[rants]  [sociopolitical] 

Today is the day they start debating a bill that would make it harder to get relief from creditors. A proposed measure, which may as well be sponsored directly by the nation's kind-hearted lenders (you know, those sweet institutions willing to give a credit card to anything with a pulse?), will make consumer bankruptcy rules much more stringent than they currently are.

Please understand, I'm not advocating that we should all be able to simply skip out on our debts no matter what, but I do find it insidiously hypocritical that the same forces pushing hard to collect every last penny they lend have also strongly resisted tighter standards on how they lend.

So maybe the lenders themselves don't want to be "unfairly" restrained by a modicum of fair lending procedures. How about making intensive high school courses on personal finance and credit mandatory for all students -- it's becoming clear that some kind of training on these issues is as vital as reading, writing and 'rithmetic.

And while you're formulating the course, throw in some highly involved retirement planning theory.

You see, I actually like the idea of encouraging people to be more responsible for their own ways and means, but it seems like every measure being pushed in this arena right now should be coupled with an honest endeavor to educate people on how to avoid becoming one of these unpleasant statistics. It seems that while we're doing away with all the safety nets, we might as well also do something to make the safety nets less necessary. And while we're at it, why not balance the scales by also restricting corporate bankruptcies and frivolous lawsuits?

I've yet to really get wound up about how beneficially one-sided both this current bankruptcy reform effort and the recent tort reform measure are going to be. They only restrict the rights of consumers. They don't do anything at all to protect consumers from corporate bankruptcy or frivolous lawsuits by corporations, both of which cost more public money than the combination of consumer bankruptcy and class action lawsuits.

It's sad that we boast of such "reforms" when we're really only attacking the lesser part of the overall problem, almost always the part of the problem that doesn't have as many professional lobbyists on the payroll.

 [sociopolitical] 

Susan J. Douglass wrote a scathing piece on financial institutions, many of which are involved in lobbying for privatized social security accounts, using current credit practices as a partial predictor for what the future social security might be.

"Just imagine -- the same financial interests that gouge you now, have indecipherable rules in their microscopic agreements, enjoy no regulation and can do whatever they want to screw the average American will soon control our retirements. Priceless."

I happen to agree with much of her argument, especially as it pertains to credit card lenders preying on the most financially vulnerable on one end and lobbying against bankruptcy protection for all but the most wealthy on the other end. Of course, I find it a little disgusting already that we as a nation seem to survive financially on an ethic of revolving debt.

The more financially responsible among us might be tempted to look down on those who are less fiscally responsible, but keep in mind what would become of those of us in the investor class (and more pointedly, to the banking industry) if all consumer credit were paid off tomorrow. I know that's not going to happen, but maybe we should all be disturbed by the amount of wealth in this country that counts solely on the financial irresponsibility of everyday Americans.

There's something uniquely unhealthy about such dependency.

[sociopolitical]  [writing/literature] 

"Death is a dialogue between..." by Emily Dickinson

I was trying to find something that fit today's mood, as I was reading updates on the Schiavo case, in which a Florida judge today granted a three week stay. I think this poem reflects what most of us need to remember about the temporal nature of life. But I do wonder why it's so hard for the legal system to take the risk of erring on the side of the living in a case where definitions are in such dispute.

[personal/blog]  [music] 

Well, at least there appeared to be a lull. Here's the smedley update after not blogging for a few days:

On Saturday, I went to a Bill Mallonee show in West Orange N.J., sort of a one man thing, just Bill up on stage with his guitar, a harmonica and a few dozen friendly folks. It was definitely the most intimate setting I've seen him in. The next smallest crowd I saw him performing in front of was at the Chameleon Club in Lancaster, PA, about nine years ago, and that was at least three times more populated than this one was. But, as I alluded to earlier, this time was more intimate, and definitely enjoyable. As always (at least from my experience), Mr. Mallonee delivered a heartfelt, clean, acoustic performance, digging back into the ancient past of his Vigilantes days. He was even joined by his opening act, a soothing Irish female voice otherwise known as Vesper Stamper, to perform his five-year-old tune "Resplendent." Vesper filled in reasonably well, singing the part that originally went to Emmylou Harris.

After being bogged down ever since coming back from Jersey, I finally saw my schedule start to free up yesterday, upon which I promptly misplaced forty dollars I had just withdrawn from the bank, and then I proceeded to lock my keys in the car (it only took the AAA guy about 95 minutes to get there and help me break in to retrieve them).

