Local Government Spends $17K to Defend $5 Fee it Gave To Citizen. Only In Jersey?

By: Don Caldwell


Who watches the watchers?


A New Jersey town (Bridgewater, Somerset County) has demonstrated a systematic failing in the structure of our bureaucracies in the US today.


Excerpts italicized:

A Somerset County town spent more than $17,000 defending a $5 fee it charged a resident for a compact disc of a council meeting.


Tom Coulter filed a complaint with the New Jersey Government Record Council in October 2008, saying he should pay the actual cost of the CD to get the recording.


The state council this year sided with Coulter and found he should have paid about 96 cents.
Bridgewater paid more than $14,000 in legal fees defending the case. It had to pay $3,500 to Coulter for his legal fees and give him a $4.04 refund.


Coulter says the case shows a lack of common sense.


Township Attorney Alan Grant tells The Courier News of Bridgewater the legal fees would have been substantially lower had Coulter settled, as the township had offered.

At what point do members of our governments lose sight of what they are given responsibility to do in the first place? At what point do the governments start to feel that they are entities entitled to things by any other reason than the ones they were originally created for in the first place? At what point does a local government turn a ridiculous fee of 5$ into a stubborn (and fiscally irresponsible) crusade to punish those that do not go along with its wishes?


If one had a bad boss would you not change jobs? If one had an abusive spouse, would you not leave them? If one had an abusive government, should that government be disestablished and started anew???


While this is not the only (or first) example of bureaucracy run amok or corruption in government, it does showcase problems in our system. What can someone do when faced with such things?


Whether it be a traffic ticket given unjustly or a fee levied b the township for some fee that is seemingly invented by your government to tax you for some accused sleight of hand, we are faced with a dilemma of not knowing what to do. Is there anything we can do to fight back?


Most of us would not go to trial for five dollars or even a couple hundred, and this is perhaps the problem. A system that forces you to pay in small increments, so small that it discourages one from seeking expensive legal protections, creates a conciliatory atmosphere where no one dares to fight back.


What would happen if more of us fought these kinds of ridiculous injustices?


What if we had the power to start that local government anew?


I am not suggesting a revolution is needed, as such a thing always leads to needless chaos and loss of life, but I am expressing a need for increased power to the people that the government is supposed to serve. 


Things need to change.


Or maybe i'm making a big deal out of a small story :o)

(ORIGINAL LINK) Bridgewater spends $17K to defend $5 fee it charged resident | NJ.com

A Sandwich In A Can, Wake Up Call For Eating Habits, Or Small Miracle?

By: Don Caldwell


I know what i want for Christmas! Wait...too late :o)


The miracle of modern science  has brought us another technological wonder...the CANDWICH!


Have you ever dreamed of a world where can get a sandwich in a can? Imagine a world where all food required zero cooking, and zero work to prepare it. Would that be a world you would want to live in?


Has American society become so fixated on quicker and easier foods (i.e. fast food, prepared microwaveable dishes) that we have lost sight of the value of the home cooked meal? What sort of effect has this had on our health? Do the food eating habits (and how they have changed over the years) impact our children?


Or am i just being negative about such a MAN-tastic innovation? :o)


You can go to the products website below:

Candwich [Mark One Foods]

(ORIGINAL LINK) Candwich, The Sandwich In A Can - The Consumerist

Wedding Another’s Spouse. On National TV.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

By: Don Caldwell

“Falling In Lust”


What is more important, marriage or your career?


Which do you think is more likely you will swap after 5 years???


What does it say about the value of relationships when we don’t strive to preserve them, instead taking the easier path of whatever feels good at the time. Love could perhaps be defined as caring about someone else more than yourself. If this were true would the divorce rate be as high as it is? Would  something like this happen? Would we even see marital problems decrease as we collectively strive to be more selfless toward each other?


Too much emphasis is placed on how your partner makes you feel. Of which, could be considered a “selfish” state of mind. If we were more concerned about being more “selfless” (and not being so worried about “getting our share" or “what I deserve”)


Also, this does not even begin to focus on our responsibilities to our children.
Maybe we should turn marriage into a a system similar to leasing automobiles. 5 years and you get to trade it in for a new one.


Well at least they “felt bad” about it….lol

(ORIGINAL LINK) Today Show: Falling in love with another’s spouse

Need A Last Minute Gift Idea. What About Bacon?

