Blueberry Coffee

I recently had my old coffee maker finally die in a spectacular manner, which included flashing lights and spouting gouts of boiling water in a never-ending stream all over my kitchen counter until I could grab the cord and rip it out of the wall.

The coffee maker had been a Gevalia single-serve unit, and I wisely decided it was time for a change. So over the holidays, I bought a Keurig single-serve maker which was on sale for an excellent price, full of bells and whistles and a pretty blue flashing light.

The great thing about single-serve coffee is that everyone can have exactly what they want, and no pots of coffee lay around, half-full and going to waste. The downside is that coffee in K-Cups (single servings) can be more expensive than the standard bulk coffee. Since I drink only a cup or two a day, it's of no difference to me and it's nice to have an assortment to offer my guests.

I currently have on hand: Mudslide, Pecan Pie, Cowboy Coffee (which is stronger than Starbucks), a hawaiin blend of macadamia and coconut, Chocolate Almond, French Vanilla, and more.

But I discovered that when you buy an assortment, you invariably get something you don't want. So instead of drinking it or simply throwing it away, I try to foist it off on the people that I love.

My friend Pov is a blueberry fan. He can sit down and consume large amounts of blueberry pancakes and muffins. This is in contrast to me: I have never met a blueberry I liked unless it was freshly picked and eaten the same day.

However, a recent coffee assortment had two K-Cups of blueberry flavored coffee. I can't imagine there is a demand for the stuff, and I am really amazed they ever chose to offer it. It's as appealing as chicken-flavored hot cocoa.

So when Pov was over about a month ago, I slipped him a cup of blueberry coffee and he cheerfully drank it, proclaiming it to be great coffee.

I tried it again about a week ago. However, Pov was in a difficult mood. When he gets this way, he's unbearable to be around and he becomes deliberately disagreeable. No matter what you say or do, he is bound to argue with you about it.

So when Pov asked for a cup of coffee and I suggested the last blueberry flavored dose, he declared that he would never like the stuff and was unconvinced when I told him that I had served him some before. I quickly gave up, and he settled for a Mudslide flavored cup instead.

For over a week, the blueberry K-Cup sat there, mocking me. I felt guilty about throwing it away, but I would always reach over it to pick something... anything else.

I had almost thrown it away, when Pov came over this morning, demanding coffee. "No problem!," I said. "Sit down, watch the news, and I'll brew one up for you!" And while he was distracted, I whipped that last blueberry K-Cup into the machine and brewed him a fresh cup of the noxious stuff.

I had to run out the door to take my friend to the airport, and Pov was going in the opposite direction. But a little while later, he called to check in and I had to ask, "By the way, how was the coffee?"

"Great!" declared Pov.

"Great?" I asked, pressing my luck. "Everything was fine?"

"Yup, absolutely perfect," replied Pov.

I am finally rid of the last of the blueberry and since he never reads my blog, Pov is none the wiser. Perhaps I can interest him in chicken-flavored hot cocoa.

C Span Clip: Tremendous Draw-Down of Money in an Hour or Two

"At 2 minutes, 20 seconds into this C-Span video clip, Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania explains how the Federal Reserve told members of Congress about a "tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion dollars." According to Kanjorski, this electronic transfer occured over the period of an hour or two.

This does not bode well for our economy."

This discussion took place on February 10th, 2009.

Jobs and the Economy

I am currently being considered for a well-paying career with a glamorous title, but it will mean a hellish workday and a great deal of travel. Obviously my blog would have to go on hiatus if the offer is ultimately made, because I will be forced to accept it.

I don't really want the job, but I can't afford to sit around and wait for the perfect one to come my way. In this economy, I'll be lucky to be employed at all.

The economy is becoming a matter of global security. In the New York Times today, we read:

"The new director of national intelligence told Congress on Thursday that global economic turmoil and the instability it could ignite had outpaced terrorism as the most urgent threat facing the United States."

As we now know:

"The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008."

Also, ""The breadth of job losses now surpasses the prior two recessions," said John Silvia, chief economist for Wachovia."
Florida is particularly hard-hit, and will be the slowest to recover, as our economy is largely based on tourism.

By now, many of you may find this topic to be somewhat dull and redundant. But for those who live in its shadow every day, it is anything but.

Many are hoping that the Economic Stimulus Package will help. For more details on this package, there is an excellent article in USA Today about it. But the problem, as I see it, is that jobs will be created for blue collar workers only.

Some Republicans believe in trickle down economics: Is this trickle up economics?

There is no doubt that our blue collar workers have been hardest hit, but this is of the government's making. The government has allowed the illegal immigrant in to take the blue collar jobs, and the government has allowed Big Business to send other jobs overseas. So this is obviously an attempt to fix some of the damage that the Bush administration has done.

I do know that something may be better than nothing, but is it enough? And what of the pork that has wormed it's way into the package?

Again, we see a government that gives more lip service than actual service.

USA Today says "The $789 billion stimulus bill moving toward final passage by Congress will not quickly solve the historic problems besetting the economy, but it could reduce the damage, while providing relief for the unemployed and the uninsured."

That's wonderful if you've hit rock-bottom. But what about those of us who haven't? We have struggled but managed to pay our bills. We aren't in dire straights yet, but it's because we're sacrificing and scraping by.

If they're not careful, we will be penalized for our responsibility, while irresponsible spending and behaviors are rewarded.

Keeping Helga Busy

My best friend, Pov, and I recently volunteered to field calls for our local Christian radio network. It's a great network, full of very kindly people and great programs. As with all charitable groups, donations keep it afloat and they were having a fund drive.

Pov ended up seated next to a very nice elderly lady, who introduced herself to us as "Helga". Helga had a wonderful sense of humor, and soon she and Pov were as thick as thieves. Pov missed his calling as a stand up comedian, and in-between phone calls you could hear Helga shrieking with laughter. I cringed at times, wondering if it carried onto the airwaves, as the deejays were drifting among the volunteers, interviewing them on the air.

"Alissa", a personable and flamboyant deejay, came up to us during a lull in the calls and told us that she'd be interviewing us soon, if we weren't on the phone. Pov shook his head violently. "Oh no, not me," he said. "You don't want that. Pick her," he said, gesturing at me.

