Ain't Complicated

Two Declarations

Is it anti-Semitic? 😯

Maybe before too long it will write and sign a declaration of independence, thanks to the work of Israeli hackers. 😆

Soorena-2, named after an ancient Persian warrior, was unveiled by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday. It is 1.45 metres 4.7 feet tall and weighs 45 kilograms 99 pounds, the report said.

Source: Iran unveils human-like robot

OK, that’s the first declaration referenced in the title.

The second is the US Declaration of Independence.

Just like I have a question to go along with the first declaration above, I have one to go with the second….

How come the Colonists were entitled to independence but not the Confederates?

A Christmas 1943 Gift

You may know we have to move.

Thus you may know there’s packing to do.

This evening Ruby came across this treasure from 1943, so I took a photo of me holding it:

a gift my Roth grandparents gave to friends for Christmas 1943

How it came into our possession, I no longer recall. I wonder if one of the recipients’ kin gave it to us.

Well, I also scanned it front and back, and thereon lies the rest of the story. Read it all

“That Should Be Common Sense”

That’s a quote from one of the stories quoted below (though the quote itself does not appear below).

These are five stories whose headlines caught my attention at CNS News this morning.

Individual Choices at Stake as Laws Take Effect

Gun owners with permits can carry concealed weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol in New Mexico and Virginia. Young and old alike must show proof of age when buying alcohol in Indiana. Georgia and Kentucky are hitting the delete key on texting while driving.

New laws taking effect Thursday reflect states’ ongoing debates over individual freedoms, touching on everything from smoking restrictions to measures seeking to fight crime.

Maybe you don’t live in a state where any of those apply. (I think I do.)

But here’s one for everyone:

Consumers Can Avoid Bank Fees with a Little Effort

A seemingly simple rule on debit card overdraft fees is making banking more complicated for millions of consumers.

Starting July 1, banks must get permission from customers before they can charge a fee for covering a debit card purchase or ATM withdrawal if there aren’t sufficient funds in the account. […] If consumers elect to forgo overdraft coverage, banks stand to lose a large chunk of their income. […]

To make up for the lost revenue, many banks are doing away with free checking, and adding monthly or quarterly maintenance fees. Consumers can often avoid these new fees, however, if they take steps like linking multiple accounts or arranging for direct deposit of their paychecks.

But that requires paying attention to correspondence from banks, and a lack of attention had a big role in creating the problem to begin with.

No wonder I’ve been getting that call-to-action screen every time I log in to online banking. I just keep brushing it off. I guess I should look into it more. I need to ask my bank if I can link accounts.

Now to think of a comment to transition you to the next story…. Oh, I know! Parents can avoid nagging children with a little effort. That’s a statement rich in alternate interpretations, but never mind that; here’s the story:

Liberal Group Threatens Lawsuit Against McDonald’s If It Doesn’t Stop Giving Toys to Children

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a liberal consumer advocacy organization, has announced it will sue McDonald’s unless the fast-food franchise stops using toys to market its “Happy Meals” to children.

“This morning, CSPI notified McDonald’s that we will file a lawsuit against the company unless it stops using toys to beguile young children,” said Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.

“We contend that tempting kids with toys is unfair and deceptive both to kids who don’t understand the concept of advertising and to their parents who have to put up with their nagging children,” he said.

Whaddayaknow — protect parents from nagging children. 😯

Maybe this next story alludes to a better answer than keeping trinkets out of food.

Congresswoman Proposes Ban on Corporal Punishment in U.S. Schools as Some Schools Move to Reinstate It

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday introduced a bill to end corporal punishment in all public and private schools that receive federal funding or services. But at least two school districts, one in Tennessee and one in Texas, want to reinstate corporal punishment on campuses described by one city councilman as “war zones.”

“Twenty states still permit corporal punishment in public schools and studies indicate that this type of discipline has a negative effect on students,” McCarthy said in a statement released at a Capitol Hill press conference.

“This legislation (the “Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act”) amends the General Education Provisions Act so that no funds for programs administered by the Department of Education shall be made available to any educational agency or institution that has a policy or practice which allows school personnel to inflict corporal punishment on a student.”

Well, that much makes sense: You must use our money in ways we approve. If a school takes government funds, the government may have a say in how the school operates. Works for me.

But such a statement should cut both ways. Government agencies and personnel who use taxpayer funds shall use our money in ways we approve. Imagine that!

So…if such a law were in place…would Hillary Clinton be in trouble?

Hillary Clinton Urges State Department Employees to Let Teens Know It’s Okay to Be Homosexual

“We’ve come such a far distance in our own country, but there are still so many who need the outreach, need the mentoring, need the support to stand up and be who they are and then think about people in so many countries where it just seems impossible,” Clinton said.

“So I think that each and everyone of you, not only professionally, particularly from State and USAID and every bureau and every embassy and every part of our government have to do what you can to create that safe space, but also personally, to really look for those who might need a helping hand; particularly young people; particularly teenagers who still today have such a difficult time,” she added.

“And who, still in numbers far beyond what should ever happen, take their own life rather than live that life,” Clinton said at the event, billed as a human rights and U.S. foreign policy speech.

“So I would ask you to please think of ways you can be there for everyone who is making this journey,” Clinton said.