By: Don Caldwell

For that last minute Christmas present, one should give that special someone an unexpected treat…

I’m not sure if I should be a little freaked out (or discussed) or curious enough to try it.



Either way I’m pretty sure that this would appeal mostly to guys as I’m am positive that is is also Mantastic …

(ORIGINAL LINK) Bacon Wallet - Amazon.com

(ORIGINAL LINK) Bacon Floss - Amazon.com

(ORIGINAL LINK) Exotic Chocolate Candy Bars - Milk, Dark & White Chocolate from Vosges Haut-Chocolat - Mo's Milk Chocolate Bacon Bar

Hollywood No Longer Making Holiday Movies.

By: Don Caldwell


Where have all the Christmas / Holiday movies gone?


Excerpts from the LA Times italicized:

The release of new Christmas movies long has been as much a tradition of the season as the annual late-night TV showing of "It's a Wonderful Life" and shoppers stampeding stores on Black Friday.
But this year, there's hardly a holiday movie in sight.


Instead of playing off time-tested and universal plot lines such as a return home for the holidays or trotting out Christmas icons such as Santa Claus, Tinseltown is forgoing the usual, uh, tinsel. The lone Christmas movie, "The Nutcracker in 3D," has received tepid reviews and is appearing in only a token number of theaters. 

In past seasons, there have been as many as half a dozen holiday movies jostling one another in theaters in the closing weeks of the year.


The scarcity of Christmas movies reflects a change in traditional Hollywood thinking. Family films are as popular as ever, industry executives note — indeed, the year's biggest-grossing picture is the kid-friendly "Toy Story 3" — but the film world thinks Yuletide themes are getting a bit long in the whiskers.


It was also noted that not one holiday themed movie (made in the United States) will come out next year.


Why is Hollywood so uninterested in firming stories that appeal to Christians? Why do they make so few “Christmas” movies today?
Do Hollywood studios shy away from such “Christian” films for the sake of political correctness?


Can part of the blame be put on the American audience? Has our tastes changed from such movies into something different? Are there enough Christians (interested in seeing holiday movies) out there to justify making these movies considering how expensive making movies can be?


Has the similar themes and plotlines that follow Christmas movies just gotten old, overused, and boring?


How many more Christmas / Holiday movies will come out in the future?


(ORIGINAL LINK) Hollywood scraps its Christmas spirit - LA Times.com

Dying Teenage Girls Last Wish For Love Comes True.

By: Don Caldwell


If you only had one wish before you died, would love be it?

Two teens share in a pseudo “marriage” just before the young woman dies, fulfilling a dying wish…

If you knew you were dying, would you worry about getting that promotion? Getting that degree? Buying that new car? Or what clothes you were wearing?

Would you care more about spending what little time you had left with the ones you love?
Why?

So much of our lives is perhaps consumed by so many things that will never bring us happiness or are trivial. Yet we spend so much of our time in pursuit of them.

If you were only allowed to have one dream, would that dream center around a career or anything else that does not revolve around love? What does this say about how our priorities are perhaps misaligned.

This young couple will never really be married or even have a family, but they are making the most of their lives. It is a lesson we would do well to hear.

What little time she has left may be the happiest of her short life. Could you ever be so happy with just one dream? Is love enough?
She even signed her name using his last name during her final days…It was a wedding to her.

Excerpts italicized:

On Thanksgiving Day, Sabrina's condition deteriorated rapidly. By Saturday, she could no longer raise her head.


Around midnight on Nov. 29, the Parkers called Matt: He'd better come. He stayed with Sabrina through the night, holding her hand and telling her he would be OK.


Sabrina died in her sleep the next morning. When the hearse came, Matt leaned down to kiss her on the forehead.


"Thank you for saving me," he whispered.


She was buried in her Sweet 16 dress, a single red rose from Matt on the pillow beside her head.

Sabria The link below leads to a her story. Pray for them…

(ORIGINAL LINK) With Love, Teens Face a Deadly Diagnosis - AOLnews

Breastfeeding. Acceptable, Taboo, Outdated, Or Essential?

By: Don Caldwell

Why has breastfeeding become more "niche" than "mainstream"?

