Just another rant

We’ve seen countless versions of the TV spot for cell providers for years, from “Can you hear me now” to today’s we’re better than the other guys, they’re all crap version. Well, I actually worked for one of the largest cellular providers in the U.S. in the very early 2000’s, and I can tell you that even back then, there were very few areas where you couldn’t get a signal because your provider didn’t have a tower near by. Yes, in the very early days of cellular phones, you had to use your provider’s towers, or incur roaming fees, which we all hated as much as we still hate overage charges.

Today, despite the truth actually being that the individual networks being very close in size, speed, reliability, my phone works even where my provider has no towers for miles, because all providers agreed to let anyone use their towers, purely to satisfy customers and eliminate roaming fees. So, today it’s all about pricing and what the plan you choose includes. My parents, nephew, and I all share a plan that allows us to have separate bills, but due to our plan, we have a very low monthly base fee, and all have unlimited talk and text. We also can choose unlimited data or just a smaller upgrade, for those who haven’t figured it out, yes, I am with Sprint on the Framily plan. My base cost each month is $45, and I’m unlimited talk, text, and data, and I’ve had very little problem steaming on Facebook or Twitter, posting to any site, browsing or watching YouTube videos, save at my home, which is out “in the sticks” where no one has too strong a signal for data. Boost is an old Nextel market, Virgin is on T-Mobile if I remember right, and so it goes with every “discount provider.”

Why am I ranting about cell phone commercials? We’ve known for years that ads are geared toward getting your money, and they’ll insult the other guy all they can to get that. My primary complaint about this is that the attitude has become so pervasive, that is now infecting real life. So many people have heard and bought into the “I’m better than your guy, so switch to me” story, that they’ve begun using it. Professors are so convinced of their own superiority, they now belittle students who disagree with them in class, rather than invite actual debate. Students are so convinced that they are the end all be all of the campus that they block access to speakers they don’t like, and in some cases, assault those who want the speaker to come to campus. Campus administrations are so afraid of a lawsuit, they don’t act to prevent this from happening, and thus, we have students actively belittled and attacked, simply for not being the same. Thus far, we’ve seen UC Berkeley students attacked and almost killed over inviting Milo Yiannopoulos or Anne Coulter, while so far, only Claremont has punished anyone over blocking a door so an invited speaker can get to their venue.

This attitude of infallibility is what must change. Professors who mock and kick students out because they mention that forensic science can tell the age, sex, or race of a person by their skeleton, or take part in assaulting those who invited a conservative speaker should be at the very least fired, if not arrested. The reason this isn’t happening is simple, the people in power are those most guilty of this attitude. Those who want to see this change must do something that won’t be easy, but it’s now the only way to get anything to happen. What is this difficult thing? We have to hit the people demanding we do what they tell us to, without any complaint, in the wallet. When celebrities go on a rant about how evil and stupid we are for not voting as they order, or for speaking out against something they support, then we need to stop spending money on their work. Sadly, this isn’t easy. Case in point, I’ve commented on several threads where a celebrity has insulted me directly, and in one case, they are the main role in a movie series I’ve loved for years. Personally, just not going won’t affect them, even if all my family and friends join, because honestly, there aren’t that many I can directly influence. But, by letting the studio putting these movies out know that I, as a consumer, will no longer pay for a ticket or DVD rental, nor purchase any merchandise, and urging others to do the same, the studio will see that their “star” is alienating the very people they want to reach. It worked with Last Man Standing, as when ABC cancelled, even with Tim Allen not attacking or complaining, another network snapped the show up, because they saw that people want to watch it. That will hurt ABC, simply because the time slot for Last Man Standing will be prime-time, and thus, a good number of people will be watching it instead of ABC. Ratings are the end all, be all, for networks. I’ll admit, TV shows are the hardest to impact, as there aren’t any show specific advertisers for fiction series, other than perhaps product placement, but it can be done.

