The Audacity of Obama!

The week after Obama informed small business owners that they weren't any smarter and didn't work any harder than anybody else and that they didn't build their businesses, somebody else did, he hosted the national champion Baylor Lady Bears at the White House.

He said he could not be prouder of them. I don't know why. They didn't get that championship. Somebody else did that for them. He said they worked hard throughout the summer. I imagine the other teams worked hard throughout the summer, too. He said they earned their reputation. No they didn't. Somebody else gave that to them. They had a good coach, they got scholarships, they went to school on roads built by the government, they flew on planes regulated by the FAA, they ate food inspected by the USDA. They didn't do anything except accept the accolades. 

At least, if Obama is consistent in his philosophy, that's the case.

"Obama lauds Lady Bears." The Dallas Morning News; July 19, 2012; p. 6C.

Where is the tolerance?

By now, you've all heard about the brouhaha over the perfectly legitimate and true remarks made by the CEO of Chick-fil-a. He has been vilified; banned from Chicago, San Francisco, Washington DC, and Boston (all later retracted when the mayors realized they could get themselves in trouble); and threatened with kiss-in demonstrations and boycotts. What did he say that was so awful? Merely that he believed in biblical values and the biblical definition of marriage and that God's judgment will fall on us for blatantly disobeying His word. You would think the poor man had said, "Let's round up all the queers and burn them at the stake!"

I would like to know where the tolerance is. Can this man not have an opinion and a belief system different from the liberals? Does he forfeit his right to free speech because he is politically incorrect? 

Then we have the CEO of Amazon.com. Jeff Besoz is donating $2.5 million to keep same-sex unions legal in Washington. He joins his counterparts at Microsoft, Starbucks, and Nike in doing so. Why is there no outrage over that? Could it be that Christians are more tolerant than gays? Marc Solomon is a gay rights advocate in New York. He says, "When you have some of the mainstays of corporate leadership stand up, that's important. It sends a powerful message about where our society is right now." So it's OK if the gay people do it, but not OK if the Christians do it?  


The ever-wise Michelle Pitcher, a senior at Coppell High School, weighed in. She said she saw the headline about Chick-fil-a on a Yahoo page. The headline quoted Mr. Cathey (the Chick-fil-a CEO) when he said that gay marriage invited God's wrath. That's very true, by the way. Anyway, the enlightened Michelle said she knew "this was going to be bad. I clicked it anyway. Maybe there had been some slip of the tongue; a rogue executive had accidentally spouted his personal views in a public forum."


God's Word is bad? It was so awful it must have been a slip of the tongue? He accidentally said it? Michelle says she will be eating a lot less chicken from now on. I commend you, Michelle, for your tolerance of people whose views differ from yours. Would that we were all as enlightened and tolerant as you. Incidentally, it's OK that you won't be eating as much of that delicious Chick-fil-a chicken, because I plan to "eat mor chikkin."

"CEO backs gay marriage effort." The Dallas Morning News; July 28, 2012; p. 8A.

Would you like a little cheese with that whine?

Everybody has a hand out. The State of Texas reduced the amount budgeted for student financial aid -- the kind that doesn't have to be repaid.

According to the newspaper, "Some students eligible for TEXAS Grants end up going to a local community college if they can't afford a four-year university or taking on heavy work schedules to support themselves." I'm not sure why that's bad, but Dr. Tom Melecki, director of UT student financial services, said his office aims to help students avoid either of those options.

It seems to me that today's kids are a bit soft. I went to a community college, and Mr. Essie May and I both had heavy work schedules when we were in school. These kids with their hands out need to understand that other people have to work heavy schedules and sacrifice to grease those palms. What's fair about that?

"Load gets heavier for students after cuts." The Dallas Morning News; July 6, 2012; p. 1A.

Cruel and Unusual

Does a prison cell without central air conditioning constitute cruel and unusual punishment? A pending lawsuit against the State of Texas claims that it does. My goodness! If it does, I was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment my entire childhood and for several years in my adult life. The funny thing is, I didn't even know it!

