Showing posts with label Society as a Whole. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society as a Whole. Show all posts

Monday, May 11, 2020

Jesus Christ for President in 2020: Why He Wouldn't Be Elected


We have another presidential election looming on the horizon, and, unless something changes, it’s apparently going to be a contest between our current Tweeter-in-Chief, aka Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, a man who oftentimes appears to live in an alternate reality. Not that one couldn’t say the same thing about Trump, but we won’t go there, at least not now.   

Anyway, out of curiosity I recently decided to take a poll by asking various individuals their choice for our next president. The first person I asked was one of my neighbors, who shall remain anonymous since I must live in this neighborhood.

His response was, “Neither one. They’re both scoundrels.” 

Nodding, given he had a point, I said, “Well, whose name would you like to see on the ballot?”

Removing his baseball cap, he scratched his head, slapped the cap back on, and pondered the question for a few minutes. I had just about decided he wasn’t going to reply when he finally did.

“Jesus,” he said and smiled.

“Jesus?” I echoed.

“Yep, that’s what I said, all right, Jesus.” He squinted one eye. “Can you think of a better candidate?”

“No,” I replied. “Reckon not.” After all, the Lord would surely be the only completely honest man who’d ever sat in the Oval Office, no disrespect intended for Abraham Lincoln.

After my neighbor and I parted ways, I mulled over his response, and I reached a conclusion: While no one can question the honesty of the Son of God, I seriously doubt that He would be elected, much less nominated—and that’s presuming Jesus were to miraculously appear and announce his candidacy for this nation’s highest office.

As for exactly why Jesus would not be elected, much less nominated, well, let’s examine the background and character, both positive and negative, of this hypothetical White House contender:

On the positive side:

  1. Jesus Christ is definitely charismatic, and His popularity among humankind is unparalleled. In fact, over the last 2,000+ years, Jesus has established a worldwide and extremely diverse constituency, with followers numbering in the billions.
  2. The Lord’s past is unsullied, so there are no skeletons rattling around in His closet for tabloids to uncover or the other party to use to destroy His credibility among voters. Granted, yes, Jesus has been known to partake of the fruit of the vine, but enjoying a glass of vino every now and then is hardly tabloid fodder.
  3. The Son of God has no previous political record to tarnish His good name because He has never served in the legislature or Senate, as mayor of a city, or as governor of any state.
  4. He is a miracle worker, which is a definite plus, so Jesus could effortlessly erase the national debt, terminate the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, stabilize the climate, and eradicate poverty and hunger around the globe, just as easily as he fed over 4,000 with seven loaves of bread and a few small fishes, healed the deaf and blind, walked on water, and raised the dead.   
  5. Jesus would never allow his decisions to be influenced or “bought” by political action committees. After all, when Satan (probably the forefather of special-interest groups) offered Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,” the Son of God simply replied, “Get thee hence, Satan.”  And that was the end of that.
On the negative side, however:

  1. Jesus is only 33-years-old, and a presidential candidate must be at least 35.
  2. He is a Nazarene and not a citizen by birth of the United States, which is another requirement.
  3. Jesus is homeless, having “nowhere to lay his head,” and, thus, has no permanent address with which to establish the residency requirement.
  4. His staff consists of fishermen, a former tax collector, and some weird dude named John, who dresses in “raiment of camel hair,” with “a leathern girdle about his loins,” and dines upon “locusts and wild honey.” I mean, what kind of “PR” image does that project, huh?
  5. Jesus is a pacifist, and His platform is based on “turning the other cheek,” a trait that makes His suitability for Commander in Chief in times of war rather questionable. Moreover, His aversion to violence—“Thou shalt not kill”—would probably not go over too well with the National Rifle Association, an organization that supports the right to bear arms and uses its Political Victory Fund to influence (buy) political candidates and elected officials.  
  6. Jesus doesn’t dress the part. No $400 haircuts, Armani suits, and red power ties for the Son of God. He has long, shaggy hair and a beard, wears a plain wool or linen robe, depending upon the season, a pair of sandals, and looks like a 60’s flower child.
  7. Since Jesus could—and surely would—end the conflict in the Middle East, the military industrial complex, subcontractors, Big Oil, and politicians who are currently making a financial “killing” from this conflict would demand His head on a platter.
  8. Finally, since Jesus would not allow Himself to be influenced or “bought” by special interest groups, every decision He made would immediately be shot down by the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats alike.   
On the other hand, the above points, both pro and con, are quite irrelevant, since as I initially said, it is unlikely that Jesus Christ would be elected even if nominated.

Sure, maybe you would vote for Him. I know I most certainly would. I cannot help but think, however, that the majority of American voters, most of whom are conservative at heart, would never cast their ballots for a left-wing radical revolutionary like the Son of God.

