Beautiful vs. Sexy Part 2 — I choose beauty

Adriana Dueck - The Corsair

So with all this reading and musing on sexuality that I’ve been doing, I’ve decided that beautiful is a word I’d rather be called by, because sexy can come under the umbrella of beauty.  To me sexuality is very much a part of being beautiful.  If someone, be it a man or a woman, tells you that you are beautiful, they are obviously physically attracted to you, and that can lead to one being thought of as “sexy.”

“Beautiful” is also a more flattering compliment because the people that I have met don’t describe a person as beautiful unless they are really impressed by how that person acts/behaves/carries him or herself. Beauty is something that is an inside part of you and it shines so brightly that everyone within your friendship circle, and even people outside of it, will notice and pick up on, and be literally drawn to like bees to honey.

Beauty also factors in with maturity, because little, stuck-up teenage girls who go around running their mouths and saying rude things are probably not very often called beautiful.  I’m not saying that you can’t be a little bit tough and be beautiful, but it’s about respecting yourself.  I can go out with my guy friends, drink a beer and down a whole pizza, holler like an idiot at Tom Brady and his teammates and still be the very feminine presence while hanging out with the guys.  That’s the problem with most girls today.  They miss the difference between “hanging out with the guys” and “being one of the guys.”  Angelina Jolie kicked total ass in “Wanted,” but she was very much a woman, and was very separate and identifiable compared to her “fraternity brothers.” 

That’s what being a beautiful, sexy woman is all about.  That’s what I’m realizing, and it’s making me more and more content to be myself every day.  Yup, I can curse, drink and smoke any guy I meet under the table, but he’ll think “that was the baddest chick I’ve ever met” when he walks away.  That’s what beauty is: owning yourself and everything about you (even your faults), and using all of these aspects of your personality to add to your sexiness.

I don’t really know anything

Paul Smith - The Corsair

Orson Welles once said, “If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.” Well, after several semesters spent writing for the Corsair, this is where my story stops. This will be my last ever piece written for this wonderful ol’ rag – and I consider this ending a happy one.

I’ve spent most of my time writing for the Corsair by dishing out opinions on various issues: identifying problems whether political or societal, analyzing the situation, and offering possible solutions. And though this may be the role I’ve played here for some time, I’ve never been totally comfortable with the rigidity such a role demands.

In fact, in my mild-mannered normal life, I don’t at all see myself as one who holds very strong opinions on “matters of consequence,” to quote Saint-Exupéry, for my psychological palette is a malleable one.

And as a result, I have at times felt a bit like a charlatan peddling snake oil from the back of my wagon for two bits a jar.

In these pages it was my job to at times come off as a know-it-all, but my real perspective on life is informed much more by what I don’t know rather than what I do. I consider myself an agnostic about most things, not just religion, but also science, politics, philosophy and pretty much the entire breadth of human knowledge.

When it comes to the big pertinent mysteries of life on this blue rock, I prefer to dwell comfortably in the gray area.

So, if I can leave you with any departing wisdom I have accumulated over the years it will not be pearls of dogmatic truth, but rather a handful of cautious suspicions.

For example, I suspect there is a world external to and independent of my senses. Therefore I have no real use for René Descartes’ postulation that we can never prove our reality is not a dream or merely the product of our imaginations. I have no empirical data to prove such a suspicion, but intuitive common sense leans me in this direction.

However, when it comes to what we as human beings can ascertain about this external world, I suspect the data and ideas we have on the matter are circumscribed by the faculties we possess in order to observe the world. Basically meaning this: I suspect that we can never know what the universe is, but only how our minds perceive the universe (my suspicions agree with Descartes on this one).

I suspect that there is no real logic in assuming the human being is capable of receiving, much less comprehending, the totality of existence, and I also suspect the quicker we abandon such assumptions the better off we will be as a species.

