Friday, October 10, 2008
Fighting a Cold Civil War
That phrase came to me a couple of weeks ago when I was thinking about the elections and all the anger going on...the whole blue vs. red thing. The phrase came up again this morning when I was discussing all this with my co-workers. So I Googled it...lots of other pundits and bloggers were writing about this at least a year ago. Maybe I read one of those articles and just didn't remember, but the phrase stuck in my mind. Anyway, I think it's accurate.
As far as I'm concerned, the differences are irreconcilable. One part of the country wants a socialist, European-style country. The other part wants a country based on free-enterprise and the Constitution. One side has disdain for orthodox Judeo-Christian faiths, whereas the other side embraces or at least tolerates those beliefs. One part believes that if we just let down our defenses, everything would be peace and lovebeads. The other part knows we live in a dangerous world and that defense is essential.
However this election turns out, there will be turmoil. If Obama wins, a large part of the country will feel angry and powerless against the will of the left leaning blue states, the news media, Hollywood and academia. (In fact, they already feel that way, I assure you.) They will believe that ACORN created enough false voter registrations to put Obama over the top. If McCain wins, the left will riot and claim, "The Diebold machines were hacked!" The blue states, the news media, Hollywood and academia will resent that the will of the "dumb hicks" in flyover country overruled that of their "betters". And we will hear the cries of, "Racism! Racism!" ad nauseam.
I hate to sound all doom-and-gloom, but I see absolutely no solution to this. Or at least no solution in which America stays in the same form it is now. I hope I'm wrong about that. I guess we'll see.
More: From September 5, 2008 - The Coming Civil War in America by Phyllis Chesler.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Vocabulary Peeve of the Day
Saying "righteous" when one means "self-righteous". This is very common -- people do this all the time and it always annoys the heck out of me.
The dictionary definition of righteous:
1. Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.
2. In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
3. Morally justifiable: righteous anger.
The dictionary definition of self-righteous:
1. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks.
Being righteous is good. Being self-righteous is bad. Get it straight, people!
Posted by Susan B. at 10:00 AM
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Why do holidays make me so tense?
I should be happy during the holiday season (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years). What's not to love? Days off from work, turkey dinners, presents, etc. But all they do is make me tense and uneasy. I don't understand why it has to be that way, but it is.
Posted by Susan B. at 12:45 PM
| Comments (6)
Friday, July 6, 2007
A comment to this post by Andrea Harris -- where she reacts about the way I would to some over-the-top, sentimental goopiness written by an Episcopal priest -- has the following quote by C.S. Lewis from The Screwtape Letters:
"She's the sort of woman who lives for others -- you can always tell the others by their hunted expression."
I can't tell you how often I've worn that hunted expression.
Some have wrongly accused me of "not caring" or being too aloof. It's not that I don't care...I just don't want to become the one who causes others to get that hunted expression. I don't want to, "Be there for them with a vengeance," as the sentimentalist Episcopal priest suggests. Because the "them" in question often end up feeling smothered and resentful.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:50 AM
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Puzzler of the Day
How come feminists and other lefties -- who are either atheists or are vaguely "spiritual" types who dislike the entire concepts of hell and original sin -- par-tay at the thought of of eternal hellfires for Jerry Falwell?
And FWIW...although I consider myself a social conservative and a Christian, I was never a fan or supporter of Falwell's. Darleen's opinion pretty much reflects mine. Despite his flaws, I think he truly believed and tried to serve God the best way he knew how.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:45 AM
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Not much I can say...
...on the horrific massacre at Virginia Tech yesterday. I know of a few online people who work at or attend(ed) Virginia Tech and -- thank God -- they are safe. The only thing I can think of doing in the face of so much sadness is to pray.
Posted by Susan B. at 8:20 AM
| Comments (1)
Monday, August 7, 2006
Still haven't watched Screw Loose Change...
I just wanted to check in and say that I still haven't watched the Screw Loose Change series of videos yet. The reason being is that I misspoke (or rather miswrote) when I said I was looking forward to seeing them. While I'm very happy that there are people debunking this bullcrap, I realize that I'm just not ready to watch them yet. After reading the reactions of others, I know that seeing these dirtbags chortle at the 9/11 victims and their familes will enrage me too much. I would have to take a Xanax or two in order to handle watching it.
Another thing I'm not going to do is open comments on posts dealing with this topic. The reason for this is that I don't want these 9/11 conspiracy kooks trolling my blog. To steal a line from Andrea, the short bus is not allowed to stop here. If any 9/11 kooks ever dare comment here, they will be banned without mercy and, if time permits and if I'm angry enough, I will find some way to humiliate them as much as possible. (For example, I may do some creative editing of any droppings they leave here.)
Meanwhile, the 2,996 Project is currently at 49%. If you have a blog, please consider signing up for this tribute to the 9/11 victims.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:30 PM
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Even after 9/11, some will never learn...
I was literally shaking after watching this video, which I found via the Anchoress. Like she said, you only need to watch it once.
I use Bloglines to do my blog reading, and I will often look at the references to a particular post. I checked the references to the Anchoress' post and found some piece-of-filth blog post on a conspiracy blog that simply said, "The cluelessness of these neocon duped, 9/11 OBL myth swallowing, bloggers is just stupefying". I'm not linking this nutjob, not even indirectly. But there were the usual links to the usual conspiracy crap. But try and wrap your mind around this -- a conspiracy nutter finds normal, human reactions to that video "stupefying". I really, truly despise Alex Jones and the rest of these 9/11 conspiracy morons. I despise them even more after watching that video. These people are sickos.
But we shouldn't dwell on these loons; instead we should remember the victims. One way to do that is to sign up for the 2,996 9/11 tribute project. I signed up myself a couple of weeks ago, as you can see on the sidebar. They are up to 37% now, but there are a lot more victims who need a blog to post a tribute to them come 9/11/06. I feel like this is a way to do something positive in the face of the evil done by the Alex Joneses, the Ward Churchills and the Noam Chomskys of the world.
Posted by Susan B. at 7:17 PM
| Comments (5)
Monday, May 22, 2006
They truly are "apes in tuxedos" (or evening gowns), as Sigmund, Carl and Alfred put it:
No matter how well the tuxedo fits, the ape remains an ape. The problems of the Arab and Muslim world are not the fault of America, the UK or Israel. Simply jumping up and down and screaming in a frenzy cannot change that reality. The outrage of the ape in charge (AIC) of the Staton Jones Report is understandable. Both Alexandra and Dr Sanity forced him to look into the mirror, and he saw the ugliness of his dysfunction.
Please note that I'm not saying all leftists are vulgar. However, a majority of them are.
Posted by Susan B. at 12:48 PM
| Comments (7)
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Cram It, World!
That's my feelings about pretty much everything right now. I may go into more details later or I may not.
The song that just came up on my iPod is "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" by Otis Redding. Fits my mood perfectly.