Excerpts italicized:

Most doctors and medical professionals tout the benefits of breastfeeding children. From the natural antibiotics in breast milk, lower rates of breast cancer in women to the psychological bonding between the mother and child, breast feeding perhaps seems like a no-brainer in child care. 

Formula VS. Breastfeeding.

From Kidshealth.org:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) joins other organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Dietetic Association (ADA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) in recommending breastfeeding as the best for babies. Breastfeeding helps defend against infections, prevent allergies, and protect against a number of chronic conditions.

The AAP says babies should be breastfed exclusively for the first 6 months. Beyond that, the AAP encourages breastfeeding until at least 12 months, and longer if both the mother and baby are willing.

Why do so few mothers choose breastfeeding as an option?

According to the CDC, breastfeeding is practiced in a minority of mothers during the first year of a baby's life.

They report that mothers who do ANY breast-feeding during the first 6 months is only about 70% and drops to about 40 percent after that. Mothers who choose to ONLY breast-feed are only about 30% and drops to about 10% for the next 6 months.

It is also worth noting that the percentage of mothers who breast-feed is on the rise across all baby ages.

But why is it such a taboo topic in our culture?

Breastfeeding is perhaps considered "inappropriate" in the United States. In the past few years several incidents have gripped the media concerning this topic.

Some highlights from Wikipedia:

In November 2006, Emily Gillette, a 27-year-old from Santa Fe, New Mexico was refused service inBurlington, Vermont after being asked to leave a Freedom Airlines flight by a flight attendant after Gillette refused to breastfeed her child under a blanket.^[13]

During June, 2007, Brooke Ryan was dining in a booth at the rear of an Applebee's restaurant when she decided to breastfeed her 7-month-old son. While she said she attempted to be discreet, another patron complained that her partially revealed breast was "indecent exposure." Both a waitress and the manager asked her to cover up. She handed him a copy of the Kentucky law^[14] that permitted public breastfeeding, but he would not relent. She ended up feeding her son in her car and later organized several "nurse-in" protests in front of the restaurant and other public places.^[15]

Barbara Walters

In 2005, Barbara Walters remarked on her talk show The View that she felt uncomfortable sitting next to a breastfeeding mother during a flight. Her comments upset some viewers who began organizing protests over the internet. A group of about 200 mothers staged a public "nurse in" where they breastfed their babies outside ABC's headquarters in New York.^[16]

Facebook controversy

Facebook has recently come under fire for removing photos of mothers breastfeeding their children, citing offensive content in violation of the Facebook Terms of Service.^[17] Facebook claimed that these photos violated their decency code by showing an exposed breast, even when the baby covered the nipple. This action was described as hypocritical, since Facebook took several days to respond to calls to deactivate a paid advertisement for a dating service that used a photo of a topless model.^[18]

The breastfeeding controversy continued following public protests and the growth in the online membership in the Facebook group titled "Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene! (Official petition to Facebook)."^[19]

There was also a recent incident in New Jersey, after a Dunkin' Donuts employee called the police on a breastfeeding mother.

From The Consumerist:

“It finally happened. A friend and I were just told not to breastfeed in Dunkin Donuts because there are "other people there". I was going to leave and just write a letter to Dunkin Donuts headquarters suggesting that they educate their employees better. The police were called, though.”

The mom says she and her friend just cleaned up and left the Dunkin' Donuts, but not before her friend was told by the police to "shut up" in front of her children.

For its part, Dunkin' Donuts posted the following statement on its Facebook page:

“We have looked into the matter concerning 2 moms at a DD store in NJ & have confirmed an employee was responding to another customer's complaint that wasn't related to breastfeeding. None of the DD employees challenged the guests about breastfeeding & all DDs must comply w/ local, state & federal laws w/ regard to nursing mothers. Our top priority is always to provide an excellent experience for our guests”

Should you have the right to breastfeed your children?

Is this a symptom of a culture that values children less and less (i.e. abortion, lower birth rates, increases in various forms of birth control, etc) or has the transition from breastfeeding to formula as the primary means of feeding our children helped to turn this into a taboo? Is it some representation of traditional views of the roles of women that is viewed at to archaic / embarrassing by our increasingly progressive culture? Have women been historically embarrassed by this? Why now?

It is likely that the answer lies in a combination of the reasons stated above, but the problem still remains and much needs to be done to change the perceptions surrounding such an important part of the relationships shared by mother and child.