In the hour and a half I waited for Triple-A, the crisp, cold air seemed to send my mind spinning, and I sensed a clarity I haven't had in months, but as soon as I got back into the car and fired up the heat, somehow the clarity all but disappeared. Oh well, I hadn't intended to write much until the weekend anyway.

[sociopolitical] 

Spy's Eye View

Dame Stella Rimington is the real-life inspiration for the female "M" in recent James Bond films. She became the first woman to head the British spy agency MI5, and according to Sandip Roy's column, she's not quite sold on the concept of a war on terror. This article also dips into one aspect of the "Yellow noise" post towards the end.

[personal/blog]  [sociopolitical] 

Following Gannon-gate isn't one of my usual pastimes, but I came across this CNN interview via The All Spin Zone. I think it's telling that a guy with dubious-at-best press credentials who's been pretty much sponsored by Republican partisans can't just come out and admit what side his bread's buttered on, or why he felt the need to use an alias.

[personal/blog]  [sociopolitical] 

"In desperate times, you know everybody's part;
it's your own lines you'd like to forget-
-'til what you were meets what you've now become,
grins and says, 'Hey, haven't we met?'"
-Bill Mallonee

What is normal?

I have heard many people bemoan the lack of normalcy -- in their jobs, the people they meet, and in everyday life -- but I'm not always sure what they mean. Is there really such a thing as normal? Aren't things always changing, society always shifting, gradually sliding to new places on the scale? Isn't normal whatever we happen to have grown used to?

Case in point: I was watching CNN yesterday afternoon, when I noticed the streamer at the bottom of the screen informing me of the current terror threat level, which -- surprise, surprise -- was sitting at yellow. Again. It's been so long since I'd seen it at anything below yellow that I was almost thinking that yellow was the color for "everything's just peachy; everyone just go about your business without any worries." I had to look it up when I got home to find that yellow actually means "elevated: significant risk of terror attacks." Then I had to give myself a refresher course on what other colors were on the chart.

I did already know that yellow was the color for "elevated," but I was mildly surprised to be reminded that there were actually two colors, not just one, beneath yellow in the hierarchy of the DHS color code. I actually forgot that there was a color blue on the chart -- which may be just as well, because what are the chances we'll ever see it again in the daily briefings? And green? -it seems relatively safe to assume that we won't be hearing that color called in the near future (if ever). Perhaps the fact that blue and green remain on the chart is a testament to the inexplicable optimism of an agency that never seems to have any good news, but I can't recall what it was actually like before yellow became a way of life in America. Would I recognize the sensation of a day without the specter of yellow or orange in our lives? Would you?

If the President's many warnings about the ongoing nature of the War on Terror are accurate, shouldn't the government come to grips with the reality that, while it may technically signify "elevated" risk, yellow is the new normal. Like it or not, that's the way it comes off to the general public, if they're even paying attention. Your average citizen doesn't see the terror threat level at yellow and scramble to find ways to be more observant or vigilant; he simply looks at it and says, "oh, look, it's yellow again. Hmmm..."

Face it, people hardly wince on the occasions the level reaches orange, which I believe is the color right beneath end-of-the-world red. I'm not suggesting these color-coded warnings should be simply disregarded; in fact, I strongly feel they should mean more, because once we've all become numb to the effects of yellow status, what's the point? And for those who do live in constant fear of the "elevated" threat of terrorism, what kind of life is that? Bruce Schneier, an author and security technologist, wrote an essay on the subject wherein he makes this parallel to the vague earthquake threat that people in California live under:

"According to scientists, California is expecting a huge earthquake sometime in the next 200 years. Even though the magnitude of the disaster will be enormous, people just can't stay alert for 200 years. It goes against human nature. Residents of California have the same level of short-term fear and long-term apathy regarding the threat of earthquakes that the rest of the nation has developed regarding the DHS's terrorist threat alert."

He makes other equally (if not more) compelling points about the approach taken by other countries, like Israel, whose history with combating domestic terrorism is much longer than our own. They don't use color-codes. He also argues that by maintaining a ubiquitously elevated terror threat level we help instill a brand of fear in our more responsive citizens not unlike the fear many terror groups seek to inspire.
I lament that this is the new version of normal. I hate admitting that the incessant terror warnings have worn on me quite a bit, but they have. Like most people, I can't live in a constantly fearful state, dreading what might possibly go wrong if the worst happens. It's almost necessary to good health that I ignore the constant alerts, that I wait for something more substantial than unspecified threats and vague warnings.