Simply put, make your voice heard, let the network know you won’t watch a show any more because of a star mouthing of and calling you an idiot for voting as you want to, or for not believing them without question. Let the studio know you won’t spend money on a movie or it’s merchandise because a star believes you’re a moron for not thinking exactly like them. We saw a push years back to be an individual, to stand out and not conform, but today the non-conformists are all the same, demanding you “break the mold” and conform to theirs. It won’t be easy, as you’ll be left with books written by very few people, very little music that isn’t over 100 years old, but you’ll have claimed a principle and stood by it, which is very rare. There are conservative and liberal stars in Hollywood, so if you leave one fandom, there are others you can try, just as there are alternatives for movies. I personally would rather have only one or two movies every 2 to 3 years, and have them be wholesome, such as God’s Not Dead or Risen, than a movie every month where the star thinks I’m nothing more than a piggy bank they can demand money from. It’s your choice, as always, but if you choose to tell Hollywood you won’t give them your money any more, maybe they’ll get the hint and either tell the stars to shut up and not insult the people who they want to spend money for tickets, or they’ll get new stars.

Why is the first reaction always to hamstring the helpers?

OK, while it’s technically a spoiler, it’s from the trailer, so I’m not sorry. We know that the main plot of Captain America: Civil War is that the governments of the world want to force the Avengers to accept someone being in control of them, and that causes a split. We also see in the preview, General Ross (although he’s not named beyond his title of Sec. of State) showing clips of NYC (Avengers,) DC (Winter Soldier,) Sokovia (Age of Ultron,) and Lagos (Civil War,) as if to cement his assertion that the Avengers are the problem, when that’s only mildly true in the case of Sokovia, since Tony and Bruce did create Ultron, who then caused the destruction in Sokovia. In the case of NYC and DC, it was “SHIELD” either messing with things they shouldn’t (the Tesseract) or Hydra acting from within SHIELD to kill millions. Now, let’s look at each instance where the Avengers were not responsible for the issue being present, meaning all but Ultron.

Avengers, Fury was trying to make better guns, which caught Loki’s attention, and ultimately led to an alien invasion. The Avengers were only brought in when it was clear Fury’s soldiers weren’t able to find or capture Loki, and he then was silent about their getting involved. Yes, he did try to stop the plane he thought was going to nuke New York, but that’s all he did in regards to the Avengers acting against the Chitauri. In Winter Soldier, it’s Hydra exposed as running SHIELD, and their plan to kill millions “to save Billions.” Fury tried to stop the launch of their plan, and when he was killed, had Steve and the others not acted to stop what they had zero part in starting, well, I don’t think General Ross would be alive to sign those accords, nor would T’Chaka or T’Chala be around to glare at those who didn’t sign them. Finally Lagos, without spoiling the movie, it’s Steve’s team acting to stop someone they know, but that acquaintance is the only connection. It’s the same as if a S.W.A.T. commander had worked with someone in the past, then he and his team had to storm a building to stop a drug ring, and in the firefight, more than just the bad guys went down. Is it S.W.A.T.’s fault that they were fired on, and since they ducked and took cover, the bullets continued flying?

This is the argument we hear today, the “if you hadn’t been reckless” or “if banning guns saves even one life” as if that’s possible. The same people who scream these arguments to any camera they can are those who belittle and demean the police when they don’t act fast enough for their liking. When it’s a police officer in a shooting situation that takes cover, leading to the criminal killing others that they expect to show up in seconds and violently arrest the “evil man who didn’t knock when he wanted to read the meter” or some other plainly idiotic thing. When it’s pointed out that “banning guns” would only remove firearms (a gun is any weapon with a smooth barrel, a pistol/rifle with a rifled barrel is not a “gun” just FYI) from legal owners who aren’t going to use them for criminal reasons, they rant about how you “just don’t get it” or “how naive” you are. They point to some family of a robber who is wailing on TV about their “poor child who just wanted some money to get a meal” while ignoring the pages and pages of criminal history, and while ignoring the victims of illegally owned firearms, since it doesn’t fit the narrative.

So, what do you think?

Why is this OK?

