Those are your ONLY options.
If you think OJ Simpson is innocent... you are either ignorant or crazy. Those are your only two options. Only two! You either are completely unaware of the damning evidence against him... or you have heard all the evidence and you still believe that someone else randomly hacked and slashed two people over 100 times... ALMOST 100 TIMES... almost beheading one of them... and then just stopped killing. Decided murder wasn't for them? Lets just ponder that for a moment... because, when I first heard about it... even as a pre-teen... my first reaction was:
"she was stabbed... 100 times? ooooo, he was mad at her."
The point being, it doesn't take a genius ( though I play one on tv! ) to figure out that this was a crime of passion. Some people want to say maybe he hired someone, but thats as deep as his culpability goes. My question to that would be... who did he hire... Jack the Ripper??? If its not messy and gruesome enough... you get your money back?
"Dont just kill her... cut her throat OFF!" - OJ talking to careless hitman?
That would be the worst hired assassin in the HISTORY of... of... of assassinations! And there was no robbery attempt. Who robs someone with a knife anyway? My question is... lets say that the OJ supporters are right... the "real killer" is still out there... where did he go? He just stopped killing?? Usually you hear of serial killers or what not. If OJ didn't do it... and this guy is still out there... there should be an increasing number of bludgeoned bodies out there piling up! This mystery person just decided to go out this ONE night... randomly picked out two people... stabbed them beyond belief (again, Nicole was almost decapitated) and then decided he was done with the killing? You believe that? Wh-wh-wha- what?!!
"Whew... that was close. This was a little dangerous. Even though Im getting off scot-free because someone else is taking the fall for me! Repeatedly stabbing two people 100 times can be a little crazy. I had better stop! I'm cured! No more killing! NO MORE RANDOM KILLINGS FROM ME!!!"
There is a reason that hired assassins dont operate like this... its called... EVIDENCE. Geeez... this shouldn't be that difficult. Anyone who is going to stab two people to death is going to leave evidence all other the place. This is why hitmen and robbers use these things called... um... guns?
Anyway... what of the evidence? His blood was found at the crime scene. His blood was found stained in the bronco. His blood was found dripping into his house. Her blood was in the Bronco. Her blood was dripped in his home. Ron Goldman's as well. His socks had her blood samples on them. He had no alibi. He failed a polygraph test. There was a blood soaked glove at the crime scene and his house. There were bloody footprints leaving her home that were the imprint of an expensive shoe that he was photographed as wearing before. (This random killer is rich too?) And last but not least... cuts on his hands and wrists. Where did these cuts come from? Hmmm... I mean, the evidence is so damning, it doesn't really need any elaboration... but let me think up an alibi:
"Dude... I was like... totally pruning my roses last night... whoa... those thorns... whew... they're as long as all I dont know what! Brutal! Im telling you... but... I love my garden... so, even though I kept cutting myself... on those thorns... I had to get the job done... just like my football days. I'm a go-getter... ya see... thats why you see my blood... you're use to those... gardner types... who quit... on the roses... remember... I went to USC... I played in the Rose Bowl... so Roses are near and dear to my heart... I always prune at 10pm. Right before I take random trips out of town. Its the best time... pre-photosynthesification... look it up... its a real word. Yeah... so... um... thats.... my alibi... and Im sticking to it. No pun intended. Ooops."
And... for the CRESCENDO: a GUN TO YOUR HEAD in a bronco??? How can you not be guilty after that? They could have arrested him at his home, but because he's RICH they told him he was under arrest ahead of time and agreed on when he would turn himself in (wow, racist cops!) and now we see this guy on the freeway mumbling incoherently with a gun to his head. Am I the only one who remembers seeing that? That is "automatic-guiltification" at that point. If you're in a car with a gun to your head, you have just forfeited your right to a trial! Monopoly time. No-pass-go. Straight to jail. At one point, when they're trying to talk him into throwing the gun out of the window the negotiator says basically, throw it out and noone will get hurt. OJ tells the negotiator:
"im the only one who deserves to get hurt" - OJ in the bronco
Find the taped audio of the Bronco chase and you can hear it yourself. Do the rational need any more proof?
Now, here's the kicker about the race card... OJ Simpson? C'mon. Really. Him? Of all people? Can we think back on pre-murder OJ? When has he been associated with civil rights or social movements or ANYTHING?!!! He wouldn't even COMMENT on race matters! In the 1970's... being a star college player at USC and then the Buffalo Bills, OJ Simpson was one of the first (non-threatening) "amiable" black athletes that could be marketed to white-America. Okay... people want to make it out as if this is militant Jim Brown we're talking about here!!! Who doesn't remember the smiling OJ Simpson running through the airport in a Hertz commercial with happy white people waving at him? In fact... as the most prominent black face of the time period, he was ASKED to get involved in racial issues in the 70's... and he... like athletes who have come after him, CHOSE to avoid the race issue. Its not his deal. He plays football. He's not political. Social causes are not his deal. One of the young founders of the Black Panthers, Huey Newton, openly and explicity criticized OJ Simpson for being a sell-out... and now this irrational rush to support OJ Simpson on the grounds or race? He went to Brentwood and never looked back. Divorced his first (black) wife and married Nicole Brown, who was a waitress in a night-club at the time. I dont get it. Im not criticizing these decisions... he was free to marry who he wanted, and live where he wanted, HOWEVER... this is one of the last people who should try to use "racial prejudice" as a defense. You live in Brentwood, fool. Come on...
Have I even mentioned the book: "If I Did It" ?
This was almost as weird as seeing Michael Jackson with Muslims around screaming racism at the music industry for not promoting his album aggressively enough after a child-molestation case. No... its not racism, maybe its just that... Thriller and Billie Jean were almost 25 years ago! When people think of you now... the first things that come to mind are, Emmanuel Lewis, McCauley Kulkin, Catholic-sized sex abuse scandals, weird boyscout leaders... and... um... a whole bunch... of... *cough* Jesus Juice.
Its not always racism... maybe... its just you. You dont have to support every jackass with brownskin. The only thing this does, is damage the general publics perception of race and prejudice so when there really is an issue where race needs to be examined... people will not be as willing to do so. ( a la The Boy Who Cried Wolf )
There are still wolves out there, and I'd hate to think that when one does attack, noone is listening...
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Ah... Those CRAZY Charismatics (Part II)
This is part 2, if you haven't read the first part, just check the January outline on the right side of the page!
One more thing from present day Mo-Pheus, that I wanted to mention. Because of I Corinthians 12 talking about different parts of the body (i.e. tongues being one part of the body), 13 talking about love, and 14 speaking about prophecy being more beneficial than tongues... there is a belief by some in charismatic circles of there being two types of tongues. Never hear of this in the bible(?)... you're not alone, neither did I! Now, I've never seen a biblical scholar, annotated Bible, Bible concordance, biblical study-guide, or any scripture make this assertion. None of the above. Never. Why? Its a reach. A last ditch effort by, a blind stab in the dark... to hold on to a thinking that they have (in many cases) adopted for their entire religious life. Its hard to let go. People will hold on to their Matrix... its hard to get people unplugged.
"No, see... he's... um... not... saying... er... that... tongues... aren't... *cough* important... er... *ahem* that... that is... ya.. you see... see... wh-wh-what he's saying... is that... prophecy... is... is... um.. better... than... that type... yeah... yeah.. THATS IT... prophecy is better than that type of tongues... I guess... tongues and prophecy aren't the same... so, er... Im not realy sure what people in church are doing intepreting their tongues AS prophecy... I think they're as confused as I am... mixin things... *cough* but... anyway... er... see... um... but... there are more than one type... yea... so... um... the one Im talking... about... that... that kind is necessary... but.. er... this type of tongue... which apparently isn't the same as prophecy.... I guess I'll... I'll... need to tell people to stop interpreting their tongues as God giving future prophecies... actually, that is REALLY crazy when you think about it... but... but... the tongues I talk about are necessary... these mentioned here... are... um... a second kind... how do i know? um... yeah... *cough* good question... see... you... have to... have talked in tongues to be able to discern. Yeah... yeah... thats it. You may be feeling a lil off... right now... hmm... I know I do... but... ya see... you wanna see clearly... you come on down... then you will understand...!"
And some of you wonder why I call them crazy!!!
The following email is COMPLETELY UNALTERED (even spelling!), save for color highlights:
______________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Hubbard;
When I sent you that "list" of basic problems I had with Pentecostalism I also sent it to another minister at New Life. And we began to correspond on some of the issues though I feel like he arrogantly does not take any of my questions seriously. That is, they can't be legitimate question. One that I brought up was the fact that some of Paul's letters (Romans, Ephesians, Colossians) are generally believed to be places that he has never been. I'm certain that Paul had never been to Rome or Colossae at the time his letter was written. Again, this fact appears to be a general consensus among biblical scholars.
Now... I don't know YOUR theology in particular, but I do know that New Life Temple teaches that salvation is a formula. Something like this: you repent, you are baptized, and you recieve the Holy Spirit, and this is ONLY made evident by speaking in tongues. This is the formula. All are necessary or the formula is not complete and one's experience was a nice experience, but it wasn't a salvation experience. In a nutshell, you have to speak in tongues to be Christian. Now, people in the church may word it funny or distort certain parts to minimize this, but at my leaving, I spoke to Pastor Perry for 3 hours and I have no doubt that the church teaches salvation at the point of tongues. Something that I should expect seeing that this is a UPC church. New Life claims that they are not associated with the UPC but that is interms of social things, like... dress code and things of that nature. As far as doctrine is concerned, they are identical. She herself as admitted that the doctrine has not changed. (i.e. tongues is necessary)
Now, I will readily admit that each denomination is different. Each denomination disagrees on some issue with most everyone else. That being the case, there are a lot of denominations that I do not agree with. However, the question is "what do we disagree on." Now, most denominations are together on two issues that Pentecostalism (including New Life) rejects. That being the trinity and salvation by faith alone. Now, I'm not emailing to talk about the trinity. But, though the baptists, presbyterians, lutherans, methodists, episcopalians, church of christ, etc, though they are not totally in agreement,they readily agree that salvation is by faith alone.... period. No works, not baptism, not speaking in tongues, nothing. But the bible really means that salvation is by faith alone when it says that salvation is by faith alone. So, though all denominations may not be in agreement, most"mainstream" denominations do agree on this issue that the Pentecostals do not.
Now, very few people, if anyone, would say you have to be a bible scholar and get a 100% on your Christianity exam to be a Christian. So, though we should be totally in agreement, it's not necessarily a prerequisite to heaven. If it is, then only one denomination can make it. But... is there any issue that disagreement can not be tolerated on? I mean, is there a doctrine where there can be no disagreement.Where we can't just agree to disagree and live in harmony? I believe this is that issue. The heart of the bible is God reconciling people to himself, so we shouldn't be surprised that the doctrine of no compromise would be that of salvation. Paul has the same mentality in his letter to the Galatians where the people in the providence of Galatia have compromised the gospel of Christ to the Judaizers who want to mix works into salvation. He is so mad about this issue that this is the only letter of his that does not have the complete standard Pauline greeting. That is, he is so steamed about this issue, or this issue was so important, that he skips the formal salutation and goes directly into the heart of the matter. He says let anyone who preaches another gospel be accursed. And then he repeats himself, just in case someone didn't catch the importance of his statement. Even an angel from heaven. This was so serious a threat that he rebuked Peter, fellow apostle, publicly. If two people try to get to salvation in two different ways, will they both succeed? The Lord's parable about the Pharisee and the Publican is written for this very reason. The parable is concluded by saying that the latter man (the publican) went home justified RATHER THAN the first. Not that he was more justified, or something, but he rather than he (pharisee).
So, the doctrine of salvation is THE essential doctrine that unity MUST be kept on. Now, I believe that the unity of the body should be kept on all issues, but above all else, the doctrine of salvation.
That being said... you go to a church that is a part of a movement that disagrees with 2000 years of church history. I've read about writings from no more than 30 years after the gospels themselves were written. The next generation, IF NOT THE SAME GENERATION as the writers of the New Testament. And the issue of tongues is not mentioned ONE TIME. Not once! Now, if the apostles viewed salvation as thePentecostal movement would have us to believe, they will have a pretty hard time explaining why the VERY NEXT GENERATION has strayed so far from the gospel. It's not as if they mention tongues, and call it one gift of the Holy Spirit for some, it's not even mentioned. How are we to believe that tongues is a must and has always been a must when the contemporaries of the gospel writers did not. That is absurd to say the least.