I suspect the ego (or sense of self) is a mental construct we create and represents only a tiny fragment of the mystery of consciousness. I suspect the more we identify wholly with the voice and thoughts in our heads, the closer we get to insanity. I suspect the more we try to place our life story, past troubles, emotional baggage, and habitual thought patterns into a little box our call it our “self,” the further we get from the reality of who we really are.

This is a troublesome suspicion to some, because we live in a culture where it is very en vogue to pretend to know who you are and to be proud of it. Most everyone thinks they are real.

Ram Dass once said, “The game is not about becoming somebody; it’s about becoming nobody.” I suspect he has a point.

I suspect that not only do we not know who we are, but that rejoicing in the mystery of non-identity is perhaps one of the keys to mental liberation. 

I like to view the ego as a repetitive song and dance routine performing for an empty theater, while outside the theater there are rapturous symphony orchestras playing within every molecule of existence… but maybe that’s just me.

And as for all of life’s other great mysteries, my suspicions oscillate somewhere between “I don’t know” and “maybe.”

Kurt Vonnegut once wrote, “There’s only one rule that I know of….damn it, you’ve got to be kind.”

I suspect, as for how we treat our fellow humans, Vonnegut’s rule is about the best we can muster: be kind to each other, let go of judgments, have empathy for all, and ultimately – let us not take ourselves too seriously and try to have a sense of humor along the way.    

So in the end, that’s the best I’ve got: no truths, no opinions, and no real solutions – just a bucket full of half-baked suspicions treading water like a lotus flower in an ocean of uncertainty.

But then again, what do I know? I’m just a charlatan whose story here has ended. So, I bid farewell to The Corsair and to PJC. I’m restocking my wagon with snake oil and hitting the ol’ dusty trail…  C’est la vie.

Smoking shouldn’t be banned campus wide

The Corsair staff has recently learned that the administration at PJC is considering implementing a ban on smoking anywhere on the Pensacola campus – a rule which is already in effect on the Warrington campus.

We at the Corsair feel this proposed campus-wide smoking ban would be far too overreaching and unnecessary. While we understand and empathize with why such a ban is being considered, we feel the reasons against such a ban outweigh the reasons in favor.

Granted, secondhand smoke and cigarette litter are legitimate concerns, but forcing hundreds of students who smoke cigarettes to leave the campus is far too excessive means by which to address such issues.

A mass exodus of smokers from campus between classes poses many problems, such as more congestion of traffic, students losing their parking spots, non-driving students struggling to find safe smoking locations, and ultimately more students being late for classes.

We also see no reasonable way such a rule could be effectively enforced. We feel requiring PJC security personnel to constantly be on watch for people smoking on campus would be a complete waste of time and resources.  

PJC already has a rule in place which states that people must smoke at least (NEED FIGURE) feet away from any building. We feel this rule is sufficient enough and should be enforced rather than implementing a campus-wide smoking ban.

It would be far easier to enforce the current rules than impose the proposed smoking prohibition.

However, if the administration just absolutely feels the current smoking rules are not working, we recommend in the very least a smoking area to be designated in a specific location or locations across the campus similar to free speech zones.

These accommodations could be very easily implemented and enforced. And this method would prevent students and faculty from having to leave the campus altogether in order to partake in the legal activity of smoking.

We at the Corsair understand smoking is a problem and has become increasingly unpopular, but we feel the proposed campus-wide ban is the wrong approach to address this issue while other more sensible and appropriate measures could be taken.

Campus No Smoking Directive

• There will be no smoking (students, faculty, staff, guests) within 50 feet of
Buildings 1, 4, 15, 17 and 21. These buildings are now considered non-smoking
areas.

• Individuals who intentionally and repeatedly violate the aforementioned
directives will be referred to the office of the vice president of Student Affairs
(for students and staff) and the office of the vice president of Academic Affairs
(for faculty) for resolution of the situation. Both vice presidents will endeavor to
assist members of the college community to understand the necessity of implementing
these directives.

