Monday, October 10, 2011
Crackpot Minister
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Hypocrite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion.
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.
Pat Robertson has proven to me what I have often suspected that he is, a hypocrite. He made a statement that it is okay to divorce a spouse because of Alzheimer’s disease. Tuesday this week he said; “I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but to make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her.” He stated further, "I certainly wouldn't put a guilt trip on you ... I can't fault him for wanting some kind of companionship, and if he sense in a sense, she's gone, he's right It's like a walking death. Get some ethicist besides me to give you the answer. I recognize the dilemma and the last thing I'd do is condemn you for taking that kind of action."
First of all Mr. Robertson, she is NOT gone until she is dead. Marriage vows are not until you are in a like death state, they go on till the death of one of the marriage partners. They are “from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.” Have you not been to a wedding and listened to this?
Okay all of that aside, you have claimed to be a minister for years and years, and for some reason or another, people listen to you. You have proclaimed and in essence condoned something that is not what you have preached, and therefore you are a false prophet. You need to retire or maybe go into seclusion before you do more damage than you are worth. You have elevated yourself UP to crackpot evangelism much like your contemporary Harold Camping.
In my humble opinion, one should be faithful to ones vows and covenants. In my opinion, marriage is one of the most holy of these, and should not be cast aside, because she seems like she is “gone” and is a hardship. What would Jesus do? Would he abandon the cause because it was too much for him? No, he suffered pain that caused him, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit, and would that He might not drink the bitter cup. Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, He partook of the cup and finished his preparations to the children of men, even you Pat. He did not back down when it became too hard, and he endured his suffering to the end. Maybe we should take his example.
Now to the “gone” statement; if the lack of evidence of intellect is your indicator that they are gone, then when does life end? You have been telling people that life begins at conception, and have said how evil it is to end it. Well, now by your definition, it is only when the person can be a contributor to a relationship. What about those fetuses? They are then gone by that definition. Retarded children, autistic children, they fall under this loophole that you have now provided. Shall we abort or abandon them too??? What about crackpot preachers?
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
I'm Baaaaack
Red and Buck are still as stubborn as ever, and have a tendency to get into the occasional scrap (more Buck than Red). We have some wild cats living out back that I have been feeding occasionally to keep the rodent population down. When I was going out back to do something Buck went gallantly charging into the valley of death, contrary to my orders to stay put. I heard when he caught the cat... BARK BARK BARK YELP!...bark bark. He was more inclined to listen when I said go get in the yard.
Yesterday I was using the weedeater, and once again Buck decided it was time to do battle. I didn't even know he was nearby, as I was still in the starting mode and switching between half and full choke. He lit into the head of the weedeater, for about half a second. It put a few welts on his nose, and one small cut. I felt so bad for him, but being a teacher I felt it was a good education. He still barks at it, but at a slight distance. Red has become the gentle dog, and only barks at the occasional grackle, or anyone who passes by outside. Buck being the mindless tailchaser that he is, barks at his reflection in the sliding glass door.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Constant Swearing = Lack of Intellect
This afternoon Patti and I went to McDonalds for a soft drink after work. Patti graciously went in to get them. She said there were some young people (obviously from out of town) who were swearing loud enough to be heard by all. Using the filthiest of words, the 7 words that George Carlin said were the heavy seven. Those are the ones that'll infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the America from winning the war. I won't go into the list of what those words are I am sure you probably have a good enough imagination.
She got into the car almost in tears, commenting on how this is a family restaurant and that they were saying things for all to hear. One mother moved her children to one of the outside tables to get away from it. Patti asked me why some people feel the need to say such things. I of course trying to be Mr. Answer Man said, the answer was simple A lack of ability to express themselves due to a lack of intellect. They don't have the ability of self expression, but they do know seven words that will get peoples attention "look at me," "Listen to me, I know seven words!!!"
If you think that it use of this sort of language is cultural, and that it is how people of your culture are supposed to speak, maybe you should step back and take a look at the bigger picture. I doubt your ancestors would approve, and would probably be discouraged and ashamed. If not, they should be.
Youth whose speech is dominated by profanities only broadcast their dismal knowledge of the English language. Language is beautiful, and the lack of consideration it receives is almost criminal. This is what I fear for the younger generation. I fear that their utter disregard - and in some cases contempt - for the importance of language and the skill of communication will prove devastating. It is not only the mindless cursing that threatens to cripple our generation, but it is also the vocabularies composed of “likes,” “cools,” “uhs” and other such drivel.