Sandy Edwards of Coppell agrees that it is cruel and unusual. She falls back on the old WWJD philosophy. I'm not sure she really knows what Jesus would do, but she sums up by saying, "I would prefer a world in which people tried to live by Christ's words . . ."

Well, Sandy, so would I. If we had such a world, we wouldn't even need prisons at all, because all those murders and rapists and druge dealers and gang member in  there would never have committed the crimes that put them there. They are the ones not living by Christ's words, so why don't you go preach to them?

"A call for compassion." The Dallas Morning News; July 10, 2012; p. 10A.

The burden of proof has shifted.

Probably every American knows the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty." In any trial, the jury must assume the defendant is innocent until the plaintiff/prosecution proves he committed the tort/crime. But that seems to have shifted with the Obama justice department.

The Justice Department has deemed Texas' voter ID law discriminatory. It says the burden is on the state to prove that it is not. Shouldn't the burden be on the Justice Department to prove that it is? 

You can get married.

Homosexuals Beau Chandler and Mark Jiminez handcuffed themselves together at the Dallas County Records Building when they were refused a marriage license. After this publicity stunt, Jiminez said, "We live in a land where we're all supposed to be created equal, and by them denying us our marriage, we are not created equal."

Sure you are, Mark. You have the same rights to marry as every other man in Texas does. And, by the way, we may be created equal, but that doesn't mean we stay that way. Some of us try to live a moral life, and some of you flaunt your perversion.

"Gay couple denied marriage license, refuse to leave building." The Dallas Morning News; July 6, 2012; p. 7B.

Poor Jimmy the Greek

Olympic gold medalist Michael Johnson of Dallas says he believes that slave descendants are superior athletes. "I believe there is a superior athletic gene in us," he told the British Daily Mail. 

Poor Jimmy the Greek was crucified for similar comments 25 years ago. Why is there no outcry now? Isn't that sentiment just as racist now as it was then?

"Johnson: Descendants of slaves have advantage." The Dallas Morning News; July 6, 2012; p. 3C.

And this guy is the POTUS?

"Oh, that's pretty good. Cool! Look at that. That's a geyser there." Barack Obama upon viewing Old Faithful at Yellowstone National Park.

"Guns an issue on park visit." The Dallas Morning News; August 16, 2009; p. 5a.

Are people really this desperate?

Jean Green has had a long-running dispute with Dallas Singles matchmaking service. I won't bore you with all the details, but it boils down to the fact that Jean paid the service $13,400 for 30 dates, and she says the few men they sent her way were completely unsatisfactory.

Even if Jean had been elated at the service she received, she paid $446.67 per date. Are people really that desperate?

"Frisco widow, matchmaking service going separate ways." The Dallas Morning News; July 6, 2012; p. 1B.

Think about it.

In the aftermath of the horrific crime in Aurora, Colorado, the usual liberal calls for more gun laws and outright banning of guns is rampant. But here's something to think about.

In 2010, approximately 8,000 people were murdered by someone wielding a gun. Approximately 10,228 people were murdered by someone driving drunk. 

Why are the anti-gun people not also anti-alcohol? Are the 10,228 who died because someone chose to drive drunk any less dead or worth any less than the 8,000 killed by someone who chose to pick up a gun and pull the trigger? Where is the outcry over alcohol? Do we ban alcohol because a small minority who drink aren't responsible about it? If not, then why would we ban guns because a small minority of gun owners are not responsible with them?

Legal Pad Mentality

Have you ever known someone with legal pad mentality? The person with legal pad mentality cannot think for himself or apply his experience to different situations. He can do only what's written down step by step for him on the legal pad.

According to the Justice Department and liberal politicians, we have a whole bunch of voters with legal pad mentality. These liberals are fighting tooth and nail to nullify laws requiring voters to have photo ID. 

