A Close Shave

I recently had a rather unnerving experience.

While ambling down a street in an unfamiliar part of town, I inadvertently bumped into a man who turned out to be a rather unsavory person.  He took great offence at my carelessness and was aggrieved by the contact that ensued with my person.

"I don't like the look of your face!"  he shouted.

"I don't either," I replied, hoping to relieve the tension of the encounter.

Rather than being mollified by my agreeable response, he became more incensed.

"Don't get smart with me!" he bellowed, whipping a razor out of his pocket and waving it in my face.

At that point, I figured I should remove myself from the premises.  I shall flee, I thought.  Let us fly, tapped my feet in Morse Code as I flew down the street.

Close on my heels came the enraged ruffian waving his razor wildly as he pursued me with every intention of changing the looks of my face.

I zigged and zagged through streets and alleys gaining distance between us as I tried to find a way to my car and safety.  At last I turned down an alley that I thought was a shortcut to where I was parked.  It was a dead end.

I started toward the entrance of the alley, hoping that I could get out and away before the razor wielding maniac caught me.  Alas, I met him at the entrance.  I retreated, looking around for a door to enter or some place of refuge.  I reached the end of the alley without finding an escape just as the man caught up with me.

I would really have had a close shave if the battery in his razor hadn't died just as he caught me.

The Problem of Inclusive Language

I've been pondering the trend toward inclusive language. And I've become a bit puzzled. It seems that things may be backfiring. 

For example, it's OK to refer to someone as human. Why don't we use human and huwoman? We've taken human as a generic term that is inclusive rather than gender specific. 

Then we use chairman and chairwoman when we know the gender of the chairperson. But that final word presents a problem. We treat it as generic rather than distinguishing a person from a perdaughter. Why? 

Maybe it would be easier to just define some words as generic and no longer gender specific. It seems that when we try to fight the way languages are structured, we're emphasizing gender specific issues rather than removing them. 

Which brings me to the old joke (best told orally but I'll attempt it in print): 

Why do we sing AMEN at the end of the songs at church rather than AWOMEN? Because they're HYMNS and not HYRS. (Hiss! Boo! Go away! NOW!)

The Cock Crows

To the extent that we are comfortable in contemporary American culture, we deny Christ.  This is a warning to those of us audacious enough to appropriate the name "Christian" and a rebuff to those of us who make claim to any degree of spiritual maturity.

Mitch McConnell and the Bible

Why is it that every time I hear Mitch McConnell speak I'm reminded of Isaiah 5:20-21?

I couldn't have said it better.

(Click on image to view full size for easier reading.)

Actually, he did tend to have harsh words for the religious leaders, too.

Pinocchio and Winnie the Pooh

I recently saw an ad for Disney's Pinnochio DVD. Suddenly, I realized why the Republicans have an elephant as their symbol.

Maybe Winnie the Pooh will explain the Democrats' symbol.

A Final Observation on the Bush Presidency

Thanks to What the Duck for this reminder.

Sarah Palin a Muslim?

Steve Hayes at Notes from underground has come up with a great analogy.

"If I've seen it once, I've seen it dozens of times, people claiming that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim. That's about as convincing as saying that Sarah Palin is a Muslim because she's the governor of Al Aska."

Unfortunately, such stupidity is contageous and too many Americans have weak or non-existant immune systems. The confusion of the little lady who was corrected by McCain in the oft replayed clip is more common than we wish to acknowledge. Who knows who will become confused and think Al Aska is an islamic state since it is bordering on Russia like all those "istans" that emerged from the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Song of Obama and Other Irishmen

This is just TOO funny. If one drop of black blood makes a person African American, then a drop of Irish blood should make him Irish American. Obama meets O'Hara, O'Reilly and the rest of the clan.



Thanks to Thin Places for finding this and posting this where I could find it.