Teenagers do not realize it, but their inability to express themselves with meaningful words will result in no one wanting to listen to them. Their opinions will certainly not hold much sway for want of eloquence, and in many cases, coherence.
Crass, juvenile speech may not hinder you now, but if it is all you practice, it will be a rude awakening when you finally realize that you cannot attain the heights you had set for yourself. Do you want to influence and shape the worlds of business, politics, or culture?
Then do not make the mistake of valuing your speech so cheaply.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Legal Issues
Letter to Warner Brothers: A Night in Casablanca
Groucho Marx
Abstract: While preparing to film a movie entitled A Night in Casablanca, the Marx brothers received a letter from Warner Bros. threatening legal action if they did not change the film’s title. Warner Bros. deemed the film’s title too similar to their own Casablanca, released almost five years earlier in 1942, with Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman. In response Groucho Marx dispatched the following letter to the studio’s legal department:
Dear Warner Brothers,
Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.
It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.
I just don’t understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.
You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about “Warner Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”)
Now Jack, how about you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well it’s not. It was used long before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks—Jack of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day.
As for you, Harry, you probably sign your checks sure in the belief that you are the first Harry of all time and that all other Harrys are impostors. I can think of two Harrys that preceded you. There was Lighthouse Harry of Revolutionary fame and a Harry Appelbaum who lived on the corner of 93rd Street and Lexington Avenue. Unfortunately, Appelbaum wasn’t too well-known. The last I heard of him, he was selling neckties at Weber and Heilbroner.
Now about the Burbank studio. I believe this is what you brothers call your place. Old man Burbank is gone. Perhaps you remember him. He was a great man in a garden. His wife often said Luther had ten green thumbs. What a witty woman she must have been! Burbank was the wizard who crossed all those fruits and vegetables until he had the poor plants in such confused and jittery condition that they could never decide whether to enter the dining room on the meat platter or the dessert dish.
This is pure conjecture, of course, but who knows—perhaps Burbank’s survivors aren’t too happy with the fact that a plant that grinds out pictures on a quota settled in their town, appropriated Burbank’s name and uses it as a front for their films. It is even possible that the Burbank family is prouder of the potato produced by the old man than they are of the fact that your studio emerged “Casablanca” or even “Gold Diggers of 1931.”
This all seems to add up to a pretty bitter tirade, but I assure you it’s not meant to. I love Warners. Some of my best friends are Warner Brothers. It is even possible that I am doing you an injustice and that you, yourselves, know nothing about this dog-in-the-Wanger attitude. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to discover that the heads of your legal department are unaware of this absurd dispute, for I am acquainted with many of them and they are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits and a love of their fellow man that out-Saroyans Saroyan.
I have a hunch that his attempt to prevent us from using the title is the brainchild of some ferret-faced shyster, serving a brief apprenticeship in your legal department. I know the type well—hot out of law school, hungry for success, and too ambitious to follow the natural laws of promotion. This bar sinister probably needled your attorneys, most of whom are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits, etc., into attempting to enjoin us. Well, he won’t get away with it! We’ll fight him to the highest court! No pasty-faced legal adventurer is going to cause bad blood between the Warners and the Marxes. We are all brothers under the skin, and we’ll remain friends till the last reel of “A Night in Casablanca” goes tumbling over the spool.
Sincerely,
Groucho Marx
Unamused, Warner Bros. requested that the Marx Brothers at least outline the premise of their film. Groucho responded with an utterly ridiculous storyline, and, sure enough, received another stern letter requesting clarification. He obliged and went on to describe a plot even more preposterous than the first, claiming that he, Groucho, would be playing “Bordello, the sweetheart of Humphrey Bogart.” No doubt exasperated, Warner Bros. did not respond. A Night in Casablanca was released in 1946.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Granddad and God
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Happy Valentines Day Patti
I love you and am in love with you "You're my bread when I'm hungry. You're my shelter from troubled winds. You're my anchor in life's ocean, but most of all, you're my best friend."
Forever Your's.Treb
till the sun falls from the sky,
Till life on earth is through,
I'll be needing you.
till the sun falls from the sky,
Till life on earth is through,
I'll be needing you.