Back to Paul. Now, at the outset I stated that the Apostle did not visit every church he wrote. So, the people of Colossae may have heard of Paul and his exploits, but they would not be totally familiar with him or his teachings. Now... (this might be the best reason of all) if Paul is writing to a people that he has never visited, and he's giving a summary of the Christian essentials, why does he not even mention tongues in any of these letters? He would, in effect, be dooming all these people to hell, because he has not spoken to them on tongues, an essential of salvation, necessary for eternal life. A penetecostal will have a harder time answering that than the fact that ALL writings of the generation after the apostles speaks nothing of any tongues.
Therefore, tongues can not be an essential to salvation. It has never been proclaimed as such in the bible. Paul clearly speaks of it as a gift of the HolySpirit. And if we are going to take a metaphor literally, what gift has ever been necessary? What do I mean. Imagine a tree. Now... we have gifts of the Holy Spirit and fruit of the Spirit. If we decide to take this analogy ("gifts" and "fruit") literally, would not the fruit be necessary? Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. I don't believe in saying who is and who isn't Christian, but if there would be a determinant, it would the fruit of the Spirit, not speaking in tongues. I can give a gift to a tree, Icould take it away, that gift is not what makes that atree. Now, if I claim to be an apple tree, but my fruit are oranges, this is no apple tree. Not only this, it is my opinion that in I Corinthians 12 he is writing to people JUST LIKE MODERN DAY PENTECOSTALS when he speaks of the unity of the body. How can one part of the body say to another, "I have no need of you"? This is the question he asks. Don't modern day pentecostals do the same when they say that: "we are the only ones." And the biggest kicker for me is in ICorinthians 12:3 when he says, no one can say Jesus is Lord,.. BUT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. So, if a methodist who has never spoken in tongues, if he says Jesus is Lord, with a sincere and genuinely repenitent heart, it must be by the Holy Spirit. (That's also a plug for Calvinism, but that's another cup of tea) Why would Paul speak of no one saying Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit, the unity of different parts of the body, naming the gifts of the Spirit, and then asking, do all do each one. He even asks... do all speak in tongues? This argument is absurd from beginning to end. The bible does not teach tongues as a necessary experience, or a DEEPER experience.
It appears that a great number of Pentecostals who are afraid to say that they are the only one's going to heaven will admit that their tongues gives them a deeper relationship with God that non Charismatics don't get. How arrogant. It is not AS arrogant as the more exclusive group, but it is still arrogant nonetheless. Viewing non-charismatics as second class Christians.
And again, there is no biblical reference for this. It's man made and self serving theology. Humanistic. Because the focus is taken off God and his divine sovereignty, and it's placed on fallen creatures who choose to come to Christ. Jesus says that noone comes to Him UNLESS the Father draws them. Not to charismatics. They come on their own... before recieving the Holy Spirit. *of course, there are a lot of people who believe this* But not only do they come to Christ on their own, but they recieve the Holy Spirit on their initiative! That thinking is totally anathetical to what Jesus is getting across when he says that Noone comes but those the Father draws. So.... rather than the Holy Spirit drawing people, people come on their own (spiritually dead) initiative. And in pentecostal circles, not only do they come APART FROM the compelling of the Holy Spirit. They actual are the ones who compel the HolySpirit to reside in their hearts. So the man takes the initiative and the Holy Spirit responds to the faith of the pentecostal who has chosen to recieve the Holy Spirit rather than the Holy Spirit bringing a fallen man to Christ. I see that as a SERIOUS distortion of the Gospel. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, "and this, not of yourselves, is the gift of God," not of works, lest any man should boast. Now, it appears that a lot of Pentecostals are boasting over their deeper relationship with Christ as opposed to non Pentecostal 2nd class Christians. Now... here is another question, because I am full of them, what is the antecedent to: "and this, not ofyourselves, is the gift of God." The answer is faith. A good annotated bible will have that verse (Ephesians2:8) referenced with Jesus' speaking of noone coming but those drawn. (John 6:44,59). These two seem to go hand in hand. Faith is not of ourselves, the ability to have faith is not of ourselves. The idea to even think about having faith is not of ourselves. It is the gift of God. No man comes to faith apart from the Holy Spirit. It's not possible. If it was, we wouldn't be talking about spiritual death, we'd be talking about spiritual illness, or spiritual something elsewhere the person isn't dead, just hurt. But this says that faith itself, is a gift of God. And the other verse says that no one comes but those drawn. And Paul says in I Corinthians 12:3 that noone says that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit.
You may draw a different conclusion, but my conclusion is that all Christians have the HolySpirit. The Holy Spirit is who does the drawing. He gives man the ability to have faith, and apart from him, NO MAN will ever say, "Jesus is Lord." This is TOTALLY anathetical to Pentecostal theology of coming to faith on your own, being baptized on your own, and recieving the Holy Spirit on your coersion, not vice versa. That type of theology is humanistic and totally against the teaching of scripture. The funny thing is,... you can have true faith, you can be baptized, and not yet recieve the Holy Spirit. Wouldn't that mean you can have true faith and go to hell? All Christians profess the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation. That would then mean that a Pentecostal could have real faith and go to hell. TOTALLY ABSURD.
Now... you may have zoned out a while back because you do not agree totally with your church. Salvation may be an issue that you do not agree with the pentecostal movement on. But, I know that New Life temple believes this way. And if this doctrine is the essential of essentials to the Christian faith, and you disagree with New Life temple, then maybe you are not where you need to be. Again, I've talked with Pastor Perry for 3 HOURS... and I know this is her doctrine. The people at the church can muddle it up with cute words, but this is what the church teaches. Another minister told me that he believes that salvation starts at repentence. Good for him. However, he goes to a church that, when they get new converts, they teach new converts a distorted version of the gospel. Can a person be effective at a church if they don't agree with what their new converts are being taught about how to be reconciled to God? That's the basic. The foundation. And if we are in disagreement on this, then either side A or side B is poisoning their flock. Because there can not be two gospels. Like Paul said, they gave way to a another gospel (then he catches himself) that is not another. There can be only one gospel. The gospel of God. And New Life temple, along with the VAST MAJORITY of the Pentecostal movement, preaches a gospel that has not been preaches for the last 2000 years. Again... is this your gospel as well? If so, does it line up with scripture? And if it is not your gospel you do not need to be in a place where people are being taught to be reconciled to God in a way not found in the bible.
Just keep this in mind... because this was powerful to me... the very next generation made no mention of tongues. Could such an important topic die out so quickly? No... could the very gospel itself die out so quickly? If Chambers and the others are really right, and the entire body of Christ in the first century believed you have to speak in tongues to go to heaven, why is found in NONE of the literature remaining from the time period. Or are we that unlucky that everything about tongues was destroyed? Or, if there is a more reasonable explanation about why it never shows up in first (not 2nd or 3rd or 4th) century writings, like... it was never thought of as essential to salvation, but a gift given to some, where do we go from here?
Sincerely, Modise
_________________________________________________________
Im sure there are some who will think "Sincerely, The Devil." Ah well... whats next on tap?
Hippie Counter-Culture: Radical Rethinking of Life
One more thing from present day Mo-Pheus, that I wanted to mention. Because of I Corinthians 12 talking about different parts of the body (i.e. tongues being one part of the body), 13 talking about love, and 14 speaking about prophecy being more beneficial than tongues... there is a belief by some in charismatic circles of there being two types of tongues. Never hear of this in the bible(?)... you're not alone, neither did I! Now, I've never seen a biblical scholar, annotated Bible, Bible concordance, biblical study-guide, or any scripture make this assertion. None of the above. Never. Why? Its a reach. A last ditch effort by, a blind stab in the dark... to hold on to a thinking that they have (in many cases) adopted for their entire religious life. Its hard to let go. People will hold on to their Matrix... its hard to get people unplugged.
"No, see... he's... um... not... saying... er... that... tongues... aren't... *cough* important... er... *ahem* that... that is... ya.. you see... see... wh-wh-what he's saying... is that... prophecy... is... is... um.. better... than... that type... yeah... yeah.. THATS IT... prophecy is better than that type of tongues... I guess... tongues and prophecy aren't the same... so, er... Im not realy sure what people in church are doing intepreting their tongues AS prophecy... I think they're as confused as I am... mixin things... *cough* but... anyway... er... see... um... but... there are more than one type... yea... so... um... the one Im talking... about... that... that kind is necessary... but.. er... this type of tongue... which apparently isn't the same as prophecy.... I guess I'll... I'll... need to tell people to stop interpreting their tongues as God giving future prophecies... actually, that is REALLY crazy when you think about it... but... but... the tongues I talk about are necessary... these mentioned here... are... um... a second kind... how do i know? um... yeah... *cough* good question... see... you... have to... have talked in tongues to be able to discern. Yeah... yeah... thats it. You may be feeling a lil off... right now... hmm... I know I do... but... ya see... you wanna see clearly... you come on down... then you will understand...!"
And some of you wonder why I call them crazy!!!
The following email is COMPLETELY UNALTERED (even spelling!), save for color highlights:
______________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Hubbard;
When I sent you that "list" of basic problems I had with Pentecostalism I also sent it to another minister at New Life. And we began to correspond on some of the issues though I feel like he arrogantly does not take any of my questions seriously. That is, they can't be legitimate question. One that I brought up was the fact that some of Paul's letters (Romans, Ephesians, Colossians) are generally believed to be places that he has never been. I'm certain that Paul had never been to Rome or Colossae at the time his letter was written. Again, this fact appears to be a general consensus among biblical scholars.
Now... I don't know YOUR theology in particular, but I do know that New Life Temple teaches that salvation is a formula. Something like this: you repent, you are baptized, and you recieve the Holy Spirit, and this is ONLY made evident by speaking in tongues. This is the formula. All are necessary or the formula is not complete and one's experience was a nice experience, but it wasn't a salvation experience. In a nutshell, you have to speak in tongues to be Christian. Now, people in the church may word it funny or distort certain parts to minimize this, but at my leaving, I spoke to Pastor Perry for 3 hours and I have no doubt that the church teaches salvation at the point of tongues. Something that I should expect seeing that this is a UPC church. New Life claims that they are not associated with the UPC but that is interms of social things, like... dress code and things of that nature. As far as doctrine is concerned, they are identical. She herself as admitted that the doctrine has not changed. (i.e. tongues is necessary)
Now, I will readily admit that each denomination is different. Each denomination disagrees on some issue with most everyone else. That being the case, there are a lot of denominations that I do not agree with. However, the question is "what do we disagree on." Now, most denominations are together on two issues that Pentecostalism (including New Life) rejects. That being the trinity and salvation by faith alone. Now, I'm not emailing to talk about the trinity. But, though the baptists, presbyterians, lutherans, methodists, episcopalians, church of christ, etc, though they are not totally in agreement,they readily agree that salvation is by faith alone.... period. No works, not baptism, not speaking in tongues, nothing. But the bible really means that salvation is by faith alone when it says that salvation is by faith alone. So, though all denominations may not be in agreement, most"mainstream" denominations do agree on this issue that the Pentecostals do not.
Now, very few people, if anyone, would say you have to be a bible scholar and get a 100% on your Christianity exam to be a Christian. So, though we should be totally in agreement, it's not necessarily a prerequisite to heaven. If it is, then only one denomination can make it. But... is there any issue that disagreement can not be tolerated on? I mean, is there a doctrine where there can be no disagreement.Where we can't just agree to disagree and live in harmony? I believe this is that issue. The heart of the bible is God reconciling people to himself, so we shouldn't be surprised that the doctrine of no compromise would be that of salvation. Paul has the same mentality in his letter to the Galatians where the people in the providence of Galatia have compromised the gospel of Christ to the Judaizers who want to mix works into salvation. He is so mad about this issue that this is the only letter of his that does not have the complete standard Pauline greeting. That is, he is so steamed about this issue, or this issue was so important, that he skips the formal salutation and goes directly into the heart of the matter. He says let anyone who preaches another gospel be accursed. And then he repeats himself, just in case someone didn't catch the importance of his statement. Even an angel from heaven. This was so serious a threat that he rebuked Peter, fellow apostle, publicly. If two people try to get to salvation in two different ways, will they both succeed? The Lord's parable about the Pharisee and the Publican is written for this very reason. The parable is concluded by saying that the latter man (the publican) went home justified RATHER THAN the first. Not that he was more justified, or something, but he rather than he (pharisee).