It could also be likened to parents who resort to yelling at their children. It works once in a while, but when it becomes a constant, kids adjust and learn to tune it out -- in some cases, they tune it out as a necessary defense mechanism. The problem comes when the parent resorts to yelling to warn his child of truly imminent danger. The child who's gotten used to being yelled at every time he ties his shoes the wrong way, or spills a glass of milk, will be more likely to dismiss the urgency of parental hysterics, even if the hysterics are to warn the child of oncoming traffic.

The same happens when a government elects to speak in a constantly raised voice. Some of us still flinch, but most of us have managed to tune it out. Now what happens when the danger truly is imminent? Too many people were joking about the last orange threat level -- will red be taken that much more seriously? Or have we gotten so used to the myriad unnamed dangers that we'll just shrug it off like we already do with the ever-present yellow?

Has our government gotten into the practice of crying wolf? Should the local traffic report announce that the auto accident threat level has been raised to elevated every morning and afternoon during rush hour? Should McDonald's announce a heart attack threat level of high as the customers walk in the door? Should we wear bells when walking down a hallway at work, just to remind everyone else of the risk of collision as we walk around corners? Maybe, maybe not.

I may not have all the answers, but I'm seriously wondering if, in the absence of a credible and imminent threat, I need to warned every single day of my life about the possibility of a terrorist attack. While I know I can't speak for everybody else, there's a certain indelible image forever on standby in my head: it's the image of an airplane striking a tall building. If the government chose to stop warning me on a constant basis, would I ever really forget that? Isn't that the only thing I really need to remain aware of the possibility of another terror attack?

I'm not saying I don't want to be warned when there's real news for the DHS to report, but in the meantime, I could really do without all the yellow noise.

[writing/literature] 

"Reflection" by Artie Van Why

More than simply writing this week's poetry selection, Artie Van Why also chronicled his experiences as a resident of New York City, and his firsthand experience of the events of September 11, 2001, at his website That Day in September. The poem, like much of what he shares in his story, is incredibly moving, and it serves as a poignant preface to his story, which you can read by clicking on the link for the poem.

[sociopolitical] 

Wal-Mart Agrees to Pay Fine in Child Labor Cases

This from the New York Times, chronicling a most improbable tale of child labor violations by the gold standard of labor law compliance in the retail industry.

"Labor Department officials said most of the 24 violations covered by the settlement involved workers under age 18 operating dangerous machinery, including cardboard balers and chain saws. In the agreement, Wal-Mart denied any wrongdoing."

Well, of course they denied any wrongdoing. How dare those anti-business zealots in the Bush Labor Department besmirch the fine reputation of America's finest corporate citizen!

On behalf of all U.S. taxpayers, I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to the big blue retailer for the inappropriate actions of an activist labor department. I demand that my tax dollars be better spent -- on things like welfare measures to supplement the sub-poverty level compensation packages Wal-Mart lavishes on its "associates."

It's things like this that make me feel ashamed to be an American.

[sociopolitical] 

"There's No Crying in Baseball"

Sean Gonsalves has published this piece over at Alternet. In it he deals with the question I've debated with others many times:

"Is it acceptable for blacks to use the n-word while whites are morally castigated for it?"

I have to admit, while I have generally thought of the rampant use of the n-word by some black people as being a double standard, I never really thought of it in the context of some of the slurs that other ethnic groups sometimes throw around jokingly.

I'm not entirely sure whether all ethnic slurs carry equal weight (not my area of expertise), but Gonsalves makes an excellent case that those of us white people who rail against the use of the n-word by blacks may also be guilty of a double standard, at least if we don't also rail against inside use of slurs among other ethnic segments.

[personal/blog] 

I had intended to add more ruminations about the wondrous marketing opportunity that has become of St. Valentine's Day, but in all my busy-ness this past weekend, this is all I could come up with, so far. It's about the latest Bin Laden videotape, via The Onion.

And with that, I wish you all a happy Valentine's Day. May we all recall just a little of what it's supposed to mean -- by which I refer to the over-sized teddy bears, lingerie and chocolate candy assortments. Oops, I only meant over-sized teddy bears, not the other two. (Of course, I suppose over-sizing the candy assortments could lead to an over-sizing of the lingerie, but that wasn't the point...)

