Battle of the Bands LIII

04/16/2008, 1:51 pm -- by | No Comments

Here are the next batch of band names from Luke (One or the Other moves on!)

{democracy:234}

Bible Discussion — Luke 18

04/16/2008, 1:00 pm -- by | No Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next two chapters of Luke, Luke 18.

Genesis: 1-4 | 5-9 | 10-14 | 15-18 | 19-22 | 23-26
27-29 | 30-32 | 33-36 | 37-39 | 40-43 | 44-46 | 47-50
Exodus: 1-4 | 5-8 | 9-11 | 12-14 | 15-18
19-22 | 23-26 | 27-30 | 31-34 | 35-40
Romans: Ch. 1 | Ch. 2 | Ch. 3 | Ch. 4 | Ch. 5 | Ch. 6 | Ch. 7 | Ch. 8 (I)
Ch. 8 (II) | Ch. 9 | Ch. 10 | Ch. 11 | Ch. 12 | Ch. 13 | Ch. 14 | Ch. 15-16
Luke: 1:1-38 | 1:39-2:40 | 2:41-3:38 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14-15 | 16-17

 
INTRODUCTION:
David:
In this chapter God uses a story about an unjust judge to make two points. One, men ought always to pray and not faint. Two, there will be times in your life when the God who loves you so much will appear disinterested in you and your problems, but that is never true. When this happens, refer to point one.

 
SOMETHING YOU’D NEVER NOTICED BEFORE:
Connie:
In John’s telling of the Bartimaeus story, he says he wants to regain his sight. Matthew reports that there were two blind men, and they asked Jesus to receive their sight. I keyed in on the word regain, because I think that sometimes we don’t appreciate what we have until we lose it. We need to stop that behavior, saints.

Chloe:
I never noticed that little phrase in verse 7 — “cry out to Him day and night.” Jesus isn\’t talking about any prayer. He\’s talking about prayers with depths of emotion and need. It\’s a promise, but not the promise we may like to interpret it as.

Steve:
Jesus made the blind man ask for his sight (as Josh mentions below in a great illustration).

David:
Infants were being blessed, but not baptized — something Protestants still do today.

 
BEST BAND NAME FROM THE PASSAGE:
Steve: Flog
Josh: Tax Men
Josh, Connie: Scourge[d]
David: How Hardly; Sorrowful Rich

Continued here!

Please Procrastinate

04/16/2008, 10:00 am -- by | 1 Comment

Last Sunday, Erin and I went to Geneseo for some grocery shopping. Well, great, you\’re no doubt thinking, who cares?

But it was a very important day. I had just gotten back from a writing retreat and had a lot of homework to do. She always has a lot of homework to do. We needed to buckle down and plow through our respective to-do lists.

But the sky was piercing and the wind was meandering and everyone else was playing catch outside.

So we threw on capris and sleeveless shirts for the first time this year, and when our housemates asked us where we going as we giggled our way out the door, all we said was, “Crazy!”

We drove with the windows down, my feet on the dash (Death Cab in our heads), as I read a book out loud. We did our grocery shopping, then went to Starbucks. And Dunkin\’ Donuts. And Tim Hortons. To be fair, the last two were good deeds, not indulgences. (When everyone figured out where we\’d gone, they had called and placed their order.)

On the way back, as twilight settled and the warm air turned chilly and wet, we pulled over next to standing water and Erin introduced me to the peepers, those little frogs that almost sound like crickets. I had never noticed them before. We came home bearing gifts of coffee and donuts and ice cream; never mind that every donut had a sizable bite out of it. Finder\’s fee and all that.

The homework didn\’t get done. I didn\’t finish reading the chapter, I didn\’t do the worksheet, and I didn\’t write the reading response. But I got an A on the quiz, and it didn\’t kill me not to turn an assignment in. I\’ll forget that within the month. I will not forget my adventure with Erin. The essence of that little road trip will come back every time I hear the peepers, every time I drive with the windows down, every time I drive through Geneseo or go to Wegmans.

The work will get done. It always does. The adventure will pass you by.

Joke of the Day, 4/16/08

04/16/2008, 7:00 am -- by | No Comments

A man walking along a country lane came across a shepherd and his huge flock of sheep. Stopping to rest, he told the shepherd, “I’ll bet you $100 against one of your sheep that I can tell you the exact number in your flock.”

The shepherd thought it over. It was a big flock, so he took the bet.

The man looked around and answered, “869.” The shepherd was astonished; he was exactly right.

