QuidQuid dictum in Latine bene audiet

"Its A Moral Issue"

2008-10-15T19:11:00.000-07:00

Wow, it's been almost a year since I last posted here...

At this very moment, I'm listening to the 3rd and final presidential debate between Obama and McCain. Fortunately, it's almost over.

FINALLY they addressed the issues I've been waiting 2 debates for - abortion and appointments to the Supreme Court. On the topic of abortion, Obama said, and I quote,

'It's a moral issue'.

he then proceeded to say that the issue was best determined by the women involved, and that they should consult their families, medical and religious advisors

Huh?

Can a moral issue be best determined by individual interpretation?

I do believe in a very limited extent of moral relativism, though I would classify these exceptions as "systems of ethics" as opposed to moral issues. In example, if a friend of mine is a vegetarian because of 'moral issues' then I won't consider them 'immoral' because I like a good steak. Likewise, I don't consider myself immoral because as far as I'm concerned, there is no moral reason for me not to eat meat.

Dictionary.com defines 'ethics' as "moral principles, as of an individual:"

But what of abortion?
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Barack Obama is absolutely right. I don't think he knows it though. Abortion is a moral issue.

"Morality: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." Dictionary.com

So is the taking of innocent human life an individual standard or a universal standard? I think except in extreme cases, we can agree that it's a universally accepted standard that life has intrinsic value and we have no right to take it unjustly. We regard life so highly, in fact, that suicide is still punishable in some circumstances.

So why the debate?

What we need to understand is that the debate isn't about whether it is ok or not ok to kill babies. I don't think anyone could argue that killing a child is justifiable. The debate is whether or not the fetus, is in fact, a life. If everyone realized that the unborn was a living human being, then abortion would become a non issue. Compare it to slavery back in the Civil War era. The debate wasn't whether or not it's OK to treat human beings as personal property, the debate was whether or not a black man was the same level of 'human' as the white. Once it was became socially established that race does not determine humanity, the idea of slavery and bigotry became unthinkable (as it should be).

This is why one of Obama's following statements disturbed me...

"No one is pro abortion...abortion is always a tragic situation."

Why? If the fetus was in fact a clump of unliving cells, then it couldn't possibly be that tragic. Many who argue in favor of abortion compare the fetus to a tumor that needs to be removed. There must be some reason Obama would consider abortion a tragedy, and only one answer makes sense to me...

It's the taking of a life.

Less than 3% of abortions performed are to save the life of the mother, the vast remaining majority is simply for convenience.

If Obama or anyone else believes that abortion is a moral issue, then no one could possibly have tolerance for its continuance at the current rate it's at today.

It's about time we make abortion history.

A penny for your thoughts.

The Unfair Doctrine

2007-10-22T17:21:00.000-07:00

Dear Democrats in Congress,

Hi. My name's Holly, but my friends call me Hol.

I've heard about you're latest idea, whats-it-called- the Fairness Doctrine? Yeah. That one. The one that would supposedly make everything fair by forcing Christian and conservative radio stations to air an equal amount of liberal shows if they cover anything the government calls 'controversial' like Jay Sekulow and other conservative activist shows. This is because conservative talk shows are a lot more popular than liberal ones. And you're also going to make it so the networks who host and people who currently fund nonprofit conservative and Christian radio will also be funding the liberal shows. Everyone has the right to get an equal amount of both sides even if they don't want to, right?

Hey! I think it's a great idea! In fact, let's go even further!

While schools are teaching evolution in their science classes, we should also give creationism an equal time! Likewise, in schools where the Koran is taught, the Bible should also be.

For every Planned Parenthood clinic, there should also be a Free-to-Be clinic. And since Planned Parenthood is funded by our taxpayer dollars, government should also pay for and endorse Free-to-Be in the same way.

Since the ACLU is so controversial, and have more influence than any other politically active organization, then we need to make sure the ACLJ gets an equal opportunity.

For every sexual education class that our kids are forced to attend at school, they should also be required to take a class on abstinence.

For every time we have to hear about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama's latest achievement in our media, we should also hear what Alan Keyes and Mike Huckabee are doing.

Oh..And every time you silence a Christian for speaking his faith in public, you should silence an atheist for doing the same.

I mean, think of how much more fair the fairness doctrine will be if you include all that!

Thanks! And good luck!

~Holly

P.S. What do you mean my ideas aren't good?

The Fairness Doctrine has got to be one of the biggest infringements on our freedom in the recent day and age. Liberals are again trying to challenge and ultimately quelch the conservative voices in public broadcasting. Why? Because people are actually listening to them.

This isn't fairness. This is government regulated speech. And it is for the purpose of silencing conservative and Christian voices on the radio.

" Bill Ruder, Assistant
Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy administration, acknowledged that "Our
massive strategy [in the early 1960s] was to use the Fairness Doctrine to
challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would
be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too
expensive to continue." [6] "

If you are of voting age, or know someone who is, please click the link below and sign this petition

https://www.aclj.org/Petition/Default.aspx?sc=3293&ac=1

If We'll Never Forget, Why Don't We Remember?