Take Edward Weidenbener, a resident of Indiana. He and his wife showed up at the polls without their photo ID. We didn't know we had to have it, they claimed. They were given a temporary ballot and told they could vote on it and have their identities verified later by going to the county election board. This would require follow-up on their part -- which they never did. They were not aware their votes didn't count until they were contacted by the Associated Press for a story.

Mr. Weidenbener says, "A lot of people don't have a photo ID. They'll be automatically disenfranchised." No, they won't. They can get a photo ID! But that requires thinking beyond the legal pad. 

The headline on the article I read says thousands could be barred from voting. There is no reason for one single person to be barred from voting. All they have to do is get a photo ID. Citing the Weidenbener case as evidence that wholesale numbers of voters are being disenfranchised by the ID requirement, Reporter Mike Baker then goes on to say that supporters of the laws "cite anecdotal cases of fraud." Isn't that what he just did to support his view? The claim that the laws are not required because there is no widespread fraud is a bit like telling a person he doesn't need a roof on his house, because it hardly ever rains. How do we know there is no fraud if we're not prepared to prevent it in the first place?

"Voter ID laws could bar thousands, review says." The Dallas Morning News; July 9, 2012; p. 1A.

Slowly I turn . . .inch by inch . . .

The Obama Administration reminds me of the old "Slowly I turn" bit Lucille Ball used to do. It was about a man who went into a rage every time he heard the name of his ex-wife . . . Martha.

Everything would be fine, then someone would utter "Martha" in the course of the conversation. You could see a slow fire begin to burn in the man's eyes. You knew disaster was coming, but he drew it out . . .slowly.

"Slowly I turn. Inch by inch. Step by step." Then the unwitting speaker of the dreaded name would be assaulted with a pie or a spray from a seltzer bottle or pummeled with a bean bag. 

Obama's done the old "Slowly I turn" to us with the gay agenda. First, he was against gay marriage. Then, he finally got rid of "Don't ask, don't tell." Then he signed a memorandum (a tactic that bypassed congress) making incremental changes to benefits offered to the same-sex partners of gay federal employees. He told the gay folks when he did that that it was only "Step one." Then he instructed his justice department not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Then he said (after in-depth consultation with his pre-teen daughters) that he was for gay marriage. Now, he is asking the Supreme Court to hear an appeal to decide whether or not the federal government (which does not legally recognize gay marriage) should award federal benefits to "married" gays. Slowly he turns. And if he gets another four years, maybe his daughter can be the first person to have a gay wedding in the White House. Then all the founding fathers can turn -- quickly -- in their graves.


Paris News Funny
I don't know if this is a direct quote or if The Paris News paraphrased. At any rate, it's worth a giggle.


In reporting the financial mess Lamar County finds itself in due to rising insurance costs, Mike Kahley told the commissioners they could "swallow the bullet and pay the additional $452,000." I guess that's in lieu of "biting the pill." 

"White House wants ruling on gay rights issue." The Dallas Morning News; July 4, 2012; p. 5a.

Is it because you think people are too stupid to think for themselves?

Gerald Britt, Jr., says that we need more protection from payday lenders. He lauds the City of Dallas for passing an ordinance imposing on the lenders regulations such as limiting the number of loan rollovers and limiting how much can be borrowed to a percentage of income.

Britt says this ordinance is necessary, because working-class people don't have enough sense to understand when they are being taken. Well, he didn't say it in those words, but that's what he means.

If I walk into such an establishment, and they show me a contract that says the APR is 402%, I think I'll pass on the loan. I'd think anyone with an IQ above 40 would. If they don't, is the lender really to blame?

"We need more protection from payday lenders." The Dallas Morning News; July 2, 2012; p. 13A.

Uhhhh - that's the point!

Brent Faulk of Mesquite says he is gloating over the fact that the Supreme court upheld Obamacare. He says that Republicans are "so against Obama succeeding that it's laughable." 

Excuse me, Brent, but it's Obama's policies which cannot succeed that the Republicans oppose. Obama, himself, is superfluous. It's what he's doing that matters.

Brent says "it's all about defeating Obama at any cost." Yes, Brent, it is, because if we don't, our country will certainly fail. Is that what you want?