Update: It should also be noted that modesty is important. In this issue most folks seem to take one of two sides in this debate (to the extreme). There are obviously instances where breastfeeding in public is inappropriate, but one must ask does it have to always be inappropriate (as our culture seems to dictate today)... 

Breastfeeding in Public Controversies - Wikipedia.org

Formula VS. Breastfeeding - Kidshealth.org

NCSL Breastfeeding State By State Laws

US Centers for Disease Control Breastfeeding Data - CDC.gov

Breastfeeding Mom: Dunkin' Donuts Staff Called The Police On Me - The Consumerist

Man Tries to Run Over Woman Who Refuses To Marry Him

By: Don Caldwell 


Sometimes you just know that they are the one...


Excerpts italicized:

A Whittier man has allegedly tried to run down his ex-girlfriend in a car after she refused his wedding proposal.


The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that Francisco Hernandez was spotted carrying a bouquet of flowers while walking down the street after the incident.


Sheriff's Lt. Andrew Berg says the 22-year-old was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.


The proposal took place Thursday afternoon at the Burger Stop.


After the woman said no, Hernandez allegedly drove onto the sidewalk, through bushes and into the restaurant parking lot, narrowly missing the woman. He'd written "Stacy Will You Marry Me" on the car's back window.


He was later picked up while fleeing on foot

When do you know that the one you are with is the one you want to spend the rest of your life with?

If you love the other so much as to want to get married, then could you also be capable of hurting them as such? Would it be called into question whether or not this was really love? Wouldn't you want to protect the one you love from harm?


We have perhaps grown to see relationships (like marriage) as a primarily self-serving one. So concerned with how the partner makes us feel, we have perhaps lost sight of the inherently selfless nature of love. If we truly cared about the other more than our own selves, would we have fewer relationship problems? Would the divorce rate be lower? 


Feeling entitled to so much in a relationship can often (if not mostly) doom them to failure right from the beginning.


I would not think that he really loved her at all if he was capable of trying to hurt her in such a way...


Although, wouldn't the love of your life at least deserve to be hit with a nice car? Maybe a BMW :o)
.
(ORIGINAL LINK) Man Tries to Run Over Woman Who Refuses Marriage - FoxNews.com

Bombproof And X-Ray Proof Underwear Bless Us For The Holidays.

By: Don Caldwell


Who said underwear couldn’t be awesome?


Because you need to protect all of your vital organs…

“The right pair of underpants will keep you comfortable -- and maybe even save your life”.


“A British manufacturer has unveiled bombproof boxer shorts that it claims can save the lives of soldiers in Afghanistan by protecting their vital organs from improvised explosive devices (IEDs).”

That may be the single greatest military related invention of all time. Protecting the most important things that we bring to the battlefield everyday…


But fear not civilians, you are not left out…


Tired of having your 4th amendment rights violated (that is the one about having rights against unwarranted search and seizures.) by those evil government workers at the airport? Fear not, as 4th amendment underwear is here to safeguard your rights…



Yes, this is real and for sale.


And we don’t want to leave out the ladies!



Is what the TSA (The airport security folks) crossing the line and violating your 4th amendment rights? Or are they just giving us an awesome excuse to wear such cool underwear?

(ORIGINAL LINK) FoxNews.com - Saving Ryan's Privates: Company Reveals Bombproof Underwear

(ORIGINAL LINK) Cargo Collective's 4th Amendment Underwear Store

Media Say President Obama Is Like “God”. Anyone Agree?

By: Don Caldwell


Do people blur the lines between the worldly and the divine?


Excerpts italicized:

Newsweek's depiction of President Obama on its latest cover has irked some Indian Americans who, fresh off Obama's visit to the world's largest democracy, are not happy with the image of the U.S. president as the Hindu deity, Lord Shiva.


The Newsweek cover shows Obama with several arms carrying policy issues while balancing on one leg. The headline reads: "God of All Things" with a subtitle, "Why the Modern Presidency May be too Much for One Person to Handle."

The only thing people like better than building someone up is tearing them down…


Why do we want to elevate someone we barely know to such greatnes?


Even when not considered serious, does comparing someone to being God-like say someothering about how we really view them?


This depiction of the President as a Hindu God has angered many Hindus who feel that this is an offense to their religious beliefs.