I’ve posted many times about hot button topics, and in general I’ve seen about a 50/50 response, with some agreeing with me and others very much opposed. Thankfully, my audience has, so far, been civil, but it seems the world is just determined to speed toward hell. This story popped up for me today, and while I’ve never really been a fan of Bill Nye, until now, he pretty much seemed to be interested in real research. Now? In my book he’s no better than the mouth breathing trolls I encounter so often in discussion threads.

Simply put, according to this article, Bill Nye is “open” to criminal charges and/or jail time for “climate change dissenters.” Yes, you read that right, by that title, he’s OK with jailing those who don’t agree totally with him, no questions. This isn’t about jailing the Captain of the Exxon Valdez, but any “dissenter” and those doing the jailing will decide who is and isn’t a “dissenter.” I’m sorry folks, but this is exactly what’s wrong with this country, too many are “offended” or “upset” by the “lack of unity on important topics” that no discussion takes place. Rather than actually work together, and by doing so, maybe actually figure something out, the “scientists” on the left are just going to throw you in jail for not agreeing with them. This is the same as the idiocy in Houston, where a lesbian Mayor just declared all restrooms are open to anyone, then cried on TV about the “hateful bigots” when the voters overturned it. She then tried to force the area pastors to turn over all sermons, only to moan and whine when that was struck down by a court.

We no longer live in a world where “shall not be infringed” means DON’T ACT AGAINST, rather we live in a world where if you buck the system you are silenced or worse. For those of you who haven’t seen them, God’s Not Dead and God’s Not Dead 2 are great movies and great examples of this. Spoilers Ahead!!!!!

In the first movie, a college student has to take a class to graduate, but is warned that the professor is not the kindest person when it comes to Christians. The professor (Kevin Sorbo) tells the class to wright “God is dead” on a piece of paper, only to then humiliate the lone student unwilling to do so. With the student unwilling to bend, the professor decides to have a trial, with the student as defense, himself as prosecutor, judge and jury. Eventually, the class is allowed to judge the arguments, and the student gets the professor to admit he hates God, only to ask “how can you hate what doesn’t exist.” I loved that bit, but the movie shows so well just what so many go through, being ordered to deny their faith while others are praised for their “bravery” and “tolerance” for forcing someone to deny or hide their faith.

In the sequel, a teacher is asked about a quote attributed to Christ and how it pertains to the lecture on non-violence. This is a history class and the teacher simply answers the question, only to be later suspended and sued for everything for “pushing religion.” In the court case, a school official also says that quotes from MLK Jr wouldn’t be allowed since he quoted the Bible, indicating clearly that it’s not about education or history, it’s about silencing Christians. Over the course of the trial, it’s obvious that the ACLU lawyer is less and less concerned with the law, but only with punishing a teacher because it will set a precedent. At one point he even says they can’t lose and let a precedent be set.

Why is it OK for an atheist student to loudly proclaim that there is no God, for a Muslim to pray during school, for schools to have students “be a Muslim” for a week, but not for a teacher to answer a question asked when it refers to Jesus. Students have been punished for the smallest infraction, while other students are praised in the media for bravery when they “create” a clock by disassembling a clock and putting it into a case the looks almost identical to a bomb, but only after the school reacts EXACTLY AS THEY SHOULD?

The answer is simple, Christians pose a real threat to the “do what you want and feel good and everything will be fine” crowd. Christians are the ones telling people that lying, stealing, sleeping around, and so on are wrong. When that is said, suddenly someone’s “rights” are being yanked from them. Nevermind that the drugs they have a “right” to use are illegal, or they’re too young, they have a “right” to do that and you aren’t allowed to say anything. Women scream that it’s “their body so their right to an abortion” when any law is discussed, even when it’s not about what they scream. I’ve seen lawmakers attacked for even suggesting that a law be passed calling for harsh punishment when a minor child is transported across state lines for the purposes of any medical procedure, when there is no parental consent. Instantly, that law is “forcing women into back alley abortions” or “forcing rape victims to have their attacker’s child.” Read that again, a girl who wants an abortion, or a boy who wants lipo, same crime, transporting a minor w/o parental consent. WHEN that is brought up, they start screaming about girls who will be abused for getting pregnant by their religious parents. When you then point out that there is a clause allowing a Judge to allow the abortion and remove the child from an abusive home, they just scoff and say you don’t know how hard it is to leave an abusive home, then go on a rant about how you’re offending them, how you want to silence them (while they don’t let you speak) and how you’re “denying their rights” by simply existing.