Update: My mood has been improved somewhat by a good, long nap.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:47 AM
| Comments (5)
Friday, March 24, 2006
Wow. Was Andrea reading my mind or what?
Really, I'm sick of so many things that have to do with both blogging and real life. I was going to try and write a long, whining post about it, but there's no use in that.
Here is what sums up the problem: the need for control. Barb hits the nail on the head -- people act like they care, but what they really want is control. If you refuse to be controlled, if you don't do what they say, then by God, they will make you pay. How dare you think for yourself!
This applies to just about everything this week: feminism, Muslims, crunchy-cons (and their cheerleaders), ungrateful pacifists rescued by the military, leftists always looking for their pound of flesh...I could go on and on.
Anyway, that's what's been going through my mind this week.
Posted by Susan B. at 11:10 PM
| Comments (2)
Monday, March 20, 2006
Mark Shea takes me to task...
...and refers to yours truly as "bitchy" in the process. Well, I won't deny that I can be sometimes. Charity is a virtue I'm always struggling with, and sometimes I choose to be perhaps overly emotional and inflammatory. It's too bad that that's the only part of my post that Mr. Shea chose to highlight.
Below is some of what I left in his comments, along with some other thoughts:
My problem with the crunchies is the lack of (dare I say it) nuance. Either you are "crunchy", which means you are deep and spiritual, or you are some mindless idiot who maxes out all your credit cards to have all the latest and greatest stuff. There is a lot of territory between those two extremes.
Without going into details, I put family first every day. I try to make a good living, but I'm not someone who chases after money and power. I love beauty as well. But I also live in the dreaded suburbs and I have been known to shop at K-Mart on occasion (I avoid Walmart -- too crowded and it's hard to find a parking place.) I have a hard enough time making myself eat my vegetables in the first place, so forget organic vegetables. And I shop at regular grocery stores because I just want to get the task over with before my bad back starts plotting a rebellion. I do try to make my home look attractive and I work with getting my roses to bloom every year. I like to make soap and other bath things as a hobby. I do it because it's fun, not to be "crunchy". If I ever make any money off of it, I would be happy just to make enough to support the hobby. I'm not perfect. I struggle with my faith and I admit I seem to be losing the struggle right now. And I get frustrated with what I perceive as judgemental arrogance and I say things like "bite me".
So there I am...neither crunchy nor a mindless consumerist. Is there a nice little label for me?
Finally, while the idea that I have any kind of power to "excommunicate" someone from conservatism is flattering, I assure you that a peon like me doesn't have that kind of power. Mr. Dreher and company have nothing to fear from me.
Posted by Susan B. at 12:10 PM
| Comments (7)
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
Maybe it's because I'm in a bad mood lately, but does anyone else think this "Crunchy Conservative" stuff is a pretentious bunch of hooey? Does anyone else think it's just another way to be an elitist and think you're better than the mall-shopping hords who buy their produce at the local grocery store instead of some co-op? It's just another status symbol...another form of materialism, which the crunchy-cons claim to abhor. After all, it costs more money and takes more time to be all "crunchy" and buy organic vegetables at a co-op and shop at hip little out-of-the-way boutiques. Most people just don't have the time or money for that nonsense.
Oh, and one more thing -- Birkenstocks are uglier than homemade sin and men look goofy in sandals.
(I guess I'm starting off the new year with a really testy post. What can I say? I'm tired of being nice.)
Posted by Susan B. at 2:00 PM
| Comments (8)
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
I've Got Nothing
Sorry, I just don't have much to say. Or when I do have something to say, I'm too busy or tired to say it. I've posted a few comments here and elsewhere, but that's it. I'm so behind on my blog reading that I don't know much about what's going on, other than that they are going to execute that Tookie guy really soon. They've even got Joan Baez singing for him! It's all so predictable. I saw a picture somewhere else (Drudge, perhaps) of some dried up old hippie woman holding a sign saying, "Have a [heart] Arnold". Why do these people cry buckets of tears and light candles for murderers but have no regard for the victims and their families? They make me sick.
Anyway, I'm just surprised that they are actually going to execute someone in California. I certainly hope that Tookie's repentance is real and wasn't just a ploy to weasel out of his death sentence. If his repentance isn't real, well, enjoy Hell, Tookie.
Incidentally, my dog Betty just killed another 'possum in the backyard tonight. That makes, I think, three so far since I got her. Gross...I just wish the stupid creatures would quit wandering into my yard.
Posted by Susan B. at 12:55 AM
| Comments (2)
Thursday, September 8, 2005
Katrina is the Anti-9/11
Someone on a blog somewhere (I can't remember where) said Katrina is the "anti-9/11" and I think he's right. I remember how after 9/11 people put aside their differences and stopped sniping and hating for a while. Now, in the aftermath of Katrina, sniping and hating has reached levels I never though possible. Both Bryan Preston and James Lileks (via the Anchoress) take a look at this sad development.
But al Qaeda must surely see in Katrina reasons for hope and the will to fight on. We had the chance to demoralize al Qaeda for all time, by showing them that even if nature or an enemy could take out one of our most historic cities and one of our most important ports and puncture our economy, we will come together, put legitimate differences aside and work through it as a united people. But that isn't what we showed them, is it?
We showed them division. We showed them that we don't understand how our own government works. We showed them that we have among us ambitious people who will accuse their fellow Americans of genocide if it might score a political point or two. We showed them how we will respond to al Qaeda's next massive attack on us. How Osama bin Laden's heart must have leaped.
The next terrorist attack will not unite us for a warm, hug-filled fortnight. The hard left won't wait 24 hours before blaming Bush, and the country will enjoy the sight of prominent pundits angrier at the president than at the men who nuked Des Moines.
Meanwhile, as the sniping and blaming continues, people like Daniel Morris have to pick up the pieces.
I'm done with this subject. If you want to read some sane, rational thoughts on all this, go to the Anchoress. Just start at the top and keep reading.
Just one update: Daniel Morris, who lost his home to Katrina, has a heartfelt post about the controversies swirling around right now. An excerpt:
Let’s look at our broadcast media, too. You suck. My stomach turns whenever I see an interview on television. Would you stop hunting the dramatic confrontation? Stop trying to get this one to blame his bosses. Stop trying to get that one to say he dropped the ball.
Tell us what happens. Say what needed to happen. Say what needs to happen tomorrow. I turn the radio and the television off when reporters ask people to criticize their bosses. To explain what happened before they got involved. To make an angry speech. To blame someone for this or that or the other thing. What a joke.
Don’t ask a politician if things went wrong, or if things could be better, or if someone dropped the ball. Don’t ask them to point fingers. Go and look. See the plans. See the requirement. Did they go together? Did they fall short? Were they stupid?
Posted by Susan B. at 1:35 PM
| Comments (2)
Monday, September 5, 2005
Placing the Blame
I am so sick of all the complaining regarding "who is responsible for Katrina's destruction". Why is it that the first one who is blamed is the President? I'm sorry, but if things were mismanaged in New Orleans, isn't that the fault of the local government -- you know, the people who actually run things in New Orleans and Louisiana?