"OK, I'll just talk to the better half, then," said Alissa, winking at me. Everyone was assuming that Pov and I were married, and I didn't have time to correct her misconception as she drifted off again.

We ended up with a growing volume of calls that kept us busy for a while. Our average donation was around $50, although some were pledging as little as $15 and some were pledging as much as $400. Many people were asking for prayer as they'd just lost their jobs. I was happy that they had enough sense to keep their donations to a minimum.

In a little while, Alissa caught me when I wasn't busy and she did a warm little folksy "so-why-are-you-doing-this" interview. I was relieved that she didn't bring up my "husband", which would force me to correct that on-air.

I soon grew busy with the phones again, and the next time I looked up, Pov was gesturing to me with an agonized look upon his face.

"What is it?" I hissed.

"I TOLD her not to interview me!" he said, looking very strained.

"What happened?" I asked skeptically. After all, how bad could it be?

"Well," Pov began, "She came up to me, thrust a microphone in my face, and asked me why I was doing this! I couldn't think of anything to say, so I told everyone to donate so that they could help keep Helga off the streets!"

"Oh NO," I gasped. "You didn't! Is Helga still talking to you?"

"Yeah," he said, looking abashed. "But," he added with growing wonder, "it worked!"

"What do you mean it worked?" I asked.

"The next call I got was from a lady who said that she had heard me on the radio and pulled over right away so that she could call in her donation immediately," he said, watching my face.

"Really?" I said incredulously.

"Yup," he nodded. "And guess how much she pledged?"

"How much?" I asked.

"Six hundred dollars," Pov announced triumphantly.

The Devil's BBQ

I was babysitting my friend's precocious five year old girl yesterday. We had to run some errands, and as we were shopping, "Tegan" and I were discussing what sort of behavior is expected of good children.

"Ah hafta be good," Tegan announced dramatically in her deep-fried southern Tennessee accent. "If not, the Devil hates little girls and he's gorna grab my soul, drag it into the depths of hell, and cook it!"

I couldn't help myself. I threw back my head and howled with laughter in the middle of the store while Tegan watched me, bewildered. "What?" she demanded. "What did ah say?"

I wiped my eyes, picturing the Devil hovering over a barbecue grill with a spatula, wearing a "Hell's Kitchen" apron.

"Who told you this?" I finally demanded.

"Mah cousin Angela," she said. "What? It's the truth!"

"Not exactly, little one," I said. "Angela sounds like a particularly nasty little girl."

"Wahl, she is," Tegan admitted. "She useta be purty mean to me."

"Well don't worry about it, honey. The Devil doesn't send children to hell if they do something bad. You believe in Jesus and he's watching out for you," I said. Or that's what I think I said. I had never had to discuss theology with a five year old before.

I called Tegan's dad, and told him what she had said so that he could handle it at another time. I listened to him roaring with laughter before I hung up the phone.

"What?" asked Tegan again. "Why is ever'one laughin'?"

"Well, that's just something that we hadn't heard before," I tried to explain soothingly.

"So he ain't gonna eat it when it's nice an crispy?" she asked.

How to Get Back at Your Girlfriend

My best friend, "Pov", called me last night. "We have a crisis on our hands," he announced.

Our friends, "Jim and Arlene", have four kids. For a farm family out of the 1900s, this would be a manageable brood, but in today's age it's rather overwhelming when neither parent has made it past high school.

Jim and Arlene are very kindly people but with little common sense and a lack of ambition. Recently two of their boys, "Romeo" (age 16) and "Howie" (age 14), were picked up for shoplifting. Jim called Pov in a panic to ask for advice, and Pov and I discussed the various options with them.

Pov and I came up with a few suggestions. Immediate punishment was of great importance: Both boys were to be grounded and have everything taken away from them. But Jim and Arlene are great at asking for advice, and then not taking it. We weren't too sure about how well they would handle the situation.

However, shoplifting turned out to be minor in comparison to the next revelation. It was at this point that Romeo also confessed to his parents that he was having a sexual relationship with Juliet, a 15 year old girl.

Sex between teens is, sadly, not uncommon. But there is a line drawn by the court system between 15 and 16 year olds. It is possible for a 16 year old to be thrown in jail if he's caught having sex with a child who is 15 or younger. Furthermore, it is something that can become a permanent part of his record.

I warned Jim and Arlene about this. "Well, what should we do?" asked Jim. Pov and I agreed that it was a tough call. If I were Juliet's mother, I would want to know. I would be furious if I found out that another parent knew and hadn't told me. On the other hand, being honorable and approaching the other parents could land Romeo in jail.

Jim and Arlene decided to tell Romeo to cool it, and call it off with Juliet for now. Since Juliet's father is on the S.W.A.T. team, Pov and I agreed that it was probably the smartest option that Romeo could choose.

Everyone held their breath, crossed their fingers, and hoped it had all blown over. We hadn't heard another word about it until yesterday, when Juliet texted Arlene with the news that she might be pregnant.

Arlene immediately went into a panic, and was ready to go charging out the door with a pregnancy test, until Jim pointed out that this would certainly send up red flags with Juliet's parents. "It's only been a day," Jim pointed out. Then he called Pov, who in turn called me.

Everyone agreed that it still was best to simply leave it alone: The last thing that Jim and Arlene should do would be anything which might make Juliet's parents suspicious. "Give it a couple more days," I counseled them. "Wait and see. You'll know soon enough!"

I finished up the call by asking Jim if he'd really grounded Romeo and Howie, and was following through on everything that we had all agreed upon.

"Oh yes," Jim replied. "They're grounded all right! I don't know what more we can do!"

In half an hour, Jim called me again. "Well," he said breezily, "I guess it's been taken care of."

"Already?" I said, surprised. "How is that?"

"Well, I guess Juliet's been going around at school, telling all of her little friends that she might be pregnant. Romeo had warned her to keep quiet about it, and he was so angry about it that he decided to get back at her by texting her mom with the news."

"WHAT?" I gasped.

"Yup," said Jim, "But at least it's all out in the open now."

"Er, yeah, you could say that," I agreed. "But what about jail for Romeo?"

"Oh, we think it probably won't happen," Jim said breezily. "Besides, Arlene feels so much better now that everyone knows."

