Questions or comments? doncaldwell@gmail.com
LISTEN TO MY RADIO SHOW RECORDINGS!!
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/whi5o37gvfgvh4x/AADUF7poV0wagE5rTpCeF_Yma?dl=0
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?
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…
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?
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?
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?
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...
A central Florida dealership trying to drum up business is offering an unusual perk for potential used-truck buyers: A free AK-47 assault rifle.
General sales manager Nick Ginetta says that since the promotion was announced on Veterans Day, business has more than doubled at Nations Trucks in Sanford.
Customers would have to pass a background check before using the $400 gun shop voucher. They also have the option of using the money toward other firearms, or they can request a check in that amount instead.
The dealership has fielded some complaints about the deal, which Ginetta acknowledges is controversial. But, he adds: "My buyer is absolutely a gun owner, no question."
The car dealership may have the right to do this, but should they?
A weapon is a awesome responsibility (and currently a constitutional right), of which should not be taken lightly. So one has to ask if (giving away free weapons as such) is responsible.
Does this cheapen the responsibility of gun ownership by turning it into a McDonald's coupon special?
How many people who do not want weapons before, keep the weapons once they are given. Also, how many of those were ready to bare that responsibility in the first place?
The San Francisco Mayor had promised that he would veto this statute, and he has.
Excerpts italicized:
"Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money... Despite its good intentions, I cannot support this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices."
"He hopes some members will reconsider should it be put up for an override... One of the eight is not entirely comfortable with it and some of them are getting heat as this thing is being mocked around the world."
It should be noted that the San Franciso Board of Supervisors can veto his veto (and based on their original vote they can without problem)
Citing a shortage of priests who can perform the rite, the nation's Roman Catholic bishops are holding a conference on how to conduct exorcisms.
The two-day training, which ends Saturday in Baltimore, is to outline the scriptural basis of evil, instruct clergy on evaluating whether a person is truly possessed, and review the prayers and rituals that comprise an exorcism. Among the speakers will be Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston, Texas, and a priest-assistant to New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan.
"Learning the liturgical rite is not difficult," DiNardo said in a phone interview before the conference, which is open to clergy only. "The problem is the discernment that the exorcist needs before he would ever attempt the rite."
More than 50 bishops and 60 priests signed up to attend, according to Catholic News Service, which first reported the event. The conference was scheduled for just ahead of the fall meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which starts Monday in Baltimore.
Despite strong interest in the training, skepticism about the rite persists within the American church. Organizers of the event are keenly aware of the ridicule that can accompany discussion of the subject. Exorcists in U.S. dioceses keep a very low profile. In 1999, the church updated the Rite of Exorcism, cautioning that "all must be done to avoid the perception that exorcism is magic or superstition."
The practice is much more accepted by Catholics in parts of Europe and elsewhere overseas. Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the longtime private secretary of Pope John Paul II, revealed a few years after the pontiff's death that John Paul had performed an exorcism on a woman who was brought into the Vatican writhing and screaming in what Dziwisz said was a case of possession by the devil.
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., who organized the conference, said only a tiny number of U.S. priests have enough training and knowledge to perform an exorcism. Dioceses nationwide have been relying solely on these clergy, who have been overwhelmed with requests to evaluate claims. The Rev. James LeBar, who was the official exorcist of the Archdiocese of New York under the late Cardinal John O'Connor, had faced a similar level of demand, traveling the country in response to the many requests for his expertise.
The rite is performed only rarely. Neal Lozano, a Catholic writer and author of the book "Unbound: A Practical Guide to Deliverance" about combatting evil spirits, said he knows an exorcist in the church who receives about 400 inquiries a year, but determines that out of that number, two or three of the cases require an exorcism.
No one knows why more people seem to be seeking the rite. Paprocki said one reason could be the growing interest among Americans in exploring general spirituality, as opposed to participating in organized religion, which has led more people to dabble in the occult.