Rajan Zed, president of the Universal Society of Hinduism in Nevada, told the English-language Sify News in India that Nataraja is highly revered and meant to be worshipped, not indecorously thrown around. Zed, who is known for his work on interfaith dialogue, said it is not OK to use Hindu concepts and symbols for profit or self-serving purposes.

This is not th first time President Obama has been likened to “God” as was quoted by Newsweek editor Evan Thomas.

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."


"I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility...The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."







All of this makes one wonder if perceptions are grounded in reality...

(ORIGINAL LINK) Newsweek Depiction of Obama as Lord Shiva Upsets Some Indian-Americans - FoxNews.com

(ORIGINAL LINK) Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’

Atheists' Billboard Says Nativity / Christianity Is A "Myth". Bah Humbug?

By: Don Caldwell


It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another to want so badly to convince people of your opinion that you would take action to do so.


Excerpts italicized:

"A group called the American Atheists has paid for a huge billboard on Route 495 outside the Lincoln Tunnel in North Bergen, N.J., that is raising some eyebrows."


"The billboard shows a silhouette of the Three Wise Men approaching the Nativity, with the words: "You KNOW it's a Myth / This Season, Celebrate REASON!"


"The group says the billboard is not designed to convert Christians to atheism. Rather, Dave Silverman, a spokesman for the American Atheists, says the sign is designed to encourage existing atheists who are going through the motions of celebrating Christmas to stop."


On its website, the group also states that the billboard is meant to "attack the myth that Christianity owns the solstice season" and to "raise the awareness of the organization and the movement."


Here is local news video from Myfoxny.com below….

In the last quote, it seems as though the motivations behind this billboard lies in jealousy (“attack the myth that Christianity owns the solstice season”). Are people capable of doing such a thing?


For a group of people who do not believe in a God, why do they find it so important to convince people of the same thing? In most other things, you would convince others to get them to do something, but convincing people about atheism undermines ones belief structure. What benefit does this have?


Even if there were no God, belief would serve as a mechanism for hope and gives a sense of purpose in life. So why do some have such a desire to take that away? Are those reasons important enough to take that mechanism of hope / purpose for life away?


Convincing others of something by and of itself is not a good thing, you must have a good reason that serves the greater good as well (as compared to just “a good” that in the end can cause more harm overall…)

Below is a video of a response from The President of the American Atheists…



“It’s a war on the solstice and the Christians’ started it”


How would you handle a “he started it” argument when it comes from your children? Is this a “grown-up” version of the same thing?

"A spokesman says the Catholic church's Newark Archdiocese declined an offer to buy a rival billboard.  It says it has better ways to spend its money."

An interesting response from the local Catholic Church.


It is always the “Big Dog” (Christianity)  that gets attacked by name…


And something tells me that they won’t be getting any gifts from Santa this year… :o)

(ORIGINAL LINK) Atheists' Billboard Calls Nativity a 'Myth'

(RELATED) The Well: Atheist Billboard Mocks Christianity

Government Approves 2nd Phase of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. What Happens When You Start Harvesting Humans For Parts?

By: Don Caldwell


It always starts somewhere…


Excerpts italicized:

"For only the second time, the U.S. government has approved a test in people of a treatment using embryonic stem cells — this time for a rare disease that causes serious vision loss."


"Advanced Cell Technology, a biotechnology company based in Santa Monica., Calif., said the research should begin early next year, following the green light from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."


"Scientists hope to use stem cells to create a variety of tissues for transplant. But human embryos have to be destroyed to harvest those cells, which has made their use controversial."

Like the saying goes, if you give someone an inch they take a mile… it starts off as a single cell, but what is next…


What happens when you start harvesting human being for parts? Is this a good idea?


How about for a few cells, or some brain tissue?


What about an organ?


Or how about an entire human being?

What happens when you turn human life into a commodity, into a tool? Does it cheapen the value of it?

For so many reasons do we come up with to use someone, such as:  for our health, for profit, for the greater good? They said the same things once upon a time to condone slavery. They said that slaves were more physically equipped for labor, and that it was for the greater good / profit for all…

Are embryos / fetus' better equipped to aid us in our experiments? Were Jews better equipped for this purpose during Nazi experiments?

What is the difference between a human being that is a day old and a month old? How about a year old? Or fifty?


