Tuesday, July 20, 2010

I INSOLEPS … BLIT!!!!! HAMMERINGGGG DFGUJF BLORT

Someone interview Lady Gaga. Get inside her head and in her face.

This is truly that.

After the thrush, the cricket started up.

HOW TO GET A REAL FRUIT IN MY HEAD!

I heard a thrush singing its evening song. It was intense.

I'd like to hit somebody over the head with a record album.

Listen to A Night In Tunesia by Dizzy Gillespie.

I HATE DESCRIPTIVE VIDEOS

My first exposure to descriptive videos came in 1995. Our class had library time. One day, my itinerent teacher took a session to talk to the class about the then new technology of described video. We watched an exerpt from the described version of Honey I Shrunk The Kids. It was from the beginning part with the Roger Rabbit cartoon. The other blind person in the school, who was literally incapable of thinking for herself, agreed with the teacher and liked it. I really didn't have a very good first impression of the video, so the teacher suggested I take it home and take another look, which I did.

When I got it home and watched the movie part-way through, I still didn't like the audio description. I had read in a CNIB newsletter that the descriptions didn't interfere with the dialogue, but they did. After all, it's not like the filmmakers allowed long silences so audio descriptions could be inserted for blind people when they made the film.

I also find that audio descriptions don't add a lot to my enjoyment of a movie or TV show. I have tried to watch described entertainment since Honey I Shrunk The Kids, thinking, "Maybe this time I'll get a whole bunch out of this and see what this described video thing is all about" but I never do. The audio just provides a lot of details that I don't care about one way or the other.

Fortunately, I am not the only blind person who feels this way. I have talked to a few other blind people who agree with me.

Monday, July 19, 2010

PRIME RIB AND APPLE

By Jill Briscoe. Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 1976.

One of the main reasons why Eve yielded to the serpent’s temptation was because Adam wasn’t with her. He was off doing whatever and Eve was alone. One of the reasons she ate the fruit was because she didn’t have Adam there to back her up in resisting.

The Bible doesn’t say that Sarai was contentious. She laughed when she heard God was going to give her a son at 90 years old, but most people would find that impossible.

The Bible doesn’t say that Lot’s wife always had to keep up with the Joneses. She did look back at Sodom, though.

Job’s wife wanted Job to curse God, but she must have seen what happened in Job’s life (when God revealed Himself to Job and explained why Job was suffering) because they had ten more children together.

The Bible does indeed say that Hannah was bitter when she was weeping before the Lord at the temple. However, I don’t think her vow to give Samuel to the Lord was made out of rashness. Hannah was a very godly woman. She felt that if God gave her a son, then she would give him back to Him.

If there was ever a woman who could have ended up a bitter, mean, spiteful woman, it was Hannah. She had to live with a horrible woman, and a husband who does indeed sound insensitive. “Whatcha want a son for, babe? You got me.”

Hannah gave Samuel to the priest of God without complaint, and had five more children.

1 Samuel 25 37 says, “but it came to pass in the morning when the wine was gone out of Nabal and his wife had told him these things (that she had stopped David from coming to kill him) that his heart died within him and he became a stone”

“Oh man, this is really gonna make me look like a wuss in front of my buddies.”

I don’t know if Bathsheba was a godly woman or not. Was it normal for people to take baths on their roofs in those days?

I don’t think Elimelech and Naomi’s decision to leave Bethlehem was wrong. They were just moving to Moab temporarily until the famine was over. Likewise, I don’t think Orpah’s decision to leave Ruth and stay in Moab was wrong, either. She would have had trouble in Israel. She would have been austricised and looked down on. There also would have been a huge culture shock.

In Chapter 9, Jill Briscoe twists the whole issue of women preachers. She talks about prophetesses. Prophetesses saw into the future and told people about the vision the Lord had given them. They didn’t prophesy in the sense of teaching. Briscoe cites Mary Magdalen telling the disciples about the empty tomb as teaching. No, Mary Magdalen was just telling them what she had seen. She was relating an experience: not teaching.

Briscoe also talks about a woman giving advice. This is counselling one on one, not teaching in the usual sense of the word.