The shepherd said, “Okay, I’m a man of my word, take an animal.” The man picked one up and started to walk away.

“Wait,” cried the shepherd, “let me have a chance to get even. Double or nothing, I can guess your exact occupation.” The man agreed. “You’re a government accountant,” said the shepherd.

“Amazing!” responded the man. “Exactly right! How did you deduce that?”

“Well,” said the shepherd, “Put down my dog and I’ll tell you.”

Clash of the Titans LXXVIII: Co-ed Dorms

04/15/2008, 2:32 pm -- by | No Comments

In this corner, opposing co-ed dorms, is Steve!

And in this corner, backing them, is Erin!

The context of this clash was whether it would be wise for a Christian college to build a dorm that would house both men and women. I think it would be both foolish and unnecessary.

I strive, in all areas, for a realistic philosophy, based on facts and data. History tells me it is impossible for sinful humanity to eradicate poverty. Obvious physical and emotional differences between the sexes illustrate why (in general) I prefer my firefighters male and my schoolteachers female. I would be a terrible painter, so rather than fighting for a Pyrrhic victory in the name of fairness, I seek the best realistic outcome.

To fight poverty, that means capitalism — using greed to increase wealth for all. In the workplace, that means a system where anyone can work a job, but we don’t lower standards to achieve arbitrary quotas. And when it comes to young adults, it means we consider all the consequences of having them (not just ones on close-knit ministry teams) sleep in close proximity. Without some tremendous benefit, the simple biology of the matter rules it out instantly. I don’t see that benefit.

Erin argues that separating genders “warps the ideals” each holds about the other. That might be true — MIGHT — if we were returning to the days of separate classes and segregated chapel services. But we’re talking about separate sleeping areas — places where men can be fools without irritating women, and where women can be fools without feeling judged by men. We’re talking about a system that makes it easy to see who belongs in a dorm, making sexual assault far more difficult.

Besides, if anything warps gender ideals, it’s co-ed dorms. At Syracuse, they corroded and profaned relationships, breeding misbehavior, distracting from studies, and (from all accounts) eliminating romance. They were a buffet of loveless hookups and debauchery. In this era where so much of our lives are open to the world, there is still something powerful to be said for mystery — for boundaries. Houghton is not Syracuse, but co-ed dorms still do not reflect real life, because they are not much like reality. They are a contrived environment vastly unlike any other in the world, and if you think they’ll help you learn about men, I expect you’ll learn the wrong things.

Living with the opposite sex is not the same as knowing them. I learned about women by growing up with a mother and sisters, and by meeting women outside my home. I don’t understand how seeing female classmates brushing their teeth in pajamas would have improved our interaction — or much of anything, really… At least anything worth improving.

As for “real life,” the point of college is to educate people and prepare them for careers. Thus, it need not reflect “real life” in any significant way; in fact, it’s easier to learn when you don’t have to work for a living at the same time. And so students choose their own schedules; sleep in with few consequences; queue up at certain times to be fed by others; and deal with virtually none of the hassles of independent life. American colleges give students the illusion of maturity while protecting them from real responsibility. Many students never even connect the experience of college with its rapidly rising costs, thanks to loans and parents.

Yet, perversely, when college students speak of being treated as adults, they always want more of the freedom and none of the responsibility. If a college truly wished to prepare students for real life, it would not make it easier for them to act — it would make them more immediately responsible for the consequences of their actions. That is reality.

So not every decision a college makes is based on whether it trusts its students. Some things are just bad ideas. Even for good people.

I agree with what Steve says about college students crying out for “real life” and actually meaning more freedom with less (meaning almost never an equal amount of) responsibility.

Just as much as any other college student, I certainly have wanted to be treated more like an adult and then, when it happens, been a bit overwhelmed by all that it entails. Where I think that I differ is in my idea that although perhaps the modern Christian college is not intended to reflect real life, this can in no way be a positive thing.

Yes, there should be an element of the monastic, but especially at small Christian colleges, that element can very easily be taken and shoved down the throats of students who either do not understand it, do not understand why it is in place, or will continue to act out despite any actions taken to keep them in a study-focused “good student mode.”

Keeping women in one dorm and men in the other warps the ideals that either gender has of each other. Maybe I’m just exaggerating, or my experience has been strange, but this I have seen: when all women live together in one place, and are always together, warped expectations that emerge from that bunch as regards how men act on a day-to-day basis.