At what point is it wrong to use people for their parts?


It is always more difficult to stop something once it is motion. Once we start to accept this in our society (just a few cells), it will be more difficult to stop it later on (When it becomes something worse)


Is this not fire we are playing with?

Local Citizens Block Funeral Protest. Should We Have The Right To Protest At Funerals?

By: Don Caldwell


Do we have the right to protest at funerals?


Excerpts italicized:

People in Weston, Missouri banded together on Saturday. They wanted to protect loved ones who were saying goodbye to a fallen soldier and stood up to members of the Westboro Baptist Church who planned to protest at Sgt. First Class C.J. Sadell's funeral.


Sadell died October 24 from injuries he suffered in a surprise attack in Afghanistan. On Saturday, there was quite a turnout of people who wanted to keep the protesters away from the funeral.


"I'd say probably half the people in Weston are here," said Eric Moser, Marine Corp veteran.
Weston has less than 2,000 residents, and hundreds of people showed up to support the family of First Sgt. Sadell.


"If you think about it, they've all gone to serve just so we could be able to do this," said Rebecca Rooney who organized the supporters. "He didn't die in vain."


Rebecca Rooney is a Weston resident who wanted to stand up against Fred Phelps and his followers.
"We got everybody here early so we could take up all the parking spots," Rooney said. "We did that so Mr. Phelps wouldn't have a contingency that was really close."


Supporters came armed with patriotic music and American flags. The protesters didn't stick around long once they saw the supporters.


"I'm glad they left, but I'm sad they came," Rooney said.


People came from Blue Springs, California and even Australia to be a part of the band of patriotic supporters. Half of the group lined up at the intersection while the the other half created a human shield at the funeral home.

Is protesting freedom of speech?  Do we have to protest anything, anywhere?


Can there be exceptions to the Bill of Rights? What would happen if we open the Pandora’s Box of making exceptions to the rule?


Is a protest at a funeral moral? Do we not also have the right to protest protesters?


Should one seriously think about how it would effect others (how it would make them feel) when making a decision?

Should we have the right to protest funerals?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Supporters Block Funeral Protest in Weston - WDAF

No Sanctuary for Hurricane Victims At Mormon Church. Church Cites Policies As Reason.

By: Don Caldwell


Is being Christian also belief in everyone for themselves, or is about being “Christ-like” towards all in need?


Excerpts italicized:

The water in Haiti's seaside town of Leogane rose to the doorsteps of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But if you're local, and homeless, you needn't have bothered coming here for help. Help is for Mormons only.


The LDS church is one of the biggest and most modern buildings in Leogane, with the capacity to safely hold and protect 200. The church's hurricane policy? Only church members can seek shelter there. On Friday, 36 congregants and family members slept at the church.


On Friday afternoon, a dozen women sat on the ground and in chairs outside, underneath the shadow of the church's enormous satellite dish, while church staff more or less ignored them


They didn't receive food or water, sleeping mats or mattresses. On Friday afternoon, a dozen women sat on the ground and in chairs outside, underneath the shadow of the church's enormous satellite dish, while church staff more or less ignored them


A local Mormon mother, 25-year-old Tanya Favery, sought shelter here before the storm. She thinks the Mormon-only policy is wrong, but she is resigned to her role, as a grateful beneficiary


"It's not normal, as a Christian," Favery said. "It should've been done otherwise. People could've come here and found Christ. But I'm not the decider."

Is being Christian also belief in everyone for themselves, or is about being “Christ-like” towards all in need?


The article goes on to describe how the leadership of the Mormon “church”, had to seek approval through various committees (bureaucratic stuff), and how they it would be too difficult to help so many people outside of their church.


Did the early Christians (namely Christ himself) give up at the idea of how daunting a task it would be to bring the Christian message to the masses? Did they not have a policy of helping everyone they could, instead of finding political excuses to do nothing but help themselves?


Would Jesus be proud of what these" “Christians” (as I believe they call themselves) are doing? Should that not be the first thing you (or a Church) should ask yourself (or itself) when making decisions? 