I have asked, multiple times and in multiple venues how my simply believing what I do affects anyone’s rights. They generally point out this law or that policy, so I tell them I am not a government official, so they go off about voting, and I point out that I am one person and they are one person, so they can vote too, and suddenly I’m “trying to silence them” by responding to their accusations. I have asked the following question, word for word, “I am not involved in government, management, or any decision making process. Remove all of that, ignore voting, how does my simply sitting here, thinking and believing as I do, affect you in any way, at this precise moment?” The response I got was profane and nothing but an attack on my person. That one time, I wrote out “if you are going to act as a foul mouthed child, I’m leaving.” The idiot actually grabbed me and tried to push me down, until I had them against a wall in a lot of discomfort. Do you see what happened? I asked a question, was shouted and cursed at, and when I tried to leave, I was physically assaulted. Why is it OK to shout at and demean Christians, and we aren’t allowed to even get upset. I’m tired of the hypocrisy, and it’s only getting worse.

I am not about to force you to be a Christian, nor will I force you to believe as I do when it comes to various policies and laws. I will not allow you to silence me however, and I will no longer just ignore situations where Christians are silenced. If you want tolerance from me, you need to show it. If you want people to take you seriously, don’t act like a toddler told they can’t have ice cream for breakfast. In the simplest of terms, if you want to be taken seriously, then act in a way so as to deserve it.

God’s Not Dead


Earlier this year, I took my parents and nephew to see Risen, which had a preview for God’s Not Dead 2. I hadn’t yet seen God’s Not Dead, but being a history/political-science buff, and having gone to school to become a teacher (although that still hasn’t happened,) I was intrigued. I found God’s Not Dead and have to say, while hard to watch as a Christian, this is something that truly is happening on college campuses today, and I’m glad I did. Well, today, I took the parents and nephew to see God’s Not Dead 2, and we’re definitely going to see number 3 if/when it’s released.

Now, without spoiling the movie (and this is just from the trailer,) God’s Not Dead 2 follows a court case wherein a High School teacher is being sued by the parents of one of her students for “preaching in the classroom.” From the trailer we know that a student asked a question comparing Ghandi and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Jesus in their stand on non-violence. She asked about his words “love your enemy.” Melissa Joan Hart’s character then quoted that scripture, that’s it. During that scene in the trailer, another student texts his parents about it, and the teacher then starts a wild ride.

Now, I won’t say more about the movie, so as not to spoil it, and I ask that you not include spoilers in any comments. Moving on though, this isn’t a made up issue, nor an isolated one today. The production studio has listed many cases where Christians are silenced, or the attempt is made, on their website. I have a PDF of it here for anyone who doesn’t have Word or another program which opens Word files. This document shows instances of teachers and students being targeted, from elementary to post-secondary school, and thankfully, ADF represents many of these individuals, and has successfully kept the right to have your own faith and not hide it.

I’m a history major, and love the study of history and politics, so I know the words of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and much more. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…..” Yes, it goes on to list freedom of speech, the press and assembly, but the establishment and free exercise clauses are at the heart of these cases. The ACLU loves using the Establishment clause, and ignoring the free exercise clause, and does so often. Of course, “Separation of Church and State” is flung around as if chiseled into the very stone of all government buildings, while it’s ignored that Thomas Jefferson used that phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, and meaning that the separation is to protect the Church from the State, not to silence believers.