And, all you Bush haters...would you get off the man's back for just five minutes? I mean, the man goes and visits the devastated areas and the people affected and you sneer that it's just a photo op. However, if he didn't visit, you'd sneer about how he doesn't care. Just be honest...you hate the man and NOTHING he does in response to this will ever satisfy you. You want to wallow in your hate? Fine. Just shut up about it for right now, okay?
I agree with what Andrea Harris has to say here. I agree with Bryan Preston that those who use this tragedy to make political hay and create racial tensions need to be slapped down. And I love this hilarious post by Steve H. about irrational Bush-hatred. These posts say what I'm thinking better than I can. (There's some strong language in a couple of the posts, and yes, the strong language expresses exactly what I think.) And don't miss the caption that Steve H. has for the infamous picture of the flooded fleet of school buses...it's not too far off from something a BDS sufferer would actually say.
As an aside, Steve also posted about conspiracy theorists the other day and I just wanted to point out this quote:
I think conspiracy nuts of all types should be castrated and then pressed in giant waffle irons on prime-time television. But I am not known for my warmth.
Hey, I'd watch it...
Finally, I'll end with this. (Also via Andrea.)
Update: More about placing the blame from Steve H.:
Let's start with one simple fact. States and cities bear primary responsibility for preparing for and responding to their own problems, and Louisiana and New Orleans get a big fat "F" for their efforts. They can blame Bush all they want, but the fact remains, they blew it big-time. It's amazing, how talking heads and Democrat politicians are trying to make this a federal failure. Let me ask a question. When did the federal government become society's diaper? If you don't take care of yourselves, shouldn't you expect to suffer while Uncle Sam gears up to wipe your rear end?
Update 2: If blame must be placed, place it on incompetent local politicians who were more afraid of "looking bad" politically than doing what was needed to save New Orleans.
Update 3: Just one more...Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom on media bias and placing blame:
Sure, it took until the sixth paragraph for the Post writers to get to the gist of why the White House is “shifting blame”—specifically, that they weren’t at fault for the delays, and in fact, if they are to be blamed for anything it is for being too deferential to the local government —but hey, at least the paper managed to shoehorn it into the story after the requisite top-loading of “continued suffering and misery.” And really, beggers can’t be choosers.
Final Update: The Anchoress asks, "How much hate can YOU live with?"
Nothing good can be attributed to you - if good news is even reported. If unemployment numbers go down to new lows, those numbers are fake and fiddled with. If millions of people are liberated from tyranny on your watch, they didn’t really have it that bad to begin with.
But…everything bad can be attributed to you. If there is a tsunami, it is your fault. If there is a hurricane, it is your fault. If an area is so stricken and flooded that relief workers cannot get there, it is your fault. If the local leadership do nothing to prevent lawlessness, that is your fault. If it takes the requisite three days to mobilize naval ships, national guardsmen and others into the disaster area - because it is a disaster of catastrophic and unusual proportions - that is your fault - you should have been able to twitch your nose and get those people in there, sooner.
Imagine trying to live like that - with that tremendous force working against you - because hate, like love - is a force.
I wonder how many of us could stand up, day after day, and live under that, and try to function and remain faithful to ones own ideals and ideas?
Staggering to contemplate. I know I couldn’t do it. I don’t think many people could.
Posted by Susan B. at 5:08 PM
| Comments (8)
Sunday, June 5, 2005
Spiked Ranty Rants
I was told by one of my readers that I should go ahead and post my ranty rants that I spiked a while back. So here are the condensed and slightly toned down versions of those rants.
First, regarding the anti-pro-Terri trolls, my rant basically boiled down to this:
Would you people just shut up already about "theocracies" and other stupid paranoid crap. Look, you got your way -- she's dead. You don't have to look at the icky disabled woman anymore. Now SHUT UP and get lost!
Then there is the rant about certain left-wingers who act as enablers for Islamists while hating on Christians. Here is an example what irritates me the most about these people:
There's a left-wing, feminist blog that I've visited on occasion that demonstrates this ridiculous mindset. I remember this blogger calling Daniel Pipes a "wacko" because he has said that perhaps radical Islamists deserve a little extra attention when it comes to national security. At the same time, this blogger has an "enemies list" on her sidebar which includes several Christian groups (which, of course, are lumped in with extremist groups who advocate violence). There are no Islamists on her enemies list. I find this kind of disconnect really bizarre. To these people, it is bigoted to acknowledge in any way that radical Islamists -- who really do dream of subjugating the world in a Muslim theocracy -- are a grave threat to our national security. However, if a Christian merely voices concern over certain social issues, suddenly they are a threat to freedom and democracy itself! These oh-so-PC lefties are so deluded -- they don't even realize that Islamists are a far bigger threat to their freedoms than any Christian in this country. These people are fools and they will be the death of us all. The only consolation I have is if the radical Islamists get their way, the appeasers -- for all their groveling -- will be just as dead or enslaved as the rest of us.
Okay...I feel better now...
Posted by Susan B. at 10:30 PM
| Comments (2)
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Men in Commercials
Steve H. posts about the way men are depicted in commercials. I have read other blog posts on this subject, but Steve's is particularly worth reading.
I also really hate the way men are portrayed in commercials. Usually they are shown to be stupid, incompetent and ineffectual as father figures. I can understand somebody being the butt of a joke in a humorous commercial, but why is it considered off-limits for a woman to be the butt of a joke?
Many of Steve's commenters gave examples of "idiot man" commericials, and I posted about one that I found really annoying. It was a radio ad for an internet company (I think) that aired quite a bit on the local talk radio station a few months ago.
In this ad, a father asks his teenage son to let him use the computer for a few minutes. The son is very disrespectful and refuses, saying he is doing his homework. The father again begs his son to let him on the computer and the snotty, disrespectful teenage son again refuses. Then the mother comes in wanting to use the computer and the son immediately lets her use it. The father is, of course, flabbergasted, and I guess this is supposed to be funny.
However, imagine if this commercial were turned around, with the teenage son being snotty to his mother and immediately deferring to the father. Suddenly, it wouldn't be "funny" and I imagine there would be some outrage.
It has been said that for humor to be effective, it must have some truth to it. Is it honest to portray men as being perpetually stupid and clueless? Steve puts it this way:
How many times did your Dad rescue you when you were growing up? How many times did he rescue you?
Posted by Susan B. at 8:00 AM
| Comments (3)
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
When I saw this story on Drudge earlier today, I thought to myself, "Wait for it...here comes the hysteria...5...4...3...2..."
As Saint Kansas says:
I don't recall a similar reaction back when Jimmy Carter, "the first evangelical president," spoke of his faith. (Of course, Jimmy Carter is the kind of evangelical Christian that even the left can love.) Southern Baptist Bill Clinton too had just the right amount of faith to not be so threatening. But W mentions the Lord even after all the evangelicals have cast their votes. That's just scary.