So, the doctrine of salvation is THE essential doctrine that unity MUST be kept on. Now, I believe that the unity of the body should be kept on all issues, but above all else, the doctrine of salvation.
That being said... you go to a church that is a part of a movement that disagrees with 2000 years of church history. I've read about writings from no more than 30 years after the gospels themselves were written. The next generation, IF NOT THE SAME GENERATION as the writers of the New Testament. And the issue of tongues is not mentioned ONE TIME. Not once! Now, if the apostles viewed salvation as thePentecostal movement would have us to believe, they will have a pretty hard time explaining why the VERY NEXT GENERATION has strayed so far from the gospel. It's not as if they mention tongues, and call it one gift of the Holy Spirit for some, it's not even mentioned. How are we to believe that tongues is a must and has always been a must when the contemporaries of the gospel writers did not. That is absurd to say the least.
Back to Paul. Now, at the outset I stated that the Apostle did not visit every church he wrote. So, the people of Colossae may have heard of Paul and his exploits, but they would not be totally familiar with him or his teachings. Now... (this might be the best reason of all) if Paul is writing to a people that he has never visited, and he's giving a summary of the Christian essentials, why does he not even mention tongues in any of these letters? He would, in effect, be dooming all these people to hell, because he has not spoken to them on tongues, an essential of salvation, necessary for eternal life. A penetecostal will have a harder time answering that than the fact that ALL writings of the generation after the apostles speaks nothing of any tongues.
Therefore, tongues can not be an essential to salvation. It has never been proclaimed as such in the bible. Paul clearly speaks of it as a gift of the HolySpirit. And if we are going to take a metaphor literally, what gift has ever been necessary? What do I mean. Imagine a tree. Now... we have gifts of the Holy Spirit and fruit of the Spirit. If we decide to take this analogy ("gifts" and "fruit") literally, would not the fruit be necessary? Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. I don't believe in saying who is and who isn't Christian, but if there would be a determinant, it would the fruit of the Spirit, not speaking in tongues. I can give a gift to a tree, Icould take it away, that gift is not what makes that atree. Now, if I claim to be an apple tree, but my fruit are oranges, this is no apple tree. Not only this, it is my opinion that in I Corinthians 12 he is writing to people JUST LIKE MODERN DAY PENTECOSTALS when he speaks of the unity of the body. How can one part of the body say to another, "I have no need of you"? This is the question he asks. Don't modern day pentecostals do the same when they say that: "we are the only ones." And the biggest kicker for me is in ICorinthians 12:3 when he says, no one can say Jesus is Lord,.. BUT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. So, if a methodist who has never spoken in tongues, if he says Jesus is Lord, with a sincere and genuinely repenitent heart, it must be by the Holy Spirit. (That's also a plug for Calvinism, but that's another cup of tea) Why would Paul speak of no one saying Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit, the unity of different parts of the body, naming the gifts of the Spirit, and then asking, do all do each one. He even asks... do all speak in tongues? This argument is absurd from beginning to end. The bible does not teach tongues as a necessary experience, or a DEEPER experience.
It appears that a great number of Pentecostals who are afraid to say that they are the only one's going to heaven will admit that their tongues gives them a deeper relationship with God that non Charismatics don't get. How arrogant. It is not AS arrogant as the more exclusive group, but it is still arrogant nonetheless. Viewing non-charismatics as second class Christians.
And again, there is no biblical reference for this. It's man made and self serving theology. Humanistic. Because the focus is taken off God and his divine sovereignty, and it's placed on fallen creatures who choose to come to Christ. Jesus says that noone comes to Him UNLESS the Father draws them. Not to charismatics. They come on their own... before recieving the Holy Spirit. *of course, there are a lot of people who believe this* But not only do they come to Christ on their own, but they recieve the Holy Spirit on their initiative! That thinking is totally anathetical to what Jesus is getting across when he says that Noone comes but those the Father draws. So.... rather than the Holy Spirit drawing people, people come on their own (spiritually dead) initiative. And in pentecostal circles, not only do they come APART FROM the compelling of the Holy Spirit. They actual are the ones who compel the HolySpirit to reside in their hearts. So the man takes the initiative and the Holy Spirit responds to the faith of the pentecostal who has chosen to recieve the Holy Spirit rather than the Holy Spirit bringing a fallen man to Christ. I see that as a SERIOUS distortion of the Gospel. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, "and this, not of yourselves, is the gift of God," not of works, lest any man should boast. Now, it appears that a lot of Pentecostals are boasting over their deeper relationship with Christ as opposed to non Pentecostal 2nd class Christians. Now... here is another question, because I am full of them, what is the antecedent to: "and this, not ofyourselves, is the gift of God." The answer is faith. A good annotated bible will have that verse (Ephesians2:8) referenced with Jesus' speaking of noone coming but those drawn. (John 6:44,59). These two seem to go hand in hand. Faith is not of ourselves, the ability to have faith is not of ourselves. The idea to even think about having faith is not of ourselves. It is the gift of God. No man comes to faith apart from the Holy Spirit. It's not possible. If it was, we wouldn't be talking about spiritual death, we'd be talking about spiritual illness, or spiritual something elsewhere the person isn't dead, just hurt. But this says that faith itself, is a gift of God. And the other verse says that no one comes but those drawn. And Paul says in I Corinthians 12:3 that noone says that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit.
You may draw a different conclusion, but my conclusion is that all Christians have the HolySpirit. The Holy Spirit is who does the drawing. He gives man the ability to have faith, and apart from him, NO MAN will ever say, "Jesus is Lord." This is TOTALLY anathetical to Pentecostal theology of coming to faith on your own, being baptized on your own, and recieving the Holy Spirit on your coersion, not vice versa. That type of theology is humanistic and totally against the teaching of scripture. The funny thing is,... you can have true faith, you can be baptized, and not yet recieve the Holy Spirit. Wouldn't that mean you can have true faith and go to hell? All Christians profess the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation. That would then mean that a Pentecostal could have real faith and go to hell. TOTALLY ABSURD.
Now... you may have zoned out a while back because you do not agree totally with your church. Salvation may be an issue that you do not agree with the pentecostal movement on. But, I know that New Life temple believes this way. And if this doctrine is the essential of essentials to the Christian faith, and you disagree with New Life temple, then maybe you are not where you need to be. Again, I've talked with Pastor Perry for 3 HOURS... and I know this is her doctrine. The people at the church can muddle it up with cute words, but this is what the church teaches. Another minister told me that he believes that salvation starts at repentence. Good for him. However, he goes to a church that, when they get new converts, they teach new converts a distorted version of the gospel. Can a person be effective at a church if they don't agree with what their new converts are being taught about how to be reconciled to God? That's the basic. The foundation. And if we are in disagreement on this, then either side A or side B is poisoning their flock. Because there can not be two gospels. Like Paul said, they gave way to a another gospel (then he catches himself) that is not another. There can be only one gospel. The gospel of God. And New Life temple, along with the VAST MAJORITY of the Pentecostal movement, preaches a gospel that has not been preaches for the last 2000 years. Again... is this your gospel as well? If so, does it line up with scripture? And if it is not your gospel you do not need to be in a place where people are being taught to be reconciled to God in a way not found in the bible.
Just keep this in mind... because this was powerful to me... the very next generation made no mention of tongues. Could such an important topic die out so quickly? No... could the very gospel itself die out so quickly? If Chambers and the others are really right, and the entire body of Christ in the first century believed you have to speak in tongues to go to heaven, why is found in NONE of the literature remaining from the time period. Or are we that unlucky that everything about tongues was destroyed? Or, if there is a more reasonable explanation about why it never shows up in first (not 2nd or 3rd or 4th) century writings, like... it was never thought of as essential to salvation, but a gift given to some, where do we go from here?
Sincerely, Modise
_________________________________________________________
Im sure there are some who will think "Sincerely, The Devil." Ah well... whats next on tap?
Hippie Counter-Culture: Radical Rethinking of Life
Ah... Those CRAZY Charismatics (Part I)
The following is an unaltered email I sent to a Missionary Hubbard in May of 2001 after he asked me why I decided to leave the Insane Asylum.... I'm sorry... the Pentecostal Church. I believe either he or I were in a hurry, and we exchanged emails, and I told him I would give him a list of "issues" that I had with the movement. I didn't even mention logical questions such as: "why does this NEVER happen in any church other than one that has been made to believe that this must happen? Why not a conservative Lutheran church?"
It only magically seems to happen to those who seem to really really REALLY want it to happen. I wont go into detail, but it should be noted that PRIOR to Azusa Street, William J. Seymour, a preacher *sigh* from Houston, taught about tongues, though he had not recieved it. Neely Terry, a Los Angeles woman who was in Houston at the time, heard his message and invited him to speak at her church, pastored by Julia Hutchins. The next Sunday, Seymour came to find that Hutchins had locked the doors to the church! The leaders of the church rejected the teaching, a large reason being that William J. Seymour did not make it a secre that he HAD NOT recieved this blessing he was preaching about. Some of the members were disagreed, and Edward S Lee let him stay and teach in his home. The group began to regularly pray seeking the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Five weeks in, and 3 days into a 10-day fast, Edward Lee became the first to speak in tongues. The next day, Seymour shared Lee's experience with the others while preaching on Acts 2:4, when 6 more began to speak in tongues. A few days later, after praying for it all night long, Seymour himself spoke in tongues for the first time. Attention began to garner, Pastor Julia Hutchins and her members were some of those who began coming to the house and Hutchins herself began to speak in tongues. The meetings (and attention) became too large for the home and they looked for a new place, an empty former African Methodist Church building on 312 Azusa Street... and the insanity has been on... ever since.
So the VERY FIRST INCARNATION... was an event where people... were seeking... and seeking... and seeking... and (magically?) started speaking... and speaking... and speaking. It illegitimizes the ENTIRE movement! There's no way to disprove tongues. I could make up my own language that I could claim can't be translated or patterns picked up because its from a different space galaxy... how can you disprove that? And people get shocked... that something people sought... and sought... and sought... (something unverified) finally happened. 'Wow, they talked in tongues. What a miracle!' They trained themselves to talk in tongues. They brainwashed themselves, in a since. If I wanted to have an esoteric experience and have the language from a totally different solar system "magically imprinted" on inner mind... and I stayed home for five weeks and tried and tried and tried to find it...? Oh, believe me, I'd make my mind find it. I'd be speaking "Quasarinese" with the best of them! Anyway, this is the end of my 2008 rant on the very beginning of the Charismatic movement being tainted in psychosis...
The following email is COMPLETELY UNALTERED (even spelling!), save for color highlights:
________________________________________________________
1] Today, you 'appear' to be taught to work or recieve the Holy Ghost as if the Holy Spirit can be compelled by our actions. Oddly enough, theologically, the Holy Spirit is the one that compels. Jesus says noone can come to Him unless drawn by the Father. How are they drawn? By the Holy Spirit. To suggest that a person who is unsaved can take the initiative and compel the Holy Spirit to come to him is just unbiblical. You do not see that happen one time in the bible. The"tongues" in the biblical accounts descend upon a group. I won't say arbitrarily, but I also won't say it's because a group worked for it. (i.e. I worked for my tongues, and if you would just travail in the Spirit, you could get yours, too.)
2] Joe W. Perry said that he talked in tongues cause he wanted to. That in and of itself needs explanation. He specifically said (I still have the tape) that pentecostals give people the idea some mystical feeling comes over people and they just talk in tongues. And then he replied that this isn't true, and that he talked in tongues because he wanted to. Of course, as of late, I know he is not a resputable source, yet, if this is a prevailing view it needs explanation.
3] It seems to be common knowledge that a LARGE movement of charismatics were teaching people to talk in tongues. This underminds the legitimacy and authenticity of a great number of people if there original "experience" is one where they were taught to speak in tongues. For instance, if you are originally taught to speak in tongues when on some emotional high, and from then on out (like the former Bishop) you speak in tongues because you want to, it dampens the legitimacy of the Holy Spirit having anything to do with such a tongue.