[sociopolitical] 

Looking for Love Doesn't Take Long

This WebMD article I just stumbled upon explains a lot to me. We've all heard people give the politically correct answers when asked about who they would or wouldn't consider dating, but this article suggests political correctness flies out the window rather quickly when we see either favorable or unfavorable physical traits.

I always knew this was true, but it's nice to see a study that comes right out and admits it, even if people aren't that honest about it.

I'm sure I'll have another Valentine's Day observation or two as Monday approaches...

[writing/literature] 

"Radio" by Laurel Blossom

[personal/blog]  [movies] 

A couple days ago, things started off well. I got a letter from her, the first one I'd gotten. Then I went to work and everything started going downhill -- fast.

Evelin is a little Salvadoran girl I sponsor, you know, "for the price of a cup of coffee a day..." -she's seven, and she was born on the same day of the year as I was. On Tuesday, I got a letter from her. Inside it was a crayon-drawn picture. I don't mean to draw comparisons to the movie About Schmidt, but it crossed my mind. I was touched by the picture she drew. I guess the letter was physically written by someone else, because she doesn't know how to write yet, but still, it was all quite touching.

I was going to show the picture to someone at work who I thought would appreciate it, but as soon as I arrived, I was cut off by a little bit of hostility. Since then, things just haven't been as pleasant as I would hope. All the unpleasantness had pushed the thoughts of the letter to the background, but today I finally sat down to write a letter back to Evelin. I made sure to remember to mention how pretty the picture was, the way I would with one of my younger nieces or nephews.

I think of the smile a little child gets when you compliment their artwork, how appreciated they seem to feel. I remember how appreciated I felt when I was a kid and someone would compliment a picture I drew or something I built with my Legos. Come to think of it, I guess even into adulthood, most of us still appreciate positive feedback when we do something good. It was kind of a cool thought to bring me back from the unpleasantness. That's all.

[personal/blog] 

"I know a girl who you've got to keep an eye on -
Every time she goes outside
she barely gets home alive ..."
-Fountains of Wayne

It's taken me a couple days to get back to the blog since Super Bowl Sunday, not as much because of the game's outcome as something that happened at the party I was attending.

I had been graciously invited into someone's home for a Super Bowl party on Sunday evening. I was forewarned that one of my hosts had a tendency to be melodramatic any time something "bad" happened in the game (i.e. - the Eagles would fumble, get intercepted, or the Patriots would score), which I didn't think much of, as I'm generally positive in these situations -- yes, I sink and swim with the home team like everybody else, but I manage to do it with a little more optimistic attitude.

As we were watching the game, there were many points at which the particular host I'd been warned about voiced her misery over what I thought were relatively harmless events in the game. As a matter of course, I tried to respond with a more positive spin on what was happening. Little did I know as I was doing this, but this person may have become annoyed with my attempts at a positive mindset, hence my comments, which were meant to counterbalance her overly pessimistic observations, only served to worsen her attitude -- or so I was told the day after the party.

The person who told me this didn't seem to know for a fact that I was a problem for the other person, but admitted that I'd been annoying to her personally, so she assumed I was also annoying to the other, more vocally negative person. This got me thinking about why I make the effort to counterbalance negativity when I notice it.

It occurred to me that I've had the occasion to know people who've been prone to depression, sometimes to the point of self-damaging tendencies. I think, having had the experience of being around people who get that way, I have been conditioned to respond by looking on the bright side of even the most seemingly negative situations. I obviously don't do this to annoy anyone, but I see how it might be annoying.

If you are a person who is bent on being negative all the time, it can be frustrating to have someone else constantly contradicting your pessimism. But if you're like some of the people I've known in my life, contradicting that pessimism can be useful, if not absolutely necessary. My positive words in situations like this aren't to annoy, but rather to buoy -- sometimes there meant to buoy my own perspective from being dragged down into the muck by the negativity around me. Not to mention the fact that people who are constantly negative can be pretty annoying too. I had been warned about the negativity, but I wasn't aware that warning meant I couldn't respond or try to balance it a little.

Now the negative energy at the Super Bowl party the other night wasn't threatening to drag me under the waves or anything like that, but it was striking me as being a bit over the top. And one thing about people who are stuck on negative mindsets is they tend not to notice how negative they are being. It's one thing to sound the alarms when your teams down by twenty points in the first quarter, but I was hearing predictions of Eagles doom when they were up by seven.