But Jimmy Carter is fashionably pacifistic, plus he's so tolerant and non-judgmental of dictators like Castro. And Bill Clinton wasn't some repressed prude hung up on silly, trivial things like sexual morality.
I have noticed that among George W. Bush's detractors, there seems to be two different ridiculous takes on his faith.
One is that he isn't a real Christian because he isn't a pacifist or a socialist. Because, of course, all real Christians are pacifists and socialists.
The other is that he's a scary, horrible warmongering fundamentalist* Christian who's on a crusade to establish a hegemonic Christian theocracy with the help of those diabolic neocons.
So, along with Sullivan's whine about atheists being disenfranchised, expect the usual boring hysteria and outrage over Bush's statement over the next few days. It will come from both of the camps mentioned above.
It's all so predictable.
*Never mind that he's, I think, a Methodist, and Methodists are hardly fundamentalists. But then again, most of the people who throw the word "fundamentalist" around have no idea what it really means. To them, it refers to any Christian who is orthodox in his beliefs and takes those beliefs seriously.
Posted by Susan B. at 11:55 PM
| Comments (2)
Friday, December 24, 2004
Some people feel that because they have been mistreated by others, they are entitled to mistreat you, and that you are just supposed to just take it. Because if you don't just meekly take it without complaint, if you are the least bit upset with them for the way they treat you, then you have no "compassion" for their plight.
However, if you offer compassion or help for their predicament, they only return a sneer, an ugly word or an upraised middle finger.
And, of course, they rarely ever apologize for the way they treat you. Because, you see, they're entitled because they work really hard and they have a lot of problems. And when they do apologize, it's usually wrapped up with plenty of self-pity in an attempt to make you feel guilty.
So, finally, you get tired of being abused and stand up for yourself. You have had enough.
You know that this person will forever hold it against you. They will call you a hypocrite. They will see it as "proof" that you don't really love them and care about them.
But you are glad you stood up to them. It doesn't mean you don't love them and you don't care. It just means you've had enough.
Posted by Susan B. at 4:56 PM
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Finding Joy at Christmas
This Christmas season has been kind of rough. It's always kind of rough, but I always try to remember what Christmas is all about and also enjoy the festive trappings of the season.
You see, my Mom has pretty much given up on Christmas since the deaths of my Dad and my brother. My sister just sees it as pressure to buy people gifts. I don't care about getting gifts that much. Most things I really want I can buy for myself. I like to give gifts, though. I usually try to grab an angel off the Angel Tree at my church each year. And I like to give gifts to my family and friends.
Even with my Dad and brother gone, I refuse to give up on Christmas. I always to put a tree up (with colored lights), put a wreath on the door and put plastic candy canes in the yard. I usually try to make it to my church's Advent services, but wasn't able to this year. I will definitely go to the Christmas Eve service -- I never miss that.
I have been very sad and depressed lately. I've also been fatigued and stricken with insomnia. I'm worried about my poor dog...she has arthritis and can hardly walk anymore. I read about young lives cut short in accidents and in war zones and a get even sadder. I read about the unspeakable evil done to people and I despair.
Yes, I know Christmas celebrates Christ coming into this world. I know this is cause for great joy, but sometimes I have trouble feeling that joy. I look at the world around me and I wonder where God is.
But I try and find that joy somehow, even if I'm unsuccessful. I know that some self-admitted Grinches (both Christian and non/anti-Christian) take a rather severe view of this season and look down on the "tacky" Christmas lights and holly berries and wreaths and trees and ribbons and gifts. They cringe at Christmas music, whether it be "Rudolph" or "Silent Night". They probably think It's a Wonderful Life or A Christmas Story are corny and played out. They look down on those of us who enjoy all those things.
As someone who has been struggling with depression this Christmas season, I think those people should lighten up and stop being so judgmental. I'm not ashamed to admit that I like Christmas lights and Christmas trees and all those other things. I like the fun and the festive mood, even if I'm not feeling festive inside.
I also always remember the whole reason behind Christmas. I still tear up at the Christmas Eve service when I think of Christ coming into this world as a helpless little baby.
So, I'm going to continue to struggle to find some joy this Christmas. I will enjoy looking at the houses decked out in colored Christmas lights. I'll enjoy the Christmas songs -- both sacred and silly. And if we actually get snow here in the Florida Panhandle for Christmas (as they are forecasting), it will be my first "white Christmas" -- that will be pretty cool.
Most importantly, I'll remember that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". And that God is still here and gives us hope and joy, even in this fallen, troubled world.
Posted by Susan B. at 11:05 PM
| Comments (4)
Tuesday, December 7, 2004
The Great Christmas Light Debate
Okay...I said it here and I said it here. Now let me say it here:
Christmas lights should be colored. All white lights are very, very boring. That's right -- white lights are not more elegant, they are not more classy -- they are BORING. B-O-R-I-N-G!
Christmas should be fun, happy and colorful. White lights are prim and uptight. So Christmas lights should have colors. Lots of colors!
Update: The current logo at A Small Victory says it all, I think. ;-)
Posted by Susan B. at 1:17 PM
| Comments (4)
Sunday, November 14, 2004
A Study in Contrasts
Contrast this following photo from this sorry website:
Click for larger size.
With this one of blogger Risawn from this not-sorry website:
Click for larger size.
Quite a difference, isn't it?
Posted by Susan B. at 5:16 PM
| Comments (6)
Since I've been out...
I didn't intend to go on hiatus for almost a week...it kind of just happened. So here are a few quick comments on the news of the week.
Posted by Susan B. at 4:41 PM
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
A couple of posts ago, I mentioned a song by Steve Taylor called "Baby Doe". The song is about a true story -- a baby with Down Syndrome was allowed by his parents and doctors to starve to death. A have some personal feelings about those with Down Syndrome, so let me share those with you before I launch into the point of this post.
My Mom's youngest sister had Down Syndrome. This Aunt died at the age of 49 more than ten years ago. I remember when I was a kid we used to visit my Mom's family. During those visits, my Aunt and I would play with dolls together. She was much better off than a cousin on my Dad's side of the family. He was the son of one of my Dad's sisters. He was so profoundly retarded that he could not speak. When they would come and visit us, I remember trying to teach him to count and to talk. I thought it would be wonderful if I could teach him to speak. He died several years ago as well, and my Dad's sister took care of him all his life.
I got my first taste of bigotry against Down Syndrome people when I went to a slumber party when I was twelve. We were going to go to church the next morning with the girl who was hosting the party. I remember there was a discussion of how we would all get there. The church had a bus, but that idea was nixed because, as one of the girls at the party put it, "All those retarded people ride the bus!" I told them that it was no big deal, because I had people in my family who were retarded. This only caused this same girl to make fun of me..."Ewwww! You have retarded people in your family...and you admit it?"