"Allow me to gloat." The Dallas Morning News; July 2, 2012; p. 12A.

And which countries are those?

Dr. Jerry Frankel of Plano supports socialized medicine. He thinks that Medicare should be reformed to improve quality and lower costs and be extended to everyone. He doesn't give any suggestions as to how that can be accomplished other than to say that everyone will be given the option to buy it or stay with their private insurer. The catch in his plan is that if you opt to stay with your private insurer, you still pay for the Medicare. 

He says we can lower costs, improve care, and have no waiting lists -- just like other countries have done. Uhhhh, Dr. Frankel, which countries would those be?

"Health costs cripple families." The Dallas Morning News; February 21, 2012; p. 12a.

Who will care for us in our old age?

A Tweet from a Twitter user when the service experienced an outage: "Twitter's broke, my life has no meaning anymore." 

Heaven help us!

"Talking Points." The Dallas Morning News; June 24, 2012; p. 1P.

Shouldn't that be between you and your doctor?

More government intrusion is on the way. A government panel has issued a call for doctors to screen all their patients for obesity. When someone is determined per a BMI to be obese, the doctor is to send that person for "intensive nutrition-and-fitness help." 


My theory is that this is leading up to rationed care. If you are obese, you won't get that surgery or chemotherapy or other drug you need. A person who is obese realizes it. And a person who wants to take off the weight badly enough will sacrifice and discipline himself to try to do it. I've seen it happen.


But a person who isn't personally motivated to drop the pounds probably won't do it no matter how much "intensive nutrition-and-fitness help" he gets. 


It all comes back to your basic philosophy of governing. Do you want to take personal responsibility for your life, liberty, and happiness? Or do you want a nanny state to nurse you through every twist and turn of life? If you choose the nanny state, then you can forget the liberty part of the equation -- and probably the happiness part as well.


"Screening for obesity urged in checkups." The Dallas Morning News; June 26, 2012; p. 5A.


Answer to yesterday's quiz: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Scary, ain't it?

Who said it?

Here's a quiz for today. Who said this?

Frankly I had thought that at the time (Roe v. Wade) was decided, there was concern about population growth, and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.

I don't have any context for this quote, so I don't know what populations the speaker thinks we have "too many of." Tune in to tomorrow's post for the answer -- which just may surprise you.

Interesting Quotes

"What I hear from my community and from straight progressive individuals is that they now see the church as a force for evil and an an enemy of fairness and equality." Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah, God's prophet.

Which of those do you suppose is the more credible?

Sad Commentary

I just heard a very sad commentary on the mindset of America. Some political pundits were discussing which presidential candidates would get the votes of various segments of society. One of them said that Obama would get the votes of those on food stamps because they would vote to protect their benefit.

Isn't it sad that they would vote to protect their benefit rather than vote to get jobs so they could earn their own food?

On a point related to this subject, did you know that:

• In 2008 our government spent about $37 billion on food stamps
• In 2011 our government spent about $75 billion on food stamps 

That's hope and change for you!

Itching Ears

When the American Psychological Association instructed mental health professionals to stop telling gay clients they could become straight, they offered some options to help the client get rid of his guilt.

One of the suggestions was to have the clients switch churches so they can "live spiritually rewarding lives in instances where their sexual orientation and religious faith conflict." 

That puts me in mind of II Timothy 4:3: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears."

"Spiritually rewarding" lives are achieved by obedience to God's law -- not by switching churches.

"Gay-to-straight therapy rejected." The Dallas Morning News; August 6, 2009; p. 4A.

Paris News funny for the day in an editorial: "It’s a right of passage for many, and just about every teenager’s dream — a car of their own."

The editor may have had his own rite of passage when he received his journalism degree, but he's not right when he writes about the right of passage unless he's talking about an easement.

A good dose of guilt may be what's called for.

Did you know that evangelical Christians are hurting the institution of marriage by telling young people they should not have sex outside of marriage? According to Mark Regnerus, a University of Texas sociologist, evangelicals "have made much ado about sex," but are damaging the institution of marriage by discouraging and delaying sex. 