"Uh, OK," I said hesitantly. "Well, good luck with that."

My grandmother had a saying for such silly behavior. She called it "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Perhaps jail will smarten Romeo up a bit. And if Juliet's pregnant, he will have eighteen years of child support to teach him a permanent lesson.

But the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: None of that family has much sense. No one has stopped to think: If Romeo was truly grounded... how was he able to text Juliet's mom?

Walmart's Oily Charm

As experts agree, it is a great mistake to assume that falling gas prices are an end to our nation's fuel problems.

I recently sat down with a company that has a new gizmo which can be attached to any vehicle's engine and will allow an economizing of fuel by up to 15%, or so they claim. They say that they will not allow me to see schematics because this invention is still in the patenting process. Apparently this device was given to them by the Chinese government in exchange for an unrelated piece of hardware which they allowed the Chinese to use in some of their power plants.

Currently this company is seeking out other companies that would be willing to allow them to install this machinery so that a series of studies can be run in order to bolster their assertion that this is the most amazing invention since sliced bread.

And they're not the only ones scrambling to find fuel consumption remedies.

Walmart has recently announced that it has improved its fuel efficiency by more than 25% since 2005. It's been able to do so through more careful routing and packaging, which has reduced the number of trips required from the distribution center to the various stores. They also insist that drivers follow a dictated route, with no variances.

Finally, Walmart has retooled 15 trucks in Arizona to run on the used cooking grease which comes from their delicatessans. Their plans are to expand this number to other areas soon.

Love them or hate them, Walmart continues to be a success story due to their never-ending quest to save a dime whenever possible.

I was in Walmart this Sunday. Their entire store is the size of a couple warehouses stacked together, and the smell of food permeated every inch. I didn't find it at all appealing, but what is appealing is the notion that they will soon be recycling that oil into something which may set the standards for future retailers.

Karen Dinsfriend

UPDATE 2/4/16: This article was originally written on 1/30/09 and it contains my own knowledge of a victim of a famous serial killer and how it affected me. It is written in respectful truth. Since then, people have periodically left comments that are relevant. Comments that are distasteful or irrelevant will, of course, be deleted. That being said, anonymous requests or comments from people to remove this post will be ignored as I don't know the source. And, frankly, if the attention that this article receives gets the attention of the authorities who may be able to move Long along to the gas chambers after 30+ years, then it is well worth it, isn't it? 

I recently got a request from a stranger to take this editorial down, saying the post was suddenly offensive to Karen's surviving family members. However, this post has been up for 7 years so I find this highly improbable. Some of them have supposedly already contributed to the comments (again, there is no way of knowing who really is contributing).  And how do we make the distinction? What if half of her existing family wants her personalized and the other half does not, for whatever reason?

Other crime sites detail Bobby Joe Long's crimes and they would scoff at anyone attempting to remove such information. Likewise, I will not be removing this post. Instead, I would encourage all energies to be directed to the Department of Corrections in an attempt to speed along Long's journey to the death chamber.

When I was young, my family and honorary aunt and uncle were involved in attempting to help rehabilitate women from prison. One of the women my aunt tried to help was Karen Dinsfriend. Although I rarely mention real names in my writing, there is a reason for this exception.

Karen Dinsfriend was a engaging but manipulative: A woman who had repeated run-ins with the law. She had a young daughter, Alexa, who was only 2 years old when my aunt met them. Karen was in prison for one of her usual problems: Prostitution.

Alexa had no home, and Karen didn't want her to go into the foster care system (or so I was told). She latched onto my aunt and uncle and begged my aunt to take in Alexa until Karen got out of prison. My aunt agreed.

Over the next couple of years, my aunt and uncle raised Alexa as their own daughter. They had good reason to: Karen had decided that Alexa was better off with a stable family, and Alexa cramped her style. Karen kept promising them that she would sign the adoption papers, but at the same time, she kept putting them off.

When the time came and Karen got out of prison, she showed up on their doorstep, demanding Alexa. No one fully understood the change of heart, but everyone knew that Karen was serious about this.

The system had declared that Karen was rehabilitated, and my aunt and uncle had to face a hard decision: Should they give the child back to a mother who was potentially reformed and could now be a good mother? Or should they spend the money to fight for custody?

My aunt and uncle debated this for a long time, but they eventually allowed Karen to leave with Alexa.

That was the last my aunt and uncle saw of Alexa, to the best of my knowledge. The last they heard, Alexa was living in a car with her mother (who was still turning tricks and doing drugs).

Until Karen disappeared one day.

Although we never found out exactly what happened to Alexa, we know that she went back into foster care. She should be in her mid-thirties by now.

But we do know what happened to Karen: She will go down in history as the victim of Bobby Joe Long, notorious serial killer.

"On October 14, 1984, a fifth body was discovered in northeastern Hillsborough County.

Her wrists were bound with a red bandana, and her legs and neck had been tied with a long thick shoelace. She had been beaten about the head and raped. Her yellow sweatshirt was pulled up to her neck, exposing a bruised and bloodied torso, with indicators that she had been dragged. She was wearing only the sweatshirt, although the rest of what appeared to be her clothing was scattered nearby.

The cause of death was strangulation.

Because she was a known prostitute and drug addict, the investigating team had recognized her, but she was officially identified by her fingerprints as Karen Beth Dinsfriend, 28. To link her with the other victims, both types of the red fibers had been found on her clothes. There were also brown Caucasian pubic hairs and semen that indicated A and H blood substances."

When Long was captured in November 1984, "He described the murder of Karen Dinsfriend, in which he had started to strangle her in one orange grove, but had heard dogs barking, so he put her in the trunk and moved her to another grove where he finished the job."

But Karen was one of many. Long's transcribed confession ran 45 pages long.

Bobby Joe Long is still in prison, despite having a death sentence. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but in Bobby Joe's case they stopped moving long ago.

Most of Bobby Joe Long's victims were unloved and disliked. They were the women that could be picked up cheaply, used, and discarded.

I still can see Karen, walking up the road toward me, her feet in flipflops and dusty from a long walk, wearing ragged denim shorts and a red bandana shirt tied at her midriff. She was deeply tanned, slender, with nervous, quick movements and a lit cigarette that she would draw deeply from, as if to savor every inch of it.