"They don't know exactly what they're getting into and when they have questions, they're turning to the church, to priests," said Paprocki, chairman of the bishops' committee on canonical affairs and church governance. "They wonder if some untoward activity is taking place in their life and want some help discerning that."
Many Catholic immigrants in the U.S. come from countries where exorcism is more common, although Paprocki said that was not a motivation for organizing the conference.
Exorcism has deep roots in Christianity. The New Testament contains several examples of Jesus casting out evil spirits from people, and the church notes these acts in the Catholic Catechism. Whether or not individual Catholics realize it, each of them undergoes what the church calls a minor exorcism at baptism that includes prayers renouncing Satan and seeking freedom from original sin.
A major exorcism can only be performed by a priest with the permission of his bishop after a thorough evaluation, including consulting with physicians or psychiatrists to rule out any psychological or physical illness behind the person's behavior.
Signs of demonic possession accepted by the church include violent reaction to holy water or anything holy, speaking in a language the possessed person doesn't know and abnormal displays of strength.
The full exorcism is held in private and includes sprinkling holy water, reciting Psalms, reading aloud from the Gospel, laying on of hands and reciting the Lord's Prayer. Some adaptations are allowed for different circumstances. The exorcist can invoke the Holy Spirit then blow in the face of the possessed person, trace the sign of the cross on the person's forehead and command the devil to leave.
The training comes at a time when many American bishops and priests are trying to correct what they view as a lack of emphasis on the Catholic teaching about sin and evil after the Second Vatican Council, the series of meetings in the 1960s that enacted modernizing reforms in the church. Many in the American hierarchy, as well as Pope Benedict XVI, believe that the supernatural aspect of the church was lost in the changes, reducing it to just another institution in the world.
A renewed focus on exorcism highlights the divine element of the church and underscores the belief that evil is real.
DiNardo said some Catholics who ask for an exorcism are really seeking, "prayerful support. They're asking for formation in the faith." Still, he said sometimes the rite is warranted.
"For the longest time, we in the United States may not have been as much attuned to some of the spiritual aspects of evil because we have become so much attached to what would be either physical or psychological explanation for certain phenomena," DiNardo said. "We may have forgotten that there is a spiritual dimension to people."
Can you believe in heaven but not in hell? Can you believe in God, but not believe that a Devil exists? Why would the Catholic Church still find it necessary to have its’ priests trained in such a thing?
We can perhaps all acknowledge that those in power (in the Catholic Church) are very educated, and still find a need for this. So does that not say something?
Also, it is interesting that Archbishop Dolan (newly elected president of U.S. Catholic Bishops) is one of the speakers. It further demonstrates the prominence of this topic in the modern western church.
It has been said that the Devil’s greatest trick was convincing us that he (or she or it…funny how people will debate the “gender” of God, but not the Devil..) Doesn’t exist….
What happens when we try to play God with our bodies?
Excerpts italicized:
Humans tend to flatter themselves by thinking they have the capacity to perform elaborate feats of moral reasoning, deeply considering possible consequences before arriving at an ethical decision. The reality is somewhat less flattering; a number of studies suggest we make moral decisions quickly and with a heavy reliance on our emotional response. Any reasoning that takes place tends to involve after-the-fact attempts to rationalize our decision, while everything from brain damage to neurotransmitter levels can alter our decisions in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. The latest findings in this area indicate that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the class of drugs popularized by Prozac, can alter moral decision making, but only when the individual taking the drugs has a personal, emotional stake in the process.
Between the two experiments, the authors conclude that elevated serotonin makes people less willing to make a personal, emotional commitment to a moral decision, such as punishing unfairness or pushing someone under a train. Detach the person a bit by removing their personal involvement—have them throw a switch instead of giving a push—and the impact of serotonin goes away.
To confirm this, the subjects were given a survey that measured their level of empathy; these results were then compared to performance on the tests. Those with the highest levels of empathy were more likely to be effected by serotonin, reinforcing the role of an emotional investment in the effect.