The thing is, Down Syndrome people don't have a mean bone in their bodies. Outside of my family, I have met several and I've found this to be true in every case. While they may not have the mental and physical abilities of the rest of us, they have it over us when it comes to goodness. They certainly don't deserve to be reviled the way they are.
So, what am I leading up to here? This:
I first saw this in this Michelle Malkin post. Apparently, it's from a flyer that Democrats in Tennessee are distributing. This is a disgrace...it is hateful, vile and disgusting. You can't get much lower than ridiculing disabled people to make a cheap political point.
Unfortunately, this is nothing new, coming from liberals. After all, didn't Al Gore once refer to "extra-chromosome" conservatives? And then, there's that shallow hack Maureen Dowd, who is also fond of calling pro-life people "extra-chromosome" conservatives. (Link via Michelle Malkin.) The American Spectator piece has this to say:
Dowd's thoughtless reference to "extra-chromosome conservatives" as a way of describing pro-lifers carries a further heartless edge. Down Syndrome children are increasingly the target of abortion by parents who refuse to countenance the addition of such a child to their families. Sometimes, pro-lifers are the only advocates these vulnerable children have.
Indeed. From what I understand, there are very few Down Syndrome babies being born anymore...most are aborted.
I know not all Democrats and liberals approve of this kind of thing. In fact, I hope that a majority do not. I would like to see those who don't approve denounce this sort of bigotry and distance themselves from it.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
I want to vent about something. This is "real life" stuff, so it has nothing to do with anything that's happened in the blogging world.
I really hate it when people harangue you about how you handled a situation without offering any real, practical, hands-on help. You handled the situation the best you knew how with no help. Then someone comes along (someone who never lifted a finger to help you with the situation) and says, "You shoulda done this, you oughta do that...that's never gonna work!" However, the yapping know-it-all offers no real help. The person in question is really good at running his mouth, but it never seems to occur to him to say, "Here, let me help you." And you know better than to ask, because you know what the response would be. There would be some lame excuse as to why this person can't help you.
My point -- if all you can do to "help" me is run your big mouth, without getting up off your butt and giving me some real help, then just SHUT UP!
Posted by Susan B. at 9:45 AM
| Comments (9)
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Cynicism Makes Me Cynical
Today, I have run into not one but two blog posts with the same theme: women are all (or mostly) prostitutes. Naturally, I am offended by such sentiments. At the same time, I know that there are plenty of women who give men reasons to think this way. However, there are also plenty of men who want women to act like prostitutes and are downright disappointed when they don't.
What can I say? Things are hopelessly screwed up between men and women. Everything is driven by cynicism and manipulation. The concept of being a gentleman and not expecting "something else" seems to be incomprehensible to many men anymore. And so many women have no modesty and no respect for themselves. This causes women to not be respected in general.
I mean, when being a wife and mother is equated with prostitution, you know we are in big trouble. When a woman is denigrated and looked at as a "kept woman" because she does the butt-busting work of running a home and being a stay-at-home mother, then you know something has gone terribly wrong. Attitudes like this are frightening but are becoming commonplace. This is a very sick society and I don't see things getting better any time soon.
And people wonder why I reject the whole concept of dating. It's all a sick, pointless game.
Update: I need to clarify something. I realize that the above linked bloggers (Steve H. and Michael Williams) are not necessarily saying they agree with the sentiment that women are all prostitutes.
Saturday, July 31, 2004
I Truly Hate Election Season
This post on Baldilocks pretty much sums up why.
I try very hard to avoid talking politics with family members who disagree with me. The way I feel about it, they are entitled to their opinions and I'm entitled to mine. Maybe I'm a wimp in this regard, but I just want to get along. When family is involved, I don't want to debate. I will debate when I feel it's being forced on me, but I don't want to. It's very stressful and emotionally exhausting.
Anyway, try as I might to avoid discussing politics, my liberal family members always want to bring it up. They always have to force the issue.
I try to be good-natured about debating and defending my beliefs, and I try not to get angry. But being harangued and condescended to has a way of making me lose my temper.
So, I end up being the bad guy once again...all because I stood up for my beliefs in an exchange on politics that I didn't want to participate in in the first place.
(Thanks to Dean's World for the above link.)
Posted by Susan B. at 9:34 PM
| Comments (4)
Monday, July 26, 2004
I have one question...
...about this whole Annie Jacobsen story. Some have said that the suspicious acting Syrian band members with expired visas were just praying as required by their religion. Okay, fair enough. Then why didn't they simply inform the flight crew as to what they were doing? Wouldn't that have saved a lot of trouble? Or did they arrogantly think they didn't owe the "infidels" any explanation?
Like many others, I'm tired of the eagerness to dismiss Annie Jacobsen's story with a bunch of condescending crap about her being a "hysterical woman". She saw suspicious behavior and took note of it. She was concerned about it. Only someone completely addled by 9/10 complacency and political correctness would not be concerned.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:25 PM
Friday, July 16, 2004
"They'll know we are Christians by our..."
Random thought for the day:
Have you ever noticed that the Christians who brag about how loving they are (and wag their fingers at the rest of us for supposedly not being loving enough) are about the least loving, most vitriolic Christians you'll run into?
Update: Okay, I decided to put this entry back after taking it down. For the record, what prompted me to post this was some recent nastiness directed at Dawn Eden. I just thought it was funny how Dawn's critic just about broke his arm patting himself on the back about how loving he is.
Actually, that post was just the last straw. I have witnessed behavior like that many times before.
Yes, the comments on this post will remain closed. And speaking of last straws, I'm going to post a policy on comments in a little while.
Posted by Susan B. at 11:45 AM
| Comments (6)
Wednesday, June 2, 2004
You know what?
I'm starting to get really, really tired of these arrogant judges.
Let me make a prediction. Some of my fellow pro-lifers will offer up this as "proof" that President Bush hasn't done anything to advance the pro-life cause. They will moan and whine about how ineffectual Bush is on this issue and how they aren't going to vote for him, while not offering a damn thing as an alternative. (Well, they might recommend voting for some whack-job third-party candidate, or sitting out the election, but those aren't realistic options. They may as well go vote for Kerry.)
Clinton, the man who vetoed the PBA ban twice, appointed this latest judge who ruled against the PBA ban. Appointing judges is one very important thing the President does that has lasting effects after he leaves office. All of you pro-lifers who complain that President Bush "doesn't do enough" need to keep that in mind before you childishly hold your breath, sit on your hands, and refuse to vote for him because he doesn't fit your idea of perfection.
(Strange...I started out wanting to rant about judges and ended up ranting about my fellow pro-lifers. How did that happen?)
Posted by Susan B. at 7:00 PM
| Comments (9)
Sunday, May 30, 2004
In Defense of the Pope
Since I'm Lutheran, I have no special allegiance to the Pope. However, I do respect him, even if I don't always agree with him, just as I respect Catholics as fellow Christians.