The last time I saw her, she was sporting a horrid afro-style perm (which was very trendy in the early 80s). By the time she was killed, her hair was in a simple flip shag. Her final picture makes her look so young and vulnerable: It doesn't show that inner steel or devil-may-care toughness which she wore like a badge.

None of us liked Karen very much, and she was rife with many problems, but she was a human being who did not deserve her fate.

The Weather

It's a nice balmy 70+ degrees here in the Tampa Bay area. It looks as if this may be what we will be able to expect for Super Bowl this Sunday.

Today I have been puttering about outside, gardening. I'm on my way outdoors again to enjoy this weather. This is the enjoyable aspect of climate change. The drought, which has been going on for years, is another facet and one that is more worrisome.

I'm glad that we have the option of using reclaimed water here. I've put in a massive vegetable garden (with the help of my friend, Pov), and am making other alterations. Thankfully I can use the reclaimed water for this marvellous garden, but what would happen if I couldn't? We may have such a problem in the future that even reclaimed water will be regulated.

Because Florida's politicians and Big Business have been so terribly greedy, there's actually a glut of housing now. Some experts say that it will be about three years before there is a demand for any new housing.

This is good, as we're desperately overcrowded and stealing water from our northern neighbors, as it is.

Let's just hope that climate change can be slowed or reversed, before it's too late. In the meantime, I am happy for reclaimed water.

Barack Obama's First Week

First, let me recommend this article to you, written by Deroy Murdock, who examines the positives of Barack Obama from a conservative black man's viewpoint. This is well-written and it's what so many of us hope for.

Second, let's look at some of what Obama's done so far:

1. He rescinded the Mexico City Policy, which means that we will now allow aid to non-governmental organizations that encourage or perform abortions.

There are, of course, the usual moral objections that we stick-in-the-muds have about killing babies. However, most Democrats and Republicans will view this favorably for various reasons. The Democrats want to spare mothers the inconvenience of having a child, and many Republicans will find that this will save us a great deal of overseas welfare payments in the future. And they will reason that if everyone is busy matching us in killing off the next generation, we will have fewer worries about our own population's decline.

This was expected. My bet is that it is here to stay, and will never be genuinely opposed again. In fact, some groups may start to demand that we only give aid to overseas organizations that encourage abortion: After all, why should we be the only country experiencing self-imposed genocide?

This will also stop all those yucky commercials showing dying children overseas: They'll already be dead.

2. It looks as if Obama will return the States' right to impose their own restrictions on vehicles and vehicle emissions.

It's about time!

I live in Florida, which is surrounded on three sides by water. This means that smog is non-existant here, due to our wind patterns. But we certainly are happy to send it elsewhere. No one can drive with their windows opened, unless they're inhaling fumes to get high and, at the end of the trip, they are usually sporting a lovely diesel smell.

Of course environmental restrictions on vehicles and vehicle emissions will impact the poor, because it will create standards which will cost more money to achieve. However, I am very much in favor of this since it will help our struggling environment and save fuel, as it will cut back on vehicles on the road. We may see buses in increasing use, once again.

We will certainly see an end to all those dirt-encrusted cars packed full of an impossible amount of illegal immigrants and belching black clouds as they trundle down the road.

3. I'm sure there are other things that Obama has done in this first week which are much more significant than the color of the drapes or his choice of a lobbyist to be the next Secretary of Defense. Please feel free to contribute!

Nationalized Health Care

There are really two primary types of conservatives: The Neo-con, who is pro Big Business and therefore against anything which could impact it, and the Classic Conservative (CC), who is conservative in social issues and makes that his primary focus. (We'll talk about liberals and their beliefs another time).

During the most recent Bush administration, the typical CC has shown himself to be very gullible. All Bush had to do was say "I'm a Christian" and the average CC would fall in line. As we all know, Bush was a Neo-con.

There are those of us who are a strange mix of conservative and liberal, depending on the issues. We're called moderates. And as a moderate, there are times I applaud certain conservative talk show hosts, and there are times when I cringe.

So, despite impressions to the contrary, I still have hope that Barack Obama will be able to make some changes in areas that desperately need that change. These are areas which no Neo-con would touch, although a CC might. One of these areas is Nationalized Health Care (NHC).

I recently heard a talk show host rant on and on about how NHC would be the final nail in the coffin of democracy. He whined about how this was truly socialism, and then self-righteously pointed out that it would be spending even more money than we've already spent... and we're over 3 trillion dollars in debt.

Such blatant hypocrisy!

There is no doubt that we're in terrible debt, thanks to the Bush administration. But does this mean that we should continue to throw good money after bad in the war in Iraq? Because, let's be honest here for a minute, this is a question of whether we want to waste more money and lives in Iraq or if we'd rather put that money into our own country and our own people.

Here's what the NHC controversy is NOT: It is NOT a discussion about socialism.

If these Neo-cons were so hell-bent on destroying any vestiges of socialism in our country, they would have rescinded all taxation and stopped funds for road work, bridges, infrastructure, and parks.

The classic Neo-con answer to every problem is to privatize it. This is due to their mistaken assertion that Big Business will always step in and fill the breech. And yet, I have never had an insurance company call me up and say "You know what, Saur? We see that you're paying too much in premiums and you won't be able to afford this much longer. So, we've decided to help you out by slashing our prices in half!"

I've never had a doctor's office look at my bill and say "Hey! How'd THAT happen? Old Mrs. McGillicutty is only paying $15 per office visit. Now - she has Medicare and they do pay part of that, but we don't think you should be paying MORE than those Medicare rates! No sirree! Let's fix this right away!"

I've never had a pharmacist hand me my medications and say "Wow! $400! Let's see what we can do to help you reduce that cost! Here, let me have that."

Why has none of this ever happened? Because they all belong in the Big Business category and they are greedy.

It is human nature to be greedy. It is human nature to do what we want: Full speed ahead! Damn the torpedos!

And that is why the Federal Government needs to intervene. Because if it were left up to Big Business only, we would not have merely potholes in our roads - we would have no roads at all.

City water works would be a thing of the past. We would only be able to buy water at a premium, and most of us would have our own wells.

As for bridges: We'd learn to use ferries again.