Although, in this case, the outcome seemed generally good, we have to remember that (depending on the drug) it could just as easily gone the other way. If we temporarily change who we are, does that help us when we are off the drugs?
Do you really want to “flip a switch” and change your personality? Although more difficult, would it be more "worth-while" to come to terms with your problems on your own? (Of course, there will be exceptions where proper medical care will be the best course of action. And one should always follow the advice of their doctor.)
Do you really like the idea of being watched wherever you go?
Excerpts italicized:
For a few years, certain theaters have had cameras watching for the infrared signature of bootleggers' cameras. But why waste all the untapped market research potential of these cameras? Aralia Systems, a British security firm, has just received a $350,000 grant to use the system to gather data from audiences. The cameras will illuminate the audience with infrared and create 3-D stereoscopic images of the audience. Using facial recognition technology, they will know which way you’re facing, if you’re surprised or just bored, even if you came to the movie with friends or solo. Advertisers will use the data to determine if they’re getting through to you or not, and adjust ads accordingly. The technology could also be a boon to movie studios running test screenings – why ask how you felt about the film if they can just see for themselves?
Eventually systems like this one could figure out your moods, who you are based on your facial recognition pattern (your face..like a fingerprint), and where you are at all times.
What are some of the bad things that could come from this? Would you be monitored more if you were more angry than the average? Could your company consider you a slow worker if systems were able to get the impression that you were more depressed than average?
I don’t like this one bit, and have a whole new appreciation for privacy.
Imagine having a child who is older than you at birth…
Excerpts italicized:
Cryopreservation was once the domain of sci-fi novels and B-rate movies. (Think Encino Man.) But it’s increasingly real, as the recent birth of a healthy boy from a frozen embryo created 20 years earlier shows. The birth, which is reported in a study in the online edition of the journal Fertility and Sterility, sets a record. Until now, no embryo frozen for this long has resulted in a live birth.
The 42-year-old mother of the boy, who is not named in the study, began trying to get pregnant using IVF ten years ago. At the time, she and her husband received embryos from a heterosexual couple who had themselves undergone IVF.
That couple had anonymously donated their leftover embryos after the woman successfully gave birth. Thing was, they did so in 1990 – meaning that the boy just born to the woman in the study has a sibling out there somewhere who was conceived at the same time but is 20 years older.
At what point should we stop playing “God”, assuming we should ever play “God” at all?
Is this not a further illustration of how tough God has made life? But is there also a danger of damage to the cells over time? Will the child be able to grow up without defects?
How do you tell this child about where he came from after he is born?
Are what you think of yourself and what you do (or watch) say the same thing?
We like to think of ourselves in a certain way (spiritual, progressive, conservative, honorable, honest, etc.), but do our actions speak louder than our words? That may seem a little much considering that we are talking about what television shows we may watch, but the principle is the same.
Excerpts italicized:
First, "NCIS" — investigating military crimes on CBS. Safe bet conservatives love it, right? How about ABC's "Desperate Housewives" — a racy soap, female audience? Little more tricky. Now things get tough: CBS's geeky, atheist-friendly "The Big Bang Theory," Fox's megarated "American Idol," ABC's progressive Emmy winner "Modern Family." Which of these shows is favored more by Republicans?
All of them.
Liberals appreciate many of the same shows, mind you. But their devotion typically is not quite as strong as right-wingers, and Dems are more likely to prefer modestly rated titles.
The Emmy favorite has struggled to get a broad audience on AMC. It scores through the roof with Democrats (does anyone in Santa Monica or on Manhattan's Upper West Side not watch it?), but it has one of the weakest scores among Republicans. The same is true for FX's "Damages," Showtime's "Dexter," HBO's "Entourage" and AMC's "Breaking Bad."
"The big shows with mass appeal tend to have above-average scores from Democrats and Republicans but with higher concentrations of Republicans," says John Fetto, senior marketing manager at Experian Simmons. "Looking at the Democrats' side, I don't mean to make light of it, but they seem to like shows about damaged people. Those are the kind of shows Republicans just stay away from."