4] I have been on the altar and seen people "prepped"to speak in tongues. I have been prepped once or so myself. This is what I mean. Someone praying in your ear with the express purpose to either get you to repeat what they say or to just get their "utterances"in your head. For instance, to be told that you hear the words in your head and they may not make since just say them. Or... to say "c'mon c'mon c'mon yeyeyeye... c'mon c'mon yeyee" to coerce the person to make the same sounds. And I was right next to someone "prepped" and then they got a certificate for speaking in tongues. Yet, from their life, it is evident that no Holy Spirit dwells there.
5] Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His apostles in John 20 or 21 after His resurrection. And this is before the day of pentecost. There is no mention of speakingin tongues at this instant, and to suggest that He was speaking to a future event is just a reach since no other options are available. This would destroy the idea (that is embraced by New Life Temple) that a true experience of the Holy Ghost always includes the giftof tongues.
6] If tongues is so essential, why is it not given the attention by Paul and the other writers that it's given by modern day pentecostals. Some cry that that wasn't an issue in certain churches. However, modern day pentecostals view tongues as essential to salvation. Faith is essential to salvation (noone doubts it) and we see it in every epistle. Why would tongues, just as important, be found so sparcely in the scriptures?
7] I Corinthians 14 makes prophecy to be sought rather than tongues? If you look at the instructions given, most charismatic churches (including New Life) totally disregard the regulations given by Paul over tongues.
8] Why in I Corinthians 12 does he ask if all speak intongues, and if all interpret? The thrust of ICorinthians 12 is that of one body with many parts. He even asks can the eye say to another part of the body I do not need you. In my opinion, Paul writes this to rebuke people like most (not all) pentecostals of the present day. He even starts the chapter off setting the stage by saying that no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. And that no one can say Jesus is accursed if they have the Holy Spirit. It's absurb to even SUGGEST that Paul thought that all Christians spoke in tongues. He sees tongues as one function of the body. One of many parts. And to those that thought this part more than any other, they were rebuked for such foolishness. However, those who rebuked in Pauls time appear to be the dominant faction of the charismatic movement. And most charismatics who don't think they are the only true Xtianians, even they think they have a deeper relationship with God through their tongues as opposed to non-Charismatics. Such arrogance, though you can find no trace of proof in the scriptures.
9] Charismatic Catholics. What is that? A Charismatic Catholic is a Catholic who has a pentecostal Holy Ghost experience. Though... I find this very hard tobelieve. It is true that all denominations or different groups have differences, but historically, Catholicism is antithetical to anything not Catholic. We disagree on the very meaning of salvation. We disagree on the role of communion, the role of Mary, the role of confession, the role of the Pope, prayer to Saints, the list goes on and on. Either Catholics have the Holy Spirit, or non-Catholics, but both cannot. Historically, it can be proven, beyond a shadowof a doubt, that prior to Vatican II forty years ago, Catholics regarded non-Catholics as non-Christians.
10] Why have we not heard anything about tongues between the time period of the apostles and that ofAzuza street. (we will not even go into all the controversy surrounding certain leaders of the movement at Azuza) But, if I am to be like New LifeTemple, I will have to conclude that for 90% of the churches history.. noone had the Holy Spirit... which must be seen as absurd. And since everyone thinks that the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation, we must then conclude that noone went to heaven for 90% of the churches history. But which pentecostal has the guts to get up and say they believe that? In this time period (1800 year gap) tongues appears EXTREMELY sparingly. Even worse, when it does appear, it is usually among cultish groups that are not even recognized as Christian... like the Mormons. Can the Mormons have the same tongues as charismatics? They claim Jesus wasn't God, but became God, and they will one day become gods as well. And rule their own galaxy. Can such a group be Xtian? Groups like these are the only ones who appear to speak in tongues.
11] Why do we find nothing about tongues in early church writing? If the apostles put such a burden on tongues, are we to believe that the generations after them forgot so quickly? We have 8 separate pieces of literature from the first century, I have only been brought up to speed on 3 of them, but those 3 give no mention to tongues... AT ALL, let alone it's necessity. Oddly enough, the one that speaks of baptism speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the baptismal formula, and this is a piece of literature from the first century, but that is not the subject ofthe day.
It only magically seems to happen to those who seem to really really REALLY want it to happen. I wont go into detail, but it should be noted that PRIOR to Azusa Street, William J. Seymour, a preacher *sigh* from Houston, taught about tongues, though he had not recieved it. Neely Terry, a Los Angeles woman who was in Houston at the time, heard his message and invited him to speak at her church, pastored by Julia Hutchins. The next Sunday, Seymour came to find that Hutchins had locked the doors to the church! The leaders of the church rejected the teaching, a large reason being that William J. Seymour did not make it a secre that he HAD NOT recieved this blessing he was preaching about. Some of the members were disagreed, and Edward S Lee let him stay and teach in his home. The group began to regularly pray seeking the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Five weeks in, and 3 days into a 10-day fast, Edward Lee became the first to speak in tongues. The next day, Seymour shared Lee's experience with the others while preaching on Acts 2:4, when 6 more began to speak in tongues. A few days later, after praying for it all night long, Seymour himself spoke in tongues for the first time. Attention began to garner, Pastor Julia Hutchins and her members were some of those who began coming to the house and Hutchins herself began to speak in tongues. The meetings (and attention) became too large for the home and they looked for a new place, an empty former African Methodist Church building on 312 Azusa Street... and the insanity has been on... ever since.
So the VERY FIRST INCARNATION... was an event where people... were seeking... and seeking... and seeking... and (magically?) started speaking... and speaking... and speaking. It illegitimizes the ENTIRE movement! There's no way to disprove tongues. I could make up my own language that I could claim can't be translated or patterns picked up because its from a different space galaxy... how can you disprove that? And people get shocked... that something people sought... and sought... and sought... (something unverified) finally happened. 'Wow, they talked in tongues. What a miracle!' They trained themselves to talk in tongues. They brainwashed themselves, in a since. If I wanted to have an esoteric experience and have the language from a totally different solar system "magically imprinted" on inner mind... and I stayed home for five weeks and tried and tried and tried to find it...? Oh, believe me, I'd make my mind find it. I'd be speaking "Quasarinese" with the best of them! Anyway, this is the end of my 2008 rant on the very beginning of the Charismatic movement being tainted in psychosis...
The following email is COMPLETELY UNALTERED (even spelling!), save for color highlights:
________________________________________________________
1] Today, you 'appear' to be taught to work or recieve the Holy Ghost as if the Holy Spirit can be compelled by our actions. Oddly enough, theologically, the Holy Spirit is the one that compels. Jesus says noone can come to Him unless drawn by the Father. How are they drawn? By the Holy Spirit. To suggest that a person who is unsaved can take the initiative and compel the Holy Spirit to come to him is just unbiblical. You do not see that happen one time in the bible. The"tongues" in the biblical accounts descend upon a group. I won't say arbitrarily, but I also won't say it's because a group worked for it. (i.e. I worked for my tongues, and if you would just travail in the Spirit, you could get yours, too.)
2] Joe W. Perry said that he talked in tongues cause he wanted to. That in and of itself needs explanation. He specifically said (I still have the tape) that pentecostals give people the idea some mystical feeling comes over people and they just talk in tongues. And then he replied that this isn't true, and that he talked in tongues because he wanted to. Of course, as of late, I know he is not a resputable source, yet, if this is a prevailing view it needs explanation.
3] It seems to be common knowledge that a LARGE movement of charismatics were teaching people to talk in tongues. This underminds the legitimacy and authenticity of a great number of people if there original "experience" is one where they were taught to speak in tongues. For instance, if you are originally taught to speak in tongues when on some emotional high, and from then on out (like the former Bishop) you speak in tongues because you want to, it dampens the legitimacy of the Holy Spirit having anything to do with such a tongue.
4] I have been on the altar and seen people "prepped"to speak in tongues. I have been prepped once or so myself. This is what I mean. Someone praying in your ear with the express purpose to either get you to repeat what they say or to just get their "utterances"in your head. For instance, to be told that you hear the words in your head and they may not make since just say them. Or... to say "c'mon c'mon c'mon yeyeyeye... c'mon c'mon yeyee" to coerce the person to make the same sounds. And I was right next to someone "prepped" and then they got a certificate for speaking in tongues. Yet, from their life, it is evident that no Holy Spirit dwells there.
5] Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His apostles in John 20 or 21 after His resurrection. And this is before the day of pentecost. There is no mention of speakingin tongues at this instant, and to suggest that He was speaking to a future event is just a reach since no other options are available. This would destroy the idea (that is embraced by New Life Temple) that a true experience of the Holy Ghost always includes the giftof tongues.
6] If tongues is so essential, why is it not given the attention by Paul and the other writers that it's given by modern day pentecostals. Some cry that that wasn't an issue in certain churches. However, modern day pentecostals view tongues as essential to salvation. Faith is essential to salvation (noone doubts it) and we see it in every epistle. Why would tongues, just as important, be found so sparcely in the scriptures?
7] I Corinthians 14 makes prophecy to be sought rather than tongues? If you look at the instructions given, most charismatic churches (including New Life) totally disregard the regulations given by Paul over tongues.
8] Why in I Corinthians 12 does he ask if all speak intongues, and if all interpret? The thrust of ICorinthians 12 is that of one body with many parts. He even asks can the eye say to another part of the body I do not need you. In my opinion, Paul writes this to rebuke people like most (not all) pentecostals of the present day. He even starts the chapter off setting the stage by saying that no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. And that no one can say Jesus is accursed if they have the Holy Spirit. It's absurb to even SUGGEST that Paul thought that all Christians spoke in tongues. He sees tongues as one function of the body. One of many parts. And to those that thought this part more than any other, they were rebuked for such foolishness. However, those who rebuked in Pauls time appear to be the dominant faction of the charismatic movement. And most charismatics who don't think they are the only true Xtianians, even they think they have a deeper relationship with God through their tongues as opposed to non-Charismatics. Such arrogance, though you can find no trace of proof in the scriptures.
9] Charismatic Catholics. What is that? A Charismatic Catholic is a Catholic who has a pentecostal Holy Ghost experience. Though... I find this very hard tobelieve. It is true that all denominations or different groups have differences, but historically, Catholicism is antithetical to anything not Catholic. We disagree on the very meaning of salvation. We disagree on the role of communion, the role of Mary, the role of confession, the role of the Pope, prayer to Saints, the list goes on and on. Either Catholics have the Holy Spirit, or non-Catholics, but both cannot. Historically, it can be proven, beyond a shadowof a doubt, that prior to Vatican II forty years ago, Catholics regarded non-Catholics as non-Christians.
10] Why have we not heard anything about tongues between the time period of the apostles and that ofAzuza street. (we will not even go into all the controversy surrounding certain leaders of the movement at Azuza) But, if I am to be like New LifeTemple, I will have to conclude that for 90% of the churches history.. noone had the Holy Spirit... which must be seen as absurd. And since everyone thinks that the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation, we must then conclude that noone went to heaven for 90% of the churches history. But which pentecostal has the guts to get up and say they believe that? In this time period (1800 year gap) tongues appears EXTREMELY sparingly. Even worse, when it does appear, it is usually among cultish groups that are not even recognized as Christian... like the Mormons. Can the Mormons have the same tongues as charismatics? They claim Jesus wasn't God, but became God, and they will one day become gods as well. And rule their own galaxy. Can such a group be Xtian? Groups like these are the only ones who appear to speak in tongues.
11] Why do we find nothing about tongues in early church writing? If the apostles put such a burden on tongues, are we to believe that the generations after them forgot so quickly? We have 8 separate pieces of literature from the first century, I have only been brought up to speed on 3 of them, but those 3 give no mention to tongues... AT ALL, let alone it's necessity. Oddly enough, the one that speaks of baptism speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the baptismal formula, and this is a piece of literature from the first century, but that is not the subject ofthe day.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Whats With All the Gay Republicans?
This is a very humorous topic to me. Perhaps not to you if you're a social conservative, but I can't help but chuckle. Each... and every time. Truth be told, I consider my personal views conservative in terms of social issues, yet, I dont mandate them for others. And that would bring up an interesting point, as far as who should... and shouldn't be judged... but most religious people that I encounter aren't well-versed in the Bible itself, let alone church history, so I dont expect them to know the answer to that... so we will not tackle it here. Silly religious people.
