Confusion

I do not regularly subscribe to this magazine, but the term "transgender" caught my eye, not to mention the "Washington National Cathedral."  Apparently June is gay pride month, world wide.  I must have missed the memo.  At any rate, after reading the article, I Googled transgender and the search page itself comes with a rainbowed banner.  I'm really getting a bit tired of the bullying, and well theft . . . The rainbow was already a recognized symbol!  The same book that speaks quite negatively about all sorts of sexual sin, records a wonderful meaning of the rainbow.

Now, as to my Google search, I went to Wikipedia   As I read, I realized two things.  The definition of the term was a lot of confusion, but there was something else . . . The information repeatedly referred to one's "assigned sex."  The article leads one to believe that at birth, our sex is assigned.  No wonder there is so much "gender confusion" in this world!  I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject, but I do know, at birth, there is no assignment.  Back in the old days before sonograms, the sex of the baby was not known until birth, but they arrived already assigned.  It was simply a matter of recognizing.

Years ago, I remember in an anatomy class learning that there is a day in which our sex is determined or assigned.  It's the 40th day of gestation.  Our Creator places a great deal of emphasis on the number 40 and it's not at the discretion of humanity to redefine or reassign.

So G-d created man in his own image, in the image of G-d created he him; male and female created he them.  Genesis 1
Here's the deal.  You can be a male that isn't attracted to females and you can be a female that isn't attracted to males.  You can even be a male that doesn't feel masculine and you can be a female that doesn't feel feminine, but you were still created, one or the other!

Headline Propaganda

Headlines are often startling for a reason, and images intensify the message.  It used to be, the headlines gave an inkling as to what was contained in the actual news article, when "the news" contained the reported facts and event.  Now, we are for the most part aware that the news is actually used to "lead one's thinking."  The link below proves our media is a part of the programing, rather than a source of information.

Two armed individuals, husband and wife, shot and killed two police officers at point blank range, then entered a Wal-Mart and the husband fired a round.  When an armed citizen confronted the shooter, his wife gunned down the citizen.  As the situation unfolded, the two headed to the back of the store preparing for a shootout with police.  Ultimately the wife shot her husband, then turned the weapon on herself and fired.

The local news now has the audacity to introduce the situation of a few months back on the Bundy ranch, into the article about the shooters, looking for ties that probably don't exist and if they do, they certainly have nothing to do with the Bundys.  Intentionally leading readers to tie this event to the BLM invasion of the Bundy ranch is irresponsible journalism.  There has not been proper time to investigate this matter.

Entering the url that states "probe ties between . . ." will obviously become a part of the digital history of the internet, and for those who still do not realize the the media is an arm of the powers that be, the connection will be drawn in the court of public opinion.  To make an unmitigated suggestion such as this, would be tantamount to claiming these mass shootings are staged and reported to sway the public in favor of gun control and confiscation.

Good reporting presents the facts discovered as a result of investigative journalism.  A news report is information regarding an event that has taken place, not programing to lead or mislead the readers and viewers to a chosen conclusion.

http://www.ktvn.com/story/25724967/police-probe-ties-between-vegas-shooters-bundy

Political Party Difference

I used to credit the right wing for seeming rather locksteppy in their bootstrappiness, as that party never seemed terribly creative or innovative, for that matter.  They always seemed rather exclusive unto their own . . . These last few years, though, I've discovered those who I thought were creative and artistic and rather free thinking to be joining in lockstep.  When I saw this on a wall of social media, I just cut and pasted what appears in blue.  I've not changed a word. 

 You will note the political difference, this party is not locksteppy, like the other party . . . they are "lockarmy!"

______________________________________________________________

Sync the message. Stay focused. Lock arms and say it strong.

We are for the ACA.
We are for Women’s rights.
We are for Latino & Black people’s rights.
We are for strengthening voters rights, not taking them away.
We are for the increase in the minimum wage
We are for making corporations pay their fare share of taxes
We are for repealing Citizen’s United
We are against the gaming of the system by corporate interests.
We are for uncovering the off shore accounts and making those people pay taxes
We are against asset forfeiture.
We are for legalization because we are tired of feeding the endless beast of for profit prison systems.
We are for keeping religion out of government.
We want to keep creationism out of schools.

We are democrats we won’t apologize for it and are in fact proud of it. Credit goes to Astorix on Politicus USA

_____________________________________________________________

It's All in How You View It

TWO COWS ~{Matthias Varga}

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then
throws the milk away

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy
grows.
You sell them and retire on the income

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption
for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to
produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why
the cow has dropped dead.

