I was given an interesting piece of candy today by a woman at work. I, unfortunately, have very little self restraint when it comes to sweets if they are offered to me, are laying around my immediate area, or I am bored. Two of those three collided today.
Regardless, back to the point of this post: this piece of candy.
It was a chocolate cross.
Now, not being a Christian (or anything, really), I was a little taken aback for a few reasons:
1) I was surprised that she brought this fairly blatant religious "object" to work
(though I've now learned that the "rules" about bringing religion to the work place are routinely broken if said religion is crucifixion-based)
2) I wondered why she gave this piece of candy to me. As far as I know, I haven't led anyone to believe that I'm a Jesus follower.
3) I am stunned that they make chocolate crosses
4) I am really stunned that they make chocolate crosses!
5) I'm flabbergasted... oh, you get the point
Points 3 and 4 I would like to discuss, however briefly. Why in the world do candy crosses exist?!?! Is the cross not supposed to be a poignant symbol of suffering? Isn't that the reason why it's the symbol of Christianity, to remind the flock of their Saviors hardships?
How could it be turned into a sweet confection? I would not put it past the "creative" dunces (the ones that weren't smart enough to think blue-turning-mountains when a beer can gets cold) to come up with the idea, but I would have thought that maybe, just maybe, there would have been an intelligent marketer that would have spoken up at a meeting: "Uh, maybe this isn't such a good product design. Wouldn't half-intelligent people be offended by this?"
Well, obviously there wasn't such a person. And it's probably better for whoever that might have been, because the market has spoken and that person would have been wrong: people bought the candy!!??
So, the better question is why, oh why, oh why? Why don't the right-eous (get it?) Christians go after these companies, that are, to me at least, making a mockery of the most important Christian symbol? Or if they are going after them, why not spend a little more energy on that quest and a little less trying to convince the world that gay people are just "confused," that they chose to be that way, and that the don't deserve the same rights (yes marriage) as straight people.
Yes, chocolate candy has nothing to do with that last subject, but once I got going, I couldn't stop.
I ate a bit of the chocolate (the top and left arms) but then threw the rest away. Not for Him, but for My Waistline. I have commericials to thank for that last worry.
Showing posts with label don't talk about politics on blogs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label don't talk about politics on blogs. Show all posts
Monday, April 20, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
FDR
I just watched a very interesting documentary on the first half of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. I learned, or relearned, some really neat things:
1) I guess that I really didn't know that polio completely paralyzed him from the waist down. So much so that, even while sitting down, he had to grab on to something because he didn't have the muscles in his butt to hold up his upper body. It's astounding, as well as a sign of the irrelevance of TV at the time, that at his death, hardly any of the public knew that Roosevelt could not walk. In all of those photos we see of him, smiling and vibrant, he is using rigid, metal, and painful leg casts. In addition, he supports one side with his cane and the other by grabbing on to someone.
I am astounded at that courage and will to persevere.
2) Whatever his private feelings on race, he was, at best, indifferent to the plight of blacks in the South. The excuse offered by some historians in the documentary, and one that the History Channel seems to smooth over as being OK, is that Roosevelt did not tackle segregation because he needed the Southern votes to quickly pass all of his New Deal legislations.
That is a shameful mark against him, in my book.
3) It appears, just using some of the numbers offered in the documentary, that for all the hoopla surrounding the New Deal, not much changed in his first two terms. Unemployment started at around 20% nationwide (an astounding number). After tripling taxes and overstepping the powers of the President (as ruled by the Supreme Court at the time) by essentially socializing the American economy with the National Industrial Recovery Act, unemployment had only decreased by around 5% by 1940, and the industrial and agricultural output of the country had barely changed.
Now, perhaps putting 5% of the country back to work in nothing to scoff at, but I had a now disproved notion that Roosevelt's New Deal was a great silver bullet that cured the Great Depression in the United States.
I will definitely need to read more on his Presidency, especially the first eight years. However, based on what I just heard and saw, it seems like FDR would not even be in consideration for the "best" President without World War II. His policies essentially failed during the first eight years.
More worrisome, and relevant to today, is that FDR's ideas and institutions for the New Deal sound a whole lot like Obama's proposed "stimulus" bill. In an admittedly broad summary, Obama proposes (FDR's parallel in quotes) to rebuild the nation's infrastructure (CWA, CCC, PWA), use the government to mandate the nation's industrial output (NRA), upgrade/modify how we create power (REA, TVA), and nationalize, at least in some sense, the banking industry (SEC).
I certainly want our economy to recover as quickly as possible, but this documentary certainly made me wonder if the Obama administration is not going about it in the wrong way.