I’ve lived in close proximity to unrelated men for extended lengths of time, and I can honestly say that every time, I came away either thinking about, or beginning to understand, some of the differences between the sexes — and appreciating them! This you can’t get from across campus… not really.

As for mystery eliciting romance – if there’s one thing that a lot of (especially conservative) Christian youth need, it’s a deromanticizing of the college experience. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t date, but often that mystery about the opposite sex, when coupled with traditional expectations and parental pressures to get married (so common at Christian colleges…and most colleges, really) translates into a hyper-romanticized experience, which can be all the more disappointing for those who don’t themselves get a ring by spring. Does the sentiment, “God told me that you’re the one I’m supposed to marry!” disturb anyone at all?

I’m not saying that I didn’t appreciate having nights where I could walk from the shower room to my room without having to worry about a guy somewhere (and mutual embarassment). I’m not pretending that in many schools (the one where my best friend attends, Central Michigan, is a prime example) that do have co-ed dorms have seen a corroding of the male-female relationship, or distraction.

But what I am saying is that when the administration tells the student body just how deeply they care for us and believe in our ability to make choices… then go on to delineate, point by point, all of the regulations set in place to keep us dependent, immature, and well-behaved, I get frustrated.

I don’t think that, had South Hall been co-ed by wing as was possible when it was built, Houghton would have seen a major decay in the behavior of its students. To tell someone that they are mature and able and adult, but then not give them the freedom to prove that, is the same as saying that you don’t trust them, and although co-ed dorms would not solve that problem, it would certainly give that freedom.

{democracy:233}

A Few Thoughts on Vocation

04/15/2008, 9:00 am -- by | No Comments

A person knows when she has found her vocation when she stops thinking and begins to live . . . When we are not living up to our true vocation, thought deadens our life, or substitutes itself for life, or gives in to life so that our life drowns out our thinking and stifles the voice of our conscience. When we find our vocation — thought and life are one. — Thomas Merton

All of us know how difficult it can be to feel like we are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our desires are at war with our reality; we find ourselves wishing we could spend more time on some activity but feel unable to give it the attention we want. Or, worse, we’re unsure what we really, deeply want in life. If life is about finding the unique purpose God has charged us with, that is of course the deepest desire of our heart; and yet often we don’t know what that is.

Catholic mystic Thomas Merton gives us a clue. When Merton speaks of “vocation,” he is speaking more deeply than our paid employment. He is speaking about the deep callings of our hearts, that unique way of being human that both encourages your heart and touches the world with God’s love. When we are living out our vocation, Merton holds, there is a certain integrity to our lives. If we are living out God’s call on our lives, our thoughts and desires will not be at war with reality because we will be living out the deepest desires of our hearts.

In other words, suppose your vocation is “brother”; that is, suppose God’s plan for your life is that you are a brother to other people, to be a faithful, brotherly presence to others in the world. You will know the most peace in your life when you are actually acting as a brother to other people, and when you construct your life in such a way that you are leaving time for this deep calling and desire of your heart.

If you are fortunate, your paid employment and your vocation will overlap. If not, you have to be creative and find a way to live out your vocation and still keep your job! Still, you must live out your vocation if you want to know this sense of wholeness in your life. If you spend your life chasing other goals, wealth, self-fulfillment, or even some other form of Christian ministry, you will never know the same peace and integrity you will know when you are living as a brother.

The natural corollary to this is that we need to be aware of when we are feeling that sense of joy and wholeness. We need to be attentive to our spirits, to get to know that feeling of deep joy that comes when we are doing exactly that task for which God created us, and to begin to discern patterns in our lives. Is there a behavior that interrupts or hinders that sense? We must lay it aside. Is there a behavior that prompts or increases that deep wholeness? We must encourage and increase it. In so doing, we begin to learn more fully what it is to enter into God’s vocation for our lives.

Quote of the Day, 4/15/08

04/15/2008, 7:00 am -- by | No Comments

“You don’t pay taxes — they take taxes.” — C. Rock

The Unseemly Pride of Barack Obama

04/14/2008, 1:39 pm -- by | 1 Comment

The least attractive and most damaging characteristic President Bush has is his arrogance. So it’s a wonder to me that so many who have hated the results of his presidency have flocked to Barack Obama, who gives Bush’s Texas cockiness a hard-edged trebling.