All this isn't to suggest Republicans are a perfect oracle of ratings success. Age certainly is a factor: Younger shows are more likely to be popular with Democrats, as is just about everything on The CW, as well as animated comedies like the Fox hit "Family Guy." Republicans vote strongly for reality-competition hits, but such popular youthful docusoaps as "Jersey Shore" and "Kourtney & Khloe Take Miami" are best appreciated by Dems. Likewise, left-wingers have a stronger affinity for certain veteran crime procedurals, including "The Closer" and "Law & Order," as well as anything that appeals strongly to women.
We've learned Republicans like winners. The shows might be considered fluffy, but they're generally programs that make people feel good. If you're a broadcast network executive weighing whether to buy a show, you might ask your uncle who voted twice for George W. Bush if he likes the idea. We've learned Democrats are, depending on your perspective, discriminating viewers who prefer highly original, well-written series or are cynics who enjoy watching jerks.
Have you found that some of the shows you like fall on the other side of the fence? Could this say something about you that you do not know of yourself?
I is interesting to note that the 2v“Sci-Fi” shows fell on the Republican side of the fence. Also interesting, is Republican seems to have a greater interest in reality TV shows, while shows favored by Democrats seem to focus on characters that are somewhat morally lacking (i.e. Dexter, Madmen).
Once is a coincidence, twice is a trend, but what does this study seem to indicate?
Do you care about the one you love more than yourself?
Excerpts italicized:
Here's an type of opt-out list we don't often write about: Corporal punishment in schools is legal in lots of states, but if you assumed parents could always opt-out, you'd be mistaken. According to a report from WHNT in Alabama, one student was beaten until he was bruised because he failed a science test. The kid, who says he (and his mom) reported the teacher to the local news because he wants to save other kids from being bruised, describes the incident:
“"It felt like he was trying to touch the ceiling and when he came down... it felt like he was trying to smack me through the wall."
The news station investigated and found that the teacher apparently didn't break any laws, but that the school district handbook doesn't specifically allow kids to be subjected to corporal punishment for purely academic offenses, such as failing a test. As for a "no paddle" list, there's apparently no such thing in DeKalb County, Alabama
If one truly loves his (or her) family more than himself, then he (or her) would do everything to protect the ones they love.
We need to have consequences for our actions. For adults, we have laws, police, the justice system, and possibly incarceration to guide our actions towards a just outcome. For children (who do not have to fear consequences the way parents do), they can fear disappointing their parents, being yelled at, and in some cases fear being “spanked”.
So many fight for the right to be physically disciplined, while others believe one should never physically discipline their children. The purpose of such discipline (if administered with a selfless, loving purpose.), is to teach our children consequences (by fearing the result of their actions). A spanking can give this without any actual injury, while many other forms of “corporal punishment” (smacking a child in the face, punching, throwing, etc.) are not given in love but with only the “idea” of discipline.
If a child knows that when they do something wrong they will only be given “a talking to”, they are no more afraid of punishment than if a police officer only gives speeding drivers “warnings” (without monetary penalty). If these actions do not cause the caregiver pain, then they are not really in love. You have to feel terrible even spanking you child. Otherwise, it is not in love.
If one had a teenager who hit their mother, would it then be justifiable to punch your child as a consequence of last resort? I think in this case, it may be. There are some lines that can never be crossed, and should be met with “special” circumstances. Circumstances, of which, only we as individuals can contemplate. On the same token, spouses can both emotionally and physically abuse each other. If you truly love the other spouse, than you would never do anything malicious to cause them harm, physically or emotionally.
I don’t mean a few nasty words, or a nudge. I am talking about things like laying your hands on your spouse (which the only justifiable use would be to protect yourself from SERIOUS harm.) Of which, in my naive world, would never happen if both partners truly cared about the other spouse more than themselves..
Also, never using words that would strike them right at the heart, which can be just as devastating to a person. We spend so much time finding reasons / excuses in which it is ok to hurt the one you love. We should instead guide every action with carefully contemplated, selfless love.