Just Cause 2 brings players to new heights

Wade Manns - The Corsair

 

Just Cause 2 by Square ENIX

Genre: third person freeroaming, action-adventure

Rating: Mature for Blood, Drug Reference, Language, Sexual Themes, Violence.

If you’ve read my articles for a while, you’ll know that I really like the Grand Theft Auto series. Not for the actions of  crime, or its extreme violence, but rather for the exploration factor. I never know what I’ll find around the next corner, but with this game, as well as its prequel, I am able to rise above and see around all the corners at once.

The amount of  verticality in exploration is quite unprecedented in this game. You can take a plane or helicopter up to a seemingly limitless altitude, jump out, and parachute endlessly to the land below. If you’re on land, you can fire a wrist-mounted grappling hook at any time to latch onto buildings and reel yourself in, climbing to new heights, or you can deploy your  parachute at any time to get even more height. You can even latch on to cars with your grappling hook, and take control of them whenever you  like.

This unique method of parachute and grappling hook mobility enables you to reach any point in the game at any time, as long as you’re willing to work for it. There are even several achievements that you can unlock for getting to various places on the very huge map.

The story, like the first Just Cause, takes place on an island country, this  time in Southeast Asia, Panau (the first one, San Esperito, was more Latin American). As in the first game, you are Rico  Rodriguez, guerrilla revolutionary and globetrotter extraordinaire. Your mentor from the first game, Don Sheldon, has gone rogue and hidden himself somewhere in Panau. Your job is to find him, determine if he is a threat to the agency for  which you work and, if he is, terminate him.

If you remember the first game, you’ll know that the voice acting is really not all that good. In fact, it downright stinks. This holds true to the sequel as well. There are three gang bosses that you work  for in order to take over the various regions of the country for their use as well as yours, and the cut scenes in which the bosses appear, while looking very good, are filled with some of the most atrocious voice acting you’ll hear in video games.  And Sheldon himself, once you get to find him, is found to have had the exact same verbal tic as in the first game, that being enunciating every single word rather stiltedly and not ever placing emphasis on the appropriate syllables. Still, you learn what you need to learn, even  if you have to read the subtitles because you had to mute the sound.

There is a massive variety of terrain to explore in the game, and you’ll see most of it from the air: from seaside shanty villages to heavily  fortified military bases, to air bases and seaports, full-f ledged cities, tropical paradises, high, snowy mountains, arid deserts and a certain island with a somewhat familiar ambience; you’ll know it when you see it. Your goal is to cause enough chaos by destroying property of the Panauan government, almost always clearly marked with a white star. Radio  antennas, radar installations, surface-to-air missile sites, generators, water towers—all of these fall before your guns and rockets, which you may purchase from the black market, given enough money. From the same black market, you can also purchase various vehicles, some with weapons of their own, and you can upgrade both your weapons and vehicles with myriad weapon and vehicle parts that you find strewn throughout the locations that you’ll explore.

There is a whole lot of  stuff to do in Just Cause 2. You can get lost doing (as in, completing the disruption and collection at over 350 locations on  the island) various side-missions, but working for Rico’s agency is what pushes the story along. It doesn’t really stick  round long enough for you to care about it, but it gets the job done. I’ll give this an 8 out of 10. As I said, the voice acting  is not really up to par, and some things that you get to do can be a little repetitive after a while, but I forgive the game. Mostly.

So… What’s up with the Health Care bill?

Adrianna Dueck - The Corsair

Obama’s new Health Care bill is probably the most disturbing and troubling problem that America is having currently.  Even more unfortunate is the fact that I, along with most college students, have no idea what is actually going on inside of the closed doors in Washington D.C.  Now I’m not saying that we should or will ever have the chance to read these bills from beginning to end, but the student body of America needs to become more involved in what is going on in the nation’s capitol. 