Statistics show that more than 93% of adults 18 to 23 who are in romantic relationships are having sex. Well, gosh, if 93% are doing it, it must be OK no matter what God says! Margie Zumbrun says that young Christians who have sex are made to feel like they are bad people. Well, Margie, they have disobeyed God. A good dose of guilt should be expected!

Jimmy Hester, co-founder of True Love Waits, disagrees with the argument that abstinence past a certain age is too much to ask. "There are too many examples of people who have done it," he said.

I agree with Hester. I was young once, and I know what raging hormones feel like, but if we say we can't control our own bodies, then we are no more than animals. I've heard of many instances of people who wish they had waited, but I can't recall a one who wished he had not.

"Mixed signals on sex, marriage." The Dallas Morning News; August 10, 2009; p. 4A.

From the WIST File

"Not only is border control fundamental, what is also fundamental is the principle that immigration policy does not exist to accommodate foreigners but to protect Americans." Thomas Sowell on Obama's fiat banning deportation of illegals.

Let us give you some welfare so you'll qualify for more welfare.

Did you know that in 15 states, low-income people who don't have heating bills get a dollar a year or more from the government to pay their non-existent bills? This happens so that they can claim more food stamp benefits. Does that make sense to you?

Hopefully, in a bill currently before the Senate, this practice will end. I wonder how it got started in the first place.

"Senate rejects cuts to food stamps in farm bill." The Dallas Morning News; June 20, 2012; p. 6A.

Résumé Funnies

These were taken from actual résumés. Do you think these folks got the jobs?

• Hope to hear from you shorty.
• Have a keen eye for derail.
• Dear Sir or Madman,
• I'm attacking my  résumé for you to review.

How to Dig Yourself Out of Debt

Just do what Norman Harvel does. Norman is 60 years old. He faces medical and credit card bills topping $80,000. He hasn't worked in 10 years. He lives on $904 a month in Social Security disability benefits.

But Norman has a solution. He says, "I was so sick and tired of getting the bills, so I would throw them away." 

That reminds me of the old Steve Martin solution to high taxes. Steve said you don't have to pay your taxes. When the tax man comes and says, "Why didn't you pay your taxes," you just say, "I FORGOT!" No problem! When those past due notices arrive, just toss them into the round filing cabinet!

"Drowning in debt." The Dallas Morning News; June 13, 2012; p. 2D.

When will we stop?

Arizona cut its welfare caseloads by half. I daresay they still haven't gotten rid of all those who are drawing it but don't deserve it. But, of course, the liberal bleeding hearts are crawling out of the woodwork.

When will we stop feeling sorry for and supporting those who are the creators of their own problems? Jason DeParle of The New York Times laments, "They have sold food stamps, sold blood, skipped meals, shoplifted, scavenged trash bins for bottles and cans and returned to relationships with violent partners -- all with children in tow." 

My first observation on reading that was that if they hadn't sold the food stamps, they probably wouldn't have had to skip meals. My second observation -- are they shoplifters because they live in poverty, or are they living in poverty because they have criminal records? My third observation -- why would anyone of sane mind return to a violent partner? Isn't it better to live in poverty than in fear? My fourth observation -- if the only way they can make a living is scavenging bottles and cans, then they should be the best scavengers they can be. I see a man quite often around our city. He pushes a cart that he has filled with cans. He is making a good enough living for himself and keeping our roadways clean. I have never seen him ask for a handout. My fifth observation -- if these people can't even afford to feed themselves, why do they have "children in tow"? 

Jason goes on to say that statistics suggest that one in every four low-income single mothers is jobless  -- roughly 4 million women and children. My observation (for a great many of them) -- if they didn't fornicate, they wouldn't be single mothers. My other observation -- track down the worthless daddies of those children and make them take care of the children. Many of the mothers have addiction problems. My observation -- whose fault is that? Why should I pay your living expenses just because you're a junkie? And what do you want to bet that 99% of these "poor" single mothers have cable TV, internet access, cell phones, and laptops?