There are times that we need the Federal Government. We cannot expect everyone to feel the charitable need to help their fellow man. In fact, history shows us that human nature is hardly what we want to depend on.

If welfare was completely privatized, how many citizens would donate money and food on a regular basis? We all know the answer: There would be many people left to starve in the streets.

And NHC is a similar concept.

It is currently not in Big Business' best interest to help out those of us who are either uninsured or struggling to keep our private (and crappy) insurance. Big Business succeeds by making a profit while doling out the fewest services and benefits that it can. Only the Federal Government can trump Big Business.

It is time to play the trump card.

The Obameter

We have a good local newspaper called The St. Pete Times. Usually it's good: Not great. This is not entirely the fault of The St. Pete Times. There are many papers struggling to survive, and the Times has had to cut back a great deal on staff and output.

But recently they've started Politifact, which features the Obameter - a continual guide to promises kept and facts checked on statements made by both Obama and others in his government. It's a wonderful little gimmick and I now have the shorter of the two Obameters installed to the right on this page.

Of course this is one more example of the news being broken down in easy-to-digest pieces, and that's sometimes dangerous. It can encourage people to not take the time to thoroughly understand the issues on their own. However, we increasingly have less time to devote to the things which are important (such as politics) and I find that it's both fun and informative.

It will be interesting to see how accurate this is, as The St. Pete Times has shown a liberal bias in the past (and as most of you know, I prefer a more balanced, moderate view). But for now, the Obameter will reside to the right of my posts.

Honoring MLK

Two years ago, I wrote about Martin Luther King in Heroes With Blemishes. But last year I tackled something else which I will reprint here:

Why is it that schools and the post office are closed on Martin Luther King Day when they aren't on Washington and Lincoln's birthdays (as they once were)? Instead, we have combined their birthdays into one, calling it "Presidents Day". It's as if we've decided that these amazing men don't each deserve a holiday of their own.

If two great Presidents can be so disregarded, why are we making such a fuss over a man who was not even the leader of our nation? I'll grant you that he was 'a' leader, but hardly a leader as powerful as a U.S. President.

Before anyone cries 'racist' (as inevitably happens when a white person discusses a black issue) let me assure you that one of my very best friends is black. So please... table the label.

For the sake of argument, it could be said that although MLK was not as powerful as a President, he was certainly a major leader for black people in this country, and I would agree with that. But what about alternative icons such as Booker T. Washington who has no recorded instance of cheating on his wives (he was widowed twice) and also never plagiarized a single paragraph (unlike MLK)?

Is Booker T. Washington so far removed from our lowered standards that he seems like an almost fictional character?

What of George Washington Carver, who made contributions to not simply a small segment of society but to society as a whole, while serving as an upstanding role model? Is he also to be disregarded because he is simply 'old school' and our modern work ethic (or lack of it) cannot come close to his standards?

Sometimes it is easier to idolize people who are obviously flawed, in the subconscious belief that we are somewhat better in comparison. And when someone is only marginally better than we are, the goal seems more achievable. Yet shouldn't we hold up men and women who represent what we should be and not what we are? Shouldn't our heroes be men and women who have achieved accomplishments and lived honorably? I ask this of all the races.

Yet for many of us, our role models are Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Donald Trump, Tom Cruise, and the latest contestants in American Idol. Again, we like our heroes to be flawed so that we can feel that they are, in some way, equal to or even less than we are.

Top athletes don't do this. You never hear of the athlete who is successful because his role model was the person who received the bronze medal in the Olympics. No! We all aspire to win the gold!

So why do we focus on the bronze medal winners in the human race?

Little Orphan Annie (and The Goblins)

Last night my best friend, Pov, and I were over at my parents' home for dinner. His daughter, "Bugs", was with us, and we sat around the table after dinner talking about many things.

At some point, I brought up an old poem my mother used to tell us when we were very little because I wanted Bugs to hear it. It always caused shivers to run up and down my spine. The new generation is much more jaded than mine, so I didn't expect that it would have the same effect, but Mom is a wonderful story teller.

Mom had learned the poem from a series of books my grandmother had (which have been passed down to me) called "The Home University Bookshelf". When I was little, I read through most of them, although the section on childcare bored me and I didn't bother with that particular volume.

The first of the 10 volume set is devoted to literature, and it's always been my favorite. The poem Little Orphan Annie is in there, among many others. This is the poem which my mom recited last night. It's made much more impressive when she grabs you after each paragraph. When we were kids, it scared the heck out of us!

What is also interesting is this reminder of our history. Before 1941, child labor was still possible and quite common in many areas. Orphans, by definition, were entirely alone and would often be left to starve to death unless they were "lucky" enough to be taken in by a charity (which would exploit them) or a family (which would exploit them) or a business (which... well, you get the picture).

This poem is actually about a relatively "lucky" orphan: Little Orphan Annie. The poem later inspired Harold Gray to create his famous comic strip character by the same name. The first Little Orphan Annie comic strip was published thirty-nine years later, in 1924.


Little Orphan Annie's come to our house to stay,
And wash the cups and saucers up, and brush the crumbs away,
And shoo the chickens off the porch and dust the hearth and sweep,
And make the fire, and bake the bread, and earn her board and keep;
And all us other children, when the supper things is done,
We set around the kitchen fire and has the mostest fun
A-listenin' to the witch tales that Annie tells about,
And the Gobble-uns that gits you if you don't watch out!

Once they was a little boy who wouldn't say his prayers--
And when he went to bed at night, away upstairs,
His mammy heard him holler and his daddy heard him bawl,
And when they turned the kivvers down, he wasn't there at all!
And they seeked him in the rafter room, and cubby hole and press,
And seeked him up the chimney flue, and everywheres, I guess;
But all they ever found was just his pants and round about!
And the Gobble-uns'll git you if you don't watch out!

And one time a little girl would always laugh and grin,
And make fun of everyone, and all her blood and kin;
And once when they was company and old folks was there,
She mocked them and shocked them and said she didn't care!
And just as she kicked her heels, and turnt to run and hide,
They was two great big Black Things a-standin'by her side,
And they snatched her through the ceiling
'fore she knowed what she's about!
And the Gobble-uns'll git you if you don't watch out!