Yes, I am a Christian, and yes, that means I believe the words of Jesus, and believe that I, and every other human on the planet, is a sinner. I don’t say this to denigrate anyone, and you’ll notice, I put myself first in that statement, so neither do I use it to say I’m somehow better than others. I was and still am a sinner, but I choose to do all I can to not sin, and when I do, I confess and repent. Everything else, from marriage being a sacred union of a man and a woman, to homosexuality in general being wrong, and the need to repent and commit to Christ to avoid hell, I believe as well. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,” Ephesians 2:8

Being saved by grace means you can never earn it. Not only can you never live a completely sin free life, but neither can you volunteer, donate, or do enough to gain entry into Heaven when you die. This, it seems, is now the crux of the matter. The people who attack Christianity want to force Christians to recant, and to tell the world that avoiding hell (if they even acknowledge the existence of Heaven and hell) is a “right” and to be told you must work at it, you must repent, and you must accept Christ as your savior, is “denying their rights” so that they can then try to sue to force people to, at the very least, be silent.

So, to wrap this up, an old quote from Voltaire “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Now, I use this more often than not when referring to politics, but it works just as well in this situation as well. Today, criticizing the LGBT community, any minority group, or any faith other than Christianity, seems to be a lightning rod for the ACLU to sue. Why are we not allowed to speak about our faith, or criticize those who want to silence us? The answer is simple, those attacking Christianity in any way, want the benefits without the work. They want to go to Heaven, but want to live however they want until then. This is seen also in those who don’t want to work, but want a new car/TV/phone/etc. When you even suggest they work for the money to pay for those things, they scream that you’re “denying a right.” When anyone suggests drug tests for welfare recipients, or a “welfare to work” program, you’re “forcing single mothers to abandon their kids to strangers” never mind that women are having kids just to get more money, and these kids grow up to be criminals due to parents who don’t care about them. We must stand up and take our country back, or we will lose it forever.

You will never see me advocating a Theocracy, nor should you. The Founding Fathers set up a government where the people held the power, but it’s slowly been taken from us. I dream of a small government in DC, and at the state and local level. A government that only collects tax that it needed, no more, and doesn’t invent needs. I dream of the day when the government stops ordering how subjects be taught, how businesses operate, and how we live our lives. Yes, some will cite “discrimination” by businesses that refuse to serve gay customers, and it’s happened, but oddly, even when they are driven out of business by a small group of people, others rally to their aid. Why not let the market decide? If you don’t like a business, don’t spend your money there. If enough people do that, the business changes, or goes out of business. Christians are still doing that, we go to Hobby Lobby and Chic Fil A to support Christian/Faith Based businesses, and when a Christian is turned away by a business owned by someone who is part of the LGBT community, you don’t see a lawsuit, you just see them not go there at all, and word of mouth to their friends and family, no rants or cries for the “horrible discriminatory business to be destroyed,” just capitalism at work.

Odd isn’t it, that the very people who scream about discrimination, hate, intolerance and so on, are themselves the most guilty of it. While those they accuse, well, we may be upset and we may speak up, but we seem to be the ones, most often, who are the most inclusive and tolerant. Jesus taught that we are to love those who hate us, that we are to feed the hungry, house the homeless, and clothe the naked. To me, that’s it, I don’t care who you are, if you’re hungry I’ll feed you, and I’ll do all I can to help you back onto your own two feet. Why is it then, that I’m still a bigot or worse, simply because I happen to be a Christian?


Movie WebsitePDF of cases obtained here.

It seems that this dead horse is going to be beaten into goo

I’ve held off on this one simply because every time I pull up the link to think about how to address this, I either get angry at the hypocrisy shown, or break down into hysterical laughter, although the latter is far more common.

We’ve all seen the Age Of Ultron trailer where the Avengers try to life Mjolnir, with Captain America getting a minor reaction, and Black Widow declining to even attempt it. A side-note here, Cap. and Widow have both wielded Mjolnir in the comic books, indicating that they are, in fact, worthy. As for that bit, in the first Thor movie we see Odin banish Thor from Asgard, saying “Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, he shall possess the power of Thor.” OK, geekiness aside, back to the real topic at hand, that being “feminists” attacking Joss Whedon over one line in the movie.

