Watch the following video. It shows The University of Florida linebacker (and team captain) Brandon Spikes gouging the eyes of Washaun Ealey, a running back who plays for The University of Georgia, during the game last Saturday.
What has achieved a new low is not necessarily the actions of this player, although his conduct is despicable, but rather the fact that Brandon Spike’s head coach, Urban Meyer has suspended him for….catch this….the first half of the game upcoming on November 7th. THE FIRST HALF! What makes it even worse is that Meyer’s first reaction when he was told about the incident was to simply move on. I’m kidding, right? Nope, “move on” is what Meyer wanted to do until he saw a replay of the incident.
Incredible. I don’t even have to ponder who I have LESS respect for, Spikes or Meyer.
With the scheduled piped-in address by President Obama to school children around the nation next week, we step over a line that I don’t believe has been crossed in this country, ever. That is, of having a sitting president deliver a message directly to school children, on a forced basis, accompanied by a White House provided curricula, designed to augment whatever message Obama intends to supply.
While this approach by a U.S. President is best described as untested, it is not without precedent. The heads of state of the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea (the Dear Leader), and Venezuela have all spoken to the school children of their nations. One can only conclude that the rationale for such an approach is to communicate an age appropriate message, that leans favorably in support of that leader’s policies. Is there ANY reason to believe that Obama would approach this with a different motive? The short answer for those pondering the question is “NO.” And naturally, this will be pulled off without parental consent or the ability to provide an informed response in reaction to it. It seems to me that this is a form of indoctrination cloaked in the trappings of providing encouragement, or inspiration. Irrespective of a parent’s political leanings, this cannot be viewed as a good thing.
And for those who believe it is not possible to indoctrinate children, watch this. (In answer to the question in the title of the video…..CREEPY!)
Get Outta My Face!by Rick Horne, was published earlier this year, and the subtitle, accurately describes the message contained therein…”How to reach angry, unmotivated teens with Biblical counsel.”
Horne holds a D. Min from Westminster Theological Seminary and is a guidance counselor for a Christian school in the Philadelphia area. As you might imagine, he has plenty of experience in counselling teenagers. But more important than his direct experience, he brings Biblical wisdom, primarily from the book of Proverbs, which he notes was mostly written by Solomon for his young son, (Proverbs 1: 8) who may well have been a teenager at the time Solomon wrote it.
While Horne’s ultimate objective is to point angry and unmotivated teens to the cross of Christ, he dedicates the lion’s share of the book to Biblically grounded techniques for connecting and communicating with teens. He does so by first informing the reader that he/she must first understand the teen and importantly understand him/herself in the light of scripture. This approach offers great theological reminders about the nature of man, and sin’s corruption, irrespective of age.
Then Horne teaches four processes that he acknowledges are fundamental to most any formal couselling. But he expands on these ideas with very helpful descriptions and dialogue, some of which are real life examples from his own “client base” of students at his school. The four processes are:
Listen Big – To build a bridge to your teen
Clarify Narrow- to expose the realities of your teen’s experience
Look Wide- to discover your teen’s solutions
Plan Small – to support changes your teen wants
While the narrative of the book often appears to be written to parents who are in the midst of dealing with angry or unmotivated teens, the book is clearly applicable for anyone who deals with teens, whether youth leader, or coach, or simply an interested party. And while the subject is most explicitly dealing with teenagers, I would submit that the teaching found in this book would apply just as well to the pre-adolescent and the young adult. And, I would not hesitate to use the techniques on a middle-of-life adult, either. The wisdom is that broadly applicable
At 171 pages, the book is a relatively quick and simple read. But much of its good advice that can and should be referred to again and again as we have occassion to deal with teens (of all ages).
Today, February 12, 2009 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin the father of the Theory of Evolution and the author of On the Origin of Species. His theory, presented as fact, and taught virtually everywhere outside of strictly Christian education settings, rejects out-of-hand, God’s role in creation as clearly revealed in the Bible. He is certainly no hero of mine.
But perhaps I have been too hasty in my judgment of him. Based on this evidence, is it possible he should be vindicated? Is evolution true?
I mean, was THIS going on before Michael Flatley?
Those guys are good! But look at what it has evolved into. Clothes and even shoes!
And then, there is this, where it appears that the female of the species has been allowed to come out of the trees, or exit the cave, in order to perform.
An incredibly sad article about my alma mater. Sad that a student lost his life through the use of drugs. But also sad that the administration of the university may not have done all it could, to curb illegal drug use by students through a more thorough and public investigation of the facts surrounding the death by overdose of one student and the near-death by overdose of his roommates just weeks before.
Setting up a national service-dispatch call center, was one of the tasks that a group of people working for me, had on their plate. A part of that effort was to recruit people who would receive telephone calls from customers who were in need of a trained service technician to come to their place of business to effect a repair.