Unless,, of course, you want to smack your loved one with a pillow. Just be careful not to hit them with the corners, as this may poke them in the eye :o)
And if I use the word “love” one more time, I may have to punch myself… lol..
Many nations (as well as many other organizations) have been pushing for a tax that would bring the wealth of wealthier nations to poorer nations.
Many of the wealthier nations have argued against this (especially given the current economic troubles they have been facing).
There are also the various ethical and practical effects to consider.
Excerpts italicized:
As President Obama huddles with world leaders for the G-20 summit in South Korea to weigh proposals aimed at stabilizing the global economy , one idea being pushed is a so-called "Robin Hood tax," aimed at collecting money from rich nations to give to the poor.
The Robin Hood tax -- a global financial transaction fee that could raise hundreds of billions of dollars to pay the cost of the global financial crisis and support developing nations struggling to recover -- is not popular
Still, the tax's supporters, which include unions, environmental groups, Comic Relief, UNICEF and others in a multinational coalition, say the tax could go to canceling debt from poor nations. Or it could be used for social programs to fight hunger, diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria or other causes, programs to which the United States and other nations already donate billions.
But critics say the proposal would kill businesses and job growth in the U.S. They note that Obama doesn't even have the authority to tax U.S. businesses to pay for a global fund.
"We support the goal of helping distressed nations, but feel that the tax would harm the economic recovery of the other countries," said Scott Talbott, a lobbyist with the Financial Services Roundtable, which advocates for large financial firms.
So many support a system that takes from those more” fortunate” and gives to the less” fortunate”. We have such an ability to justify spending other peoples’ money. What happens when you become the one who is more “fortunate”?
Does it still seem fair? Should one be punished for having more? What if you are born into it? Being American means that we as a people are wealthier than almost anyone on earth. What would happen in the community of nations we call earth (or the U.N.) decide that we must give 20% of what we earn to the poorer nation?
They have the same right to do that as the poorer Americans have to ask the higher income brackets to pay an extra 10 or 20 percent in taxes.
There is always someone that has more than you, and there is always someone that has less than you. Those that have go to great lengths to protect what they have. Some may call it greed, and sometimes it is. But what happens when that rich person you always envisioned is you…a middle class American with credit card bills, kids in college, and a mortgage. Because guess what, you ARE rich when you compare it to 95% of the world.
Could we afford it? Where would the money come from? Do you have the necessary know how to to choose where the money comes from when our own government can’t? Especially considering our budget is very much in deficit to begin with (i.e. The nation does not have enough money to pay for what we have. Just like so many families in debt today)
We should not be hypocrites, what you believe is right in this country (in regard to how the rich should pay more in taxes) also applies to how America pays towards other countries.
The only thing we like better than building someone up is tearing them down.
A recent TV Guide poll ranked four female TV stars as teen role models. Squeaky-clean Miranda Cosgrove from "iCarly" topped the list. Disney princess Selena Gomez came in second. Miley Cyrus and "Dancing With the Stars" contestant Bristol Palin are competing for last place. But for Yahoo! searchers, being a role model doesn't seem to be the top concern. In fact, the more searches on the celeb, the less likely they are to be considered a role model. Click through to take a look at the candidates from most searched to least.
Being anointed by Disney can be a blessing — and a curse for Selena Gomez (as "Mickey Mouse Show" alum Britney Spears and "Parent Trap" star Lindsay Lohan can testify). But the 18-year-old princess of the Disney show "Wizards of Waverly Place" has managed to avoid the negative press. Not that she's been out of the media glare: She dated Nick Jonas, after all. She has her own band to focus on, which has a second album coming out. And next year she'll be costarring in the romantic comedy "Monte Carlo." So far, not bad. Searches on "selena gomez fansite," "selena gomez wallpaper," and even the bilingual "videos de Selena Gomez" are also big on the Web.