Knowing that this is only one part of the Mormon Church (and it is easy to judge an entire group by the actions of a few), I hope that the policies enforced by their Bishop (and committees)  are not the policies 
held by other parts of either the Mormon church, or any Christian church for that matter…

(ORIGINAL LINK) No Sanctuary at Leogane, Haiti, Mormon Church During Hurricane Tomas

Beer Helped the Rise of Civilization? Homer Simpson Would Say “Yes”.

E. Michael Smith / Wikipedia
An Egyptian wooden model of beer making in ancient Egypt, located at the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum in San Jose, California.


By: Don Caldwell


Could something that you take for granted really have been that important?


Excerpts italicized:


May beer have helped lead to the rise of civilization? It's a possibility, some archaeologists say.


Their argument is that Stone Age farmers were domesticating cereals not so much to fill their stomachs but to lighten their heads, by turning the grains into beer. That has been their take for more than 50 years, and now one archaeologist says the evidence is getting stronger.


Signs that people went to great lengths to obtain grains despite the hard work needed to make them edible, plus the knowledge that feasts were important community-building gatherings, support the idea that cereal grains were being turned into beer, said archaeologist Brian Hayden at Simon Fraser University in Canada.
"Beer is sacred stuff in most traditional societies," said Hayden, who is planning to submit research on the origins of beer to the journal Current Anthropology

The article goes on to talk about how beer helped in the development of communities, traditions, and society in general. Could beer have been that important? Is beer important to you?


Would things that some may consider to be the “finer things in life” (such as beer), really have been that important for helping to create modern society?


Have other things that we take for granted (such as: Television, Internet, Food markets, heating, cars, etc.) , fundamentally changed our societies?


What would life be like without such things? Could you still be happy?


Are these things really that important?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Beer Lubricated the Rise of Civilization, Study Suggests - FoxNews.com

BBB Ratings Not Trustworthy After Giving A- To Hamas Terrorist Group

By: Don Caldwell


Do you trust the institutions that are "looking out" for you?


Excerpts italicized:

How was a group of business owners able to secure an A- BBB rating for a fictional company called "Hamas?" (Yes, named after THAT Hamas.)


According to an ABC News investigation, "a group of Los Angeles business owners paid $425 to the Better Business Bureau and were able to obtain an A minus grade for a non-existent company called Hamas, named after the Middle Eastern terror group."


"Right now, this rating system is really unworthy of consumer trust or confidence," said Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal in an interview that will be shown tonight on 20/20.


The BBB says the idea that they accept pay for grades was inaccurate and that a "mistake was made by salespeople."


The report also says that an A rating was given to a non-existent sushi restaurant and a skinhead, neo-Nazi web site called Stormfront.

Is trust inherent, or is it earned?


As with so many "institutions" that we trust, why is it so hard for them to do a good job? Should we be expected to place more responsibility on ourselves? How many "institutions" such as the BBB do you look towards for information / peace of mind? Could various facets of our federal, state, and local governments also have the same qualities demonstrated by the BBB?


Can we ever truly have organizations that can be expected to act selflessly? Which organizations would you expect that to be? If you thought of your religious institution, can you expect a secular (non-religious) institution to behave better than your religious institution?

(ORIGINAL LINK) AG Says Ratings Not Trustworthy After BBB Gives A- To "Hamas" - The Consumerist

Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete. Is This A Good Thing?

By: Don Caldwell


Is marriage important? Why?


Excerpts italicized:


As families gather for Thanksgiving this year, nearly one in three American children is living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never-married. More people are accepting the view that wedding bells aren't needed to have a family.


A study by the Pew Research Center, in association with Time magazine, highlights rapidly changing notions of the American family. And the Census Bureau, too, is planning to incorporate broader definitions of family when measuring poverty, a shift caused partly by recent jumps in unmarried couples living together.


About 29 percent of children under 18 now live with a parent or parents who are unwed or no longer married, a fivefold increase from 1960, according to the Pew report being released Thursday. Broken down further, about 15 percent have parents who are divorced or separated and 14 percent who were never married. Within those two groups, a sizable chunk — 6 percent — have parents who are live-in couples who opted to raise kids together without getting married.


Indeed, about 39 percent of Americans said marriage was becoming obsolete. And that sentiment follows U.S. census data released in September that showed marriages hit an all-time low of 52 percent for adults 18 and over.