High Politics

On the way to work one day last week, I stopped at a traffic light behind a vehicle with a political bumper sticker high up on the back window. My eye drifted down to the license plate and my mind linked the letters on the license plate to the high bumper sticker. As a product of the 1960s, the humour of the juxtaposition of the two overcame me. I had a small point-and-shoot camera in my lunch bag beside me. I immediately began digging to find the camera and get the shot. Just as I got the camera out, the light changed. I was able to grab a poor shot as the vehicle pulled away.

Here is the High Politics shot of the week:

Political Hardball

Political Hardball

The playoffs for the Democratic (National) League championship to decide who would play the Republican (American) League champion in the Political Baseball World Series has proven contentious.

Team Clinton batted first in the opening game and scored a run in the top of the first inning. A light mist was covering the field. As Team Obama came in to bat it began to rain and continued to do so resulting in the game being called off.

When game one was replayed, Team Clinton scored a run in the third inning and Team Obama scored one in the fourth and one in the eighth, winning the game 2-1.

Game two went to Team Clinton who scored 5 runs in the sixth inning while Team Obama scored 1 run in the fourth and 1 in the ninth. Team Clinton won 5-2.

Team Obama won the third game 9-4, scoring a run in each inning. Team Clinton scored all four of its runs in the ninth inning.

Team Obama also won game four 7-5. They scored 1 run in the first inning, 2 runs in the fifth, 2 runs in the sixth and 2 runs in the eights. Team Clinton scored all five of their runs in the ninth inning.

Team Clinton won game five by a score of 6-1. Team Obama opened the scoring with a run in the first inning but Team Clinton replied with 4 runs in the fifth and another two runs in the eighth.

Team Clinton claimed that the series was tied 3-3 since they had won the opening game 1-0. Team Obama argued that it was 3-2 in their favor since the opening game had been called before they had an opportunity to bat. The commissioners of Political Baseball ruled in favor of Team Obama leaving Team Clinton fuming.

Game six was vigorously contested by Team Clinton. Four Team Obama batters reached first base after being hit by pitched balls. Ultimately Team Clinton was victorious, winning by a score of 5-2.

Team Obama took game seven by a score of 5-3. Team Clinton failed to even the score in the top of the ninth inning, but insisted that Team Obama bat in the bottom of the ninth, even though they lead on the scoreboard. They argued that the game must be played out since in the remaining half-inning, Obama players could suffer injuries which would prevent them from achieving victory against Team McCain of the Republican League in the World Political Baseball World Series.

Team Clinton put out a press release stating that they should represent the Democratic League since they had scored more total runs than Team Obama. When informed that it was games won rather than total runs that decide the winner of a series, they replied that their superior total run scoring showed they were the stronger team. Moreover, they had made more double plays than Team Obama indicating that they were also a better defensive team. If they had been allowed a designated hitter as Team McCain was in their playoff, Team Clinton would have won game four since it was the strike-out by their pitcher that ended the game before they could win. They had been robbed of the run they scored in the aborted first game and should be allowed to apply it to their total score. They also scored more runs in big innings than Team Obama. For all these reasons, according to Team Clinton, Team Clinton should go to the Political Baseball World Series rather than Team Obama.

At last report, Team Clinton planned on fielding a team at the Political Baseball World Series, even if it meant locking Team Obama in the dressing room before the game.

Sacrifices

(From the Sentinel-Record newspaper in Hot Springs, AR.)

Each must sacrifice according to what he is willing to give.

Politically Correct Church Membership

Martin Marty gives guidelines for being politically correct in church membership. This is especially good advice for politicians.

PEWLESS

by Martin Marty

This spring a certain Christian layperson has been criticized for not exiting his local church when he disagreed with something his pastor preached.

The experts on the subject have been, as far as I can tell, media personnel who never go to church, do not know what sermons are for, and have not experienced lively congregational participation; people who value fidelity very little and church hopping and sermon shopping very highly; those who have political stakes in their judgment; and people who pay no attention to the contexts of messages.