I won't mention gay priests in this blog, either. For one, I dont know how much webspace this site holds. Another thing, I think thats a separate issue I might get into one day while I'm attacking the plethora of things wrong with those crazy Catholics. But, I'll never win... you guys know the rules... you can't win an argument with a guy in a pointy hat. Darn those technicalities. :( I dont care what anyone says... [pointy hat or not(!!!)] ; if you tell a group of people that they can't have sex, and leave them alone, each in separate parts of the forest... for years... there will be some defiled trees... thats all I'm saying. Separate issue from the topic at hand, but dudes will be getting severe splinters. Believe that!
I wont even mention non-Catholic church hypocrites. Well, just one. Because his story is HYSTERICAL. But the focus is mainly on people who create legislation in this country, and how their personal lives differ from their public rhetoric, and voting history.
I dont know where the Republican trend started, but how about Robert Bauman, a Republican US-Representative from Maryland. He was in office from 1973 - 1980. He was married with four children at the time. Mr. Bauman was a founding member of two socially conservative groups in the 70's including the American Conservative Union. He was a national chairman for both groups, and even garnered a perfect 100 rating from the Christian Voice. In October of 1980, Bauman was charged with soliciting a SIXTEEN year old male prostitute. Maybe, he should have just said he was asking for directions? He did not win re-election the following term. However, he did write a book a few years later $$$ about how he spent years secretly... um... "looking for directions." I hear he now reads maps really well.
Then there was Ed Schrock, a Republican US-Rep from Virginia who served between 2001 and 2005. He has a conservative voting record including CO-SPONSORING (are you kidding me?) the Federal Marriage Amendment which banned gay-marriage. Isn't that like finding out the guy promoting sobriety gets a DWI every year? He didn't seek re-election in 2005 after allegations of propositioning men via a gay-phone chat he was known to frequent became public.
I've got to get James Dale Guckert. This guy eats me up. Not how he might like. But... its amazing that he is not in jail, or something. His alias is Jeff Gannon. I guess he likes Oakland Raider Quarterbacks? He's the fake conservative reporter working for a fake news agency [Talon] who "somehow" (wink, wink) got access to the White House and asked all those questions that Bush loved answering. Any time a functioning retard likes your questions, he HAS to be prepared, thats all I'm saying. Mr. Guckert wrote conservative pieces criticizing Democrats like John Kerry for their liberal views on issues like gay rights. Not only is he a fake reporter, writing more mid-America social-propaganda... BUT HE'S A FORMER GAY ESCORT. Oh, the comedy gods have smiled upon thee. Oh, those were good times. Gay escort, turned... fake conservative reporter. A gay escort spoke directly with the President who wants to preserve the sanctity of marriage. (chuckles)
Jim Kolbe was a Republican US-Rep (Arizona) from 1985-2007 who started out as a Senate PAGE in 1958. Senate Page, you say? Hmmm... You dont think...? Naaaah. After 11 years in office, and voting to support the '96 Defense of Marriage Act, he was outed as a homosexual later that year. He has sinced supported civil unions.
Jim West was the Republican mayor of Spokane, Wash who earlier served as a state Congressman from 1982-2003. While in the state Congress, he voted for several anti-gay bills, including one that would have banned gays from working in schools and day cares. Because gay equals pedophile? I dont get that. For the record, most pedophiles are heterosexual men who become repeat offenders. After becoming mayor, in 2005 allegations arose of sexually abusing boys in the 70's and 80's while a Sherriff's Deputy and Boys Scout Leader. I'm sure some of you were betting Boy Scouts would sooner or later be involved. Ouch. He denied these charges, however was also accused of using his office of Mayor to lure teenage boys for sexual relationships. He did admit to using gay.com for private relationships with young men. He later died of colon cancer in 2006. I'm soooo not going there. (but you know you're thinking it!)
How about the Republican US-Rep from Florida, Mark Foley? He was in office from 1995-2006. He championed himself as a crusader against child abuse and child exploitation. That sounds like a good cause. Go, Foley! Wait... wait... come back, Foley, don't go that far! It was revealed in 2006 that Mark Foley was a little too close with some of the pages in Washington. Pages are high-school age teens that come to intern in Congress. These were former pages, so noone was under 18. He's in his 50's, and exploitation is wrong, so he waited that one extra year when it was all good and legal. Its still very creepy and borderline a few things (he crusaded against?) but was legally neither. Good for him. He was asking these teenagers for racy photos and sending very sexually explicit instant messages with them. I wonder if he planted seeds before they turned 18, before he... um... "picked that fruit."I'll never know. Why does it seem like I mentioned a page before? Hmm. Strange.
David Dreier, come on down! You're the next contestant on the Slice is Right! Dreier is a Republican US-Rep from California (1980-present). This guy has voted for anti-sodomy laws (which is code for.... um... *cough*butt sex*cough*). He's been against gay marriage, against gay-adoption, against including any gay/sexual orientation language in what is considered a hate crime, and probably is against "gay" still being a synonym for happy. The Christian Coalition has given him a rating of ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Speaking of sodomy... isn't that word kind of archaic? I use to think that was like being beating with a broom handle or something. I guess I was half right. Are there still towns called Sodom? That is sooooooo 9th century bc. Can't they give it a new name?. Perhaps it'll have more "punch" with todays homophobes... like... being against "sanfrancisany" or "corinthomy"? "Frenchany"? or maybe just "Punch"? Just a few thoughts. But, this Dreier has been living with his Chief of Staff for years! Janice Nelson, his Dem opponent has commented that this was a "open secret" for many years.
Richard Curtis was a Republican STATE-Rep for Washington from 2005-2007. Married with two daughters. In his state, he had a conservative voting record, voting against a gay-rights bill that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 2007, he voted against domestic partnerships as well. What a classy guy. He would later resign after an encounter with a former gay porn star (at least he shoots high) ... no pun intended. They would meet in a adult store and later hotel... and I dont need to tell you the rest. But an old childrens show "Romp-a-Room" comes to mind.
The foot tapper? Ah... thats not restless-leg syndrome... thats Larry Craig in a bathroom stall looking for a little bathroom affection! Another married man, Larry Craig is the Republican Senator (1991-2008) from Idaho. He had to go all the way to Minnesota for a foot massage? Hmmm... strange. He must give the bathroom attendents one heck of a tip! He was an outspoken conservative (aren't they the worst?) voice criticizing the morale ineptitude of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal with the memorable:
"The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy - a naughty boy. I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.” (to funny, had to post this!)
He's also voted against gay marriage, earning from the American Conservative Union a rating of 96 out of 100. Okay, back to his restless foot syndrome. After giving "the signal" to the undercover officer (btw, undercover gay exhibitionist... what kind of job is that?!!) in the next stall, he was arrested on lewd conduct charges, but took a lesser plea that he would later try to explain as an accidental plea, but never fought it. There are previous allegation of Larry Craig being a bad boy (a nasty, bad, naughty boy, too?) by engaging in oral sex in Washington Union Station. I have problems checking for food in my teeth in public... where are these guys finding all these secret hideouts??? The crescendo was perhaps 8 more gay men in December of 2007 giving stories involving sexual encounters with the Senator, one being Mike James (Mike who???) who was the focus of a story with the ONLY non-Congressman on this list...
(Former?) Reverend Ted Haggard. C'mon. How could I leave this out? This was soo funny. This guy was giving the kinda story you would hear from a crack-head being arrested on the show Cops. Rambling... different stories... contradicting himself... stuttering... deer in headlights look on his face. CLASSIC!
Allow me to re-enact... (clears throat)
"No, I never knew a Mike Jones... I dont even like rap. Oh... you mean... the gay masseure? Never knew him either. Huh? How... er... did I know he was an escort? Did I say escort... no... there was no drugs involved... wait... hold on... give me a minute... he.. just... gave me some drugs... no, I mean... a massage... you know... its really... tense being a hypocrite... you know... I gotta collect all that money for offering... shake a lot of hands... every Sunday... they dont know where my hands have been... condemn things I try every other weekend... you know... so... um... I mean... things the devil... yeah... the devil would... try to tempt me with... had I not the power... praise Jesus...! had i not the strength he gives me... so... you know... I just needed a massage... I only bought that meth twice... no... huh? Wha... well... what i meant was... he had some on him.. and I guess he left it behind, dropped it? I never tried it, curious... sure... tried it... noooooooo... all he did was rub me... *cough* and so... I saw him a few times... but... only for... "stresssssss relief" purposes.. but... um... I never tried those drugs again... um... at all... I'm not gay... I love my wife... I've... I mean... that is... we're all human... I've committed some sexual immoralities... but I'm not gay."
Wha... wha... wait... huh... wha-wha... what?
Now, this is not intended as a anti-gay blog, but an ANTI-HYPOCRISY blog! There are many others, including Republican Congressional staffers who could have been included. Again, these are TOP TIER guys who spend their lives speaking out publicly against a certain lifestyle, gaining re-election and contributions behind that stance, blocking bills that favor that lifestyle, while secret living that lifestyle!
Who knows... perhaps it becomes sexy? Like Sade's Sweetest Taboo? One has said its so wrong so often... that finally it feels soooo so right?
"Dont eat that candy, its bad for you!"
"I know... But, Lollipops taste soooooooooooooo good...!"
So tantalizing? That which one has said you shouldn't do? Innate curiousity? C'mon... they know they like "lollipops."
Im not sure... but its definately fodder for late not comics... and that, I am most thankful for.
"First the fatboys break up... now this??? Its like... I have nothing to believe in."
Next Topic: Pentecostal Church = Low-Security Insane Asylum
I won't mention gay priests in this blog, either. For one, I dont know how much webspace this site holds. Another thing, I think thats a separate issue I might get into one day while I'm attacking the plethora of things wrong with those crazy Catholics. But, I'll never win... you guys know the rules... you can't win an argument with a guy in a pointy hat. Darn those technicalities. :( I dont care what anyone says... [pointy hat or not(!!!)] ; if you tell a group of people that they can't have sex, and leave them alone, each in separate parts of the forest... for years... there will be some defiled trees... thats all I'm saying. Separate issue from the topic at hand, but dudes will be getting severe splinters. Believe that!
I wont even mention non-Catholic church hypocrites. Well, just one. Because his story is HYSTERICAL. But the focus is mainly on people who create legislation in this country, and how their personal lives differ from their public rhetoric, and voting history.
I dont know where the Republican trend started, but how about Robert Bauman, a Republican US-Representative from Maryland. He was in office from 1973 - 1980. He was married with four children at the time. Mr. Bauman was a founding member of two socially conservative groups in the 70's including the American Conservative Union. He was a national chairman for both groups, and even garnered a perfect 100 rating from the Christian Voice. In October of 1980, Bauman was charged with soliciting a SIXTEEN year old male prostitute. Maybe, he should have just said he was asking for directions? He did not win re-election the following term. However, he did write a book a few years later $$$ about how he spent years secretly... um... "looking for directions." I hear he now reads maps really well.
Then there was Ed Schrock, a Republican US-Rep from Virginia who served between 2001 and 2005. He has a conservative voting record including CO-SPONSORING (are you kidding me?) the Federal Marriage Amendment which banned gay-marriage. Isn't that like finding out the guy promoting sobriety gets a DWI every year? He didn't seek re-election in 2005 after allegations of propositioning men via a gay-phone chat he was known to frequent became public.
I've got to get James Dale Guckert. This guy eats me up. Not how he might like. But... its amazing that he is not in jail, or something. His alias is Jeff Gannon. I guess he likes Oakland Raider Quarterbacks? He's the fake conservative reporter working for a fake news agency [Talon] who "somehow" (wink, wink) got access to the White House and asked all those questions that Bush loved answering. Any time a functioning retard likes your questions, he HAS to be prepared, thats all I'm saying. Mr. Guckert wrote conservative pieces criticizing Democrats like John Kerry for their liberal views on issues like gay rights. Not only is he a fake reporter, writing more mid-America social-propaganda... BUT HE'S A FORMER GAY ESCORT. Oh, the comedy gods have smiled upon thee. Oh, those were good times. Gay escort, turned... fake conservative reporter. A gay escort spoke directly with the President who wants to preserve the sanctity of marriage. (chuckles)
Jim Kolbe was a Republican US-Rep (Arizona) from 1985-2007 who started out as a Senate PAGE in 1958. Senate Page, you say? Hmmm... You dont think...? Naaaah. After 11 years in office, and voting to support the '96 Defense of Marriage Act, he was outed as a homosexual later that year. He has sinced supported civil unions.