Yes, you heard me correctly. Jesus Christ is a left-wing radical revolutionary. After all, doesn’t he sit down and dine with sinners? Doesn’t he interfere with the legal process? For example, as recorded in the Holy Bible, Jesus Christ prevented a woman taken in adultery from being stoned to death, even though stoning was the law of the land. What’s more, doesn’t Jesus condemn greed, materialism, lasciviousness, and lust? So think about it. With Him in control of this country, wouldn’t things like Cadillac Escalades, Gucci bags, Rolex watches, super-sized wide-screen TVs, X-rated movies, and girlie magazines all become things of the past? Also, what about the entire concept of capitalism? Didn’t Jesus lose His cool and go on a rampage, overthrowing tables and tossing about chairs, as He purged the temple of the money-changers? Didn’t the Son of God say that it’s easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God?

Finally, as if all of that isn’t enough to make His chances of being elected slim to none, most people would surely take exception with his social views, views that closely correspond to those of the Essenes, who espouse communitarian brotherhood and are, in fact, socialists and anarchists. Therefore, Jesus, as president, would probably have the socialist motto hanging over his desk in the Oval Office: “To each according to his need; from each according to his ability.” Seriously now, do you think the millions of Americans who believe the rich are rich because they “deserve” to be rich and the poor are poor because they’re “lazy” and prefer living on welfare are going to sit quietly by while their wealth is shared with the downtrodden and destitute of this country? Well, neither do I. After all, it isn’t the “American Way.”

And that, my friends, is why Jesus Christ, even if nominated, would never be elected President of the United States. It is also why we keep getting people sitting behind that fancy desk in the Oval Office who fail to make this country a better place for all of us—rich, poor, black, white, red, yellow, young, old, male, female, gay, or straight—and, instead, invariably seem to make conditions worse. And if you don’t think things are getting worse, then you have not been paying attention.

Friday, June 21, 2019

What's in a Name? Odd Names for Children Are Nothing New


Red Apple Google Images (2019)
Do you ever lie awake at night, eyes wide open, watching the moon-cast shadows dance across the ceiling, listening to the wind whispering through the trees just beyond your bedroom window, while you ponder some the deep, perplexing question about life? Well, I do, and the question that kept me awake last night (and sleep-deprived this entire day) is, "Why on God’s green Earth did Gwyneth Paltrow name her daughter “Apple”?

I mean, granted, the child has had the name for 15 years now, but what kind of name is “Apple” for a girl, anyway?” Not that it's a good choice for a boy, either, but did Paltrow, still groggy from giving birth, open one eye, take a look at her newborn daughter, and mumble, “She looks just like an apple”? What? Did the baby have a little round head? Was its face shiny red? Was it hairless? Hmm, wait a minute. I've just described 99.9% of all newborn babies, haven't I? That fact notwithstanding, however, Apple is still an unusual name to pin on a defenseless baby. If you are going to name a child “Apple,” at least wait until the child is old enough to protest and hire a lawyer.

Paltrow justified her decision by claiming to have found inspiration in the Bible. As she said, according to FOX News, “Apples are so sweet, and they're wholesome, and it's biblical — and I just thought it sounded so lovely and … clean!” I have news for Gwyneth. One, the Bible doesn't say Eve picked an "apple." She picked the "fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," and the Bible doesn't specify what kind of fruit it was. That fact aside, however, people have interpreted that fruit to be an apple, and that apple is symbolic of humankind’s downfall and subsequent exile from Paradise. It not symbolic of sweetness, wholesomeness, and cleanliness. Heck, why didn’t Paltrow instead name her daughter Peach, Pear, Avocado, or even Grapefruit? These are much more wholesome when it comes to symbolism, though not necessarily as tasty in a pie, well, that is except the peach.   
Apple Garden of Eden (YouTube via Google Images)

Paltrow’s misplaced biblical inspiration aside, I still think “Apple” is a strange name for a girl. Of course, it’s also a strange name for a boy, but I haven’t heard or read about any celebrity naming his or her son “Apple,” at least not yet. On the other hand, some celebs have given their sons odd (to say the least) monikers to have to carry around for the rest of their lives; well, that is unless the sons have those names legally changed in adulthood, which many of them may very well do. For example, Sylvester Stallone’s son is “Sage Moonblood;” Ashlee Simpson’s is “Bronx Mowgli;” Alicia Silverstone’s is “Bear;” and Michael Jackson’s is “Blanket.” (Yes, that’s right, “Blanket.” I’d like to know Jackson’s inspiration for that name.).

Then again, parents’ opting for colorful, i.e. "weird", names for their children isn’t anything new. For instance, back during the 60’s Revolution, which I recall at times in flashbacks, some parents selected quite offbeat, albeit colorful, names for their kids, most reflective of the time’s atmosphere of peace and love, as well its emphasis on nature; for example: Blossom, Butterfly, Crayon, Daydream, Echo, Fern, Flower, Mesa, Peace, Petal, Rainbow, Starshine, Windsong, Willow, etc.

Butterfly Google Images (2015)
Not that I gave my son or daughter such colorful monikers, mainly because my now-ex-husband forbade it. However, had I had my way, my son would be “Cloud” instead of “Wayne,” and my daughter “Moonbeam” instead of “Kathryn.” So, I guess the names today’s celebs—as well as perhaps some non-celebs—are choosing for their children aren’t really that outlandish after all. They’re just unique and creative. Still, in our defense, parents during the 60’s Revolution had a legitimate excuse: We were stoned.