So many of us would profess to prefer those who do good as compared to who are more scandolous, then why do we focus all of our attention on those who are more scandalous?
Is this also the same part of our nature that precludes postive news stories from making the news, or is it something else?
Dunkin Donuts has created a bite-sized miracle. All the awesome, with none of the cooking. Men around the country a cheering.
Excerpts italicized:
The new concoction is a pancake ball, pre-soaked in maple syrup, and filled with sausage. As Michael Showalter blogs, "Did you get that? The syrup is in the pancake and the sausage is in the pancake that the syrup is in too! F*** it! Let's all get in that pancake! It's a pancake party!"
They'll be sold for a limited time at participating Dunkin Donuts at 3 for $1.59 or 6 for $3 No, I am not advertising for Dunkin Donuts. I just get kind of excited when they figure out how to shrink / take the cooking out of / make it easier to eat ones’ favorite foods.
A retired Canadian couple who won $11.3 million in the lottery in July have already given it (almost) all away.
"What you've never had, you never miss," 78-year-old Violet Large explained to a local reporter. She was undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer when the couple realized they'd won the jackpot in July.
The money was a "headache," they told the paper--mainly, it brought anxiety over the prospect that "crooked people" might take advantage of them. Several people called them out of the blue to ask for money when the news first broke that they'd won the jackpot. So they began an $11 million donation spree to get rid of it and help others, the Chronicle Herald reports:
They took care of family first and then began delivering donations to the two pages' worth of groups they had decided on, including the local fire department, churches, cemeteries, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, hospitals in Truro and Halifax, where Violet underwent her cancer treatment, and organizations that fight cancer, Alzheimer's and diabetes. The list goes on and on.
Violet told the Canadian Press that they retained about 2 percent of the money for a rainy day. "It made us feel good," Violet told the Chronicle Herald. "And there's so much good being done with that money."
Could you do the same?
In many ways money has become the most important thing in our culture. It has changed the very things we have in our culture. From how we celebrate to what we think is important (at a minimum).
We have holidays altered from it (Valentines Day, Commercialization of Easter, Mothers / Father’s Day, Christmas, Weddings). Were not these holidays about something other than the presents you buy? Were these not about something more than how extravagant they could be? Would anyone dare not buying an expensive gift on most of these holidays?
Homes keep getting larger and larger, and yet we are never satasfied. What about TV’s? Cars? Weddings? Kitchens? Clothes? Watches? Shoes?
With so much of the world so desperate to have necessities that we take for granted, why are we so consumed by excess?
There are thousands of “apps” on the market today, but how many “apps” are ones that you really want? Have you ever thought about an idea for a good app? What “apps” do you look for?
Is most of our time spent playing games, listening to music, or from something else? Should we spend more time doing something productive with ourselves? Should we have more educational, informative, or religious “apps”?
What does the type of apps you use / download say about who you are as a person?
Ah, to heck with it, I want “apps” that make me laugh :o)
Schools around the world have deployed a variety of systems to supposedly safeguard student safety and include: Microchip tracking, video surveillance, confiscation of personal property (cell phones), Strict “Hands-Off” policies, Sex “Education” as early as Kindergarten, etc..
What impact could these policies have on our children's’ futures ?
Some excerpts (italicized):
(A) school in Richmond, VA has declared a strict “hands-off” policy. This sounds like a welcome change from the negative stigma of corporal punishment surrounding Catholic schools. However, this policy has allowed one four-year-old boy to wander off on four separate occasions.
While the school claims that it is a “safe handling” issue, parents claim that it’s a “are you f#%*ing stupid” issue. Instead of physically stopping the boy, teachers followed him from a safe distance before alerting the authorities who then came to retrieve the child. Apparently this school believes that instead of endangering a teacher’s career by asking them to touch a child, it’s a much better idea to endanger it by having them follow the child, leave 27 other children alone unattended, and then call the police, wasting their time and taxpayer money.