One of the “tests” we would conduct during interviews of prospective call center employees was a fairly simple test of U.S. geography. I was always stunned at how ilinformed people were about the location of the states in the United States…and in some cases, even the ones that were big and had distinctive shapes.
How would you do? You can find out by using the “test” at this website. See if you would have been qualified to be hired.
My financial support of SMU ended officially several years ago when the powers-that-be decided that University policy would be to extend employee health benefits to the domestic partners of homosexual employees. I corresponded several times with the University President to find out why they thought that was good idea, particularly when the denomination from which the University takes its name still rejects the idea that homosexuality should be normalized. Instead (at least at the time of this writing), they recognize that it is counter to Biblical teaching.
The initial response I got was that it was a “competitive employment issue,” as a number of major employers in the Dallas area offered similar benefits. I suggested to the President that, using that reasoning, it would be logical and infinitely fair to extend employee health benefits to the domestic partners of unmarried heterosexual employees. That would result in the University being a really ”competitive” employer. Their response was that they considered that to be “an undermining of the institution of marriage.”
Now don’t misunderstand me, I was not advocating the extension of benefits to domestic partners of unmarried employees, irrespective of their sexual preferences, but rather pointing out the startling inconsistency in their logic. If “being competitive” was important, why hold back by limiting themselves to being only attractive to prospective homosexual employees? Are there not single but cohabitating heterosexual persons that would make good employees? I suspect that the current policy is really more of an endorsement (or MAYBE even advocacy) of the homosexual lifestyle, than it was a needs-based initiative, that need being to attract people to employment by the University.
So, more recently, as I was thumbing through the University’s most recent alumni magazine, a particular article caught my attention. It provided reinforcement beyond my original reasons for why SMU does not receive my financial support. Here is the text of the article:
Series Highlights Impact of Charles Darwin
When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, he changed the course of science with the turn of a page. Throughout 2009, SMU schools and departments will celebrate the 150th anniversary of this book and the 200th birthday of the author through a series of lectures, exhibits and presentations, “Darwin’s Evolving Legacy: Celebrating Ideas That Shape Our World.” (emphasis mine) Confirmed events include:
A Meadows School of the Arts theatrical reading from “Inherit the Wind,” the iconic play about the “Scopes Monkey Trial” Feb. 12.
A speech by National Medal of Science winner Francisco Ayala, author of Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion, Feb. 20.
A panel discussion on the Pennsylvania case barring a public school district from teaching “intelligent design,” Sept. 24
Other speakers will address Darwin’s impact from the perspectives of biology, ecology, philosophy, anthropology and theology.
In addition, from Sept. 8 through Dec. 9, DeGolyer Library will exhibit every edition of On The Origins of Species published during Darwin’s lifetime, with reactions from the popular press and scientific community.
So as to be fair, I admit that I am grateful for the education I received from SMU. My degree from what is now known as the Cox School of Business is something I am proud of and it is respected in the marketplace. I will also be the first to acknowledge that the free exchange of ideas is a long standing tradition in the university setting, and I applaud the continuation of those exchanges. And I will also concede that not all ideas presented need to conform to mine.
Also, the trustees or board of governors (or whatever they call themselves) have the power to effect any kind of employee benefit program they want to, so long as it does not run afoul of state or federal statues. And, I guess that about all I can hope for is that they follow their consciences. That said, for as long as their policies and academic pursuits continue along the lines described above, they can do all of that without my financial assistance.
You see, that is how I follow MY conscience.
Note: If on the off chance anyone from SMU reads this, I’ll even offer to SAVE you some money by suggesting that you not mail fund raising materials to me, or spend any time or money on phone solicitation. Unless of course you call or write to say that you are repenting from the matters described above (and probably some others that I am not even unaware of.)
To assert that an entire generation universally holds to some standard set of ideologies is preposterous. If I look at my own generational peers, (reaching adulthood in the 1970’s) absolutely every political persuasion known to man would be represented. This same magnitude of diversity could be said for just about any other measure of our intellectual pursuits, our interests, and our personal values. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise as relates to my generation, or any other for that matter.
But alas, take heart. Things are changing. Take a look at OUR future! These are the folks that say they are going to be running the world in 8 years.
An interesting video, well written, edited for great impact and dramatically performed. I say “performed” because aside from maybe a half dozen or so of the people who appeared, none, in my judgment, would have been able to string together these thoughts without the assistance of someone, perhaps Eric Greenberg himself.
So, where to begin with dissecting this propaganda? Perhaps with the shameless indoctrination of children. According to the script, all of the so-called Generation We’s will be of voting age in 8 years, meaning that everyone in this video must have been at least 10 years of age. Some appeared to me to be more like 6 or 7 years old. The production method for a video such as this is to have each person read the entire script, so that once the editing process begins, the producers can select the most impactful recitation of each point made. Meaning that even the youngest were reading all of the assertions that were made in the video. Even if this wasn’t indoctrination, it was at least exploitation.