This arrogance first became obvious when he became convinced — after a mere 27 months in the US Senate, which followed eight mostly unremarkable years in the Illinois state legislature — that his rhetorical skills and passion to “unify” somehow qualified him to bring his doctrinaire liberalism to the Oval Office. Since then, flashes of his pride and hubris have piled up, becoming more and more clear with every condescending explanation he gives of the latest “misinterpretation” of his words.

Now we find out he said, at a San Francisco fundraiser:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Arrogant Barack here assumes that:

— A generation of small-town residents have remained helpless and unemployed because Presidents failed to put them to work.

— These residents dealt with this reality not by making the best of their situation, but by becoming bitter and frustrated.

— This bitter frustration explains their Neanderthal desire to cling to (among other things): gun rights, religion, racial prejudice, and hostility to free trade.

Now I could point out that Barack himself has exhibited anti-trade sentiment, while simultaneously assuring our allies that he doesn’t mean a word of it.

I could add that if any religion could be characterized as “bitter” or “frustrated,” it might be the religion of the guy who had his children baptized by a man who thundered that God should damn America, not bless it, who taught that the US government created HIV to kill black people. I might even mention that Barack’s close and continuing political association with that man, and many others like him, brings up legitimate charges that racism exists in Obama’s own heart.

But all that is just simple hypocrisy. We’ve come to expect it in our politicians.

What I want to point out instead is that this man really does believe those fainting, screaming crowds (“Yes, we can!”) prove his greatness. This man actually thinks that his election is the only event that can possibly save the union. This man truly expects that a president, as his wife has said, can and should “demand that [we] shed [our] cynicism,” “put down [our] divisions,” “come out of [our] isolation,” and “move out of [our] comfort zone.”

A man who would stand in front of some of his strongest supporters and unapologetically insult the core beliefs of the very people whose support he most desperately needs is a man who, deep down, believes that he is better than they are.

He is angry, he is radical, and he is almost impossibly arrogant. And the more he talks, the more we learn about the unreasonable fire that motivates the flowery rhetoric.

The Council’s Ruling — Our Next President

04/14/2008, 10:00 am -- by | No Comments

This and every Monday, the Bweinh!tributors, having convened in secret for hours of reasoned debate and consideration, will issue a brief and binding ruling on an issue of great societal import.

This week’s question — Who will be the next president of the United States?

The council was unable to reach a majority ruling on this issue.
 
Djere offers this opinion, joined by Chloe and Josh:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

MC-B offers this opinion, joined by Connie:

John McCain; neither potential Democratic candidate can match his experience or his appeal to undecideds, and even the unenthusiastic conservative base will turn out just to prevent the other guy from winning.

 

Tom offers this opinion, joined by Djere:

John McCain. Hell hath no fury like a woman run-against-in-a-primary, and, harpy-like, she will irretrievably rend Obama’s chances of election.

 

Steve offers this opinion:

Self-styled prophet of doom Al Gore will sweep in to unite the fractured Democratic party this summer, then outflank a tired John McCain this fall. Woe! Calamity! Horror!

 

David offers this opinion:

Hillary Clinton — for the reasons in my article.

 

Erin offers this opinion:

Jesus. Because, let’s face it, he’s the only one who can do the job.

 

Kaitlin, Mike, and Job played no part in the determination of this issue.

 

Next time: Which animal is most similar to humans?

Joke of the Day, 4/14/08

04/14/2008, 7:00 am -- by | No Comments

Struggling to make ends meet, the new pastor was stunned when he confronted his wife with the receipt for a $250 dress she had bought. “How could you do this?!”

“I was outside the store looking at the dress in the window, and then suddenly I found myself trying it on,” she explained. “It was like Satan was whispering in my ear, ‘You look great in that dress. Buy it!’ ”

“Well,” the pastor replied, “You know how I deal with that kind of temptation. I say, ‘Get behind me, Satan!’ ”

“I tried that!,” his wife replied. “And then he said, ‘You look fabulous from back here, too!’ ”

Bweinh! Soundtrack — Switchfoot

04/12/2008, 10:00 am -- by | 1 Comment

This article is the latest in a Bweinh! series on inspiring songs or songwriters. You can access the first ten soundtrack entries here!

When my family moved to southern California, I scanned the radio stations in my new town for weeks, unable to find one that suited the late 90s adult contemporary tastes I had developed during a childhood in Cleveland. I thought I\’d have to give up music altogether, until my Sunday School teacher introduced me to the local contemporary Christian station.