After having a brief discussion about it with my ultra-conservative parents, which will be followed by research of my own, I have gained a small grasp on what’s going on politically.  Several states are actually in an uproar trying to get the bill reserved in court, but the main controversy is that health care will be required for everyone and payment premiums will almost indefinitely go up. 

I have also heard lots of smoke surrounding the tea party mini-rebellions, but that doesn’t interest me so much as a journalist.  While controversial issues like the tea party may cause scandal, I don’t consider them to be news unless actions are actually taken.  The only thing that the members of said group seem do be doing in my knowledge is making politicians really ticked off and displaying rowdy behavior on courthouse steps.

Back to the health bill.  The thing that concerns me the most regarding it is the fact that everyone will be required to have health insurance and pay a minimum premium for it.  I am fortunate to be a member of one of the healthiest families on earth, so my parents have never had it and our doctor trips have always consisted of the once-a-year checkup.  What will I do, though, when I move out?  If the bill goes through will I be required to buy insurance even though I don’t need it (we pay our annual doctor visit out of pocket)?  Should I get it just in case of having to go to a hospital for causes such as an accident?  What if I buy it, pay a huge premium and never end up using it?  I will spend the next couple of days researching this and will be back to blog more once I have been truly “informed.”

Sexy or beautiful? Which are you? Part 1

Adrianna Dueck - The Corsair

With all the amazing reality shows that viewers have to choose from on TV every night, the question that arises is “what does beauty really mean in our society?”  Does having on the hottest, smallest, tightest Armani short shorts and an elegant Dolce blouse make one sexy, or is it the air and confidence that come with a person that makes a woman (the most stressed form of beauty and sexuality being female in our society) attractive?

 While flipping through late-night TV last night, I stumbled upon Jessica Simpson’s new reality show, “The Price of Beauty.”  While at first I scoffed at her for wanting to stay in the public eye with another reality show (her last one revolving around her and her then-husband Nick Lachey) and the nonsensical idea of her trying to adapt to every culture that there is worldwide.  But, after watching it for about ten minutes I was totally captivated by it and wouldn’t leave the couch until the thirty-minute show was over. 

She was in Morocco for the episode that I watched, and she was interacting with the women in a mostly-Muslim society that required females to cover almost everything except for their eyes.  While more modern, liberal women have the freedom to dress as they want, most of them stick to the traditional dress, and belly dancers and women of lesser repute wear the more revealing, “sexy” clothes.  A more traditional woman commented on Jessica’s shorts and said that she was showing too much leg, which left Jessica feeling frustrated and defensive.  The woman’s friend and Jessica’s tour guide, Miriam, later explained that a woman’s sexuality in their country was not measured by how alluring her body was, but by how she could communicate with her eyes and sometimes her speech. 

Sitting there watching the show, that comment felt like I’d been hit on the head with a brick.  A woman can be as gorgeous as Miss Universe all day long, but if she cannot communicate and behave like a lady that will not make her sexual.  I, personally, struggle a lot with eye contact and that also made me wonder if I could lure a man into my tricky web of womanhood without showing him or allowing him to touch any part of my body.  It opened my eyes to the true difference between being “hot” and being “sexy.”  Watching just that one episode made me so aware of how to exude such a beautiful and pure form of sensuality—it will definitely change my behavior when I’m out at the local nightclubs or just out living my every day life.

Watching this show made me start to do some more research on women’s sexuality, especially outside of the United States, which eventually led me to reading several books on the art of the European courtesan.  I will follow up more on my research in a later blog, but I will share my basic knowledge of courtesans that I have discovered thus far.  Contrary to modern belief, courtesans were not (are still not) prostitutes or call girls.  They are elite mistresses of men who can afford them.  They were the most sexually free women of their time and some of the most respected by men as they had only one partner at a time, and were muses for great poets, painters, and other artists.  In exchange for strong relationships and friendship, later followed by a sexual relationship, courtesans would give their bodies to men who would spend time with them and provide for them.  The affair could only be ended by the man, and once it did the woman was free to go find another partner and provider.  These women have also inspired me and opened a new world to my thought process on sexuality.  While I do not personally plan on becoming a courtesan, the thought that women were not only paid for and provided for in return of sexual relations, they were respected and fervently sought after by some of history’s greatest men.  As I said earlier, I will follow up with this article as I will continue to watch Simpson’s show and research more books on female sexuality.