2007-09-11T18:21:00.000-07:00

Six years ago today the world stood still as the most powerful nation in the world was brought to its knees by four airplanes and several evil men. Few will forget that horrible day. Even those who perhaps were too young to fully take in the significance of 9/11, they were aware that they had witness something happen. Something terrible.

But there's more to the story...

Immediately after the attacks, people frantically looked for something secure to hold on to. Bible sales skyrocketed, churches were full, and people could be seen praying together in rallies. Groups of high standing political figures sang "God bless America" on national television.
Before the attacks, we stood with pride. After, we knelt in humility. Not even the ACLU could contest, reject or deny the return of this nation to God.

I've noticed on this particular anniversary a theme of asking the question "Have you forgotten 9/11?"

No one who was alive six years ago will ever forget the replays on TV of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Nobody will forget the horrified expressions of those people standing in the streets of New York, covered in debris and dust as they witnessed a tragedy unfold before their very eyes.

But we forgot the second half of the story alarmingly fast. The only lasting affect on general American life was heightened security at airports. It didn't take long for America to slip back into its previous state of apostasy, replacing the prayers of our national leaders with the foul language and obscenities of the pop culture. Back to giving us daily reminders about the seperation of church and state when we dare mention Christ's name. Back to the Supreme Court considering Newdow's case to remove "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance.

"We are powerful. We are self sufficient. We are America. And America doesn't need God."

Lord have mercy.

If America claims to not have forgotten September 11, 2001, how could we possibly have
forgotten the devastating results of being out from under God? Why is it so hard for people to realize that this nation's security relies not in more staff at our airports but more prayers of its people?

I pray it doesn't take another September 11 to remind us.

A penny for your thoughts

Going Up To The Mountains...

2007-08-28T19:42:00.001-07:00

(A certain, very dear friend, (whom I love very much..enough to go on Monsoon falls with her a second time even though I was already wet and the line looked kind of long ;-) ) has been nagging me to post here again...

Ok here goes)

::deep breath::

"I went up to the mountain
Because You asked me to..."

Have any of you ever seen "Ella Enchanted"? I saw it once a long time ago, and thought it was rather silly...but I can identify with Anne Hathaway's character a heck of a lot...

"Up over the clouds,
To where the sky is blue"

Right now, I'm outside my comfort box. I think I know the reason I keep getting into these kinds of predicaments. I can't say no. It's like I was hardwired to only agree to people's "suggestions".

"I can see all around me, everywhere
I can see all around me, everywhere"

I will always do a favor for you. If there's any way I can help you with anything, I will do it gladly as long as it's not in violation of my ethics.

"Sometimes I feel like, I've never been nothin' but tired

If you tell me to do something completely out of my comfort box, unfortunately for me, I'll still probably do it for you. I may not have the best attitude about it though...Most people call it 'flexibility'. I call it the "I really love you and don't want to let you down, so I'll do it just for you...but it better not go badly or you're in for it!!" syndrome

That's why I'm here...

"And I'll be working 'til the day I expire..."

I was asked right after coming home from my wonderful week in Stockton (see Claire's invader stories for stories and pictures from that week) to debate against someone else for the Training Minds Ministries demo LD DVD which is to be filmed at the Colorado camp I'm attending. This was kind of flattering. But the majority of my feelings were

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!! WHY MUST PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MY INABILITY TO REFUSE?!

"See sometimes I just lay down,
Lord no more can I do"

Mind, this was just a week after someone suggested I debate policy at SCU because of an uneven number of debaters at that conference. I wasn't even at this conference, so I got about 4 days notice. Being me, I agreed, despite the fact I really didn't want to.

You should have seen how fast I was creating immigration briefs...(I was happy, however, when I learned that they did not need me, and instead I got to judge! But I digress..)

But looking back on all those times I said yes I've realized something. It's not that I've been cursed with some sort of enchantment that you'd find in a kind of corny chick flick...But I'm currently in training to be used in the future by God for whatever plans He has for me. I could spend hours telling you about all of the people who God had to draw out of their comfort zones in order to make them leaders or heros, but I have a lot of college homework to get back to when I'm through with this post...so I'll let you look them up yourself ;-)

"But then I go on again,
Because you ask me to."

Would God be able to use anyone for great things if they always stayed inside their comfort zones? I know I certainly couldn't. My greatest fear being inadequacy, I lack the courage to do anything that I think I might fail in. So God's been using opportunities like this to teach me to come out of my caves and let Him lead me to wherever I need to go. I'm so grateful that despite my own feelings of inadequacy, God chooses me to do these freaky things!

"Some days I look down, afraid I will fall
And though the sun shines, I see nothing at all"

And you know what? Every single place I've said "yes" to has come with it's own set of blessings. When God brings me to something, He doesn't drop me off, tip His hat, and wait for me on the other side. He walks me through it. When I come to that loose board in the bridge or the edge of a cliff, He grabs on to me. When I grow tired or faint He carries me. And when I make it to the other side, He rejoices with me.

"But I hear your sweet voice, ooh,
Comin' and going, comin' and going.

Lord telling me softly,
You love me so."

I leave tomorrow. Prayers would be appreciated :)

~*Hol

And The Irrationality Award Goes To...

2007-06-20T12:31:00.000-07:00

Yes, I know there are more important things I could be posting on, but I just thought this was so sickening I ought to complain about it.