My parents had never set definite parameters on what my sisters and I could listen to, but I was in sixth grade, and for me contemporary Christian music was pretty much the greatest thing that had ever happened. Now I could put a stamp of acceptability, a certificate of religious sanitation, a “fit for consumption” on something else.

The first CD I ever bought was Learning to Breathe, Switchfoot\’s third release. From the odd ceramic echo on “Dare You to Move” to the retreating footsteps at the end of “Living is Simple,” I adored it. I listened to it when I did homework, right before I went to bed, when I was reading, and of course, on the radio. I internalized it, memorized every word. That their Christianity wasn\’t glaringly obvious on every track bothered me at first. Unlike most of the CCM stuff my favorite station played, Switchfoot\’s lyrics were woefully low in Christianese. But then I noticed that they mentioned God on “Love is the Movement,” and decided that was acceptable enough.

I saw Switchfoot that summer, my first concert ever. It was at dusk, on the lawn of a Bible college, a venue that, I decided, cemented them as adequately Christian. When they played a stripped-down version of “Let That Be Enough,” I was captivated. The song became my personal anthem, the soundtrack to many of the difficult situations an earnest, shrinking middle school kid could get herself into:

Let me know that You hear me
Let me know Your touch
Let me know that You love me
And let that be enough

As I grew older, the “Truth” fish eating the “Darwin” fish bumper decal wasn\’t as funny to me; the “A bread crumb and fish” sweatshirt, styled like Abercrombie and Fitch\’s logo, moved to the back of my closet. It slowly dawned on me that the strict diet of CCM I\’d resigned myself to looked a lot like legalism. I tentatively began to listen to music that hadn\’t come from Christian labels. I got a little older, and soon considered the entire industry merely a phase of my awkward adolescence.

And then a few months ago, Jon Foreman came to my campus. I have to admit I almost didn\’t go to see him; I guess I didn’t expect him to be any more insightful than I was back when I sat in my bedroom alone, slightly scandalized at the band\’s references to St. Augustine and Julian of Norwich (aren\’t Christians just supposed to sing about the Bible?). I guess being so quick to judge just goes to show how much more insightful I\’ve become since then.

He played a few songs and answered a few questions, and there was that same voice. He spoke right to me, right where I was, just as he always has. “You go to church, you go to the bar on the corner ”” you find hurting people. I think sometimes there\’s this misperception that the Christian and the one at the bar are looking for different things.”

I got a picture with him afterwards, you know, for my middle school self. I still know every word on that CD.

Clash of the Titans LXXVII: Basketball

04/11/2008, 12:00 pm -- by | 1 Comment

In this corner, supporting basketball, is Mike!

And in this corner, opposing it, is Tom!

Those who dislike basketball need to meet my wife. I\’m 6\’3” and she\’s 5\’3”. I\’m stocky and she\’s, well, slight. (At least she was before she was pregnant, but that is not the point of this story nor is it particularly wise to say.)

When pressed to choose, most assume that I was the high school basketball player in our home. After all, I\’m a fair shooter and a middling rebounder. But I was not the high school varsity player ”” she was.

This is because basketball is the most egalitarian game one can play. A $10 basketball and a neighborhood court, YMCA, or high school gym, and you can play. No bats, no helmets, no pads.

There are no height requirements; there are advantages to being small and quick, and advantages to being a giant though slow afoot. There are advantages to being able to shoot 30 feet from the basket, and advantages to banging around under the hoop.

Basketball also can serve as a language when words will not do. I spent seven summers working as a camp counselor at a local YMCA in a small, economically depressed city near my home. Though my charges were near-universally of a different color from me, though we spoke differently and had different heroes and role models, basketball was a way I could communicate with them. Whether it was a standing challenge to beat me in H-O-R-S-E or running five-on-five with local high school kids, it was a way to fit in, a way for my ideas and being to be taken seriously, a way to break down barriers between us.

Perhaps basketball could even help President Bush\’s much-maligned foreign policy. A game of 21 with Kim Jong Il? Around the World with Kofi Annan? One-on-one with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper ”” if we win, they have to take North Dakota; if they win, we have to take Manitoba?

The possibilities are endless ”” thanks to basketball.

A sporting event is a contest, a pitting of self against other, in which there can only be one champion. The players are combatants, playing through pain, injury, and weather to bring the battle to a close. But not so basketball. No, organized basketball is most often played indoors, protecting its mollycoddled players from the danger of sun, rain and wind. A polished wooden floor and sterile fluorescent lighting lend a bleak aura to the basketball landscape.