When I first read this story, my reaction was a bit defensive. My thinking was, "Hah! Well if the Pope wants to see a increasingly secular, 'soulless' society, he needs to take a look at much of Europe before pointing fingers at America!"
But I overreacted. He does have a valid point, the secularization of Europe notwithstanding. Also, keep in mind he was addressing American bishops. I'm sure if he were addressing, say, German bishops, they would be hearing similar admonishments about their country.
I will say that the child abuse scandals have caused the Catholic Church to lose moral authority when weighing in on moral issues. (Similarly, that's why the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal is so destructive -- loss of moral authority.) Whenever the Pope or another Catholic leader brings up a moral issue, people who don't agree always retort with something like, "That's rich, coming from a bunch of child molesters!" Is it fair? Of course not. However, sad and unfair as it is, it's how a lot of people see the Catholic Church. It will take a long time for the Church to regain its moral authority.
(Via Dean's World.)
Posted by Susan B. at 2:50 PM
Thursday, April 8, 2004
If you want to read a rather lengthy, angry rant, go ahead.
I don't feel well and I'm in an incredibly crappy mood. I'm almost always in a crappy mood in the morning, but it was worse than usual today. Usually by the evenings I'm feeling better. However, I'm still in an "I hate people" mood tonight. I have a bad temper and I can't deal with foolishness very well right now. I've had to resist the temptation to make snarky comments on other people's blogs.
With very few exceptions, almost everything I've read this evening either makes me sad or pisses me off. I may just quit reading blogs altogether for a while, read some books and work on some new skins for my site. Maybe that will cheer me up.
And it's not just online stuff...everything and everyone makes me mad lately. A telemarketer for one of my credit cards called when I was home for lunch today. Every time I would politely say I'm not interested, she'd come up with another "service" to sell me. Finally, I asked to be put on their "do not call list". I was polite, but I'm sure the exasperation came through in my voice. She sounded a bit wounded and said she would do so.
I need time off from work because I'm pretty much sick of everything there, too. But I have very little leave because of the time I've had to take off lately because of my health problems and my mother's. And it seems I never can get anything done because I'm always waiting for other people.
Another thing I hate about being at work...when you are listening to a really good song on Winamp while working, and suddenly all your coworkers start yammering and guffawing...LOUDLY...and you can still hear it even when you turn the headphones up. This happens a lot. I want to scowl at them and tell them to SHUT UP, but I at least try to be a nice person most of the time.
And do not even get me started on my family. I'll just sum it up by saying that nothing I do is ever good enough. And I always feel guilty.
And while I'm at it, let me say that the medical profession can kiss my butt!
Where does God fit in when I'm feeling this way? I don't know...you tell me. Because I can't pray when I'm like this.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Some final words on that Yassin business...
Adrian Warnock says that "murder isn't right". This is true, of course. But was the Yassin assassination murder? The way I look at it, Israel is at war, whether they want to be or not. They killed someone who was responsible for plotting the deliberate deaths of hundreds of innocent people who did nothing except ride a bus or go to a restaurant. The assassination was an act of war, but not murder. Now some will insist on cheapening the word "murder" by saying that all killing is murder. If such a person is a Christian, I would ask them why God said, "You shall not murder," and then turned around and commanded the Israelites to go to war against their enemies. If all killing is murder, if war is murder, why does God contradict Himself like this?
This whole subject brings this article to mind: Touchstone Magazine - The Problem of War. Here's something to think about from that article (but, as always, RTWT):
Intuition provides a stronger case for pacifism. We seem to feel very strongly that love and helping are good, while hate and harming are bad. What this intuition fails to tell us, however, is how we are to love and help the innocent who are being treated unjustly by the wicked without using force on the wicked. So intuition in this case leads us astray because it does not see (not immediately at least) what reason sees: that you can love and use force at the same time. Lewis deals with this point explicitly in the chapter on forgiveness in Mere Christianity:
[F]or loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment—even to death. If one had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is therefore perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian to kill an enemy.
When we use force in a just cause, we do to others as we would have others do to us. We admit that, if we do evil, then we hope there will be someone who is able to stop us from doing it—even if he has to use force to stop us. Thus, we are led by logic to admit that, if we see evil being done by others, we need to stop them if we are able, even if it means using force.
And one more thing comes to mind -- the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Here was a man -- someone who was a pacifist -- who finally came to the conclusion that the only way to stop Hitler and his evil was to kill him. Bonhoeffer was executed for his participation in a failed assassination plot against Hitler. He is widely regarded as a martyr -- and he is.
Update: Okay, here are some final final thoughts. It would be nice if the pacifist/pacifist-leaning side* of the Christian blogosphere would spend as much energy condemning real evil (like that perpetrated by Hamas) as they do getting upset at blog posts. (*For the record, I'm not necessarily lumping Adrian Warnock in with that side.)
Then there was this comment over at Andrea Harris' site by Sortelli: "If you disconnect your ability to hate something wicked, you’ve lost your ability to love what is good." I think that statement wraps this whole subject up with a neat little bow.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:17 PM
| Comments (4)
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Intemperate Rant Removed
Last night, my insomnia-addled brain produced an angry rant about perceived Christian-bashing in the blogosphere. I saved it as a draft and got a meager amount of sleep. I decided to spike it -- I removed it from this space and put this in its place.
Earlier, I also almost posted a rather sarcastic, angry rant in another blogger's comments, but was unable to because his comments box wasn't working.
Perhaps God is trying to tell me something.
Update: The post in question was this post at Arguing with Signposts. I posted a toned down comment to his post and he has responded to me here. I think I overreacted. My apologies to you, Bryan.
Posted by Susan B. at 1:25 PM
| Comments (8)
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Attack of the Dummies
Pardon me while I rant about dumb people who make life just a little crappier for everyone else...
- I'm tired of seeing knuckleheads and trolls run loose in comments boxes, dragging the discourse down until it's just a bunch of pointless, tar baby arguments. I wish the owners of those blogs would give these dorks a well-deserved foot in the backside, but I guess some bloggers are more "tolerant" than I am. Or maybe the amount of comments they get makes it too time-consuming.
- I see that BoycottMTV has had to get rid of their comments because of knuckleheaded trolls like those described above. What is it with these dummies? Does watching MTV cause you to lose IQ points or something? They seem to think that BoycottMTV is out to rob them of their precious MTV. From what I see, all that site is doing is encouraging people to stop watching and to block the channel from coming into their homes if they have children. I don't see any call for the government to ban MTV.
- Why is it that the spammers and scammers keep flooding our inboxes with their crap? Because stupid people keep responding to it, that's why. There are people falling for Nigerian email scams. There are people buying the stuff that spammers are selling. Apparently, there are enough dummies responding to the spam to make it worthwhile for the spammer. If you're dumb enough to fall for this junk, you deserve to get ripped off. However, the rest of us have to pay for your stupidity by putting up with spam.