Jim West was the Republican mayor of Spokane, Wash who earlier served as a state Congressman from 1982-2003. While in the state Congress, he voted for several anti-gay bills, including one that would have banned gays from working in schools and day cares. Because gay equals pedophile? I dont get that. For the record, most pedophiles are heterosexual men who become repeat offenders. After becoming mayor, in 2005 allegations arose of sexually abusing boys in the 70's and 80's while a Sherriff's Deputy and Boys Scout Leader. I'm sure some of you were betting Boy Scouts would sooner or later be involved. Ouch. He denied these charges, however was also accused of using his office of Mayor to lure teenage boys for sexual relationships. He did admit to using gay.com for private relationships with young men. He later died of colon cancer in 2006. I'm soooo not going there. (but you know you're thinking it!)
How about the Republican US-Rep from Florida, Mark Foley? He was in office from 1995-2006. He championed himself as a crusader against child abuse and child exploitation. That sounds like a good cause. Go, Foley! Wait... wait... come back, Foley, don't go that far! It was revealed in 2006 that Mark Foley was a little too close with some of the pages in Washington. Pages are high-school age teens that come to intern in Congress. These were former pages, so noone was under 18. He's in his 50's, and exploitation is wrong, so he waited that one extra year when it was all good and legal. Its still very creepy and borderline a few things (he crusaded against?) but was legally neither. Good for him. He was asking these teenagers for racy photos and sending very sexually explicit instant messages with them. I wonder if he planted seeds before they turned 18, before he... um... "picked that fruit."I'll never know. Why does it seem like I mentioned a page before? Hmm. Strange.
David Dreier, come on down! You're the next contestant on the Slice is Right! Dreier is a Republican US-Rep from California (1980-present). This guy has voted for anti-sodomy laws (which is code for.... um... *cough*butt sex*cough*). He's been against gay marriage, against gay-adoption, against including any gay/sexual orientation language in what is considered a hate crime, and probably is against "gay" still being a synonym for happy. The Christian Coalition has given him a rating of ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Speaking of sodomy... isn't that word kind of archaic? I use to think that was like being beating with a broom handle or something. I guess I was half right. Are there still towns called Sodom? That is sooooooo 9th century bc. Can't they give it a new name?. Perhaps it'll have more "punch" with todays homophobes... like... being against "sanfrancisany" or "corinthomy"? "Frenchany"? or maybe just "Punch"? Just a few thoughts. But, this Dreier has been living with his Chief of Staff for years! Janice Nelson, his Dem opponent has commented that this was a "open secret" for many years.
Richard Curtis was a Republican STATE-Rep for Washington from 2005-2007. Married with two daughters. In his state, he had a conservative voting record, voting against a gay-rights bill that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 2007, he voted against domestic partnerships as well. What a classy guy. He would later resign after an encounter with a former gay porn star (at least he shoots high) ... no pun intended. They would meet in a adult store and later hotel... and I dont need to tell you the rest. But an old childrens show "Romp-a-Room" comes to mind.
The foot tapper? Ah... thats not restless-leg syndrome... thats Larry Craig in a bathroom stall looking for a little bathroom affection! Another married man, Larry Craig is the Republican Senator (1991-2008) from Idaho. He had to go all the way to Minnesota for a foot massage? Hmmm... strange. He must give the bathroom attendents one heck of a tip! He was an outspoken conservative (aren't they the worst?) voice criticizing the morale ineptitude of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal with the memorable:
"The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy - a naughty boy. I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.” (to funny, had to post this!)
He's also voted against gay marriage, earning from the American Conservative Union a rating of 96 out of 100. Okay, back to his restless foot syndrome. After giving "the signal" to the undercover officer (btw, undercover gay exhibitionist... what kind of job is that?!!) in the next stall, he was arrested on lewd conduct charges, but took a lesser plea that he would later try to explain as an accidental plea, but never fought it. There are previous allegation of Larry Craig being a bad boy (a nasty, bad, naughty boy, too?) by engaging in oral sex in Washington Union Station. I have problems checking for food in my teeth in public... where are these guys finding all these secret hideouts??? The crescendo was perhaps 8 more gay men in December of 2007 giving stories involving sexual encounters with the Senator, one being Mike James (Mike who???) who was the focus of a story with the ONLY non-Congressman on this list...
(Former?) Reverend Ted Haggard. C'mon. How could I leave this out? This was soo funny. This guy was giving the kinda story you would hear from a crack-head being arrested on the show Cops. Rambling... different stories... contradicting himself... stuttering... deer in headlights look on his face. CLASSIC!
Allow me to re-enact... (clears throat)
"No, I never knew a Mike Jones... I dont even like rap. Oh... you mean... the gay masseure? Never knew him either. Huh? How... er... did I know he was an escort? Did I say escort... no... there was no drugs involved... wait... hold on... give me a minute... he.. just... gave me some drugs... no, I mean... a massage... you know... its really... tense being a hypocrite... you know... I gotta collect all that money for offering... shake a lot of hands... every Sunday... they dont know where my hands have been... condemn things I try every other weekend... you know... so... um... I mean... things the devil... yeah... the devil would... try to tempt me with... had I not the power... praise Jesus...! had i not the strength he gives me... so... you know... I just needed a massage... I only bought that meth twice... no... huh? Wha... well... what i meant was... he had some on him.. and I guess he left it behind, dropped it? I never tried it, curious... sure... tried it... noooooooo... all he did was rub me... *cough* and so... I saw him a few times... but... only for... "stresssssss relief" purposes.. but... um... I never tried those drugs again... um... at all... I'm not gay... I love my wife... I've... I mean... that is... we're all human... I've committed some sexual immoralities... but I'm not gay."
Wha... wha... wait... huh... wha-wha... what?
Now, this is not intended as a anti-gay blog, but an ANTI-HYPOCRISY blog! There are many others, including Republican Congressional staffers who could have been included. Again, these are TOP TIER guys who spend their lives speaking out publicly against a certain lifestyle, gaining re-election and contributions behind that stance, blocking bills that favor that lifestyle, while secret living that lifestyle!
Who knows... perhaps it becomes sexy? Like Sade's Sweetest Taboo? One has said its so wrong so often... that finally it feels soooo so right?
"Dont eat that candy, its bad for you!"
"I know... But, Lollipops taste soooooooooooooo good...!"
So tantalizing? That which one has said you shouldn't do? Innate curiousity? C'mon... they know they like "lollipops."
Im not sure... but its definately fodder for late not comics... and that, I am most thankful for.
"First the fatboys break up... now this??? Its like... I have nothing to believe in."
Next Topic: Pentecostal Church = Low-Security Insane Asylum
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Economic Globalization Part II
In the previous post, we talked about the history of World War 2, and how it left the global stage open for the ascension of the United States as the lone World Super Power. It is true that the Soviet Union was another military power, but certainly not economically robust.
As American troops began to come home in the late to mid 1940's, the landscape of the country began to change. Rather than predominately upper and lower class, there was a growing middle class emerging in many growing metropolitan cities as well as suburban areas. See the 1970's television show "Happy Days", which tried to a recreate a reminiscing idealistic view of the 1950's. (i.e. "oh, those were the good ole days...")
*There were a lot of SOCIAL issues that were ignored during this "golden era" of US history and would later bubble over into what became the explosive, controversial & (at times) revolutionary 1960's.
So, what we are seeing today in economic globalization, essentially, is the world attempting to close the gap with the US. They are in no way close to catching up to the United States, it takes the entire continent of Europe forming the "EU" to make a formidable fiscal foe. I was reading an article in US & World News Reports on the subject, and one economist essentially said, we're still benefiting from the headstart we recieved after WW2. People act like this is just how it always was, or we arose from a level playing field. Under strenuous circumstances, we took advantage of the situation (where others did not) and did great things , but, we were excelling while others were spending their time rebuilding, to be sure. So, as things come closer to normalcy, how will the American economy, and the American people respond? We've benefited so long, do we really have a gripe? How shall we cope? Is there anything to worry about?
The US economy is still the largest consumption driven economy, and there is no one nation that can challenge our economic strength, especially not one of any type of COMPARABLE size.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/economy-in-brief/images/2006gdp.jpg
[It must be said we have the most UNEVEN distribution of wealth of all those nations listed, meaning our upper class {is happier than other upper classes?} have a larger share of US wealth than the rich in any of the other aforementioned nations, but that is another topic for another day]
But what have we been seeing lately? We've seen a lot of jobs and companies go overseas where there are no taxes, lower wages and no company provided healthcare. I would like to point out that nations with universal GOVERNMENT healthcare dont have to worry about this issue at all. Competing with overseas automotive companies, GM has laid off a lot of its American workforce, as well as cut the benefits for their remaining workers. Pensions? Scrapped. More and more, you're seeing new deals with worker unions where the pensions for new employees are a thing of the past... where pension packages for vested workers are being decreased... and where wages for new hires are being lowered.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20996881/
[Industrial unions are no longer the backbone of organized labor]
"You want us to take care of you after you retire? You act like you've spent the majority of your daylight hours for the past 40 years working to make me rich or something. Oh... wait..."
The execs are the guys that usually screw up...
"I got an idea, screw Toyota, noone is into small cars... or gas mileage... lets make a lot of really... really... really big trucks. Yeah... American's like big things. Big gas guzzlers. SUV's! Hummers! And lets make this decision in a time of crisis in the Middle East! This was a no brainer. Stupid workers... they think its easy being me. Thats why I make the big bucks... cuz I make the good corporate decisions. All that thinking was hard. Whew... I need a break. I'll take a vacation... and raise my stock options... I'm sure the workers dont' mind... hell, most of them dont even know what stock options are. Mwahahahahaaa...!"
I never hear about the CEO's, CFO's, COO's, the board of executives and all their upper management cronies taking any massive paycuts "for the benefit of the company as a whole." Its always the regular worker fitting the bill. It is true that the average worker in the US has a relatively good life, compared to most "industrialized" nations... but we're not running away with any awards here.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/3/32/International_Median_Household_Income.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/International_Median_Household_Income.png
Compare that to the jump that CEO's have seen in their pay. 40 years ago, the top guy in the company could make 30 or 40 times your salary. Now CEO's make 250 to 300 times what you make.
http://www.epinet.org/images/snap20060621.jpg
Will they help fit the bill? The board room guys are the ones pulling six, seven and EIGHT figures per year. When GM is on the verge of bankruptcy, do they cut their inflated salaries by 75%? 50%? 25%? AT ALL??? They're not starving. They would do more than just survive. Or does it rest entirely on the shoulders of the American people? And if and when your company feels the pressure of the global market, will your company's executives sacrifice some of their benefits, or start with the workers who establish the foundation of the company?
It is true that the United States, even to this day, continues to have very low unemployment, usually around 4.7% (where nations in Europe may have 8 to 10%). There was a financial article on MSNBC yesterday asking if 5% unemployment would cause us to go into a recession.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22508860/
[US stocks fall sharply on recession fears]
Most nations would kill (literally) for 5% unemployment, but we take it as a sign of a downward swing in the market. So, our economy is definately one to be desired, however the biggest question relates to the QUALITY OF THE JOBS changing in this country. And no one company is more responsible for the changing in the types of jobs offered in American more than the world devourering corporation known as Wal-Mart.
Did you know that Wal-Mart is the world's largest employer? There are a lot of Americans who love Wal-Mart. When I think of Wal-Mart, I think of some mid 30's caucasian soccer mom with a mini-van full of kids looking for the best deal for her middle class home. Obviously many people go to Wal-Mart, because 5 of the top 10 richest Americans are the off-spring of the man who founded Wal-Mart. Did you know that?
http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/23/news/newsmakers/forbes_400/top_ten_richest_gates.gif
5 of the top 10 richest Americans. FIVE OF THE TOP 10. All work for Wal-Mart. That is astounding. And there are a lot of people who feel that Wal-Mart is good for America. In terms of outsourcing? There may not be one other single thing on this PLANET... which is more responsible for American jobs going overseas. The problem with Wal-Mart is two fold. How it impacts wholesalers... and how it impacts smaller retailers. Wal-Mart offers the lowest prices... PERIOD. There's no denying that. And consumers love low prices. The days of past generations championing "Made in the USA" are long gone. We only care about saving as much money as we can. But how do we get those savings? Well, its simple economics. In order for me to sell my goods cheaper than all of my competitors, Im going to need to procure them wholesale for cheaper than all of my competitors. Thats it in a nutshell. Wal-Mart is the world's LARGEST company. Its very hard to say no to that type of revenue. They have the ability to flex on their wholesalers. As the wholesaler, you want to make the largest profit per unit sold as possible, but these guys buy in such a ENORMOUS volume, you can't refuse their business. And as they demand lower and lower prices... you, as the wholesaler, eventually have two options...