Or maybe a place to start would be the outrageous generalizations (We’s are more globally oriented, (what is the evidence); technologically adept (because you are comfortable with and can use a computer or play a video game?); less politically partisan (oh, so some of those 10, 11, and 12 year olds are already practicing non-partisanship?).
And how about that hopeful statement that the We’s are going to inherit a nation in decline. Huh? They say this as if it is fait accompli. How was that decided? Are the We’s also clairvoyant? Sure we have problems that must be dealt with, but what exactly is it about our nation that allows for so certain a conclusion that it is in decline? And then there are the contradictions. Such as, they are the best educated generation, but the education systems are failing. News break to the We’s…every generation in this country, has been better educated that the one preceding it. You guys are not unique in this regard! And your children, as a generation, will be better educated that YOU are. Don’t be so fast to pat yourselves on the back. But more to the point, is knowledge the same thing as wisdom? I think it is NOT.
Or maybe I should start with the outright fabrications (the “We’s” will have a lower life span than their parents…how can they possibly know that? If it is true, I suspect it will be the first time it has ever happened since some of the accounts in the Old Testament). And then there is Eric Greenberg’s extraordinary ability to look into the future and discern with such certainty, that there will be this homogeneous value system that will be embraced by Generation We. Perhaps there is a greater likelihood that the values he assigns to Generation We, are representative of his own.
No doubt Greenberg raises some interesting points and areas that frankly are concerns shared by more than just Generation We. However, to assert that these matters will define the mission of this generation is absurd. I have the privilege of interacting with a number of Millennials, a new bunch every year, and I can assure you that the issues raised in this video are not the heartbeat of the young people I am around. And frankly, the ones I know seem much more hopeful, and far less despondent. And they also seem to lack the animus for their parents’ generation that is reflected in the video by the intonations of the people reading the script when they mention the expression ”Baby Boomers.” It just seems to drip with disdain.
Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed, but this video strikes me as a product of unseasoned idealism, or maybe just plain old arrogance. But in reflection, that is the mark of each generation as they reach their 20’s. After all, they have this vast institutional knowledge, coupled with an unrecognized dearth of life-experience on which to rely. And in their cockiness, they are primed and ready to solve ALL of the problems of the world. How do I know? Because I am certain I was right there doing the same thing 30-something years ago.
But, you know what? This sort of thing has been going on since the beginning of human history. And the first examples were a young(ish) couple, in a garden, a long time ago, half a world away from where most of my readers sit, thinking they had a better plan than their father.
By the way, did anyone happen to hear any mention of faith in this oh, so wonderful future world? Nope, I didn’t catch it either. Shall we assume then, that Generation We will be post-theonomous?
I have previously posted about my appreciation for the television show American Idol. Season 7 is now in full swing, and this year is as good as any of the last few seasons that I watched.
Last week, it was announced that Ruben Studdard had recorded an “exit” song that would debut soon. I suppose that song will be used when Idol gets down to the final 12 contestants as only one person per week is shown the door. In the meantime, they are using the song Best Days by Graham Colton, as they show pares down the contestants four at a time.
I am not a huge consumer of contemporary pop music, but they did a great job in the selection of this song. The lyrics are wonderfully suited for the send-off of the contestants. Here is an acoustic version of the song.
And here’s a link to the music video that has the studio recorded version of the song, which is the one used on Idol.
Graham Colton is a native of Oklahoma City, and was “discovered” by the lead singer of Counting Crows. Colton was, at the time, a student at Southern Methodist University, the alma mater of yours truly. He had been playing in bars and clubs in Dallas while in school. I may be a fellow alumnus of some of those “institutions” also, who knows. Fortunately, Colton has gone on to achieve fame with this song and his album, as had he not (apart from the fine education he received at SMU), he might have been known more widely as having been romantically associated with Kelly Clarkson, with whom he toured for several months.
Dr Albert Mohler has an article today on his blog that is well worth reading. It is based on projections that go out to the year 2017 and deal with higher education. Even for those disinterested in statistics, the issues that Dr. Mohler deals with are, at the very least, interesting, and more importantly a cause for serious concern.
As you read the article, please note that I would NEVER suggest that women should revert to acceptance of the educational end-point of their grandmothers’ generation. There can be little question that our society and our culture is far better off because both genders are educated. Rather, what I would suggest is that MEN need to pull up their big boy pants and get an education! I wonder if the cultural reality that is revealed in Mohler’s article is not further evidence of the emasculation of men in our culture. But even if that is the case, men need to take responsibility and get on with it!
Posted by Chuck 
Posted by Chuck 
Posted by Chuck 
An incredibly sad 
My financial support of SMU ended officially several years ago when the powers-that-be decided that University policy would be to extend employee health benefits to the domestic partners of homosexual employees. I corresponded several times with the University President to find out why they thought that was good idea, particularly when the denomination from which the University takes its name still rejects the idea that homosexuality should be normalized. Instead (at least at the time of this writing), they recognize that it is counter to Biblical teaching.