There...I feel much better now...
Posted by Susan B. at 9:37 PM
| Comments (4)
Sunday, February 1, 2004
What is this "Super Bowl" that everyone keeps talking about?
Update: Oh, okay...it's yet another venue for pop stars to make shameless spectacles of themselves. Looks like a must-miss...
Update 2: Oh dear...it looks like a lot of folks are coming over from Dean's and expecting a discussion about boobs. Sorry to disappoint...maybe later I'll start a post about Michael Moore, Al Franken or one of the Dem candidates for President. Then we can have a boob discussion. Until then, here's a boob picture to keep you entertained.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:17 PM
| Comments (5)
Friday, January 23, 2004
Getting something off my chest...
I've been noticing lately that some pro-lifers are complaining that President Bush isn't doing and saying enough on the abortion issue. Well, here's a little rant that I posted in Mark Shea's comments. I'm probably going to make some people mad, but I've gotta be me:
What do you want Bush to do? Declare himself dictator for life and ban abortion? It seems nothing he does is good enough to suit some people. He would be condemned if he didn't sign the PBA ban, but yet some pro-lifers condemn him for signing it because it was overruled by a court. If he doesn't mention abortion in every speech, he's "stiff-arming" pro-lifers. If he does mention it, he's just "paying lipservice". It seems he can't win, no matter what he does.
And to add to the above, let me say that with the attitude of some pro-lifers, I don't blame Bush if he "stiff-arms" us. One word comes to mind: ingratitude.
And, looking at things in a purely pragmatic way, Bush does have to get reelected. He can't do anything if he loses, and if he does lose, it will be to one of the ardent abortion supporters of the Democratic Party.
Are you really so deluded that you think a majority of people in this country support at total ban on abortion? Well, I've got some sad news for you -- they don't. After all, somebody is having those million or more abortions a year. They aren't all NOW members or radical feminists. Support for legal abortion is very ingrained, even among people who don't like abortion and think it's wrong. This not going to change overnight. The only thing pro-lifers can do is be patient and work incrementally.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:28 AM
| Comments (3)
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
final post on this subject...
(At least for a while anyway...)
You probably wonder why I kept harping on the Terri Schiavo situation. Well, if you've read this blog for any length of time, you know that I'm pro-life. But there are more personal reasons why I felt compelled to follow this case.
I've mentioned before that my older brother died of a brain tumor over six years ago. I've never went into much detail about it because it's still very painful for me to think about. I won't go into a lot of detail now, either. There was a lot more to my brother's situation than this. I just want to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.
Before my brother died, he spent most of his last days in sort of a semi-coma. He would react to you, respond to things you said, and he even spoke a couple of times. He was there, but yet there was a sort of fog separating him from full consciousness. I played a Beatles CD for him, and he actually blurted out, "Wow, they were good, weren't they?" I thought a miracle was happening, and then he slipped back into the fog. We had a feeding tube put in him, but he could not process the food. I think it may have been because that part of his brain was not working properly.
During this time, I prayed for his healing. I even offered up my own life to God in exchange for his. My mother and I held out hope even though things looked (and were) hopeless. Other member of my family saw how hopeless the situation was and dealt with it in different ways.
Was my brother a non-person when he was in this state? Absolutely not! He was no "vegetable". He was enveloped in a fog, but he was there. He was probably in worse shape than Terri Schiavo is, judging by the videos of her. (Actually, he was in much worse shape, because he was dying. She is not.) If I knew my brother had consciousness, how could I deny the same about Terri?
Posted by Susan B. at 11:35 PM
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Let's get something else straight...
Why is it that, if someone was once fat, but then they lose weight and have kept the weight off for years, they still keep getting referred to as "fat" by whoever has a problem with them?
What brings this particular rant on? Reading about the umpteenth "Rush is a hypocrite" rant by someone gloating over Rush Limbaugh's recent confession of being addicted to prescription pain-killers. These rants almost invariable include the "fat" insult. The truth is, Rush hasn't been fat in years. In fact, he's probably slimmer than a lot of his detractors.
What is it about being fat that makes it this unforgivable sin? Apparently, the "sin" of being fat is so hideous and awful that even if someone has been thin for years, they still get the "fat" insult thrown at them.
In case you missed my point, I'll write it in all caps so you can understand: RUSH IS NOT FAT AND HE HASN'T BEEN FAT IN YEARS! Got it? Are we clear? Good!
Posted by Susan B. at 9:04 PM
Thursday, October 2, 2003
Let's get something straight...
Some people hear the name "Limbaugh" and immediately their knees start jerking so hard you worry that they might dislocate something.
The writer of this book is David Limbaugh. Not Rush*. DAVID! That's spelled D-A-V-I-D. Got it? Good!
(I'm not in a good mood today... can you tell?)
*And yes, David Limbaugh is Rush's brother, which I guess is enough to make him automatically eee-vil to some people.
Posted by Susan B. at 1:05 PM
Thursday, August 28, 2003
Just a warning...there is much uncharitable ranting ahead. If you'd rather just skip this, I'll understand. This rant has been brewing for a while, but I've tried to hold it in. However, this post on A Small Victory has inspired me to go ahead and get this out of my system.
In the past, during some very heated discussions on other blogs, I would get so furious that I couldn't see straight when some jerk would say things like, "No wonder they hate you and want to kill you, America has done blah, blah, blah..." These were usually non-Americans. For people who are supposedly so into peace and love, they sure enjoyed pointing their icky fingers at us and sanctimoniously scolding us. I think for all their pacifist affectations, they got quite a bit of gloating pleasure from 9/11.
Then there are those "concerned" American leftists -- those who think the UN can do no wrong and that the US can do no right -- who earnestly bray, "Hasn't America learned anything from 9/11? The problem is not radical Islam. After all, Islam is the Religion of Peace™. No, we must explore the root causes. The root causes are that America doesn't give enough foreign aid and blah, blah, blah..."
These people are nothing more than useful idiots for terrorists. They are spitting on the graves of those who perished that day. This may be uncharitable, but I'm still angry...even two years later. I find these terrorist apologists despicable. As far as I'm concerned, they can take their crocodile tears and their oh-so-earnest platitudes and shove them sideways.
Posted by Susan B. at 5:05 PM
Sunday, June 8, 2003
You know what I hate...
I hate it when I trackback to a post and, just after I change the post to "Publish" and click "Save", I notice that I've got a misspelling or typo in the heading or in the first few words of the post. I immediately change the post, but my embarrassing error stays in the other blog's trackback window for others to snicker at. Ugh!
