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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)