Less vocal are church members who are unsure when to advance toward the pulpit in appreciation, when to back away, or when to finally head for the door, slam it and shake the aisle-dust off their feet.

To help them, we offer this little gamelike guide, suggesting where they should sit in church to indicate affirmation or negation. Arrange your pieces on a hypothetical board and play along. Begin in your regular pew.

1. If the preacher offers the prosperity gospel, announces that you can serve both God and mammon, and uses as sermon text the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal:

Move ten pews forward and up your pledge.

2. If the preacher is not wearing a United States flag over her robe:

Back up 15 pews.

3. If the preacher avoids all controversial topics and lulls everyone to sleep:

No response—remember, you are asleep.

4. If the preacher uses scripture to affirm that all acts by the United States military in all wars have been and are just:

Move forward ten pews and smile. This is getting good.

5. If the proclaimer of the gospel announces good news to the poor, healing and hope:

Move up two pews, but tentatively. As a Christian, you should welcome that kind of message, as long as it is sufficiently vague.

6. If the preacher blasts secular humanists, Islamofascists, rappers and anyone other than standard-brand heterosexuals:

Move up three pews and volunteer for the committee to extend your preacher's call.

7. If the preacher finds that liberals and conservatives, blacks and whites and others, including himself, fall short of gospel-rooted living:

Stay where you are; ambiguity is confusing.

8. If the preacher includes a few seconds of strident and edgy language that will make a controversial sound bite at the next congregational assembly:

Be sure you've recorded it; it will be good ammunition when you are drawing the conclusion that you've had it and don't really belong in this congregation. But stay where you are so you don't look suspicious.

9. If the preacher asks those who are without guilt to pick up a stone to throw: Head toward the back pew in a hurry.

10. If a few angry words from the preacher can make you forget how she visited your dying mother, greeted your children as friends and urged you to work for justice with mercy:

By all means, leave. But admit it—you miss the community, the challenge and the gospel. It's lonely out here, and all you will hear of your former pastor from now on are sound bites.

from The Christian Century

I Can Identify With This

A few years ago I spent a few weeks filling the pulpit for a friend while he was away studying. There was a young lady in the congregation who had Downs Syndrome. One morning before the service she came to me and said, "I really like your messages. They put me to sleep."

I guess at least one person got something worthwhile from my efforts.

(Cartoon from Church Mice.)

MOTS

It appears that if we like MOTS, we can vote for Hillary or McCain. Hillary will give More Of The Same Republican-style dirty win at any cost politics. McCain will give More Of The Same Bush War policies and welfare for the rich.

I don't want MOTS. If you don't like Obama, vote Ron Paul. At least he'd do things differently.

Bumper Sticker I Want to See

"Keep a Republican in the White House --
Vote for Hilary!"

Baptist Group to Boycott

Here is a bit of satire, a spoof, that sounds so plausible that someone is bound to report it as true. If it used a denomination other than baptist, I'm sure SBC folks would be circulating it in chain e-mails.

Read and laugh: Baptist Group to Boycott

Money Where The Mouth Is

Isn't it ironic that Hillary Clinton, whose main campaign talking point is the need for universal health care, failed to pay the health insurance for her campaign staff? Other things (ads and donuts?) apparently were more important.

If she doesn't budget for her campaign staff's health insurance sufficiently, why should we think we can trust her to budget and pay for the nation's health care system?

Just curious.

Bush Alikes

George Bush: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

FALSE

Hillary Clinton: I dodged sniper fire in Bosnia.

FALSE

Hillary Clinton: A mother without health insurance died after being denied hospital treatment.

FALSE

John McCain: The surge is working.

FALSE

If you want Bush over easy, vote for John McCain.

If you want Bush lite, vote for Hillary Clinton.

If you want the truth, vote for someone else.

Howie Luvzus' Easter

Found this picture on Howie Luvzus' blog. I've really liked his blog. Now I worry about the old boy. His sense of humour is as bad as mine.