Award-winning author comes to PJC

Kay Forrest - The Corsair

Rheta Grimsley Johnson has a simple piece of advice to offer aspiring journalists. “Learn to write a short declarative sentence, learn the basics, and all the rest is just gravy,” she said. “You cannot name a great American writer who was not first a newspaper person, with the exception of Faulkner… But he never learned to write the short, declarative sentence,” she added with a laugh.

Johnson is a writer, a “newspaper person” and a true southern girl. She has spent her life residing all over the deep-south: she was born in Colquitt, Ga., grew up mostly in Montgomery, Ala., and currently lives on 100 acres “out in the boonies” in Iuka, Miss. with her three dogs. As a small child, she even spent five years in Pensacola; she has fond memories of this “magical place” and the pink, concrete home her family lived in.

On April 14, Johnson will come back to Pensacola once again as part of the tour for her latest book, “Enchanted Evening Barbie and the Second Coming: A Memoir.” Pensacola is just one of the many southern stops on her anticipated yearlong tour.

“It’s an uneven book, but that’s because life is uneven,” she said. She began the memoir in January 2009 as a light, comedic look at pivotal Christmases throughout her life, because as she said, “A lot of things happen to me around Christmas.” However, her writing came to a standstill when her husband suddenly passed away from heart complications that March. She finally went on to continue the book, but with a sometimes darker, more emotional tone. Her writing was a form of therapy to her. “Work always saves me; writing always helps me,” she said.

Though Johnson is an accomplished book author, with “Enchanted Evening Barbie” being her fourth published book, she is above all a newspaper journalist. She began her journalism career in the 8th grade, writing for her school newspaper in 1960s Alabama. She then went on to obtain a journalism degree from Auburn University in 1977. She has worked as a reporter for many different newspapers over the years, including 14 years at the “Memphis Commercial Appeal” in Tennessee. A compendium of her columns from this publication make up her first published book, “American Faces.”

Johnson has won several awards for her writing, including the National Pacemaker Award in college, and the Headliner Award for commentary two years in a row. She was even inducted into the Scripps Howard Newspaper’s Editorial hall of fame in 1985, and was one of three finalists for the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1991.

“I wouldn’t trade my profession for anything,” Johnson said. Her favorite thing about her work has been writing about normal, everyday people. “I find it fascinating that everyone has a story. But, they’re usually not ‘splashy’ enough for most people to want to write about,” she said. “I devote my time to ordinary people.”

However, she does admit that one highlight of her career was writing the biography of one “ordinary person” who happened to be famous: Charles Schulz, the creator of the hugely famous comic strip, “Peanuts.” For “Good Grief: The Story of Charles M. Schulz” she spent time on and off with Schulz in Santa Rosa, Calif., interviewing him and getting to know the “kind, gracious man” that he was. She said that each character in “Peanuts” represents an aspect of Schulz, but as a whole he truly was Charlie Brown.

Apart from taking time to write her books, Johnson is still a newspaper journalist through and through. She currently works for King Features Syndicate of New York, with her column running in about 50 different newspapers throughout the country. Though she has had bumps in the road, Johnson has always kept writing. Once, when she felt discouraged over a particular article, her friend encouraged her to “just make sure to make it beautiful.” And, with that she heartily agrees, “That’s what our goal [as writers] should be: to make it beautiful.”