And there you be: five headlines/excerpts to introduce you to July 2010.

Now you know (more of) the rest of the story. Good day?

They Were Taught That?!

Check out these two excerpts from the 1691 New England Primer:

In Adam’s Fall
We Sinned all.

Thy Life to Mend
This Book Attend.

Where were the protesters and objectors and suers?

And the parents — didn’t they care?!

Where were the legislatures and the courts and the governors and the city counselors and the district attorneys and the meter maids?

What about equality and equal time and fairness doctrines for other religions and non-religions?

Didn’t they care separation of church and state?

And the poor children with such dreadful thoughts poked in their heads!

🙄

Ah, those were the days. No wonder the country then was in such poor shape. 😯

(And I suppose next we’ll hear parents spanked their children and made them be quiet at the table and didn’t let them play all rowdy-like on Sundays.)

Winning People

Alternate title: How to Avoid Being Avoidable

I’ve been thinking for a while about how some people have a “knack” for alienating others. Or if not alienating them, at least building walls or burning bridges between them.

So if you’re one of those, here are some things you — yes, you — should avoid in order to not flunk the “Winning People” part of real living:

Be critical of them or how they do (or don’t do) stuff.
Have a scornful or demeaning attitude toward them, even for “justifiable” reasons. 😯
Downplay their accomplishments or sufferings by raising up your “superior” ones. 🙄
Call attention to your accomplishments or your insights.
Make the conversation (if not the prospective relationship) primarily about you.
Hold them to your personal standards of whatever…and make sure they know it.
Pooh-pooh their personal standards and likes and preferences if you fail to meet them.
Be controlling of (and unjust with) those clearly under your authority.
Be demanding. (Hint: This is made worse when you have no “right” to be demanding.)
Be an ingrate.
Be impatient.
Be thin-skinned about criticism or less-than-complimentary input.
Be rhino-hided about criticism or less-than-complimentary input.
Be hyper-sensitive and imaginative (and then unduly inquisitive) about what other people say, do, think, imagine, and mean.
Have a Bah Humbug attitude toward this subject and this list. (No, really!)
Be disrespectful.
Fuss at and criticize and argue with your spouse in public…or in front of them.
Don’t apologize when you’re wrong or when you’ve wronged others. Instead make excuses. Or blame others.
Take a list like this…and put people on the spot with it (or with this subject as a whole).
Imagine I’m targeting this at you specifically. (Do you really think I’d be so careless or class-less? Especially in a wide-open public forum like this? Give me a break!) 😀 Also see #5. 😆

Is there more that should be said on so needful a subject?

Yup, I’m afraid so.

That’s what the Comments section below is about! 🙂

So if you want people to be around you or if you want people to look forward to being around you….listen up!

For all that I know (and for all that you know), some people treat being around you as something that must be done in order to “get it over with.”

Do you like being that kind of person?

Just askin’.

😉

PS: If you’re a Christian, this subject becomes even more important.

An Ominous Use of Facebook

I use Facebook, albeit with great caution and reserve.

But even that caution and reserve would not have protected me from a Gardes Maroc Maroc:

Muslim uses Facebook profiles to find and target Christians

But what if your Facebook profile were used as a weapon against you by Muslim extremists opposed to your Christian faith?

According to Compass Direct News, this is exactly what is happening in Morocco, where over 100 foreign Christians have been deported since the beginning of the year for allegedly “proselytizing.”

Facebook user Gardes Maroc Maroc collected pictures and information from Christian converts’ Facebook profiles, then posted 32 collages of the Christians, referring to them as “hyena evangelists,” “wolves in lamb’s skins” and accusing them of trying to “shake the faith of Muslims.” If the latter statement were true, the Christians would be guilty of breaking Morocco’s anti-proselytizing law and would face deportation or prison.

[…]

In addition to Maroc singling out several Christians, he also called for authorities to investigate the Village of Hope in Ain Leuh, where he claimed “foreign missionaries” were indoctrinating the children. This may be part of the reason the orphanage was raided on March 8 and 26 foreign Christians expelled.

Does this mean I will hide my faith online?

No.

At least not at this point.

Which naturally begs this follow-up question: At what point would I consider hiding my Christian identity online?

June 25

Today. Long ago. (And not so long ago.)

1942 — About 1,000 British Royal Air Force bombers raid Bremen, Germany. 1000 bombers?!! Imagine the outcry today!

1948 — The Berlin Airlift begins.

1950 — The Korean War begins with the invasion of South Korea by North Korea.

1962 — The Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, rules that recital of a state-sponsored prayer in New York State public schools was unconstitutional. What’s a state-sponsored prayer?

1997 — The Supreme Court strikes down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, designed to limit the government’s ability to regulate religious practices. So that means the government does have the ability to regulate religious practices? Isn’t that state-sponsored something-or-other?

1998 — The Supreme Court rejects a 1997 line-item veto law as unconstitutional.

2007 — A Washington (DC) judge rules in favor of a dry cleaner sued by a dissatisfied customer who was demanding $54 million for his missing pants. I remember that. I wonder if the judge lost his pants at a dry cleaner once upon a time.

2010 — Closing VBS program at Hopewell Mennonite Church. Also, Mark Roth places his first CraigsList ad (in which he casts out a low-hope lure for a place to rent).