She mentions Phebe. Phebe had the gift of service. She wasn’t a preacher. She talks about Precilla “teaching” Apolos. Precilla didn’t stand in a pulpit and correct him on the doctrine he was wrong about. She talked to him: had a conversation with him. She didn’t “teach” Apolos or “preach” to him.

Briscoe also quotes a verse about letting women speak in the church which I can’t find and a verse about a teacher in Philipi which I also can’t find.

The chapter is supposed to centre around Miriam. Miriam did have courage, cleverness and a talent for persuasion. She also led singing. She was a prophetess, too, but this is defined as I defined it above: someone who received visions from the Lord about the future and told the people about them.

Briscoe quotes a verse about spiritual gifts and says this applies to both men and women, so therefore women are allowed to be teachers. Women can be teachers. In Titus they are commanded to teach the young women, but they aren’t to be preaching to the church body.

The verse in 1 Timothy says, “I suffer not a woman to teach or to usurp the authority of a man.” Briscoe twists this verse to mean that women aren’t allowed to teach only if it usurps a man in the church’s authority. It says, “to teach or to usurp the authority of a man.” “Or” implies Paul is talking about two different things.

In Chapter 10, Jill Briscoe totally distorts the story of Elisha and the widow.

Chapter 11 is about Esther. Most people’s interpretation of Esther is totally different from the true interpretation.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

REPLY AWL

The June issue of Readers Digest has a column by a guy who likes chick flicks. However, some of the stars he mentions aren't just considered stars of chick flicks. For instance, he mentions Cary Grant. Cary Grant's films are classics. I think a male could tell another male that he liked Cary Grant's films, and if that man was a true cinophile, he would agree.

In the same issue, there is an article about dadpreneurs: dads who work from home and raise the kids. It didn't really mention dads who work at home who have wives who stay at home as well. I would be interested in hearing about those situations.

In the Living section of the same issue, there is an itim about how to talk to your kids about global warming. I would tell them it's just made up and an attempt by the new world order to put carbon taxes on everything and take more of our money.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

MATHEW 8 1-13

In verse 2, a lepper says to Jesus, “lord if thou art willing thou canst make me clean” Leprosy made you ceremonially unclean. Being ceremonially unclean meant you were unclean before God. Only God could make someone clean who was ceremonially unclean. This lepper had great faith and recognized that Jesus was God.

In verse 9, a Roman centurian says to Jesus, “for I am a man under authority having soldiers under me and I say to this go and he goeth and to another come and he cometh and to my servant do this and he doeth”

What the Roman centurian was saying was, “I tell this man “Go” and he goes, and I tell another man “Come” and he does, because I have authority over them. You are the God of the universe, so you have authority over this sickness. If you tell it to go, it will go.”

Jesus answered in part, “and I say unto you that many shall come from the east and west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”

In church last Sunday, our pastor tried to tie this passage into how we’ll be perfect in the kingdom of heaven and how far short we now fall of this. However, there are times when we’re experiencing times of great faith and we’re thinking, “This is what it will be like when we get to Heaven. There won’t be any doubts or anybody trying to put up arguments to destroy our faith. We’ll just have faith in God, period, without anything else.”

There are other times when we’re having fellowship with other Christians and we think, “This is a small fraction of what it’ll be like when Jesus returns. There won’t be any conflicts or tentions or evil desires towards other people. We’ll live in perfect accord with one another, like we’re having good fellowship with each other right now.”

As we grow in our walk with God, hopefully we sin less and we have more of these kinds of glimpses of what eternity will be like for us.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

THIS IS THAT

I have really gotten into the Cbc radio summer series This Is That. This Is That is a show satirizing Cbc radio current affairs shows, from the pithy quotes the hosts toss out, to the way people being interviewed talk, to the people who leave messages on the comment line. Fake stories covered include Nova Scotia cancelling grade 4, a man at a farmers market in Nova Scotia selling homemade pharmaceuticals, to a teacher in Ajax educating solely through Twitter and Facebook.

Check it out Tuesday nights at 7:30 and Saturday mornings at 10:30.

Monday, July 12, 2010

ODSP: THE GOVERNMENT'S WAY OF KEEPING THE DISABLED DOWN

In this week's issue of The Matilda Ziegler Magazine For The Blind, there is an article about the problems experienced by disabled Americans on SSI (Social Security Insurance.) Speaking as a blind person living in Ontario, I can tell you that ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program) is not much better.