Posted by Susan B. at 11:06 PM
| Comments (4)
Sunday, April 6, 2003
I feel really lame for complaining about my problems with insomnia when I see pictures like these and these.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:06 PM
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
I've noticed lately that some are saying that the mere act of disagreeing with someone is suppressing their freedom of speech. This charge has been leveled at those critical of the statements of certain "documentary" filmmakers, certain country music stars and certain protesters. Let's get something straight:
Disagreeing with someone, criticizing someone, boycotting someone or even ridiculing someone is not suppressing freedom of speech. Those things are free speech. If someone is executed or thrown in a gulag for something they said, then that's suppressing free speech. Having your feelings hurt doesn't count as suppression of free speech. That's your issue. And freedom of speech does not include blocking streets, harassing people, destroying property or puking and pooping on the sidewalk. Are we clear on this?
(Inspired by this post and this post.)
Posted by Susan B. at 9:44 AM
| Comments (1)
Sunday, March 23, 2003
Earlier today, my sister said pretty much the same thing that Murray Hill did in this post. This was after hearing about some of our troops being captured, executed and paraded before cameras.
My response to her...no, we can't do that. We can't be that way. We are better than that. I know there are plenty of people (those so consumed by hatred of Bush and/or America that they can't see straight) who were and are convinced that we don't care about killing innocent people. Sure, nothing will convince them that America isn't pure evil, but that doesn't mean we should live down to their expectations.
It's true that the main goal is toppling Saddam and getting rid of the WMDs that the protesters tell us do not exist. Liberation for Iraq is a noble but secondary goal. My sister says the Iraqis were spineless because they didn't rise up and topple Saddam themselves. I told her that I cannot judge them, because untold horrors awaited those who stepped out of line.
So, while I understand my sister's anger and frustration, I can't agree with her on this. Like I said, I believe America is better than that.
Update: It seems my offhand linking to this article has caused this blog (and a bunch of others) to be linked in this post as an example of supposed bias among bloggers. There are three reasons I never posted a correction. One, the story was not the point of the post. Two, I'm not a warblogger, so I have a hard time keeping up with all the war news. Three, the whole story regarding the chemical plant has gotten rather murky; I think it remains to be seen whether this plant was used to manufacture chemical weapons in the past. But in the interest of fairness, here is a link to an update on the chemical plant story. I think the original point that I was making in this post still stands.
Posted by Susan B. at 8:56 PM
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
So, I guess it's started...
War, that is. I pray for our troops, for the people of Iraq and for the people of this country. I pray for justice when it comes to Saddam and his henchmen. I pray for peace...real peace that comes from standing up to evil and defeating it, not fake peace that comes from denial and appeasement. Other than that, I don't have much else to say. I never wanted this to be a "warblog," although I know I've been posting about this subject a lot lately. What can I say? It's a topic on everybody's mind.
I'm tired and not feeling well tonight. I wanted to respond to a couple of comments posted here that I disagree with, but I just don't feel like it. Maybe I don't need to respond or debate every time someone disagrees. I just feel that I should most of the time. Sometimes there's just no use...I'm not going to change their minds and they're not going to change mine.
Posted by Susan B. at 8:51 PM
Monday, March 3, 2003
It seems that there's a general malaise and frustration, both online and offline right now. I've seen it in various blogs and political forums I visit. I feel the same way myself.
A lot of this comes from the tension over the most likely imminent invasion of Iraq. I get tired and worn down from hearing the same simplistic clichés from those on the "anti-war" side. Sure, there are also those on the "pro-war" side who are too flippant and jingoistic about this very serious matter, but they seem to be in the minority. And what's often taken as flippancy by some is simply an expression of anger towards the pro-appeasement, peace-at-any-cost crowd.
Yes, that's right, anger. Anger at disrespect to our servicemen and women and their children. Anger at ignorant celebrities. Anger at the petulant sanctimony of some of my fellow Christians.
I have to deal with the anger and frustration in a way that doesn't turn me into a bitter crank. Some people write their best stuff when they're angry. The passion comes through in their writing and it's a catharsis for those of us who are not good writers. I can't get away with writing stuff when I'm angry. I just end up sounding shrill and nasty. So, I usually end up channeling the anger into humor and sarcasm. Or I'll tune out, rolling my eyes and just saying, "Whatever..."
The thing is, I don't think of myself as a gung-ho, pro-war type. To me, it's an ugly necessity -- the thing we have to do because nobody else can or will do it. The job that should have been finished in 1991. Sure, you could stick your head in the sand and not worry about the smallpox and the nukes and hope the UN will give Saddam a stern enough taking to that he will promise to be good from now on. But some of us have chosen to face reality, which is ugly and messy. After all, reality gave America a hard punch in the stomach on 9/11/2001.
So, what can I do about this malaise? I don't really know. Pray, I guess, although I have to admit I've had a hard time praying lately for some reason. The fact that I've been less-than-impressed with many of my fellow Christians doesn't help much. Perhaps I could try less sarcasm and more tuning out. I could try to support things that are positive and helpful.
I will do my best. Lent is coming and I want to refresh and regroup.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:30 PM
Saturday, February 15, 2003
Pro-War or Pacifist?
You know, I'm not pro-war. Actually, I don't know anybody who is pro-war. Only a nut would be pro-war. I would say Osama bin Laden and his ilk are pro-war.
I'm not a pacifist either. Sure, I can respect honest pacifists, although I don't agree with them. Pacifism is one of those philosophies like socialism, anarchism, libertarianism or laissez-faire capitalism. It sounds good in theory, but simply doesn't work in a fallen, real world with imperfect, sinful people.
If you could put a label on what I believe, that would be pro-defense (a term that Lynn Sislo coined a few months ago). I believe in the right to self-defense and the right to defend others (your family, friends, strangers or your country). If someone wants to be a pacifist for themselves, that's fine. But don't try to impose your pacifism on me. I won't stand for it, any more than I'd stand for someone trying to force me to live by their pro-war philosophy.
Posted by Susan B. at 4:25 PM
| Comments (4)
Thursday, January 23, 2003
Reading this post on the Living Room has given me second thoughts about the Planned Parenthood parody posters linked in this post. I understand the dark, satirical humor of the posters. (My own sense of humor often has quite a dark side.) But I can see where someone might be very hurt by some of them. In fact, some have been hurt. I would never show those posters to someone that I knew had an abortion because I realize it would be hurtful to them. So, what's the solution? Do we get all overly-sensitive and PC and never use dark humor to make a point? Or do we satirize all we want without caring about someone else's pain. Is there an in-between?
Update: Joshua Claybourn has an exhaustive post on this controversy.
Update 2: Victor Lams weighs in and wonders if Christians have lost their ability to appreciate satire. I have to admit that my cynical side that loves satire is at war with my (overly) sensitive side.
Posted by Susan B. at 12:33 AM
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
A rare, grumpy morning post...
You would think people would have figured this out by now, but obviously not, so I'm going to say this as a public service. Forwarding certain emails to however many people will not cause a funny video clip to come up on your screen. It ain't gonna happen. Nobody will send you money for forwarding emails either. And while I'm on the subject, please do not forward chain-mails promising death and destruction if I break the chain. I have broken every chain sent to me and my luck isn't any worse than usual. Thank you in advance.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:21 AM