In 1978, just 28 percent believed marriage was becoming obsolete.
When asked what constitutes a family, the vast majority of Americans agree that a married couple, with or without children, fits that description. But four of five surveyed pointed also to an unmarried, opposite-sex couple with children or a single parent. Three of 5 people said a same-sex couple with children was a family.


The changing views of family are being driven largely by young adults 18-29, who are more likely than older generations to have an unmarried or divorced parent or have friends who do. Young adults also tend to have more liberal attitudes when it comes to spousal roles and living together before marriage, the survey found.


But economic factors, too, are playing a role. The Census Bureau recently reported that opposite-sex unmarried couples living together jumped 13 percent this year to 7.5 million. It was a sharp one-year increase that analysts largely attributed to people unwilling to make long-term marriage commitments in the face of persistent unemployment.


And about half of all currently unmarried adults, 46 percent, say they want to get married. Among those unmarried who are living with a partner, the share rises to 64 percent.


About 62 percent say that the best marriage is one where the husband and wife both work and both take care of the household and children. That's up from 48 percent who held that view in 1977.

In our increasingly secular society, marriage has become little more than a contractual arrangement. With what used to be a sacred joining of two souls in this life, has turned into a combination of tax break and a showing of the person you are “currently” serious with.


It is interesting how a majority of americans now blieve that a marriage is better when both spouses work. How does this affect the family? How is it better?


How has thing change affected our children?


How does this change affect the quality of our lives today?


Has this cheapened life in general?


Has it let us to value things differently in our lives?


Would we be happier if we needed to depend on marriage, as we did long ago?


How has the definition of what a “marriage” is changed?


Should the definition of “marriage” change?


What can we do to strengthen marriage?


Or is it better to adopt a more “progressive” view of the changing face of what it means to be a family?

And why is it, considering the increasingly "progressive" view of marriage / family, do fewer and fewer people want to get married? What does that say?


(ORIGINAL LINK) Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete - Yahoo! News

Pastor Tells Church "Thou Shall Not Facebook". Is Facebook Wrong?

By: Don Caldwell


Has Facebook been a positive or a negative factor in your life?


Excerpts italicized:

Thou shalt not commit adultery. And thou also shalt not use Facebook.


That's the edict from a New Jersey pastor who feels the two often go together.


The Rev. Cedric Miller said 20 couples among the 1,100 members of his Living Word Christian Fellowship Church have run into marital trouble over the last six months after a spouse connected with an ex-flame over Facebook.


Because of the problems, he is ordering about 50 married church officials to delete their accounts with the social networking site or resign from their leadership positions. He had previously asked married congregants to share their login information with their spouses and now plans to suggest that they give up Facebook altogether.


"I've been in extended counseling with couples with marital problems because of Facebook for the last year and a half," he said. "What happens is someone from yesterday surfaces, it leads to conversations and there have been physical meet-ups. The temptation is just too great."


On Sunday, he plans to "strongly suggest" that all married people to stop using Facebook, lest they endanger their marriage.


Miller said he has spoken from the pulpit before about the dangers of Facebook, asking married couples to give each other their passwords to the site.


"Some did. Others got scared and deleted their accounts right away. And some felt it was none of my business and continued on," he said.


Pat Dawson, a minister at the church, uses her Facebook account to see photos of her relatives. She is unmarried and therefore not required to delete her account, but she agrees with Miller about the dangers such sites can create.


"I know he feels very strongly about this," she said. "It can be a useful tool, but it also can cause great problems in a relationship. If your spouse won't give you his or her password, you've got a problem."


The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers says 81 percent of its members have used or been faced with evidence plucked from Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites in divorce cases over the last five years.


"People use it as an opportunity to invite others to social gatherings, to share Scripture or talk about what went on at church," he said. "Those are all positive, worthwhile things. But the downside is just too great."
Facebook did not immediately respond to a before-hours interview request left at its California offices.


Do we use Facebook to judge people? Do we bother getting to know them in person (with all the time that may take...)? Does Facebook give people the opportunity to cheat? How has facebook changed the way people communicate with each other? Would we be better off getting to know people the old fashioned way? Could you bring yourself to do it? Would you let your spouse (or partner, sibling, parent friend, etc) have access to your account? Why not? The reason why you wouldn't is perhaps the biggest reason why you should not use Facebook anymore...

(ORIGINAL LINK) Pastor Tells Church 'Thou Shalt Not Facebook' - FoxNews.com