Following this link will take you to a good blog on various hymnals and their strengths. The author lists 5 hymnals influential to him, and then asks people to list hymnals of meaning to them. I included my own, with the below comment:
Great Hymns of the Faith (Brentwood-Benson Music Publishing 1968) is what I knew from my days in the independent Baptist church I grew up in. None of the liturgical or service sections, and since John W. Peterson was an editor it has a heavy influence of his music. But all the old standards are there — in wording unaltered. We can still raise an Ebenezer (Unlike the hymnal that replaced it during my college days). I fell in love with the words of Fanny Crosby from that hymnal.
So go ahead and read about hymnals, and appreciate the ways that hymnals encourage and inspire, even if “they helped me pass the time through many a repetition of ‘Shout to the Lord’.” (Betsy and I both laughed at that one.)
I’m doing a reference to another blog again. Ponder Anew put up another wonderful ponderment about the word choices, in this case, which person of pronoun — first, second or third — is best for worship and why. So go over there, read and contemplate, and then comment here or there about it. Or you can just watch the hymn below — in the third person.
Okay, on this one I am going to comment off the cuff with very little background. But after hearing President Obama’s quote about “I can do whatever I want” (I’m sure we pundits are making him mean more by it than he meant in context — or maybe not, maybe he really is that arrogant), I hit this story online, and had this impression that he was getting the famous Teddy Roosevelt quote all backwards:
“Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
But our president seems to feel the need to always speak big, even when he doesn’t have a stick that can really do anything. He can warn, he can threaten, but when push comes to shove, how can he really push, how can he really shove? And the other side knows that and responds accordingly.
TR had it right, say less, and do more. Let people have to read your actions, rather than your words, and they will pay closer attention to your words. There is a certain linguistic economy going on here.
* Warning — one piece of mild profanity in the link that you might not even notice. *
I remember seeing this link before, and think the advertising is generally cute. Pokes a lot of fun at some of the extreme shaving gimmicks the major brands use.
But the impact is just about the same as the people who want to save me all that money on cable — it is hard to save money you don’t spend. Or all those stories about people who saved all that money by cutting out latte’s. When you haven’t been spending it, you can’t cut it out to save it.
I use one premium blade for my razor every 3-6 months. $1 a month max. Who uses all these blades to save with these clubs? Apparently a lot of people do. Just not me. Never me.
I normally wouldn’t plan on doing two blogs in a row on the same topic, but I was doing my usual scan of the day’s news stories, and ran across the story about Gov. Christie’s comments which I am using as the root for this blog.
The minute I saw it I wrote myself the following note: “Don’t be dragging people’s children into this, it’s wrong” he says, yet the entire issue, when using the context of Sandy Hook, is ABOUT people’s children. Don’t drag the Sandy Hook children into this and you have no issue to discuss.
When I got home, the friend who had posted the initial link about the Morning Joe/NRA clip, included the Christie story into her responses. So I wrote the below response on her Facebook:
Christie said “don’t drag people’s children into this, its wrong.” but if you take everyone’s children out of it, i.e. the children of Sandy Hook, you take out the main impetus of the gun control movement in this case. In the original link they said it is “pornography” to bring a politician’s child into it. I want to know why their children are not to be the subject of debate, when mine are. But they are saying that isn’t a subject for debate.
They are discussing writing laws that will affect me and my children, but not they and their children. The law is becoming selective, and this is a significant development in our nation’s jurisprudence. If these laws really work the way they are telling us they should, they they shouldn’t need police and armed guards at their schools, but I see no indication that they have any intent of changing that particular fact about their schools, which makes me question whether they really believe the laws will have the effect that they say they are for.
They aren’t putting their money where their mouth is. Not unusual for politicians. And they can blather like Christie did about how their children have no choice in the matter, but I still don’t see why that means they should be a special case. They can play on people’s sentiments all they want, but when you remove the sentiment and look at the facts he’s making a claim that they are a special class different from the rest of us. And they are getting people to buy into it by setting false parameters for the public forum.
I think this whole portion of the gun debate is making it more and more obvious that the true divide in the nation isn’t between the rich and poor (which is what the politicians have been trying to make us believe), but between the politicians and the citizenry. Or it would make it obvious, if we were allowed to actually talk about it — which is why they are trying to limit the scope of any debate to exclude the fact.
A friend and former coworker of mine recently has been pasting and posting a lot of pro gun-control links and posts on her Facebook page. I have remained very quiet and not responded to any of them. But when she posted this link, I was so shocked, and not in the way I was “supposed” to be, that I just had to put down some comments on her Facebook page. Here is what I wrote:
What I came away with was:
1) They never addressed the primary point of the ad: that the rich buy gun protection for themselves and deny them to the less wealthy. 2) They basically made the decision to call this particular point “off-limits” by using inflammatory language, describing it as “pornography” a straw man argument technique. An attempt to us social pressure to curtail other people’s free speech instead of dialoguing with them 3) I’m not sure I can identify a single genuine conservative here — in an article claiming to be stunning “conservative” pundits. These all seem to be pseudo-cons, or, to coin a new phrase, CINO — Conservatives in Name Only (to use an allusion to the RINO — Republicans in Name Only acronym). My wife says they might be what the liberals would call “reasonable conservatives,” the only conservatives they think should be allowed a voice. 4) They have declared themselves done, made themselves judge and jury to decide what is appropriate for people to believe — a very “liberal” sentiment.
Note in my comment above my Facebook comment, that I said I was not shocked in the way I was “supposed” to be shocked. The commentary from these falsely conservative pundits makes it obvious that they are expecting everyone to have the same reaction — to share theirs. I get an obvious subtext, the feeling from them, that if I don’t, I am the same sort of extremist pariah that they are making out the NRA to be.
I’m still reeling emotionally from the body blow of their summary judgmental intolerance parading as reasonableness. I would really like to have a genuine, rational discussion with them about the primary point, but I don’t think they would ever allow me. And that makes me really sad. Or, to use their words, “terrified” for our country.