Burton delivers a 3-D ‘Alice’

Jeremy Torres - The Corsair

Tim Burton’s new 3-D version of “Alice in Wonderland” is absolutely visually dazzling. This is the sequel to the 1951 Disney film of the same name that featured characters whose purpose was to tease, puzzle, and torment a young girl named Alice.

“What a child’s film,” I thought of the Disney version. However, Burton’s new addition has made me realize that “Alice in Wonderland” has never been a child’s story. Alice’s role, portrayed by Mia Wasikowska, is much more compelling as an adult, which is how Burton presents her. In the new film, Alice must revisit a world that has remained much the same, as most fantasy worlds do.

Unlike the juvenile familiar cartoon images that we all know, Burton does a wonderful job presenting all of the characters as they were meant to be presented. They are grotesque. When we meet Alice again at the beginning of this film, she does not remember much of her original trip to Wonderland. She once again follows the white rabbit in the suit to a small hole, only to slip and fall into that hole.

Once Alice is back in Wonderland, she discovers that the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) is trying to conquer Wonderland and do away with her sister, the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). Now Alice must set out on a long adventure to save Wonderland. She runs into numerous familiar characters along the way.

Wonderland is filled with many different species that range from a caffeine addicted hare to a seemingly mentally insane Mad Hatter. The Mad Hatter, deftly portrayed by Johnny Depp, delivers a silly shtick, breaking into a jig or brogue at the drop of a hat. However, he also displays an emotional side in this film. The Mad Hatter has a few scenes where he takes on the role of a father-like figure for Alice. In the midst of chaos it’s the Mad Hatter who brings life, joy, and heart into the film.

This film is enchanting. Featuring some of Hollywood’s biggest names, dazzling 3-D effects, and Burton’s trademark quirkiness, it’s a must see for everyone.

Glenn Beck is a dangerous unhinged moron

Paul Smith - The Corsair

Conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck has quickly become a rising a star on the Fox News channel. And it’s not hard to see why: he’s a very skilled entertainer. He knows how to rile up a crowd with an act that’s equal parts carnival clown as well as dopey, red-faced mad prophet.

However, the meteoric rise of Beck’s popularity is also somewhat troubling. While he may be entertaining, he also has almost no idea what he’s talking about.

And in the process, he is not only wildly misinforming his audience about important political issues, but he is scaring them into believing the government is turning into some kind of Nazi-Communist regime.

But let’s first demonstrate that Beck has consistently made factual errors before assailing his overall laughably erroneous thesis on government.

He claimed the current health care bill offers insurance for dogs. It does not.

He claimed America is the only country in the world that has automatic citizenship upon birth. This is not true; Canada, Brazil, and Romania all do the same thing, just to name a few.

He claimed that Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union, was the most frequent visitor to the White House. No, he wasn’t. Many other people had visited more times than Stern.

He claimed the founding fathers would have approved of states seceding from the union. Only someone vastly unfamiliar with the founding fathers could make such a ridiculous claim.

He claimed John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has “proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.” Holdren said no such thing.

He gave credence to the wild conspiracy theory that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was building concentration camps for a possible government take-over and rounding up of citizens. This one was so untrue that Beck eventually had to offer a correction and bring someone on his show to debunk the theory.

He once asked Pastor John Hagee whether President Obama was the anti-Christ.

He claimed that Obama was a racist. But he didn’t just call him a racist, Beck said Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture.” A few moments later Beck suggested, “I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people.” Actually, that was exactly what he said only seconds before.

While there are many more ridiculous claims to list, the most dangerous aspect of Beck’s song and dance routine is his constant insistence that liberalism or progressivism is some kind of Bolshevik plot that will lead to the hideous demon spawn of Hitler and Chairman Mao.

Beck has seriously convinced a large part of his audience that the election of Barrack Obama and Democratic majorities in Congress is paving the way for a totalitarian socialist dictatorship. Not only is this completely fallacious and preposterous, but it demonstrates that Beck has absolutely no coherent understanding of the concept of socialism.