I will use the word blind a lot in this post because that's the disability I'm most familiar with, but these rules apply no matter what disability you have.

If a person on ODSP finds work and makes over a certain amount of money a month, the government reduces their benefits. This means that a lot of blind people who are capable of working don't. Some people have businesses, but they only work them enough to make the amount of money ODSP will allow them to make. Sometimes I just want to give these people a gigantic kick in the butt and ask, "Do you actually want to earn a living or do you want to live on ODSP all the rest of your life?"

If two blind people marry, then their household will only receive one person's benefits. This leads to many blind people not getting married so they won't have their income cut in half. For me, this is against what God says. The Bible forbids living together without being married. There are probably some blind Christians out there who would say, "Well, we don't want to shack up but we can't get married or they'll cut our benefits." It would be a really awkward situation if I met one of those couples because I would have to punch both of them in the face. Of course, the saddest part of this aspect of the program is that you're letting the government dictate your life for you.

A person on ODSP can only inherit up to 50 thousand dollars, which means after the expenses that come with someone's death, you aren't left with a buck of a lot. If you wish to inherit more than 50 thousand dollars, the person willing the money to you has to put the money in a Hanson's Trust overseen by two people, which should be all right in most cases if you don't have a crazy, bitter relative who thinks you're an ungrateful person and don't deserve the money.

If you have managed to find full-time employment and get off ODSP, and then you should happen to loose your job, you literally have to spend every cent you have before you are eligible for the program again.

Thus we see that ODSP is designed to keep blind people down. The government is not benevolent. They never give without expecting a lot in return, or without a whole bunch of stipulations that make you wish they'd never given in the first place.

To read the article that appeared in the Matilda Ziegler Magazine, click the link above.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

LIFE 100.3 RESPONDS TO SCHOOLBOARD'S STANCE

My comments are in parenthesis.

LIFE 100.3’s new billboards are stopping traffic in Barrie. In the wake of the Simcoe County District School Board’s decision to remove references to Judeo-Christian
values from its moral code, LIFE 100.3 wanted to respond. (Nothing can be Judeo-Christian. It’s kind of like talking about a virgin whore.)

LIFE 100.3 bought six billboard locations throughout Barrie with the message “No Jesus in Barrie Public Schools? We have Jesus on the Radio.” (Yes, get some shameless self-promotion in there.) LIFE 100.3’s
Breakfast Club hosted a call in show and was flooded with calls from listeners with their response to the decision.

Morning show host Ben Davy said, “With all the challenges that students and teachers already face in our public schools, to think that the Simcoe County
District School Board would take the initiative to remove references to Judeo-Christian values from it's moral code is a shock. (Why would it be a shock? Remove the values, the situation at the schools gets worse, the schoolboard gets to put in more rules and throw more of its weight around, which is what it wanted all along.) It's not about forcing
a religion on people. (Why shouldn’t we force our religion on people, you wimp? This is our country, founded on Christian principles. If people don’t like that, they can leave.) When we look at the teachings of Christ, we see 'Love your neighbour as yourself, turn the other cheek, forgive and you will be forgiven'...Are
these not values we want to install in all of our children - religious or otherwise? (First of all, that should be instill. Second, you and many parents may want to INSTILL these values in your children, but did you ever think that maybe the schoolboard doesn’t?) These are values that are not exclusive to Christianity - they are
consistent with nearly every faith group, and even among the many who hold no religious views at all." (How do you know that? Have you studied other religions. Haven’t you figured out that it’s not about what you or any of the parents want? It’s about what the people in control want. If they can remove references to Christian moral values, then they will be able to bring order out of the chaos that ensues.)

Friday, July 2, 2010

REPLY AWL

The May 10 issue of Maclean's has an article about white people being evicted from the Kanawake reserve. This is typical. The Natives like to talk about how loving and tolerant they are, then they do something like this.

In the same issue, there is an article about children with really low vision not being taught braille in school. All children who are going to loose their remaining vision by adulthood should be taught braille. Without it, they will be totally illiterate.

The May 24 issue of Maclean's has an article about a drug shortage in Saskatchewan due to regulations. I wonder how many fewer deaths from prescription drugs there has been since the drug shortage began.