Honestly, we live in a frighteningly lawsuit-happy era. It's gotten so bad as to the point that members of the justice system are also diving in for a taste of litigating.

Judge sues dry cleaner for $54 mn for misplacing pants
Washington, June. 14 (PTI): An American judge has sued a dry cleaner for 54 million dollars for having misplaced an expensive pair of pants he planned to wear in his first week in a new job.

Administrative law judge Roy L Pearson initially filed a lawsuit seeking 67.3 million dollars from Custom Cleaners, a dry cleaning firm here owned by Korean immigrants, for allegedly trying to pass off a cheaper pair of pants as his in 2005.

Pearson later reduced his demand to 54 million dollars, saying the figure includes fines, punitive damages for fraudulent advertising and other costs, such as renting a car to drive to another dry cleaner.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200706141650.htm

Some example of justice, Mr. Pearson. Oh, and how was that first week on the job? Did you get fired for showing up at work with the wrong pair of pants?

He asked the court to award him millions upon millions of dollars to cover not only the cost of replacing the trousers, but the emotional strain of losing them.

http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20070620/NEWS/706200303/-1/COMMUNITIES

But don't you understand? Those pants were his best friend! I mean, he wouldn't go anywhere without them! To have them snatched away heartlessly and replaced with imposter pants must have been absolutely traumatizing.

This is so ridiculous. I'm a little perturbed that this case even made it to court and wasn't immediately discarded as frivolous. What is happening to our justice system? Do they honestly think he has a chance? I hope not. This guy has no chance of winning if they get a jury with at least half the necessary common sense for basic survival. The only thing he's going to gain from this is a lot of animosity and public ridicule.

Perhaps someone will TP his house.

The Question
Where on earth did he come up with the figure of 67.3 million?

A pair of pants: $30

Renting a car to drive from one laundromat to another...which seems completely ludicrous since the guy could've taken a bus or driven his own car: $15 per day(assuming it took one day to drive to one laundromat to another...)

Average Fraudulent Advertising Fine (according to U.S. federal sentencing guidelines): $420,000

Emotional Trauma for Losing Pair of pants: $.01

So if we accept my figures (All of which were generous figures) There is a discrepency of $66,879,954 and 99 cents.

One only hopes that our judicial system has not stooped so low as to permit this guy to get a penny from those people.

If the South Korean couple sue this guy's pants off (again) in a counter claim and make him look even more idiotic than he already does: Priceless.

$67.3 million for your thoughts...

~*Hol

Movie Review: Disney is "Arrr"med and Dangerous.

2007-05-25T18:01:00.001-07:00

And seriously needs to stop making Pirates movies.

I remember going to the theaters to see Pirates of the Caribbean 1, "Curse of the Black Pearl" when I was 12 years old. I distinctly remember walking out of the theater and feeling like going on a grand pirate adventure (Stop laughing, I was 12). It was an exciting movie with the perfect touch of Disney charm that would make anyone want to be a pirate too, especially an imaginative 12 year old.

Last night I walked out of the theater after seeing Pirates of the Caribbean 3 "At World's End" with a sour taste in my mouth. It was more violent than 2, the plot was immensely confusing and some parts were just plain weird. There were also about 25 subplots...per character...(ok, I'm exaggerating, but not by much.) and the storyline(s) were either obscure, weak, or just stupid.

The really disappointing part, was that it really wouldn't have taken much to make it a great movie. It was incredibly funny and I was laughing my head off in the theater. The action and fight sequences were amazing and exciting. And as always, the musical score just got better. (Which is why I couldn't resist adding a piece to this page...Kudos Mr. Zimmer =D).

But because of a few awkwardly weird moments, a lot of insinuated violence, and too many repeat-jokes, it was light years away from the charming and witty original that made so many fans of the series.

It was also clear to me that the director of this movie isn't really taking this thing seriously. The last two movies have almost become just spoofs of the first, constantly making jokes about it and referencing it every other line.

Inbetween those lines, someone is getting killed in some creative or tragic way.

By number 2, the movie had already lost it's charm and become more incessant cruelty, fast action scenes and 'inside jokes' from the first movie. The third was just that times 10. Though still funny and exciting, it had completely lost it's original magic.

The Question
Why substitute quality for added violence and goofiness? The first one had a simple, straight, but good storyline. The characters were charming, and they created the villains in a way were you could laugh at the blumbering Norrington and still find a soft spot for the evil, but very witty, Captain Barbossa.

In 2 and 3, the villains are so cruel you want to jump in the movie and kill them yourself. In 3, the primary villain is the British Lord Beckett, who despite being a high standing British official, is more evil than any of the pirates in the movie (and trust me...there are LOTS of pirates in this movie.) A majority of the violence in Pirates 3 was completely unnecessary. Fortunately, the violence wasn't too graphic, but it gets closer and closer every movie to receiving an "R" rating. There was just way too much insinuation and unneeded death and gruesomeness.
C'mon Mr. Verbinski, this is based on a kid's ride at Disneyland, not a horror novel!