Tags: #babynames, #gwynethpaltrow, #applepaltrow, #uniquebabynames

Sources:

Carriere, Nadia (2014) Hippie Baby Names ~ Groovy Picks for Your Bohemian Flower Child

FOX News Magazine (2015) Strangest Celebrity Baby Names





Saturday, August 9, 2014

Is Bottled Water Better for Us or Only Fancier?


Bottled Water Consumption

“Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink,” says the narrator in Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s masterful poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.” The funny thing, however, is that most people today must feel the same way, even here in the real world, specifically right here in the good old USA. Water, water, everywhere, yet we haven’t a drop to drink. Well, that is unless it comes in a plastic bottle, which must be the case since with each year that passes we Americans are spending more and more on bottled water.
 
Yearly Cost and Consumption of Bottled Water in the United States 
 
According to Quentin Fottrell (2014), “American consumption of bottled water has surged 2,700%, from 354 million gallons in 1976 to 9.7 billion gallons in 2012.” Moreover, according to statisticbrain.com (2014), the annual spending for bottled water in the U.S. is currently at $11.8 billion, and that’s a heck of a lot of money. And just think about it; if the current expenditure is almost $12 billion, what will it be 20 years from now—$15 billion? I wouldn’t doubt it, especially if one takes into account not only increased consumption but also increased prices.

And, yes, my hubby and I are just as guilty as any other American. In fact, I buy bottled water in packs of 24 and sometimes 36 containers, and Chet and I each consume an average of two bottles per day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year. Why do we consume bottled water? Well, it’s because it’s better for us, right?  Not according to Mae Wu, attorney in the health program at National Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group in Washington, D.C.
 
Bottled Water Is Not Healthier or Safer
 
Wu contends, “The general public thinks bottled water is going to be safer and cleaner than tap water,” but “For the most part, that’s not true” (Fottrell, 2014).

Tap Water Is Safe to Drink
The reality, according to Peter Gleick, scientist and author of Bottled and Sold: The Story behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water, is that “nearly half of bottled water brands are sourced from the municipal water supply—the same source as what comes out of the tap. Some 45% of bottled waters in the U.S. are actually purified tap water” (Fottrell, 2014).

What really should give us food-for-thought are the startling results of studies conducted in Germany, Switzerland, Italy and France—one published in 2011 and the other in 2013—by Martin Wagner, a scientist at Goethe University Frankfurt’s Department of Aquatic Ecotoxicology. Fottrell (2014) cites Wagner, who says, “Bottled water had a higher contamination of chemicals than glass bottles. There are many compounds in bottled water that we don’t want to have there. Part is leaching from the plastic bottles, lids or contamination of the well.”
 
Fottrell (2014) also relates that among the main compounds Wagner identified during the studies were “endocrine disrupting chemicals, or EDCs, which can act like hormones in the body and have been linked to diabetes, breast cancer and cardiovascular disease.”

Filter Water at Home and Save Money and the Environment

Obviously, bottled water isn’t a better alternative than tap water, yet each year we Americans spend 300 times the amount we would spend if we instead consumed tap water. And if we have any doubts about the purity of our water source, we can always purchase a purifier and purify our own water. As Nick Colas, chief market strategist for ConvergEx, maintains, filtering your own water is “more economical and better for the environment, and one way to avoid using a lot of scrap plastic” (Fottrell, 2014).
Purify Water with a Water Filter

The reality is that we can drink tap water for free—or at least for a price that is considerably lower than what we pay for bottled water—but, instead, we choose to purchase water with fancy names like Opium Springs, Aquatic Liqueur, or Super Duper Dipperful of Water (I made those up), and the question is why.

Why We Spend a Fortune on Bottled Water

The answer is because we are gullible. Yes, we are gullible, which is why when we see ads for fancy bottled waters on television, in magazines, or in newspapers, we believe what the advertisers tell us. We believe that drinking bottled water is better for us because the water that comes in those bottles is purer and, therefore, safer.  As previously demonstrated, however, that simply is not true.

Of course, some people also believe that carrying around a bottle of water with a fancy label on it makes them appear more urbane (That means sophisticated). Yet others believe that bottled water is more thirst quenching than regular water. Yeah, right, I say to this latter group. In case you haven’t noticed, one type of water is just as wet as the other. Water is, after all, water; and regardless of whether it comes from a bottle, a faucet, or the sky, water will quench your thirst. So, with that in mind, save yourself some money and go stick your head under the faucet. Of course, if you want to appear a bit more sophisticated, you can always reuse one of those fancy plastic bottles you bought. Just fill it from the tap. Trust me, no one will ever know the difference.

Sources: 
 
Fottrell, Q. (2014) Why You Should Stop Buying Bottled Water. Retrieved from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-you-should-stop-buying-bottled-water-2014-08-04

Amount of Bottled Water Consumed in U.S. (2014). Retrieved from statisticbrain.com

Gott, P. “Bottled Water not Worth Cost.” The Advocate. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Thursday, August 07, 2008. p. 1E.

Wlpba.org. (2014) Boy Drinking from Hose Photo. Retrieved from googleimages.com