1) take your company overseas
2) lose your largest customer to your competitors (and probably go out of business)
So where there were once thriving middle class manual labor sectors in this nation, a large part of our labor market has gone overseas to factories that offer substantially lower wages, dont have to pay business taxes, and dont offer any benefits to their employees. The largest wholesaler to Wal-Mart is now China. All of the goods that you buy at those cheap cheap prices were made in some Chinese factory. And the jobs created by Wal-Mart are service positions, with wages far below what the manual labor factory was paying, and with none of the benefits. The world's largest employer doesn't offer much of anything in benefits. Just, let that... marinate for a moment. I guess, in the end, it makes sense. How else can Scrooge McDuck get his billions? There are a lot of small American cities that literally have economic crises when Wal-Mart moves into town. Goodbye small self-employed shops... Wal-Mart's doing what you're doing... and guess what... for a whole lot cheaper. Not only that, the consumer can buy a heck of a lot more stuff while he's getting his glasses, what do you offer... a cup of water? At least Wal-Mart offers a lot of $7/hr jobs in return. After putting suburban small business owners out of business, I would think thats only fair. Dont you?
You can go online and see article after article about criticisms of Wal-Mart. Cheap stuff comes at a price. There have been several documentaries. One on PBS and one on CNBC. Wikipedia has a page dedicated to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/27/BUG3JFEL7F1.DTL
{Memo from the world's largest employer trying to cut the benefits they barely have!}
http://www.newsweek.com/id/32624
[Thousands of adolescents work as unpaid baggers in Wal-Mart's Mexican stores.]
Its incredible. And more and more jobs continue to go overseas. They are not the only large company forcing jobs overseas, but they are certainly the largest problem. I believe its only going to get worse. Or... if you live in another nation... closer to some FAINT semblance of.... fair.
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/0708/margtax2.gif
http://online.wsj.com/media/info-poverty0608-hhold-MD.gif
For the most part, when dollars have been adjusted for inflation, over the past 40 years, there has been a small but steady gain in the median HOUSEHOLD income.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18868904/
[Every generation does better? Don't count on it]
Now, the median income for men is actually DROPPING in the United States. The median household income (HMI) is increasing slightly only because there are more women entering the workforce than ever before. But, as "real wages" are stagnant, the cost of living has not been so merciful. The cost of housing is increasing at a faster rate. The cost of energy (heating/electric/car fuel) is increasing at faster rate. The cost of medical. The cost of higher education.
I dont think other nations should feel empathy for any US jobs lost to their countries. Even as the good ole days of huge generational success seem more are more unlikely, there's no place I'd rather be. We still have the best economy of any large nation. Switzerland, Japan and Singapore with land masses smaller than Florida dont count. I just think we as Americans need to get prepared... get ready to cope, as best we can, for the ever-changing economic landscape of this nation (whatever it becomes) as we watch the continued progression of larger modernizing nations such as Brazil, China, and India with extremely large workforces who are willing to work at a lower wage than most Americans.
Next Post: WHATS WITH ALL THE GAY REPUBLICANS?!!
As American troops began to come home in the late to mid 1940's, the landscape of the country began to change. Rather than predominately upper and lower class, there was a growing middle class emerging in many growing metropolitan cities as well as suburban areas. See the 1970's television show "Happy Days", which tried to a recreate a reminiscing idealistic view of the 1950's. (i.e. "oh, those were the good ole days...")
*There were a lot of SOCIAL issues that were ignored during this "golden era" of US history and would later bubble over into what became the explosive, controversial & (at times) revolutionary 1960's.
So, what we are seeing today in economic globalization, essentially, is the world attempting to close the gap with the US. They are in no way close to catching up to the United States, it takes the entire continent of Europe forming the "EU" to make a formidable fiscal foe. I was reading an article in US & World News Reports on the subject, and one economist essentially said, we're still benefiting from the headstart we recieved after WW2. People act like this is just how it always was, or we arose from a level playing field. Under strenuous circumstances, we took advantage of the situation (where others did not) and did great things , but, we were excelling while others were spending their time rebuilding, to be sure. So, as things come closer to normalcy, how will the American economy, and the American people respond? We've benefited so long, do we really have a gripe? How shall we cope? Is there anything to worry about?
The US economy is still the largest consumption driven economy, and there is no one nation that can challenge our economic strength, especially not one of any type of COMPARABLE size.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/economy-in-brief/images/2006gdp.jpg
[It must be said we have the most UNEVEN distribution of wealth of all those nations listed, meaning our upper class {is happier than other upper classes?} have a larger share of US wealth than the rich in any of the other aforementioned nations, but that is another topic for another day]
But what have we been seeing lately? We've seen a lot of jobs and companies go overseas where there are no taxes, lower wages and no company provided healthcare. I would like to point out that nations with universal GOVERNMENT healthcare dont have to worry about this issue at all. Competing with overseas automotive companies, GM has laid off a lot of its American workforce, as well as cut the benefits for their remaining workers. Pensions? Scrapped. More and more, you're seeing new deals with worker unions where the pensions for new employees are a thing of the past... where pension packages for vested workers are being decreased... and where wages for new hires are being lowered.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20996881/
[Industrial unions are no longer the backbone of organized labor]
"You want us to take care of you after you retire? You act like you've spent the majority of your daylight hours for the past 40 years working to make me rich or something. Oh... wait..."
The execs are the guys that usually screw up...
"I got an idea, screw Toyota, noone is into small cars... or gas mileage... lets make a lot of really... really... really big trucks. Yeah... American's like big things. Big gas guzzlers. SUV's! Hummers! And lets make this decision in a time of crisis in the Middle East! This was a no brainer. Stupid workers... they think its easy being me. Thats why I make the big bucks... cuz I make the good corporate decisions. All that thinking was hard. Whew... I need a break. I'll take a vacation... and raise my stock options... I'm sure the workers dont' mind... hell, most of them dont even know what stock options are. Mwahahahahaaa...!"
I never hear about the CEO's, CFO's, COO's, the board of executives and all their upper management cronies taking any massive paycuts "for the benefit of the company as a whole." Its always the regular worker fitting the bill. It is true that the average worker in the US has a relatively good life, compared to most "industrialized" nations... but we're not running away with any awards here.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/3/32/International_Median_Household_Income.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/International_Median_Household_Income.png
Compare that to the jump that CEO's have seen in their pay. 40 years ago, the top guy in the company could make 30 or 40 times your salary. Now CEO's make 250 to 300 times what you make.
http://www.epinet.org/images/snap20060621.jpg
Will they help fit the bill? The board room guys are the ones pulling six, seven and EIGHT figures per year. When GM is on the verge of bankruptcy, do they cut their inflated salaries by 75%? 50%? 25%? AT ALL??? They're not starving. They would do more than just survive. Or does it rest entirely on the shoulders of the American people? And if and when your company feels the pressure of the global market, will your company's executives sacrifice some of their benefits, or start with the workers who establish the foundation of the company?
It is true that the United States, even to this day, continues to have very low unemployment, usually around 4.7% (where nations in Europe may have 8 to 10%). There was a financial article on MSNBC yesterday asking if 5% unemployment would cause us to go into a recession.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22508860/
[US stocks fall sharply on recession fears]
Most nations would kill (literally) for 5% unemployment, but we take it as a sign of a downward swing in the market. So, our economy is definately one to be desired, however the biggest question relates to the QUALITY OF THE JOBS changing in this country. And no one company is more responsible for the changing in the types of jobs offered in American more than the world devourering corporation known as Wal-Mart.
Did you know that Wal-Mart is the world's largest employer? There are a lot of Americans who love Wal-Mart. When I think of Wal-Mart, I think of some mid 30's caucasian soccer mom with a mini-van full of kids looking for the best deal for her middle class home. Obviously many people go to Wal-Mart, because 5 of the top 10 richest Americans are the off-spring of the man who founded Wal-Mart. Did you know that?
http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/23/news/newsmakers/forbes_400/top_ten_richest_gates.gif
5 of the top 10 richest Americans. FIVE OF THE TOP 10. All work for Wal-Mart. That is astounding. And there are a lot of people who feel that Wal-Mart is good for America. In terms of outsourcing? There may not be one other single thing on this PLANET... which is more responsible for American jobs going overseas. The problem with Wal-Mart is two fold. How it impacts wholesalers... and how it impacts smaller retailers. Wal-Mart offers the lowest prices... PERIOD. There's no denying that. And consumers love low prices. The days of past generations championing "Made in the USA" are long gone. We only care about saving as much money as we can. But how do we get those savings? Well, its simple economics. In order for me to sell my goods cheaper than all of my competitors, Im going to need to procure them wholesale for cheaper than all of my competitors. Thats it in a nutshell. Wal-Mart is the world's LARGEST company. Its very hard to say no to that type of revenue. They have the ability to flex on their wholesalers. As the wholesaler, you want to make the largest profit per unit sold as possible, but these guys buy in such a ENORMOUS volume, you can't refuse their business. And as they demand lower and lower prices... you, as the wholesaler, eventually have two options...
1) take your company overseas
2) lose your largest customer to your competitors (and probably go out of business)
So where there were once thriving middle class manual labor sectors in this nation, a large part of our labor market has gone overseas to factories that offer substantially lower wages, dont have to pay business taxes, and dont offer any benefits to their employees. The largest wholesaler to Wal-Mart is now China. All of the goods that you buy at those cheap cheap prices were made in some Chinese factory. And the jobs created by Wal-Mart are service positions, with wages far below what the manual labor factory was paying, and with none of the benefits. The world's largest employer doesn't offer much of anything in benefits. Just, let that... marinate for a moment. I guess, in the end, it makes sense. How else can Scrooge McDuck get his billions? There are a lot of small American cities that literally have economic crises when Wal-Mart moves into town. Goodbye small self-employed shops... Wal-Mart's doing what you're doing... and guess what... for a whole lot cheaper. Not only that, the consumer can buy a heck of a lot more stuff while he's getting his glasses, what do you offer... a cup of water? At least Wal-Mart offers a lot of $7/hr jobs in return. After putting suburban small business owners out of business, I would think thats only fair. Dont you?
You can go online and see article after article about criticisms of Wal-Mart. Cheap stuff comes at a price. There have been several documentaries. One on PBS and one on CNBC. Wikipedia has a page dedicated to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/27/BUG3JFEL7F1.DTL
{Memo from the world's largest employer trying to cut the benefits they barely have!}
http://www.newsweek.com/id/32624
[Thousands of adolescents work as unpaid baggers in Wal-Mart's Mexican stores.]
Its incredible. And more and more jobs continue to go overseas. They are not the only large company forcing jobs overseas, but they are certainly the largest problem. I believe its only going to get worse. Or... if you live in another nation... closer to some FAINT semblance of.... fair.
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/images/0708/margtax2.gif
http://online.wsj.com/media/info-poverty0608-hhold-MD.gif
For the most part, when dollars have been adjusted for inflation, over the past 40 years, there has been a small but steady gain in the median HOUSEHOLD income.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18868904/
[Every generation does better? Don't count on it]
Now, the median income for men is actually DROPPING in the United States. The median household income (HMI) is increasing slightly only because there are more women entering the workforce than ever before. But, as "real wages" are stagnant, the cost of living has not been so merciful. The cost of housing is increasing at a faster rate. The cost of energy (heating/electric/car fuel) is increasing at faster rate. The cost of medical. The cost of higher education.
I dont think other nations should feel empathy for any US jobs lost to their countries. Even as the good ole days of huge generational success seem more are more unlikely, there's no place I'd rather be. We still have the best economy of any large nation. Switzerland, Japan and Singapore with land masses smaller than Florida dont count. I just think we as Americans need to get prepared... get ready to cope, as best we can, for the ever-changing economic landscape of this nation (whatever it becomes) as we watch the continued progression of larger modernizing nations such as Brazil, China, and India with extremely large workforces who are willing to work at a lower wage than most Americans.
Next Post: WHATS WITH ALL THE GAY REPUBLICANS?!!