Now, the trailer above doesn’t have the line, but in this scene in the movie, Tony says he will be reinstating Prima Noctis, that being the right of a king to have sex with a new bride on her wedding night (used by King of England in an attempt to breed Scots out of Scotland) and they began screeching that he supported rape, or the like. Story Link

Here’s the deal, Whedon didn’t write or have any control over the script, he was the Director! But, his name was on it, so naturally, he should have had the male Avengers bowing to the women, doing what they said, and made Ultron an oppressed woman who just wants to be treated equally.

One thing that is conveniently avoided or ignored, is that later in the movie, when Natasha asks Clint’s wife how “little Natasha” is, and is told the baby is a boy, she calls the unborn child a traitor, in the same joking tone of voice Tony uses in the scene with Mjolnir. Both of these lines are jokes, and were it not for this idiocy about Tony’s joke, I’d never have even considered Tasha’s joke for more than a movie line!

Tony Stark, the character, while he’s grown since his time as a prisoner of war in the middle east, is still a playboy, and an emotional teenager, so these jokes are his mainstay, and that’s the biggest part of his character. Even when fighting as Iron Man, he quips and puns the same, so my question is why a character that’s been this type of person for decades should be changed because people who have never read any of the comics the movie is bringing to life don’t like it? Simple, because these idiots have grown up never being told no, never being told they can’t have everything they want, and now it’s what they firmly believe. It’s yet another symptom of a society where coaches are told everyone trying out must make the team, where teachers are told they can’t use the word fail or use red ink on assignments, and where people are not allowed to compete in a competition because they win too often and others deserve a chance to win. Heaven forbid people actually let others think differently, or study for their tests, or work to be better than others, no, we live in a world where it’s now a “right” to win or get an A, and we’re reaping the whirlwind of a generation who scream that they be given what they have a right to, and when you aren’t willing to pay for their new phone or purse, you are the villain.

Well, I’m tired of it, and sadly I don’t see much hope of changing it any time soon. These people, now adults, need the spankings I got as a child when I was a brat, they need to be grounded for not doing their work, and need to be made to work for money to buy the new thing they want so badly, but no one is willing to do this any more.

Smokey Out

I’m going to go all geek for a bit

Since Thor first appeared on the big screen, the debate about Mjolnir, his hammer, has raged. Most recently, we’ve seen running jokes about Age of Ultron, Thor: The Dark World, The Avengers, and so much more. But there’s a key part people are missing or ignoring, sentience. In Thor: The Dark World, he hangs Mjolnir (M-yol-near – as two syllables) on a coat rack, and the debate begins.

You see, in Thor, Odin says (and I’m paraphrasing here) “Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, he shall possess the power of Thor.” Basically, Mjolnir can evaluate people, and decide if they should be able to wield a weapon as powerful as one forged in the heart of a dying star and imbued with Odinforce. This brings in the biggest question, how much does the hammer actually weigh? You see, if it was just weight, Thor would have to work out to be physically stronger, but strength doesn’t mean worthiness. We saw that in Captain America: The First Avenger, where the bigger guys were not worthy, as they’d abuse the power if given that boost, while Steve, a scrawny kid was given the power, which gave him strength to use in conjunction with his other powers (morals, mind, etc).

So, in essence, Mjolnir weighs nothing to someone who is worthy, and more than the Earth to one who isn’t. We saw the Ultron trailer where Captain America gets the hammer to wiggle, and Thor doesn’t know how, but only Thor (I won’t spoil Ultron for you, so I’m going with everything up to Thor 2 and Guardians, if you’ve seen Ultron, just respect others and don’t spoil it) can hold the hammer, and only after learning that there are things more important than his own life.

So, Thor could hang Mjolnir on a thumb-tack, and it would stay, but even Halfthor Bjornson (The Mountain from Game of Thrones) couldn’t move it with help from all the tech on Earth.

OK, my geek out is over, anyone else wanna weigh in on this?