A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds,
dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds.
You still only have two cows.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three
cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce
twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and
market it worldwide.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows,
but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...

Missouri Outdoes Itself

When I heard of the outrageous hike in the cost of propane and the rationing, I was sad and ashamed of my state.

http://www.koamtv.com/story/24544586/recent-increases-in-propane-prices-raise-concern


Then when I read about the new stun cuffs, I was simply mortified.  Keep in mind, America, I heard it from a former Chief of Police himself, this city is the model city for the nation . . .  Telling a prisoner before you do it, is hardly giving them a choice.  Oh, I know, many will say, the prisoner has a choice in their behavior . . .  Regardless of what transpires, we know whose word will be accepted for the record.

http://www.sott.net/article/266818-Missouri-cops-now-using-80000-volt-stun-cuffs-on-prisoners

The Heart of the Matter

In reading about Mr. Cheney's heart transplant, I was truly hoping the headline was just a grabber, but Mr. Cheney, true to form, actually made the statement.  The following statement is not a political bias and I will qualify with two fabulous examples.  I did not agree politically, with Bush 43, and I didn't like his decisions; but I do believe the man, in his own way, genuinely cares about people.  I do not agree with President Obama, either, but his countenance has always made me think of the expressions of Yul Brenner in the Ten Commandments.  Yul Brenner, however; was only acting as a ruthless dictator . . .

With all that being said, I always felt that Mr. Cheney's heart condition was reflective of who he was.  I've never seen anyone who consistently comes across like the former VP does.  In my observance of him, he always came across as heartless . . .
I was sad to see a new heart didn't make any difference.

Dick Cheney: 'It's my new heart, not someone else's old heart'

http://news.yahoo.com/cheney-doesnt-know-heart-donor-182242884.html

Watch the Adjectives

News reports are filled with adjectives.  I don't think there is a thinking American who doesn't believe every news report is framed in some sort of bias.  Adjectives lead people sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly, to develop a definitive perspective on a topic or an individual.

We all have someone in our lives that can find the negative perspective to anything. Perhaps as a writer, I give more focus to adjectives, but they are powerful! There are two completely different images in your mind when you read, 'the tranquil sea was the perfect setting for . . .' and 'the raging sea was the perfect setting for . . .' Now if I'd have just written 'the sea was the perfect setting for . . .' you'd have still been picturing a large body of water, but the two adjectives literally created images a world apart. In the case of the sea, it's great to have an accurately descriptive adjective, but in the case of things that may not seem matters of life and death, adjectives can make a real impact.

 I just came in from the garden and although it's nowhere close to the terms I'm using at this point, it's still a great example of my actual point. Think of the different picture you form in your mind when you hear these two words that can have similar meaning, but . . . Her garden was lush. Her garden was overgrown. Lush gives the image of big green thriving plants, probably with produce or at least blossoms in the foliage. Overgrown could indicate large plants, but more often than not, it leads the mind to envision neglect or an abundance of weeds. Our adjectives should convey one thing specifically, but actually convey two. The one thing we should be able to count on when an adjective is used, is an accurate description of the noun. The second thing I've come to understand about adjectives is how much they reveal about the person or entity using them. I've become acutely aware of people that always have a negative adjective to include.

 I made the mistake of allowing someone to see my inventory room. Now the mistake was not in showing it. As the post 9/11 Bushites used to say, "I've got nothing to hide." I was actually hoping, of course, to drum up some business by inviting that individual into that room. I was shocked and I don't why, knowing this person as I do, but as they looked at all the work I had put into establishing a new business, the comment was simple and amazingly insightful. They said, "Oh, this is your hording room!" Perhaps they are more television minded and not so gifted at vocabulary, but until that moment, I hadn't realized it, then I began to notice.

 Every noun; person, place, and thing, was described with a negative intonation or degrading adjective, or both . . . Which brings me to the word of caution I want to share. Negativity can be contagious and certainly downgrading.  We can see that in our nation's politics and media.  Something else to consider, if a person uses negative adjectives and gives negative reports on other people, you can count on the same thing being said about you, behind your back. We all know what we hear from someone is what someone else is going to hear about us from that same individual, but I'm suggesting even more in this than the classic gossip. Our society tends to prefer to believe bad reports as good ones.

Scripture speaks clearly that there is power in words!