The classical definition of socialism is an economic theory concerning government or public ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. The intricacies are too vast to discuss in full here, but classical socialism has much in common with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ ideas about communism.

However, not only is the classical form of socialism (government in complete control of the means of production) in absolutely no danger of ever happening in America, but this kind of socialism is not even what Beck is referring to.

What Beck and many other modern conservatives call socialism is any form of government or taxpayer-funded enterprise—basically any publically-funded endeavor whatsoever.

This kind of thinking would mean that not only are government-entitlement programs forms of socialism (some of which are almost universally supported by politicians and citizens alike, such as Social Security and Medicare), but this would mean that every local fire department, police department, and public school are all part of the socialist conspiracy.

This would also mean that the entire military and veterans programs (which are paid for by taxes) are socialist endeavors. And, for that matter, this would mean that every government employee whether they be a postman, a soldier, a congressman or a Supreme Court Justice are all just pawns in the socialist game.

The reality is that almost every form of democracy on the planet has some hybrid of free-market capitalism along with tax-payer funded social programs. 

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, ranks countries each year by an “economic freedom index” which they define as “an absolute right of property ownership, fully realized freedoms of movement for labor, capital, and goods.” This means they rank the countries according to which have the freest markets in diametric opposition to the classical ideas of socialism and communism.

Guess which countries consistently make it to the top of that list: Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia—countries which all have a form of publicly-funded universal healthcare along with many other taxpayer-funded programs.

And for the record, President Obama is not a socialist. In fact, judging by the way his administration has crafted policy, he’s not even a progressive and is barely a liberal.

The Obama administration governs with a centrist ideology that has kowtowed on many issues to corporate interests just like every other president’s administration has for the past several decades.

But Beck has no interest in selling this kind of nuance to his audience. Instead, he chooses to fire up his viewers by shedding crocodile tears, scrawling madcap conspiracy theories on his chalkboard, and soothsaying about the day the brown-shirts will come to abort your babies and send your families to the concentration camps.

Beck may be entertaining, but his rhetoric is dangerous. He wants you to be afraid, but he has neither the facts nor the intelligence to back it up.

So, the next time you watch Beck’s show, don’t be frightened. Just use this mantra to pacify your mind: This man has no idea what he’s talking about.

Hope to Harvest: Consuming Compassion

Ansley Zecckine - The Corsair

With all the recent natural disasters occurring all around us, some people begin to question what God has been doing, and others quickly proclaim these disasters as being nothing other than God’s judgment on sinful nations that deserved what they had coming.

The time has come, however, that we should quit pointing the finger and stop putting words in God’s mouth. Perhaps we should consider an earthquake to be an earthquake, and a hurricane to be a hurricane, and a tsunami to be a tsunami; consider them natural disasters, not necessarily acts of God. Instead of pointing fingers in condemnation, we should lend hands in compassion out of love for our fellow man.

This involves Christians living as Christians, not acting as divine judges or prosecutors. It’s nowhere near our place to say a nation has been judged by God or that they should have their lives destroyed because of their sinful lifestyle. The only one qualified to make such a judgment would be someone who was perfect and had done no wrongdoing. Incidentally, the only person ever to meet that qualification saw it fit to lay down His life for the rest of us, and He said we should do the same.

____________________________________________________________________________

“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”—1 John 3:16-17.

_____________________________________________________________________________

There’s a story in the Book of Luke about a group of people that refused to receive Jesus into their village as He was passing by. Upon this rejection, two of the disciples wanted to destroy that village, so they asked Jesus, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” Jesus, on the other hand, actually rebuked His disciples and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”

We’re no better than the people of Haiti, Chile, New Orleans, or any of the hundreds of thousands killed by tsunamis and other disasters. Death is only a heartbeat away for each of us, and I would rather die spreading compassion in a place like Haiti than live as one who’d prefer to sit back and hurl judgments from the United States.

Next Page »