Economic Globalization Part I
As we transition into a new year, this may be an apropos time to speak about the transitioning global economy. Over the last decade or so, we have seen a lot of advancement in the market places of countries who have not been known for their robust economies. As trade grows, as small powers become more proficient, as non-players begin to modernize their economic structures... how will this affect the United States economy?
Anytime you talk about globalization, the word that (I would think) comes up for a lot of people, and definately comes up in my mind is outsourcing. Simply put, outsourcing is where a corporation takes part or all of its business overseas for that companies financial benefit.
Before I go any further, let me first qualify a few things. On the whole, I think of America as suburban/rural country, with about 10 city-states dispersed, mainly on the coasts. City-states, in the old world history since, not necessarily a specific land mass with easily defined boundaries, but a general description of a densely populated area, relative to its surroundings. I would consider the Dallas-Houston-SanAntonio triangle as one large city state. Obviously, the vast majority of Texas would be OUTSIDE of that boundary, but the majority of the states population would be part of that densely populated area. There are a couple in California, Florida, so on... and so on. Compare that to states like North Dakota, Montana or Idaho. All with relatively large land masses, however, with total populations smaller than most metropolitan cities. [More people live in New York City than those three states combined!]
Anyway, prior to the turn of the 20th century, the infrastructure of this nation was really poor. Now, the United States is EXTREMELY large, and would, of course, make any infrastructure project a lot more difficult than smaller countries like England, France, or Spain, and definately harder than smaller countries like Japan, South Korea, Singapore or Switzerland. However, there was an event that not only stifled Europe... who was king of the world, but also allowed us to modernized ourself like never before.
Whether or not you agree with the description, they were called the Greatest Generation for a reason. For anyone unfamiliar with the term, that described the Americans of the late 30's and early 40's who transformed this nation during the second World War. The globe as a whole was still struggling to come out of the calamity that was the economic crash of the 1920's. For history lovers, it was the blockades and reparations from "the Great War" coupled with the downturn in the stock market, that helped a little known man rise to power in Germany in the 30's. He claimed to know the culprits (Jews) and have the solution, which would then trigger the Second World War. It is quoted that about 40 million people died in the first World War and about 70 million during the second!
During the 1930's, Franklin D. Roosevelt (arguably the best president ever, 2nd on my list) put into motion his "New Deal" which noticeably INCREASED the size of the government (and all the Republicans cringed!) while creating reforms to the United States that would change its people and its economy. One such would be building up our infrastructure, dramatically improving the highway system in our country. It created a lot of new jobs and put a lot of people to work, helping to create a middle class in America, putting people back to work, boosting the economy.
While this was going on in America, Germany was... you know... being Germany. I'm hoping everyone knows the story, but just in case. As Hitler rose to power, expansion began. Newly independent (after WWI) Poland was the first to be conquered. As Germany began to expand its territories, rather than fighting him early, British PM Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler and let him have what he had already taken. There wasn't much resistence until Winston Churchill (former Naval commander) took over as PM of England. By this time, France was falling (dont they always?) and Churchill was sending numerous letters over the span of several years to FDR asking for his assistance.
You may be thinking, what in the world does ANY OF THIS have to do with globalization in the 21st century?!! All in due time...
As Churchill continued to plead with Roosevelt, who was dealing with a nation with an Isolationist world view, the New Deal was trying to modernize our country.
And then it happened. Let me back up. Even BEFORE Germany's aggression against Europe, the Empire of Japan was trying to expand its territory as well. Is that the excuse megalomaniacs always use?
"We dont have enough room, we just need to expand. Dont fight this. It'll be better for you too!"
The Soviets had already been fighting the Japanese prior to WW2 and signed a peace treaty to avoid fighting on two fronts. I guess... only CERTAIN nations can fight on two fronts. Perhaps thats why they're called the Greatest Generation. So, with the peace treaty with the Soviets signed, Japan turned towards China, the Phillipines and other South Pacific island-states. Several countries, particularly the US and Britain levied costly sanctions against Japan, who claimed to be trying to free the Asian continent from European exploitation and influence.
And then it happened. The Japanese, WHO THOUGHT THAT THE US WAS YEARS AWAY FROM BEING MODERNIZED ENOUGH TO GO TO BATTLE, performed the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Soon after Germany declared war on the US.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Ww2_allied_axis.gif
[For anyone who cares, this .GIF file map shows the progression of the war: Blue=Allies, Red=Soviets, Black=Axis Powers in Europe, Japan in Asia, Grey=Neutral Nations]
Everyone looked for this from George W. Bush after 9/11... after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the official declaration of war from the US Congress, the president made an appeal to the people of the United States. We were already in a transition from a large rural to more metropolitan nation, but FDR inspired every person to pitch in and do his part.
http://womenincongress.house.gov/images/essays/essay2/Rosie_Riveter.jpg
http://www.jerryjazzmusician.com/pics/ey101.jpg
http://www.mtsu.edu/~kmiddlet/history/women/gif/wwi-seeds2.gif
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/at0071.2s.jpg
These are just pictures of women (not known for being a part of the American workforce in the 30's) doing their part to help the country in the build-up to war. Its imagery like this which earned the World War 2 generation their moniker, one that the American people of today were looking to recapture after 9/11, but we did not. The war needed funding and there were a lot of people who bought War Bonds, to help the government fund the war. Something that would seem unheard of today.
http://www.sparehed.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/abnerww2_resize.jpg
A lot of the comics (like Superman and Captain America) had political themes to them, regularly they'd be fighting weird, almost cultish, secret Japanese or Germany societies, and on some comic covers, it would just EXPLICITLY tell you to support your country by buying war bonds!
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/action-comics/58-1.jpg
[Superman prints newspapers supporting buying war bonds]
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/captain-america/1-2.jpg
[Hitler takes one from Captain America right on the chin. Ouch!]
Now, I mentioned that 70 million people died during World War 2. Nearly TWICE the number that died in the first world war. The entire continent of Europe was devastated. Prior to our involvement, there were the nightly air-raids on London, leveling large portions of the city. There was the battle of Normandy where the Allies re-took France, and then there was Poland, and finally Germany, not to mention the battles on the other side, between Germany and the Soviets, leaving many casualties, especially in those harsh USSR winters.
So while most of the world... Britain, France, Poland, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, the Phillipines... to name a few!... was trying to recover from the greatest global conflict in world history... the United States, who had no battles on its homeland, emerged in the late 1940's as the world's lone economic and military SUPER power.
Anytime you talk about globalization, the word that (I would think) comes up for a lot of people, and definately comes up in my mind is outsourcing. Simply put, outsourcing is where a corporation takes part or all of its business overseas for that companies financial benefit.
Before I go any further, let me first qualify a few things. On the whole, I think of America as suburban/rural country, with about 10 city-states dispersed, mainly on the coasts. City-states, in the old world history since, not necessarily a specific land mass with easily defined boundaries, but a general description of a densely populated area, relative to its surroundings. I would consider the Dallas-Houston-SanAntonio triangle as one large city state. Obviously, the vast majority of Texas would be OUTSIDE of that boundary, but the majority of the states population would be part of that densely populated area. There are a couple in California, Florida, so on... and so on. Compare that to states like North Dakota, Montana or Idaho. All with relatively large land masses, however, with total populations smaller than most metropolitan cities. [More people live in New York City than those three states combined!]
Anyway, prior to the turn of the 20th century, the infrastructure of this nation was really poor. Now, the United States is EXTREMELY large, and would, of course, make any infrastructure project a lot more difficult than smaller countries like England, France, or Spain, and definately harder than smaller countries like Japan, South Korea, Singapore or Switzerland. However, there was an event that not only stifled Europe... who was king of the world, but also allowed us to modernized ourself like never before.
Whether or not you agree with the description, they were called the Greatest Generation for a reason. For anyone unfamiliar with the term, that described the Americans of the late 30's and early 40's who transformed this nation during the second World War. The globe as a whole was still struggling to come out of the calamity that was the economic crash of the 1920's. For history lovers, it was the blockades and reparations from "the Great War" coupled with the downturn in the stock market, that helped a little known man rise to power in Germany in the 30's. He claimed to know the culprits (Jews) and have the solution, which would then trigger the Second World War. It is quoted that about 40 million people died in the first World War and about 70 million during the second!
During the 1930's, Franklin D. Roosevelt (arguably the best president ever, 2nd on my list) put into motion his "New Deal" which noticeably INCREASED the size of the government (and all the Republicans cringed!) while creating reforms to the United States that would change its people and its economy. One such would be building up our infrastructure, dramatically improving the highway system in our country. It created a lot of new jobs and put a lot of people to work, helping to create a middle class in America, putting people back to work, boosting the economy.
While this was going on in America, Germany was... you know... being Germany. I'm hoping everyone knows the story, but just in case. As Hitler rose to power, expansion began. Newly independent (after WWI) Poland was the first to be conquered. As Germany began to expand its territories, rather than fighting him early, British PM Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler and let him have what he had already taken. There wasn't much resistence until Winston Churchill (former Naval commander) took over as PM of England. By this time, France was falling (dont they always?) and Churchill was sending numerous letters over the span of several years to FDR asking for his assistance.
You may be thinking, what in the world does ANY OF THIS have to do with globalization in the 21st century?!! All in due time...
As Churchill continued to plead with Roosevelt, who was dealing with a nation with an Isolationist world view, the New Deal was trying to modernize our country.
And then it happened. Let me back up. Even BEFORE Germany's aggression against Europe, the Empire of Japan was trying to expand its territory as well. Is that the excuse megalomaniacs always use?
"We dont have enough room, we just need to expand. Dont fight this. It'll be better for you too!"
The Soviets had already been fighting the Japanese prior to WW2 and signed a peace treaty to avoid fighting on two fronts. I guess... only CERTAIN nations can fight on two fronts. Perhaps thats why they're called the Greatest Generation. So, with the peace treaty with the Soviets signed, Japan turned towards China, the Phillipines and other South Pacific island-states. Several countries, particularly the US and Britain levied costly sanctions against Japan, who claimed to be trying to free the Asian continent from European exploitation and influence.
And then it happened. The Japanese, WHO THOUGHT THAT THE US WAS YEARS AWAY FROM BEING MODERNIZED ENOUGH TO GO TO BATTLE, performed the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Soon after Germany declared war on the US.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Ww2_allied_axis.gif
[For anyone who cares, this .GIF file map shows the progression of the war: Blue=Allies, Red=Soviets, Black=Axis Powers in Europe, Japan in Asia, Grey=Neutral Nations]
Everyone looked for this from George W. Bush after 9/11... after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the official declaration of war from the US Congress, the president made an appeal to the people of the United States. We were already in a transition from a large rural to more metropolitan nation, but FDR inspired every person to pitch in and do his part.
http://womenincongress.house.gov/images/essays/essay2/Rosie_Riveter.jpg
http://www.jerryjazzmusician.com/pics/ey101.jpg
http://www.mtsu.edu/~kmiddlet/history/women/gif/wwi-seeds2.gif
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/at0071.2s.jpg
These are just pictures of women (not known for being a part of the American workforce in the 30's) doing their part to help the country in the build-up to war. Its imagery like this which earned the World War 2 generation their moniker, one that the American people of today were looking to recapture after 9/11, but we did not. The war needed funding and there were a lot of people who bought War Bonds, to help the government fund the war. Something that would seem unheard of today.
http://www.sparehed.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/abnerww2_resize.jpg
A lot of the comics (like Superman and Captain America) had political themes to them, regularly they'd be fighting weird, almost cultish, secret Japanese or Germany societies, and on some comic covers, it would just EXPLICITLY tell you to support your country by buying war bonds!
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/action-comics/58-1.jpg
[Superman prints newspapers supporting buying war bonds]
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/captain-america/1-2.jpg
[Hitler takes one from Captain America right on the chin. Ouch!]
Now, I mentioned that 70 million people died during World War 2. Nearly TWICE the number that died in the first world war. The entire continent of Europe was devastated. Prior to our involvement, there were the nightly air-raids on London, leveling large portions of the city. There was the battle of Normandy where the Allies re-took France, and then there was Poland, and finally Germany, not to mention the battles on the other side, between Germany and the Soviets, leaving many casualties, especially in those harsh USSR winters.
So while most of the world... Britain, France, Poland, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, the Phillipines... to name a few!... was trying to recover from the greatest global conflict in world history... the United States, who had no battles on its homeland, emerged in the late 1940's as the world's lone economic and military SUPER power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