Did the game work out the way I would have hoped? No. Was it the blowout that many "experts" expected? No. Most Eagles fans I've talked to in the past day or so are fairly positive about the future of football in Philadelphia, as opposed to the vocal few who will be selling tales of gloom and doom.

So, that's why I do it -- at least I think it is. I guess it can be annoying, but I find it funny that people who get annoyed by me having an alternative mindset to theirs don't often realize that by expecting me to curb my optimism they're really doing at least as much to me as I'm doing to annoy them.

Oh well, I guess I won't be invited back if the Eagles make it to the Bowl next year ...

[personal/blog] 

"We want to take over the city, turn it into Phillyville, our new hometown."
-Philadelphia Eagles Linebacker Ike Reese (NY Times quote)

Almost two weeks ago, under the lights at Lincoln Financial Field, following the Eagles first conference championship in 24 years, Pro-Bowler Ike Reese apparently had his finger on the pulse of the Philadelphia fanbase. He dedicated the victory to the fans, and followed that with a challenge to them: Come down to Jacksonville and turn it into "Phillyville."

He didn't have to be that visionary to make such a challenge. Eagles fans are notorious for their "travel" ethic. Every year there are a couple away games, in places like Dallas or Miami, where you can tell by the sound of the cheering that a massive number of Eagles fans has invaded enemy territory. Eagles players know what it's like to hear that swell of vocal support, even a thousand miles from the home field.

Various news reports have noted the presence of thousands of Philadelphia Eagles supporters in Jacksonville these past few days, one radio report suggested that between forty and fifty thousand of the fans at today's game will be entrenched Eagles fans, which, if true, would be more phenomenal than any previous occurrence of a Philly fan invasion -- especially given the corporate-dominated atmosphere of the modern Super Bowl. Of course, Jacksonville is also the hometown of two of the Eagles three Pro Bowl defensive backs, so there is probably some local support for the boys from Philly, even among people not from Philly.

I wonder what it will sound like. I wonder how many Eagles fans will actually be in attendance. Whatever the case, I'm looking forward to it, as someone who has vivid memories of the last Super Bowl Sunday that featured my favorite football team (The Eagles had better than even chances against the Raiders going in, but we didn't get to see much of it; the TV picture tube went out just before the game turned really ugly -- a sign from above?).

This time around, the consensus choice appears to be New England, which is fine with me. My general rooting interest is with the underdog, unless the hometown team is in it, so this game is perfect for me.

All that's left is to wait for the kickoff.

[personal/blog] 

Thanks to Philly Future, I came across a pretty decent site called PhillySkyLine.com, which has some excellent photos of Philadelphia, including a wonderful series of aerial photos. (I took Karl's hint and saved a few for my desktop.) If you're a Philly native, or you just like looking at tons of landscape/skyline images, PhillySkyLine.com is a great site to check out.

[writing/literature] 

"His Excuse for Loving" by Ben Jonson

I had a conversation recently that reminded me of this one, so I went digging for it, and luckily I found it.

[personal/blog]  [sociopolitical] 

Here's a brief sample of Melody Joy Kramer's clever commentary on recent paid propaganda scandals:

"... I try to manipulate my readers as much I can. How will I take advantage of the unsuspecting public this week, I muse. Should I use the Jedi mind tricks? Subversive messages? Embedded acronyms? ..."

Or maybe she really does need the money...

Also, thanks to Philly Future for the heads up on the Rittenhouse Review link that led me there.

[personal/blog]  [sociopolitical] 

I might have stumbled upon this CNN story sooner or later, but thanks to this post by Nicole over at Lower Merion Grassroots, I was able to glean some more interesting perspective on the abortion struggle within the DNC.

I have been and will most likely continue to be an outsider on sanctity of life issues -- as long as we have one major party banging a drum for the death penalty and the other banging a drum for abortion rights. And then there are other issues, too.

I often lament being the Mr. Potato Head of personal politics, but if the Democrats can show some flexibility on abortion, I might have a chance at rooting for a big party again. Well, it's a lot more likely than Republicans coming around on the rest of their social agenda.

And I kind of like the sound of "Senator Bob Casey, Jr."

Somewhere between tolerance and advocacy: Dr. Dobson's misunderstood crusade

[sociopolitical] 

A note of thanks to an excellent Ales Rarus post, which led me to another excellent post at Christian Conservative -- both were thought-provoking and helpful in putting these thoughts into words.