And little Orphan Annie says, when the blaze is blue,
And the lampwick sputters, and the wind goes woo-oo!
And you hear the crickets quit and the moon is gray,
And the lightning bugs in dew is all squenched away--
You better mind your parents, and your teachers fond and dear,
And cherish them that loves you, and dry the orphan's tear,
And help the poor and needy one that cluster all about,
Or the Gobble-uns'll git you if you don't watch out!

Jury Duty

I've managed to avoid being called for jury duty until a couple of years ago. That's when I went in and told them truthfully that the American Justice system is flawed, I believe everyone should be limited to one retrial, and that we aren't hard enough on our criminals.

I wasn't picked. No surprise.

A jury is supposedly comprised of your "peers". We might be able to appeal to a broader class of people if we offered to pay our jurors more than $40 a day (if it's Federal) or $15 a day for the first three days here, which is upped to $30 a day after that. As most employers won't pay you while you're on jury duty, any juror stands to decidedly lose unless he's out of work.

Of course if we pay jurors at a higher rate, the court system becomes even more expensive to the American taxpayer... As if we don't put out enough per convict. The average convict costs us at least $30,000 a year and that's only for his "three hots and a cot". Every time we fight a new appeal from him, the costs rise.

Yes, I'm sure that at least one of you has served as a juror before. Perhaps you were part of that rare percentage that really wanted to make a difference. Your chances are better at trying to change the world through politics: And that should tell you how slim your chances are.

The only thing that will truly reform our justice system are laws that will demand fewer retrials, lessened costs, better jury selection, and better standards.

Jeb Bush Doesn't Stand a Chance

George Bush Sr. just casually mentioned the other day that he'd like his other son, Jeb, to run for President sometime soon.

Haven't we had enough of the Bush family?

Jeb Bush is, no doubt, the very best of the Bushes. He successfully ran the State of Florida for eight years and he was definately one of our better Governors. In comparison, his weakling father could only last for four years in office, and George Bush Jr. (our current President) is leaving office as a lame duck President with amazingly low approval ratings and the reputation of being a President even worse than Jimmy Carter.

So, even if Jeb Bush had the star power of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, the others in his family have effectively ruined the Bush name forever.

And Jeb seems to know this. In the past, he has said that he wants no part of the office of President of the United States, even though insiders have said for years that Daddy Dearest really wanted Jeb to run in 1998/1999 instead of his low I.Q. brother, Jr.

Jeb is talented, smart, engaging, and marketable. He's married to a latina, speaks fluent Spanish, and has always reached out to the minorities. But, he's a Bush. And that's enough to sink his ship, forever.

Although Jeb was left alone by his father and brother when he ran the State of Florida, would they stay out of his way if he ever became the President? Could we be sure that the stupidity and arrogance that his younger brother exhibited would not be present somewhere in Jeb? And what of his unimpressive father, whom few respected? Will he taint Jeb with poor advice and machinations, as he has assuredly done with Jr.?

The only way Jeb could possibly run would be if he could distance himself firmly from the other incompetants in his family. And as recent photos show, that apparently won't happen.

So even if Obama completely screws up the next four years, Jeb Bush doesn't stand a chance.

Frankincense & Myrrh and Biblical Lore Surrounding the Birth of Jesus

Today I'm going to republish this post, which I originally wrote in 2005. I'll write again on Friday. Merry Christmas to all!

In the Christian tradition of Christmas, we often see nativities that display Mary, Joseph (if you're lucky), some shepherds, baby Jesus in a manger (of course), angels, assorted barn animals and... wise men and the camels they rode in on. What's wrong with this picture?


The wise men didn't show up until Jesus was living in a house (see Matthew 2:11). Of course, Mary and Joseph were only staying in the stable temporarily. It's to be assumed they'd want to move out and get back home as soon as possible. (IMHO there's something else wrong with this picture, but I'll discuss it at another time).

Why were they in the stable?

Because there was a census taking place (see Luke 2) and all citizens were required to return to their birthplace during that census. Bethlehem was where Joseph was from and so naturally he took his pregnant fiance with him for the census because once you were engaged, you were seen to be as good as married. Since all the houses and inns were full, they ended up staying in the stables.

This was probably very common (though not much fun) for many of the travellers at that time. And because homes and inns were often structured around the animals, there wasn't much privacy. The animals were kept below, and some households lived in a level up from the animals, but exposed to the animals at all times.

Excavations have shown an arrangement where the house was made entirely out of mud and stone with a large pit in the middle of the house where the animals were kept. Then another level (up and out from the animal level) was where the family slept and cooked their meals. Picture it as shaped almost like a bowler hat, upside-down. It was often a convenient way to live because animals are warm in the winter and warm air rises. Often families slept on the rooftops in the summer.

So, Mary and Joseph were probably sleeping downstairs, but within sight of others who were staying upstairs. Not a lot of seclusion for an expecting mother.

There are four gospels in the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and each was written for a slightly different audience and by different authors, so each touches upon only what he thinks is important. Mark and John don't even feel that Jesus' childhood is significant, so there is no discussion of his birth.

The only mention of the wise men is in Matthew 2. Why is that?

The Book of Matthew was specifically targeted toward the Jews. The aim of the author was to tell the Jews that it was OK to believe that Christ was the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. Since the Old Testament prophesies pointed to Jesus as being King of the Jews, it was very important to establish his lineage. How do you do that, if you're Matthew?

You discuss Joseph's ancestors, since the right to kingship is passed through the father's side. Mary also seemingly had a royal lineage, and it's possibly detailed in Luke (although there's debate about that).

You also discuss how important his birth was to everyone, and how it was heralded and even indicated by signs: "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him." (Matt. 2:1-2)

So who were these magi, where did they come from, and why did they bring "...gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh"? Matthew doesn't give us a lot of details.

We know they came from the east but we don't know how long they travelled to get to Jerusalem. So, they probably would have been of middle eastern or asian descent.

Frankincense and myrrh are both resins (dried tree sap) that come from trees of the genus Boswellia (frankincense) and Commiphora (myrhh), which are common to Somalia. But that doesn't necessarily indicate that any of them were from Africa (which was west of Jerusalem) since traders went everywhere. It also doesn't exclude any nationality, since people were known to travel far away from their birthplaces.