The Mayans in pre-European America had a similar sport. But their hoop was vertical, their court was outdoors and there was no use of the hands. Any child can toss a ball through a hoop with their opposable thumbs, but try doing so with a bounce off a hip. Combine that with the imposing physical nature of basketball’s ideological predecessor and you have a sport worth playing!

In contrast, modern basketball players are kept apart throughout the “struggle,” the least physical contact resulting in a foul. They trot up and down the court like so many braided-maned polo ponies, either bouncing the ball against the ground while they prance or limply slapping at it in an attempt to jar it from another’s control. The observed proper technique for these slaps leaves the wrist hanging as limply as the decorative nylon netting that hangs, streamer-like, from hoops at either end of the court.

These aforementioned hoops separate basketball from true sports of the people. Without the resources to find a tall pole with an attached hoop of metal, a young person cannot practice this loathsome pastime. But any enterprising youth can find a stick and a ball, improvise some bases, and have a rousing game of baseball. Likewise can be improvised a soccer pitch, with markers delineating the goals’ width and a spirit of good sportsmanship their height. The only firm requirement for these sports is space.

From the super-short super-tight shorts of the 70s to the ridiculously baggy ones popular today, basketball has long acknowledged its status as court jester in the kingdom of sport. Yes, basketball remains true to its roots: slapdash construction of a peach basket with a hole in it, dreamed up by some Canadian to give his students something to do when it was too wet to go outside and play a REAL sport.

{democracy:231}

Waxman In Trouble Again

04/11/2008, 10:00 am -- by | No Comments

Sen. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is in trouble again. You’ll recall that Waxman spent the last 18 months embroiled in an intellectual property lawsuit with New Line Cinema, who accused him of violating their trademark for the computer-generated King Kong image by wearing an identical mask on the floor of the Senate, terrifying visitors and amusing colleagues.

After months of legal wrangling and threats of financial penalty, it was determined Waxman was not indeed wearing a mask, and that any similarity between him and the mythical ape was purely coincidental. New Line apologized warily, but told Waxman off the record that they would be watching to see if his appearance changed down the road.

Now his colleagues are after him. After the televised baseball hearings, featuring Roger Clemens, put Waxman in the public eye for long periods of time, many senators were deluged with complaints from frightened members of their constituency.

Several have now sponsored a bill with wide bipartisan support, which would establish protocols for which senators would receive prominent coverage during televised hearings, based on standards of personal appearance. Although no one has specifically pointed to Sen. Waxman as the bill’s target, around the Senate, the bill has been unofficially dubbed the “Hideous Henry Act.”

“There should be a minimum level of attractiveness that we adhere to in our dealings with the public through mass communications,” said Fran Crouse (R-Iowa), chairman of the powerful Personal Beautification Standards committee. “We have not singled anyone out — obviously we would never do that — but there are, frankly, some politicians who should be heard and not seen.”

Quote of the Day, 4/11/08

04/11/2008, 7:00 am -- by | 1 Comment

“Bruce [Wilkinson, author of The Prayer of Jabez] says that even if you’re a Christian that God has withheld His blessings from you (the ‘flood-waters of blessing’ as he says) and that He’ll give them to you if you systematically pray this rather obscure Old Testament prayer.

“I would challenge that idea and say that if you believe upon Christ for your salvation today, God has withheld nothing from you. In fact, He has already flooded all of the blessing you could ever imagine into your life, and that IS Jesus. He is ALL of the blessing. He is ALL our reward. He is sufficient for all of our needs and we should in Him be satisfied. What more could anyone possibly offer you?” — D. Webb

Why I Wore The White Coat Today

04/10/2008, 1:30 pm -- by | 6 Comments

Bweinh! celebrates National Poetry Month.

we will NEVER
sell the same dress
for the same event
said the ad for the store i might lie to avoid
and i guess it made sense

a dress is expensive
and taste is subjective
so to get an exclusive
possessing cachet
is largely elusive
(you’ll pay)

but i thought — as a man —
that every dress is the same dress
different fabric but the same cloth
different baubles but the same nature
from the short black number
to the long-sleeved frump

all are sheaths and all are sheets
on which the wearer will project
an image that will then reflect
just who they are
or wish
to be

so at an event
no dress is an island, entire to itself
in glitzy sizzle

and all the guarantees in the world
do not make a hanger unique

they sell you a dress
a suit, a car, a job, a home, a life
but they can never sell you the same one
when you are the difference

« Previous PageNext Page »