So that scream you may have heard this morning was when I read an article that they're looking to make Pirates 4. I fear it's just going to be more inside jokes, more unresolved plots, less Disney charm, and of course, more violence. Yes, everyone loves Captain Jack Sparrow, but honestly, if you can't get enough of him then just go watch the other three a billion times instead of making the rest of us suffer through another lame storyline that puts the gore over the top. We love the action and humor, but it just won't be worth it at the rate these movies are going.

I just wish the caliber of good movies wasn't based on how much a director can get away with, but how much value the audience can get out of it.

At least the music's still great.

~*Hol

Edit:: If any of you have seen the movie yet I would like to hear your take on it too.

I Had A Dream...

2007-05-17T10:03:00.000-07:00

Thanks for ruining it.
Pro-Gay King Daughter Dies
'...The National Black Justice Coalition said in a release, "Yolanda's transition is a reminder of how short life on earth can be and should also serve as a catalyst
for the continued push for civil rights for all people including gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender individuals...'

*wump*

...

*wump*

...

*wump*

Now that I've banged my head against my desk in frustration, I can continue.

"She is survived by her brothers, Dexter and Martin
III, and a sister, the Reverend Bernice King, a fundamentalist minister and anti-gay activist." (bold added)

There is absolutely nothing that should indicate the King family supported the homosexual agenda. In fact, evidence proves contrary. What a dishonor to them to use their great influence as a catalyst to promote something they stand against.

What bothered me the most about this article was the headline. It's a pro-homosexual agenda news source, so for them to try to correlate Dr. King's dream of equality of races with gay rights does not surprise me. To make the statement that he was "pro-gay" was completely, as my dear mother would say, out to lunch. They don't even support the claim that he was 'pro-gay' anywhere in the article. Yolanda King and her family were advocates of peace and nonviolence, not activists for gay rights. To use this woman's legacy to promote an agenda she never supported is abhorrent. The pro-gay media has really crossed the line.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070516/ap_on_re_us/obit_king;_ylt=AkiDvXEGk8gXJ4SMsjIt63qs0NUE
"...She didn't want to be a child of the [Civil Rights] movement, she wanted to be what God wanted her to be..."

And may she rest in peace for it.

~*Hol

We Interrupt These Posts for a cool Video

2007-05-07T09:42:00.000-07:00

Since I don't have any new posts coming any time soon (Just a bunch of drafts), I'd like to take a moment to show you this video

(Click here to view the video)

Two juniors in high school who strive for excellence in their talents, instead of wasting their time away on video games (though both of them do like video games =D)

The one in the purple shirt arranged the whole piece, listening to the soundtrack and writing the music out note for note.

He's an amazing musician, (as is the guy in the white sweatshirt)

He is also my brother =D

Hope you like Pirates of the Caribbean =)

Spare the Rod, because your Legislator says so...

2007-04-23T22:36:00.000-07:00

I was talking with my mom recently about how 2-year-olds are often called "terrible twos" because it's when their strong little wills begin to show.

"Was I a terrible two?"

"No. You were a tired one."

I slept a lot as a tyke.

This led to the topic of spanking. She related to me times I got good whallopings.

It was interesting what my mom said, however.

"Some of the sweetest people I know were the ones who were best disciplined by their parents."

The Problem

"California lawmaker wants to make spanking younger
children illegal -- but some say this is going too far. Physical punishment may
work at first because it
shocks a child. But it may teach a child that it's
okay to inflict physical pain."

Oh, you bet. How many times have convicted criminals pled "not guilty due to having been spanked as a child"? Being a victim of spanking myself, my readers should understand why I so delight in beating people up...You know who you are.

A note to the legislators...You missed the bullseye by a long shot. If you're so concerned about what is harming children in the long term, why don't you make divorce illegal? Or live-in boyfriend/girlfriend relationships? According to several studies, those do more harm to children in the long term than spanking does. Don't crack down on parents who are using a proven and highly effective method of discipline on their children (which yes, does sting a bit.)

But no. People haven't figured that out yet. Now they are against spanking because it "encourages violence" and "traumatic" etc etc. They come up with a bunch of statistics about how children who are physically punished are more likely to have lower IQ, be more aggressive and violent and end up mentally handicapped or with impaired parent/child relations. I'd like to point out that most of these statistics are those of children who were actually abused by their parents. Abused as in--whipped unmercilessly and locked in a basement for several hours type of abused. There is a huge difference between a swat on the behind for being a brat and actual violence. The rest of the statistics are pure speculation. No one has directly connected legitimate spanking with violence later on.

Legislators, however, have decided to speak up for the children and stop this so-called abuse. Parents too, have joined this fight.

