply herself (hopefully that was the case and not through affirmative action - nowadays, who really knows) and get into prestigious law schools and become a lawyer and then a judge, is definitely something to be celebrated, regardless of the race of the person. But the sentiments and responses I have been reading seem more along the lines of "Now, finally, someone to represent us!" and "Now we will be treated fairly." There seems to be a sense that by having someone of your race, ethnicity or culture in an influential position, that they may be able to offer you opportunities, preferential treatment, and cut you slack, based on race. That is, and always has been, wrong.
Now, if Obama picked her because she was the best qualified, then I don't think people would have much of an issue here. But Obama encompasses the same thing that most corporate companies try to push: "diversity". For "diversity's" sake. In other words, make sure you have women, minorities, or gays and lesbians represented in your workforce (or in Obama's case, in his cabinet). I have railed against our company's policy on "diversity" and have been reprimanded more than once for speaking against it, but I have always been the firm belief that if the person is qualified, hire them, regardless of their race or culture. I have practiced this and have hired my fair share of women, not because they were women, but because they were qualified. BUT the prevailing mentality in most companies nowadays is a reverse of this: start with filling out a racial quota, and then once you find enough candidates of a certain demographic, choose from one of them. No wonder white males are peeved as they are not being considered for anything nowadays. That is wrong, regardless of the injustices that have been inflicted in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Although I am not an American, I am leery of seeing a person like Sotomayor on the U.S. bench. After all, us Canadians seem to be the recipient of trickle-down effects of U.S. laws., and our legal system, while originally derived from the British, is influenced today heavily by what goes on the U.S. So what goes on in the U.S. does have an effect in Canada. Besides, I've always been interested in U.S. politics, even back to when I was a little kid.
If I recall in what I have read about her in the past few weeks, she seems to have had a number of decisions that are racially-based. She is firmly an advocate of affirmative action, which makes me wonder whether she has some biased towards racially preferential treatment towards a certain group. She has been quoted as saying that judges make the law, which is a bit worrisome.
Even though she is a Roman Catholic, she holds a pro-choice position, which gives hard-core Catholics indigestion, but obviously to those of us who are virulently pro-life, it is not a great sign. Further, I have read that in university papers and essays, she has written about the second amendment and that she believes that gun ownership is unconstitutional (I believe her paper was called Deadly Obsession or something like that). I really have no idea how George H.W. Bush originally nominated her, with such clear left-leaning views, even though she was classified as a moderate liberal. It is no surprise that the uber-liberal Bill Clinton elevated her to a higher court.
Let's hope that Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and to a lesser degree, Anthony Kennedy live long lives and don't have any plans to retire any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)