PS. I realize that it's certainly not fair of me to criticize Obama or FDR, or even compare them and their policies, without being more versed on the histories and detailed policies of both. Just consider this the first in an argument that I'll have with myself on this blog.
1) I guess that I really didn't know that polio completely paralyzed him from the waist down. So much so that, even while sitting down, he had to grab on to something because he didn't have the muscles in his butt to hold up his upper body. It's astounding, as well as a sign of the irrelevance of TV at the time, that at his death, hardly any of the public knew that Roosevelt could not walk. In all of those photos we see of him, smiling and vibrant, he is using rigid, metal, and painful leg casts. In addition, he supports one side with his cane and the other by grabbing on to someone.
I am astounded at that courage and will to persevere.
2) Whatever his private feelings on race, he was, at best, indifferent to the plight of blacks in the South. The excuse offered by some historians in the documentary, and one that the History Channel seems to smooth over as being OK, is that Roosevelt did not tackle segregation because he needed the Southern votes to quickly pass all of his New Deal legislations.
That is a shameful mark against him, in my book.
3) It appears, just using some of the numbers offered in the documentary, that for all the hoopla surrounding the New Deal, not much changed in his first two terms. Unemployment started at around 20% nationwide (an astounding number). After tripling taxes and overstepping the powers of the President (as ruled by the Supreme Court at the time) by essentially socializing the American economy with the National Industrial Recovery Act, unemployment had only decreased by around 5% by 1940, and the industrial and agricultural output of the country had barely changed.
Now, perhaps putting 5% of the country back to work in nothing to scoff at, but I had a now disproved notion that Roosevelt's New Deal was a great silver bullet that cured the Great Depression in the United States.
I will definitely need to read more on his Presidency, especially the first eight years. However, based on what I just heard and saw, it seems like FDR would not even be in consideration for the "best" President without World War II. His policies essentially failed during the first eight years.
More worrisome, and relevant to today, is that FDR's ideas and institutions for the New Deal sound a whole lot like Obama's proposed "stimulus" bill. In an admittedly broad summary, Obama proposes (FDR's parallel in quotes) to rebuild the nation's infrastructure (CWA, CCC, PWA), use the government to mandate the nation's industrial output (NRA), upgrade/modify how we create power (REA, TVA), and nationalize, at least in some sense, the banking industry (SEC).
I certainly want our economy to recover as quickly as possible, but this documentary certainly made me wonder if the Obama administration is not going about it in the wrong way.
PS. I realize that it's certainly not fair of me to criticize Obama or FDR, or even compare them and their policies, without being more versed on the histories and detailed policies of both. Just consider this the first in an argument that I'll have with myself on this blog.
tardy
I know its already old news (like, it happened over a week ago, oh my god), but I was just reflecting on how angry/sad/disappointed I was that we (as Americans) put up with parading a four star general, David Petraeus, out before the Super Bowl to FLIP A COIN.
They said nice things about him for about 10 seconds, had him flip the coin, and then the referee quickly shoved him out of the way to get down to the really important war, The Super Bowl.
In my mind, that image brought about this conversation snippet:
"We really appreciate your sacrifice, and by extension, every other military man's hard work. So much so that we would love for you to do the monkey job of flipping the coin before the Super Bowl. Does that pander enough to Americans' feigned sense of pride and interest in our military? It does?! Great! Now get out of the way."
Panem et circensus - bread and circus. This was once a criticism of Roman society, how it had detioraited to point where the government only sought to keep the masses appeased.
This Super Bowl "moment", along with the famously vast quantities of food and beverages consumed during the game, made we wonder if perhaps the United States are not more like the Roman Empire than we would think. Rome ruled its world for a time, then fell apart due to internal economic woes (e.g. the gap between rich and poor) and external wars that strained the economy. Is the American Empire in it's decline as well?
They said nice things about him for about 10 seconds, had him flip the coin, and then the referee quickly shoved him out of the way to get down to the really important war, The Super Bowl.
In my mind, that image brought about this conversation snippet:
"We really appreciate your sacrifice, and by extension, every other military man's hard work. So much so that we would love for you to do the monkey job of flipping the coin before the Super Bowl. Does that pander enough to Americans' feigned sense of pride and interest in our military? It does?! Great! Now get out of the way."
Panem et circensus - bread and circus. This was once a criticism of Roman society, how it had detioraited to point where the government only sought to keep the masses appeased.
This Super Bowl "moment", along with the famously vast quantities of food and beverages consumed during the game, made we wonder if perhaps the United States are not more like the Roman Empire than we would think. Rome ruled its world for a time, then fell apart due to internal economic woes (e.g. the gap between rich and poor) and external wars that strained the economy. Is the American Empire in it's decline as well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