"Many people refer to the phrase "spare the rod, spoil the child" when advocating corporal punishment. This is not even a verse from the Bible, but in fact a 16th century Samuel Butler poem! Funny how's it's been so mis-used!"( http://www.epinions.com/content_4499546244 : A mom talking about spanking)
Proverbs 13:24 "He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently"
Proverbs 22:15 "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him."
Sorry Ma'am, you were saying??
To be honest, I'd be frightened to live in a society where no one properly punished their kids. Sure, you can tell them "No iPod for a week, Jimmy" or "If you're good you'll get ice cream!" Sorry, it just doesn't work. Give it a few days, weeks, months, little Jimmy is back to whatever mischief he was up to before. Give it a few more years, Jimmy has no respect for authority, and little sense of right and wrong. Something about spanking breaks that strong will in kids and gives them better discernment of right and wrong. Take that away, you get strong-willed kids who turn into rebellious teenagers who turn into who knows what kind of adults. (Who then turn into the cranky old people who live a block from your house and scowl at you from their window....)
So there you've heard it. Heard it directly from a kid who's had plenty of experience with the wooden spoon (even for things her brother did and then blamed her for...but those are different stories :P) Sure, I hated it then. But now I'm thankful that my parents didn't conform to a sickeningly politically correct society and would whallop me when I was being bad. =D It was for love, and it left no permanent damage.
I can guarantee I'll share the love with my kids too.
~*Hol

Headlines Pt 1.

2007-04-18T21:45:00.000-07:00

I was browsing google news the other day...

Here are some articles and headlines that stood out..
_______________________________________________________

"In a press conference Monday, Idol executive producer Nigel Lythgoe said Daylight Savings Time, which, per federal mandate began three weeks earlier than usual this year, is most likely behind the downward trend. Networks routinely blame the time change for encouraging viewers to stay outside in the sunlight, as opposed to sitting parked in front of their TVs."
Heaven forbid the children miss Sanjaya crooning another number painfully off-key to go get some fresh air. I must admire Mr. Lythgoe for finding yet another reason to blame the democrats for something, however.
_____________________________________
"Korn and Evanescence to co-headline Family Values Tour"
!!!??? !! Whaaat---????!!!
I've never heard of Korn. But being that they're (or 'it') is touring with Evanescence...I know enough about Evanescence to assume Korn too would be the last band (or singer?) to be heading a good Family Values Tour..
"Listen up kiddies. Life stinks. People aren't worth it. You'd be better off sitting in dark corners with a menacing glare, griping about the rest of humanity.
_______________________________________

Aussie serial hugger wins YouTube award
Nevermind. I'm not even going to ask.
______________________________________

"Tainted pet food may have sickened tens of thousands"

Perhaps people should stop eating it then. (OK, no, I know it's making the animals sick, but I saw the headline and couldn't resist =D)

_____________________________________
Manatees may lose 'endangered' status
BY CURTIS MORGAN
"Florida manatees, on the rebound for more than a decade, have recovered so well that federal wildlife managers said Monday they no longer merit ''endangered'' status."

Merit?? Good heavens! We better start killing more manatees! What can I do to help these creatures regain their prestigious endangered species title?
____________________________________________

Coca-Cola fights to keep Jesus from drinking soda

Man cannot live on bread alone...
_____________________________________________
Don't worry, there's still some good news.

Boosting the antioxidant properties of the pizza
By Jonathan M. Gitlin Published: March 27, 2007 - 02:19PM CT
Everyone loves pizza. Thin crust, thick crust, Chicago or New York, traditional Italian with a paper thin crust that's been wood-fired... It's just a shame that pizza is often not that healthy for us. Now all that could change, thanks to some research that was presented yesterday at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society. The work comes from researchers at the University of Maryland, who examined the levels of antioxidants in whole wheat pizza dough following a range of different fermentation times, baking times, and baking temperatures. As it turns out, a longer fermentation time (up to 48 hours) can boost antioxidant levels in the dough by up to 100 percent. Similarly, longer baking times and higher baking temperatures also increased antioxidant levels."
Genuis. Researchers from University of Maryland--You are my heroes.
___________________________________________
Conclusion? The world has gone insane. And I can't find my way out.
~*Hol

Where Are Your Taxpayer Dollars Going?

2007-04-06T10:02:00.000-07:00

Even though I would probably have so much fun talking about pork-barrel programs like Pony Trekking programs and Irish Sweaters for peace in Ireland, I'm addressing something with a more bitter than humorous connotation.
http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=4431

That article killed me. We live in a fallen world, but such indifference and heartlessness is hard to fathom. And in the end, we end up paying for it.

So the cycle goes as follows:

Woman has baby she didn't want --> Woman sues Planned Parenthood for not killing her child correctly --> Planned Parenthood uses money it gets from taxpayers to pay for suit --> Planned Parenthood aborts more babies and gets more taxpayer dollars to make up difference.

Ultimately, the taxpayers pay for the 'tragedy' that a child lived. If the child is aborted? We still pay for it.

"And Planned Parenthood’s pockets do go deep, with much of its money coming
from taxpayers. As the nation’s leading abortion chain, it pulled in federal funding of $272 million in 2005, twice what it made from its 255,000 abortions that year, according to the Family Research Council."

The way the system works now is this: Planned Parenthood is the triggerman. The government is the driver. The taxpaying citizens become the ones who hired them both. However, in a criminal court, the one who hired the hitman is just as guilty as the hitman himself.

The child becomes the victim, whether he lives or dies, which is a greater tragedy no matter where the money is coming from.

The Question
Is it ethical that the government fund organizations like Planned Parenthood with our taxpayer money?

The Ideal
I, personally, think the government has gone waaaay too far when it comes to funding corporations and businesses. Being a fan of the free market and smaller government, I think the government should stick to what it was intended for -- providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare (no, not that kind of welfare...) and representing the people (this is a democracy, right?)