They all were considered to be very wise and possibly practiced some form of magic (the word magi is the root for the word magician). There's no indication that they were kings, and so I would definately question the hymn "We Three Kings" (although I still love it).

They probably would have studied together, and they must have taken their beliefs very seriously if they travelled so far to worship Jesus so it might even indicate a buddhist monastery. We simply don't know.

We know that some of their beliefs probably included astrology, since they took the star seriously. However, perhaps the star would have been taken seriously by anyone at the time but most people didn't guess what it indicated. We have no knowlege about it's appearance, so we can only surmise.

Additionally, we have no idea how many magi there were. They probably represented a community, and there may have been as little as 2 or they could have numbered in the hundreds. They certainly impressed Herod when they approached him, and it wasn't always easy to get an audience with him! In fact, Herod was impressed enough to kill every male (age 2 and under) in Bethlehem in order to eliminate the competition (Mary and Joseph had already whisked Jesus away to Egypt for a while).

Why the gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh? I have been burning frankincense and myrrh daily, and it smells wonderful. But not only were they burned for fragrance, they were used in toiletries and oils. They were products that were very expensive, and they would have been considered a frivolity for anyone less than royalty. These were gifts that were fit for a King. And thus Matthew's case was made.

Bush's "Right of Conscience" Rule: Why it's a Mistake

In typically sneaky George Bush fashion, he has issued a last-minute rule, to be published today in the Federal Register, which will take effect the day before he leaves office. It's a rule that guarantees "doctors, hospitals, and even receptionists and volunteers in medical experiments the right to refuse to participate in medical care they find morally objectionable."

This is an obvious attempt to shield those who do not believe in abortions from performing or participating in one. And being an abortion opponent, I empathise. But this ruling has a much wider-sweeping range of possibilities than the short-sighted George Bush has ever considered.

What if an emergency room doctor refuses to treat a potential murderer or other criminal that he finds "morally objectionable"? And what if that doctor turns out to be wrong and an innocent person dies? What if he's right: Does that make it ethically OK to leave someone bleeding to death in your emergency room?

What if a receptionist refuses to announce a patient because she knows he's gay? Or living 'in sin' with someone? Or merely of a different faith than hers?

This will put the medical community in terrible conflict. As we know, you aren't supposed to ask personal questions during an interview. But how else are you to discover if your new receptionist believes that all Catholics are "of the Devil"? Under this new rule, you need to know before you hire her, obviously.

And what will need to be revealed to volunteers in medical studies? Will every study now have to have moral arguments published by opposing analysts, so that the volunteers remain fully informed and can exercise their right to choose? What if halfway through the study they suddenly change their minds due to a change in conscience? Will all their data be destroyed? Will this ultimately invalidate or prolong studies, thus adding to costs?

Will all pharmacists be able to refuse to sell someone condoms if they think that they're using them for the wrong purpose? Will they be able to refuse to dispense medications which can heal or ameliorate sexual diseases because they think that those diseases are a judgement from God?

As usual, George Bush has leaped before he looked. Let's hope that Barack Obama will be able to quickly reverse this rule once he assumes office.

Caylee Anthony

By now, I'm betting that everyone's heard of Caylee Anthony's disappearance and her mother's (Casey Anthony) arrest here in Orlando, Florida. However, if you don't know the details, let me sum them up quickly. (If you want a detailed investigation into the case so far, I recommend that you go here).

Casey Anthony was apparently over-indulged and pampered by two very gullible parents. As a result, she led a very self-absorbed lifestyle which included promiscuity that would make Paris Hilton blush, alcohol and drugs (and lots of them), lying, and stealing, among other things. In other words, Casey has the typical sociopathic profile.

Casey's three-year-old daughter, Caylee, got in the way of her chosen lifestyle. As a result, Casey finally decided that motherhood wasn't for her, and she killed Caylee to take care of the problem.

A month after Caylee's disappearance, Casey's mother (Cindy) suddenly realized she hadn't seen her grandchild in a while. She panicked and called the police. During the ensuing investigation, the police were lied to so much by Casey that it almost seemed that she was lying for the simple joy of it. Which is why it is no suprise to hear that Casey's career goal in life was to become a politician.

Just kidding. Casey is even slimier than most politicians. Note that I said most.

Obviously this made the police very suspicious. So, they did some investigating and found rotting corpse fumes and decomposing hair in Casey's trunk.

Although Cindy Anthony had originally called the police to report Caylee's disappearance, and had said hysterically that there was a horrible smell in Casey's trunk, she suddenly changed her mind.

So at this point, Casey's family sprang into action and claimed that the smell in the trunk was probably just a rotting pizza (I don't know who their pizza company is, but I recommend against eating any if it gives off corpse fumes).

During all of this, Casey was in and out of jail on various charges the police kept throwing her way in an attempt to drag a confession out of her or hold her until enough evidence was accumulated. Casey, in an obvious attempt for star billing at the Oscars, gave an award winning performance as The Grieving And Worried Mother until pictures showing her partying after Caylee's disappearance strained everyone's credulity.

Finally the police had enough. Loaded with enough information to sink a luxury liner, they arrested Casey for Caylee's murder. However, Casey could rest somewhat easy, as repeated search attempts had not turned up little Caylee's body.

Until a week ago, when someone stumbled across Caylee's corpse in the woods.

Upon hearing of the discovery of Caylee's body, Casey reportedly went into hysterics. This was only natural, as a corpse is the best murder evidence that there is, and Casey knew her chances of getting away with the murder had just been drastically lessened.

The results are not official yet, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that this corpse is Caylee. It remains to be seen if Casey's gullible parents are going to continue to try to defend their sociopathic daughter or not. Perhaps their loyalty will falter when we learn why there was duct tape wrapped around the child's skull.

Or perhaps the Anthonys will continue in a deluded state, claiming that somehow someone murdered Caylee, for unbelievable reasons of their own, and then conveniently ditched the child's body in the Anthony's neighborhood.

Homosexuality & The Bible

Today I am co-authoring this with a guest blogger and well-known published author whom I will call "Calliope". Over the weekend, Calliope shot a recent article in Newsweek over to me with some comments that I will be incorporating into this piece.