Pictured in the article is Tamika Shelby with her 3-year-old son. She says she lost her $176 monthly stipend. I have some advice, Tamika -- quit making babies you can't afford. Oh -- and aspire to something better than working in a strip club.


Paris News funny for the day.  Here's the headline from a recent editorial page: "$225K better buy a whole lot of competancy." Hopefully, it will buy more competency than the PN headline writers and proofers have.

"Lean times lead 16 states to slash aid to poor." The Dallas Morning News; April 8, 2012; p. 8A.

With freedom comes responsibility.

A very happy Fourth of July to all my patriotic friends out there. Our founding fathers envisioned a country where an individual had the freedom to pursue any dream he chose. Thankfully, we still have a vestige of that vision left; however, it grows dimmer and dimmer as our government grows bigger and bigger and more and more people forget the flip side of freedom -- responsibility.

How sad that we now have a country where a poor person doesn't say, "I must find my way out of this poverty. I must work hard, get an education, spend what money I have wisely, and strive to be the best that I can be." What the poor person says now is, "What is the government going to do to give me income equality?"

David Null is an example of this mentality. David owns an a/c cleaning company. He bought a catastrophic care insurance policy to cover his family. But he didn't read what the policy's limitations were. It maxed out at $25,000. David didn't realize this until his daughter needed a liver transplant. 

Null says he was deceived. He said he asked "in very plain language for an 'Oh, no!' policy." That's not very plain to me. An insurance agent could put any kind of interpretation he wanted on that. I would have asked for a policy that would cover a truly catastrophic illness or accident -- cancer, transplant, brain injury, etc.

Null testified before a congressional committee about his situation before Obamacare was passed. He said that his daughter would not be able to be an independent businesswoman because she wouldn't be able to get insurance on her own because of her pre-existing condition. "I can't tell her she can grow up to do anything she wants, and you guys need to fix that for me." Whoa! There are lots of people who can't do "anything they want" for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean they can't still be gainfully employed. And why should congress fix what he messed up? Where is his responsibility in all this?

What's worse is that he is passing down this ideology to his daughter. When the 12-year-old testified, she said, "I do want to live my American dream, and I hope the committee can do that for me." She wants to live her American dream, but she wants the committee to do it for her? 

Yes, it would be nice to sit back and just let the blessings flow in, wouldn't it? Thank goodness for those revolutionary soldiers (and all the others down through the years) who took the responsibility upon themselves to fight for our freedoms. Where would we be if they'd all sat back and said to their political leaders, "You need to fix this for us"? They didn't fight for handouts and a nanny state. They fought for the right of every American to care for his own family by the sweat of his own brow. Today is a good day for us to be reminded of that.

"Panel hears grim tales of 'underinsured." The Dallas Morning News; October 16, 2009; p. 1A.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

In Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent on the court's Arizona immigration ruling, he said that the Court's decision that Arizona contradicted federal law by enforcing the law when the President refused to enforce it "boggles the mind." 

I agree. Couldn't have said it better myself.

"Pundits question if Scalia went too far." The Dallas Morning News; June 28, 2012; p. 10A.

Choices

Note: The cartoon in yesterday's post has been fixed so that the entire strip is now visible.


I support our veterans. I appreciate the sacrifices they make to keep our country free. That being said, I don't like the ones who try to scam the system. And they are out there. I heard a veteran call in to a radio show one day not too long ago, and he was disgusted. He said that military personnel are assisted in assimilating to civilian life by Veterans Affairs. They have classes for them to tell them what benefits are available to them and their families. Great idea. What disgusted him was what they were told in one of the classes he attended. The instructor or facilitator (I hate that word) or whatever who was leading the class told the vets they should apply for benefits for PTSD even if they were exhibiting no symptoms. The vet who called in to the radio show said he fought for our freedom to make our own choices and be the best that we can be -- not for the freedom to take advantage of the system.