The Problem
Government, however, has decided to play "Big Daddy" as well, forking out billions of dollars to programs, industries, etc etc. The intent is usually good, but the method is usually if not always wrong, and to top it off, they technically aren't paying for it anyway. We are.

The Answer (To the question, not the problem..)
Since I'm strongly against abortion anyway, I would say it's unethical that anyone fund Planned Parenthood. In a free market economy, however, people should have the freedom to do what they want with their money. (legally, of course.) If they want to fund a program, buy a plasma TV, or use it as tinder and roast marshmallows over it, it's their choice.
So when the government funds something as controversial as Planned Parenthood with our money, it's like a slap in the face. They essentially force us to spend our money on something we don't necessarily support. The government is supposed to represent the people. The people pay taxes for the government to represent them. They pay taxes to the government so that the government can do its job, not so institutions like Planned Parenthood can do theirs. Furthermore, it is not the government's job to make sure Planned Parenthood is killing enough babies. Even furthermore, the government certainly shouldn't be using your and my parents money (and yours and mine when we become taxpaying citizens) to fund it.

If you support Planned Parenthood, you fund it. It's your right. Don't make me violate my ethics by making me pay for it.

A penny for your thoughts,

~*Hol

The Religious Church

2007-03-29T21:51:00.000-07:00

About a month ago, I heard a very thought-provoking message given at a sort of youth rally. The speaker covered a lot of ground, so I don't remember what the exact topic was, but I do remember one thing he said struck me.

"The enemy will try two tactics to destroy you. One is to chase you down the path of wickedness and immorality. The other is to chase you down the path of religion."

(that probably wasn't verbatim, but it was the essence of what he said)

Isn't that interesting? He also made the point that Jesus readily forgave and even befriended those who were immoral and unrighteous, but rebuked the Pharisees and the religious leaders for their hypocrisy and, essentially, their 'religiousness'.

Wow!

So what is the problem with religion?

First of all, religion as we may know it isn't the same as the religion I'm talking about. Religion as is generally defined is merely the belief in some sort of deity (in most of my readers and my case, belief in God) I am not saying believing in God is bad and we shouldn't have a religion. (Due to the fact that I believe in God and love Him very much would make that a bit silly). There is, however a difference between having a religion, and being religious. When religion becomes a mere lifestyle of statutes, laws and practices that must be followed without exception, and develops a mindset that a person mustn't be 'marred' by those of 'false' religions or no religion, it essentially isolates that person from the rest of humanity and causes a world of other problems. That was essentially what the pharisees did. They isolated themselves in their self-righteousness. They condemned Jesus for reaching out in compassion to the blind and the sick, because it broke a so-called 'rule and regulation'. I think Jesus did these things on the Sabbath on purpose to prove a very important point about religiousness (and perhaps to see the dumbfounded look on the faces of those men in the funny hats =D)

Like the little frog, the religious church has closed an eye to the world's problems. Instead of addressing key issues, reaching out to the lost in compassion and love, and aiming to be an influence in a fallen society, it looks down on those who are considered 'unrighteous'. It locks it's members inside the church doors so that they are safe from the rest of the world, but leaves the windows open so they can indifferently watch the world sink deeper into depravity. It doesn't want to look straight into the pain of the world, because the pain of the world is not religion's issue. Judging it, maybe, but going in to it to solve it? Never. As a result, the church becomes partially blind, and righteousness is left for 'birds of prey' to come in and destroy.

I am reminded of a couple songs by Casting Crowns, one called "If We Are The Body" and the other "Does Anybody Hear Her?" What I love about Casting Crown's songs is that they don't sugar coat Christianity and threaten sinners (As the Newsboys do when they tell you that there's no Cap'n Crunch in hell). They don't attack the lost and boast in their own righteousness. In fact, a lot of their songs address the problems of the church as opposed to only talking about the problems of the world.

But if we are the Body Why aren't His arms reaching
Why aren't His hands healing
Why aren't His words teaching
And if we are the Body
Why aren't His feet going
Why is His love not showing them there is a way
There is a way
("If We Are the Body" by Casting Crowns)

Let's face it, the U.S. has a population of 3.0 million citizens. There are approximately 900 mega churches in the United States, with probably an average of between 1000 to 3000 people who attend those. That's about 1.8 million evangelical Christians in the United States. That doesn't even count the numerous number of smaller churches scattered throughout the nation. So how come groups like the ACLU, who are comparitively the minority, have so much influence in stripping this nation of any mention of God, and these huge churches have done practically nothing to stop it?

Why aren't His arms reaching? I'm afraid it's because a good portion of the Body is locked behind church doors for fear of getting their hands dirty. The enemy has successfully pushed the church into it's safe little religious corner, leaving groups like the ACLU free to remove God from our country with less opposition

Does anybody hear her?
Can anybody see?
Or does anybody even knows she's going down today
Under the shadow of our steeple
With all the lost and lonely people
Searching for the hope that's tucked away in you and me
Does anybody hear her?
Can anybody see?