And... For those of you who merely want an argument, be sure that you really understand what is being said before you wade into the fray. This is something that you will need to examine thoroughly before you weigh in. This is not simply an 'interpretation' issue: The evidence is clear.

You don't have to like what the Bible says - that's OK. But if you claim to believe in the Bible, you must deal with it. Don't like it? Fine - try another faith: Be my guest. I do not believe that the sun will stop shining if you choose another faith (or no faith at all).

NOTE: This is not a discussion of whether gay marriage should be allowed in the USA. That was discussed earlier in another post here. It is only a discussion of the Biblical view on gays and gay marriage.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
On December 6, 2008, Lisa Miller wrote an article in Newsweek titled "Our Mutual Joy." It is a pitiful attempt at deliberate misinterpretation and tampering of scriptures in order to fit an agenda. To start out her salvo, Lisa uses examples of polygamy and apparent lukewarm recommendations of marriage:

"Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so."

But the truth is drastically different. As Calliope writes:

"Just because the Bible records some cases of polygamy does not mean that it approves of polygamy. The pattern established in the Bible by God (and often repeated) is one man, one woman (Genesis 3:24, Eph. 5:31). Church leaders in the New Testament are to be the husband of one wife (I Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6)."

In addition, many Jews and Christians over the years have pointed to the spicy heterosexual Song of Solomon (a.k.a. the Song of Songs) as a role model of an ideal, passionate marriage. It is hardly the stuff of prudes, as the bride and groom extol each other's physical attributes in great detail. They also discuss the raptures of the physical side of marriage.

And although the apostle Paul himself said (in the New Testament) that marriage was not the first and best choice, it is important to remember the situation at that time, when people were regularly being persecuted for their faith: Marriage and families complicated matters even further (ask anyone who is currently a missionary). And yet we know that at least one of Jesus' disciples (Peter) was married. So were Paul's compadres, Priscilla and Aquila.

The New Testament also spells out how husbands and wives are to treat each other. This was unique at the time, as women were almost always regarded by most people as a step-up from the slaves and without rights.

So, Lisa is woefully wrong. She is not merely cherrypicking scriptures to fit her agenda - she is ignoring so many facts that she is in danger of being asked to work on O.J. Simpson's legal team.

For instance, Lisa mentions that Jesus condemns divorce, but claims that this was a way to allow men the option to cheat on their wives. Lisa completely neglects The Divorce Clause.

What is The Divorce Clause, you ask?

In Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus says “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”

At the time of his pronouncement, Jesus was addressing only men. However, this is traditionally interpreted as a rule that applies to both men and women. Additionally, it was a protection for the women at the time, since men were readily divorcing and remarrying women at their own convenience during a time when women could not easily fend for themselves and had to live according to their husbands' whims.

Lisa goes on to state "...while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." This is an utter falsehood.

I'll grant you that the Bible doesn't start with a dictionary which includes the definitions of every word used in it. That's because it doesn't have to. It uses terms and ideas that were universally accepted then.

If a Jew had walked up to a fellow Jew during Old Testament times and tried to argue that marriage could be between two people of the same sex, the best response he could hope for would be a hearty chuckle. The worst response he might encounter would be a very public death at the hands of an angry mob.

Why?

Because the Bible was and is very explicit in it's stand on homosexuality.

Calliope notes:

"Homosexuality is clearly condemned, both in the Old Testament (Lev. 18:22, Genesis 19 with Jude 1:7, etc.) and in the New Testament (Rom. 1:21-27; I Cor. 6:9-10, etc.) To teach the contrary is the ultimate in Scripture-twisting.

Also: Are we to assume that God has changed His mind about homosexuality? Malachi 3:6 "I am the Lord. I do not change."

This is also said about Jesus Christ in Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same: yesterday and today and forever."

But Lisa writes "...the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry).""

This goes back to the 'lack' of a dictionary at the beginning of the Bible. Again, everyone knew what homosexuality meant, and it was used for both sexes.

In Romans chapter 1, the author speaks of God condemning evil people and punishing them. In Romans 1:26, we read "For this reason, God delivered them to degrading passions as their females exchanged their natural sexual function for one that is unnatural." Obviously the Bible doesn't regard homosexuality as a reward, but as something to be ashamed and horrified about.

Lisa also attempts to dismiss the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality by saying that it was only present in the Old Testament, but the book of Romans is in the New Testament and it invalidates her claim.

Lisa furthers her falacious arguments by adding "...progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery."

This would only be argued by a 'progressive' scholar who doesn't know what language the Bible is written in, and chooses to disregard it. The word for 'lust' here in the original language means just that - a sexual desire.

Going back to her attack on traditional marriage, Lisa triumphantly declares "Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands' frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20th."

Nice statistics for Lisa, if true. But they're not. Simply because something is practiced does not make it acceptable, and cheating on one's spouse was never acceptable or sanctioned by the Bible. (The problem with the issue of polygamy was dealt with earlier in this post).

Lisa attempts to wind up her article by writing "We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future."

Really? And what selective truths would that include? When do the restrictions against parents marrying their children become passe? When do we decide that it's OK to have sex with a goat because we choose to believe that this is no longer applicable to modern times?

One cannot take what one chooses from a religion and then leave the rest. At that point, it becomes a different religion entirely. So, if Lisa has decided to censor the Bible, cutting out passages at will, then I recommend that she start The Church of Lisa. It certainly will no longer be recognizable as Christianity.

The issue is not as simple as Lisa would like to portray it. This is the reason that churches are battling within their ranks. It is why the Episcopal church now has a major split.

Lisa then tries the worn out "What Would Jesus Do?" card. She writes "In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins..." Not true. Again.

As Calliope points out, Jesus says he doesn't change. And he also makes it very clear that he does not tolerate all forms of sin because he's just a nice guy who wants everyone to get along. In fact, Jesus was a pretty unpopular guy among many at the time of his arrival on the scene. Crowds don't repeatedly seek to kill someone who is preaching tolerance of everything. Where Jesus showed tolerance was his acceptance of anyone who repented from evil and believed he was the Messiah.

Somehow, I doubt that Lisa believes that.

In her article, Lisa sums up her position in one sentence: "Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament..."

She is, of course, correct. And neither are Adam and Steve.