(This follow-up post was originally spawned by a comment from Steve about the lost differences between tolerance and advocacy -- the comment appears under the January 21 entry "Sure they look harmless...".) The We Are Family Foundation, accused by Dr. Dobson of being concerned with pushing a pro-homosexual agenda, claims to be a group advocating tolerance and respect -- aiming these messages at school children. I posted about this a couple weeks ago, just in passing, mostly because I thought it was a strange and ironic story. Tolerance and respect seem like worthy lessons for today's youth -- God knows so many of them have so little of both qualities.

At the time, much doubt had been cast on Dr. Dobson's claims that the WAFF was a tool of the pro-gay agenda. In the time since, many subtle changes to the WAFF website have come to light, causing me to comprehend Dobson's concerns a bit better. Dr. Dobson may have a valid point about certain pro-gay sentiments being fostered by the WAFF. But the mission of the WAFF, admittedly, is tolerance of those who are different. Within that scope, homosexuality could certainly be seen as a difference, and historically, people have been mistreated for exhibiting even the vaguest symptoms of it. That said, for the sake of argument, I'll allow that Dobson's assertions can be completely proven.

Understanding why Dobson is so concerned about this doesn't stop me from asking, "Is any level of teaching children tolerance of homosexuals acceptable to Dr. Dobson?" Because while I agree with Dobson's beliefs that homosexuality is sinful, I wholeheartedly believe in the old "love the sinner, hate the sin" axiom, and thus the need to teach children to treat all human beings with dignity and respect. My question, which isn't laid to rest at all by the good doctor's letter of explanation, is can we teach our children to treat homosexuals with dignity and respect without crossing the line of what he considers gay "advocacy?"

I was raised in a conservative religious home, and I have always adhered to more conservative Biblical teachings on the subject of homosexuality. My first real-world exposure to homosexuality (of which I'm aware) was in a job I held as a young college student.
The restaurant where I was working hired two new employees, both male, and apparently friends with each other at the least. Some of the mannerisms exhibited by these two young men led most of my co-workers to believe they were gay. As a result of this perception, an alarming majority of my co-workers began harassing these two "gay" men and spreading vicious rumors about them behind their backs.

At one point when I heard one of my co-workers spreading one of these rumors, I confronted him and told him I thought he was acting like a child. With a surprised look on his face, he responded by saying he thought I'd understand. I asked why, and he mentioned that he'd heard I was one of those Christians who thought homosexuality was wrong. I told him I was, but even if these two guys were gay, it wouldn't be okay to treat them so badly, almost like they were sub-human. He just shook his head and went on telling his rumor to someone else.

After a few days, and a few more of these confrontations with various co-workers, I approached my boss and reported to him that these two guys were being picked on mercilessly. He responded by telling everyone to knock it off. This worked for a day or so, after which one of the workers who had spearheaded the campaign of harassment against the two young men reported that he'd been inappropriately propositioned by one of the guys. A day later the one who'd been accused was let go by the boss; the other one ended up quitting a week later (the chorus of harassment had been revived by the departure of his friend).

Some people wonder, "Why do we need to teach our children this tolerance stuff?" The answer is simple. As per the example above (and a thousand other stories just like it), too many children are growing up today thinking it's okay to treat people who are different with little or no respect. It really doesn't matter that we believe their conduct to be sinful -- especially for those of us who are Christians, who've been commanded to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. The most abominable behavior on someone else's part doesn't excuse us from this command, yet we often think that any show of kindness to people whose lifestyles we disapprove of is somehow dangerous, when the deprivation of compassion on such conditional grounds is far more sacrilegious. The mere idea that most of us know we're not perfect, but somehow we paint our faults as being less egregious than that of other people, especially (gasp!) gay people, is sacrilege unto itself.

So, is the We Are Family Foundation a blatant supporter of normalizing homosexual lifestyles? I don't know, but the problem I have with this situation is even if they aren't, if they really are just trying to teach people good old-fashioned tolerance, I'm not sure it would make a difference in the eyes of James Dobson.

Perhaps we wouldn't have to worry about what the world is trying to teach our children if we would just teach them Christian compassion and human decency ourselves. Unfortunately, this theme doesn't seem nearly as prominent as it should be among evangelical Christians; my experience growing up with Dr. Dobson's commentary seemed heavier on judging -- which we're not supposed to do. We tend to forget that our highest commands have to do with showing love, even (or perhaps especially) to those we're sure don't deserve it.