Leave it to the wild and crazy Brits to combine Harry Potter uniforms with James Bond technology. In England, a private school in South Yorkshire is tracking their students with microchips.
The skirts are for uniformity, the socks are for circulation There are a few reasons for making these students wear RFID chips:
To correctly identify them
To determine if they’re on school grounds
To determine if they’re in their proper class
To easily reprogram them in the event of a robot war
Although it seems to make sense as a measure to combat ditching class, it also serves as a horrible invasion of privacy. The idea of bugging children makes students look and feel like inmates, when realistically only, say, 20% of them are headed in that direction.
Benjamin Franklin once said: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
In the name of safety, we are willing to create a system that is akin to a “Police State”? Are we so afraid to do the wrong thing that we prefer to do nothing (as in the case of the strict “hands off” policy)? Will a system designed to monitor (in various ways) our actions (locations, etc.) do more to harm us in the long run?
Do we have to live in a society so afraid to live?
As if being laid up in the hospital wasn’t traumatic enough already, imagine having a humanoid robot coming to visit you and eerily mimicking your facial expressions - its pink-sleeved arms resting primly in its lap, its hair pinned back with a bobby pin (as if having hair in its face would bother it), its head movements just jerky enough to make a mockery of your pain. Some lucky patients in Japan will now get to experience this haunting scenario, as the latest version of Geminoid is installed in hospitals to act as an observer and “gauge patient reactions.”
You can watch the YouTube clip below to indulge in the creepiness…
We are a social species.
It has been said that children born and not given interaction with another human being, will inexplicably die. This would only highlight the basic human need to having the company of another. Have we become so isolated in our own (perhaps selfish?) worlds that society in places like Japan have found a need / market for this type of product?
It is easy to say this type of thing is scary, but why is it scary? Is it the freaky, horror-movie like nature of this “robot”? Or is it about the society that has a need for such things?
When was the last time you visited you sick relative, or visited a retirement home?
A Romanian Gypsy woman whose 10-year-old daughter just gave birth in Spain says she's delighted to have a new granddaughter and doesn't understand why the birth has shocked anyone -- let alone become an international sensation. Spanish authorities have released few details about the case to protect the girl's privacy. But in comments published Wednesday, her mother told reporters the baby's father is a 13-year-old boy who is still in Romania and is no longer going out with her daughter. The 10-year-old girl and her baby daughter plan to stay in Spainbecause the young couple separated, said the girl's mother. She identified herself only as Olimpia and appeared to be in her 30s but did not give her age. She also said she didn't understand the attention the case was generating because she and her daughter are Romanian Gypsies, or Roma, and their custom is to allow girls to marry young even though that's against the law in Romania. "That's the way we get married," the girl's mother told reporters Tuesday outside the modest apartment building in the southern town of Lebrija where the family lives. The girl moved to Spain about three weeks ago, her mother said, and her baby was born in a public hospital last week in the nearby city of Jerez de la Frontera. There were no complications during the birth, and the 10-year-old and her baby are doing fine, her mother said
This brings u many debates over many different topics: Premarital sex, age of consent, when it is too young to have sex, girls hitting puberty at an ever decreasing age, Gypsy populations / discrimination in Europe, can / should the father be held responsible for child support (when he does come of age), can a child retroactively be held responsible for actions done as a child?. I don’t even know where to start. I wonder if the parents still watch cartoons… by: Don Caldwell
![happiestmeal_thumb[1]](http://lh5.ggpht.com/_4r8KDqISWH4/TOXgUuwJ_QI/AAAAAAAAAUA/UUbMXMfoHfM/s1600-h/happiestmeal_thumb%5B1%5D%5B3%5D.jpg "happiestmeal_thumb[1]")
![rightwing2_3_thumb[1]](http://lh4.ggpht.com/_4r8KDqISWH4/TNxbogUJEFI/AAAAAAAAASM/1oVa9B8jhv4/s1600-h/rightwing2_3_thumb%5B1%5D%5B5%5D.jpg "rightwing2_3_thumb[1]")