If judgement looms under every steeple
If lofty glances from lofty people
Can't see past her scarlet letter
And we never even met her
("Does Anybody Hear Her?" by Casting Crowns)

If the church feels that its responsibility is to judge others, it has seriously missed the mark. Let's not close an eye to sinners, those who are going down and those who have stumbled in the past. Let's not hide in our little religious corners and allow the people of this nation to fear and hate the church for its 'loftiness'.

Those are the people who needs the hope that the church has tucked away the most.

A penny for your thoughts.

~*Hol

Campaigning to the Choir.

2007-03-25T16:02:00.000-07:00

Uh oh. Holly's going political...Run for cover.
March 13, 2007
Matthew 15:8-9 "This people honors me with their lips
But their hearts are far away from me
But in vain do they worship me
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of man"

Now check this out.

Obama coupled his advice with a warning. "Nothing is more transparent than
inauthentic expressions of faith: the politician who shows up at a black
church
around election time and claps -off rhythm - to the gospel
choir."**

Now now, Mr. Obama. Just because John Kerry can't keep a beat....
As a result, "I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."**

Ok, sounds good.

"Obama mentioned leaders of the religious right briefly, saying they must "accept
some ground rules for collaboration" and recognize the importance of the
separation of church and state."**

Say wha--? Sorry, Mr. Obama. If you want to succeed in reconciling faith with our modern and pluralistic democracy, you can't put the church at the mercy of the state.
____________________________________________________
Singing off-key to gospel songs is no reason to accuse someone of hypocrisy, (or most white folks would be hypocrites), but we have other reasons for raising an eyebrow at Mr. Kerry.

"Through many dangers, toils and snares I have already come," Kerry intoned
Sunday morning at Mt. Olivet Baptist Church. " 'Tis grace that brought me
safe thus far, and grace will lead me home."***

If you put those words to music, it'd probably be a big hit :P.

He told the crowd of 1,500 he wasn't there to preach but went on to, well,
preach about the Good Samaritan, the emptiness of a faith devoid of deeds
and God's high calling to love one another -- before criticizing from the
pulpit President Bush over Social Security and jobs. ***

Smooooth.

In the final debate, the Democratic candidate made it clear he opposes abortion
as an "article of his faith," but would never appoint a Supreme Court justice
who favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision establishing a woman's
right to an abortion. ***

That's exactly it. That's what really irks me. Same with Hil.

Democrats like New York Senator Hillary Clinton — who said last week that
abortion is a "tragic choice" that can be averted by teaching "religious and
moral values"...

"A tragic choice..." It's the thought that counts, right?

These candidates are so set on painting themselves 'moral' portraits that proclaim: "abortion is bad, gay marriage is bad, and we believe God should be brought back into the country" to win over the evangelical voters. Do they plan to walk the walk? Pardon my lack of faith, but I don't think they're even going to glance at it if they get their presidential position secured. One can only hope that the church looks past the pretty self-portrait and sees the true intention of the not-so-pretty artist behind it.

~*Hol

* http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html
**http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR2006062800281.html
***http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40595-2004Oct17.html

Expecting vs. Aiming.

2007-03-19T19:36:00.000-07:00

While looking for an opening quotation for this post, I googled "expectation quotations" and was rather dismayed. Every other quotation was the opposite of the one before it.

“Truly loving another means letting go of all expectations. It means full acceptance, even celebration of another's personhood.”

But..

“High achievement always takes place in the framework of high expectation.”

Darn. I expected the right quotation to pop up, instead I get a list of contradicting statements.

I've been thinking a lot about expectations lately. They're something so many people have given me, and as a result, something I've had few of for myself. I've noticed there's a difference between encouraging others and setting expectations for them. A difference between setting goals or creating an expectation for yourself.

Thesis
Expectations are deadly.

Explanation
For lack of a better example, I'm a debater. My extended family tells me I'm going to be president someday because I'm a debater. This is kind of a disturbing thought, but a nice thing to say. They aren't setting an expectation of me, because I'm sure if I don't become a politician, they won't disown me, but they think I have the capability of going into that arena. This is encouragement.
On the flip side, my family thinks I'm some fantastically incredible debater. Way more incredible than I am. I'll never forget the day I told my grandma my partner and I got 13th place varsity team. She just looked at me, sort of confused and slightly disappointed.
"That's good." I said.
"Oh." she replied.
Wow, that stung. That happened to be a tournament I had been thrown into last minute with a topic I barely knew about. Was I expected to do better? My grandma didn't know all the details of my situation, but she had placed some expectation on me that I should have been able to do better, when in reality, I had no expectations going into that tournament.

A clearer example:
I've been doing pretty well this year debate-wise. Certainly better than I thought I was capable of. At the most recent tournament, I didn't make it to outrounds. I wasn't bummed about it at all. The surprise of other people over the fact that I didn't break was an encouragement. The sound of disappointment in my mom's voice over the phone was a heartbreak. In a sense, both parties had expectations, but the former still believed I was good enough to fulfill that expectation, even though I didn't; the latter discovered I fell short of it.

Point?
Putting expectations on people can potentially hurt them.