I couldn't help recalling that conversation when I read the article in the newspaper about Retired Staff Sgt. Hector Esparza. He says he has PTSD and is unable to work. He and his wife are struggling financially, and he says they are in danger of losing their home. I noticed some things in the article and in the photograph that accompanied it.

When he left the service in 2007, Esparza got a job working with troubled juveniles. But he says he felt that no one understood him, so he quit and sought treatment. Do you suppose there is any kind of a job out there that someone with PTSD could do? What about working in a library? That should be quiet and pretty low stress. What about working the non-emergency admissions desk at a hospital? What about working in the bookkeeping department at a bank or other business? Surely there is something he can do. Esparza says the doctors tell him not to isolate himself. However, he says, "I never really step outside the house." How can a doctor help him if he won't follow his directives? Then, Esparza complains, "I get depressed because I am isolated." Well, duh!

Two years ago, the Esparza's bought a $175,000 house expecting to pay for it with Esparza's $1,200 a month disability check. Of course, they immediately fell behind on the mortgage. They've already been bailed out once by a charity. 

The Esparza's have four dogs -- big dogs! Mr. Essie May and I have a dog, and I can tell you it is expensive to feed her and pay the vet bills. If a family is struggling, why does it have four dogs? 

Esparza has intricate tattoos covering both his arms. Wonder how much they cost? Wonder if he had them before his PTSD kicked in? If not, I would think the pain of getting them might trigger something.

The Esparza's owe $25,000 in credit card bills. I wonder how much of that was for essentials and how much was for the latest gadget they couldn't do without. I notice that they have a home security system. Those monitoring fees can get a bit pricey.

Mrs. Esparza cuts hair for a living. But she's had to cut back on her hours because of her difficult pregnancy. Guess that PTSD isn't all that bad! I have never understood why a family who is barely keeping their heads above water decides it's a good time to have another kid -- especially when the father is mentally unstable. Oh -- did I mention that their insurance had not kicked in when she became pregnant? 

I know there are veterans out there who truly suffer psychological effects from the horrors of war. Take Travis Miller, for instance. He stepped on a land mine in Afghanistan. It blew off both his legs and his right arm and mangled his left arm so badly they had to amputate it. Amazingly, he regained consciousness just seconds after the explosion. His concern for his men was so great that the medic had to say to him, "With all due respect, Sir, shut up." Through all that, he's kept a positive attitude and hasn't even mentioned PTSD. Don't you suppose that if anyone had a right to claim PTSD, it would be him? I know there are others out there like Travis. We owe them more than we can ever repay. But it just seems to me that the heroes of "the Greatest Generation" sucked it up a lot better than Sgt. Esparza's of this generation seem to be doing. Sgt. Esparza should be on his knees every day thanking God that he returned with all his limbs intact. It might help his PTSD if he'd stop the pity party and use some of that isolation time volunteering at a veteran's hospital helping those like Travis Miller who made a far greater sacrifice than he did.

"Weighed down by financial woes." The Dallas Morning News; May 7, 2012; p. 1A.

When did Satidayish become Sundyish?

Sitting in church on Sunday morning with Mr. Essie May a couple of weeks ago, I couldn't help noticing the 20-something girl a couple of pews in front of us. She had on a faded red t-shirt and cut-off blue jean shorts. The shorts were extremely short. On top of that, they were the low-rider kind. I'll bet total length was not more than 8 inches. 

Don't get me wrong. If this was the best the girl had, then she should certainly have not let it stand in the way of her coming to church. But I can assure you that this girl had something better in her closet. In fact, I'll just bet she was dressed in something better than that when she ran errands or worked in the yard or whatever she did on Saturday.

To top that off, our youth minister went to the pulpit to give the announcements. He was wearing faded blue jeans and an old polo type shirt that came down to his knees. He looked kind of like Mr. Essie May does when he's spent all Saturday morning working in the yard.

So when I saw this Snuffy Smith cartoon, it really got me to thinking. When did it become OK to go to church looking like a bum? When did Satidayish become Sundyish?