The same exact thing applies to setting expectations for yourself. Having goals is a good thing. Achieving goals is a better thing. Just don't think you'll know exactly when and how you'll achieve those goals, because you may be sorely disappointed. I don't mean to sound like Johnny Raincloud here, but there's a difference between aiming high and setting high expectations.
One says
"I hope to achieve this goal by this time."
The other:
"I will achieve this goal by this time"

So what happens if you don't? The first establishes a mindset of working toward your goal, the other establishes that you've mentally obtained something that in reality, you don't have. If you don't achieve the goal, the first attitude may be disappointed, but probably more determined to succeed in the future. The second will either feel robbed or feel like a total failure.

On A Spiritual Note:
Having expectations of myself makes me feel self-relient and confident in myself, but aiming for goals makes me more dependent on God to fulfill those goals. The latter has proven more effective in goal-achieving.

The fact of the matter is, without God, we can't do anything. Period. If we work hard to achieve our heart's desires, God may honor them. If He doesn't, He usually provides an even better alternative. If we set selfish expectations, we usually fail. End of story.

Schpiel In Summary

There's a difference between encouraging or aiming, and expecting. I encourage you to encourage others. I also encourage you to aim high. I discourage you from setting expectations on yourself or others.

You have to remember that whatever the outcome is, God is in control of it. And historically speaking, He knows what He's doing ;)

~*Hol

A Question of Quality

2007-03-07T20:53:00.000-08:00

Quite recently my family rented a movie called "Living Water". It was a Christian movie, and seemed to have a very intriguing and possibly powerful storyline. I watched the first part of it...

It was so horribly put together that I couldn't finish it. The acting literally made me cringe. The music seemed was three or four chords repeated over and over again only paused when there was dialogue...which was read off of a hidden script mostly. I couldn't help but wonder...

How on earth did this movie get produced?

Let's take a look at music.

A majority of Christians probably have "KLOVE" set to one of the default stations on their car radio. KLOVE boasts being "Positive and Encouraging" by sending the message:

a) Once we become christians, our lives become easy.
b) As Christians, our primary goal is to get to heaven.

Problem:
As a result, KLOVE portrays a somewhat 'sugar-coated' Christianity by selecting only songs that convey the aforementioned message--often at the expense of truly good singers and writers. I'm not saying KLOVE only plays crummy music, because there are some good singers and a few good songs played, but the quality is most certainly not emphasized.

So in essence, they play mostly crummy music, leaving me feeling rather negative and discouraged.

So is it justifiable that Christians should tolerate and praise lower quality merely because it's in the name of 'Christianity'?

The Other Side...
Go back with me to the 2006 Academy Awards. What was that movie everyone was raving about? The one that everyone was predicting would be the "best picture" winner? Brokeback Mountain?

To be honest, Brokeback Mountain looked like it was incredibly well directed, produced, acted, and everything else the Academy would look for in a movie.

Problem: It glorified an immoral lifestyle. It justified homosexual agenda. It was another step down for the standard of morality in movies.

I can almost guarantee, however, that the same storyline acted, directed, and produced very poorly would have never been recognized by the Academy. No matter how 'tolerant' or liberal the movie industry is, they usually don't dig the really really lousy movies released.

The music industry is just as brutal. It's hard to emerge as a new artist nowadays because you're going up against the top-caliber secular artists of our day and age.

The Good News
Christian movie-making has taken leaps in the right direction as far as quality is concerned. The production of the recent movie "One Night with the King" (based on the story of Esther) was beautifully produced. Though we're not quite there yet (The main two actors in 'One Night with the King were poorly cast), it's encouraging to see better media coming from the Christian basis.

Problem: Christian movies and music are beginning to conform to a secularized style of movies and music. The movie I just mentioned (One Night with the King) turned what could have been a very profound message into a fairy tale-ish chick flick that took way too much dramatic license. I would have loved to have seen them demonstrate the incredible faith of Esther and the mighty power of God more, but instead they made Esther somewhat of a ditz and emphasized the love story between her and the king by adding totally unnecessary parts to it. Bla.

But there's Still Some Good News!
Another movie my family recently watched was "Facing the Giants" - a movie that directly endorsed the Christian message. Unfortunately, I never got to see it, but I heard it was put together excellently. This is what we need more of.

Schpiel in Summary

Christian producers should be more aware of the quality of their stuff. Though the industry shouldn't be as brutal as the secular industry, we can't just accept every Joe Shmoe who has "God" in one line of a song or movie.
On the same note, Christians in seeking quality should not try to mask the 'Christianity' part of it just so as to appeal to the secular world. Instead, we need to be a light and show the world that it's still possible to make great movies and write great songs that aren't filled with worldy garbage.

Our primary aim should be to glorify God through our works, by doing our work with not tolerance alone, but excellence.

A penny for your thoughts,

~*Hol

Turning Over A New Leaf.

2007-03-01T10:19:00.000-08:00

Yes, I'm completely redoing this blog.

The old one was too random to keep up with, so this will now be my haven for deeper and more profound things. Leave the more humorous anecdotes to xanga and the completely ludicrous schpiels for GAG.

While this site is under construction, here are some others I'd encourage you to visit:

http://www.therebelution.com

http://www.xanga.com/hol_lsterz

That's all I can think of at the moment...=D.

~*Hol

Editors Note: This blog is entitled "open to interpretation" because all posts are, indeed, open to your interpretation. I really value your input and encourage you to voice your opinions if you agree or disagree with me.

Just be nice =D