Christians End the War - The Sanctity of Marriage and the Myth of Civil Unions

I've not posted recently about my feelings about the Gay Rights issues. I've written but in reviewing my drafts I felt like I was just rambling. So rather than trying to say everything, I'm going to have to organize my thoughts.

I want to talk about the idea of the Sanctity of Marriage. I've had a chance to talk to several of my fellow believers and one argument that is brought up is the idea that why do gays have to use the word Marriage to describe their relationship.

I'm told that we've given them Civil Unions, isn't that enough. It seems Civil unions is basically Christians saying, "alright we won't let you use the term Marriage, but we'll let you have a civil union which is pretty much the same thing. Cmon gays isn't that enough?"

Then then discussion is concluded, why do they have to touch "marriage"?

The Sanctity of Marriage

As a Christian, I believe that marriage is a serious commitment to my spouse/partner. When I got married, I made a spiritual and legal commitment to my wife. Everything I own is ours and everything I earn is ours. When we have kids, we are committed to raising our child together.

I also made a commitment to be faithful to her as well. I got married at my wife's church and the service was performed by ministers that we respected. We asked God to bless our union and we know He has.

I believe Christians view marriage more highly than any other group. I say this because I understand why Christians hold marriage in high regard and does not want to see this understanding tainted in anyway.

As admirable as this is, you can not expect a non-Christian world to hold marriage to this standard. My position is that a marriage is the union between two consenting adults, both emotionally and legally. You'll note that I dropped the spiritual part, because you can not prevent two consenting adults who do not believe in God from getting married. Nor should we.

If we expect to uphold the sanctity of marriage legally, we would need to require all couples to be married in churches by ministers or pastors. We would also require that couples take part in pre-marital counseling, so they can work out issues such as money, and raising kids. And if we are going to follow the Bible, we can't allow any Christian to marry a non-Christian.

I'll be honest, these are good things that everyone who wants to get married, should do. Let's face it, that pre-marital counseling could probably save a lot of marriage and prevent a lot of bad marriages from ever taking place.

My point is that you can't legislate the Sanctity of Marriage. You can not expect the government to insure that a marriage is being formed for the right reasons and that the participants have thought through all of the issues before entering this legal union.

As it stands today, we will also any man and woman to get married. We'll allow athiests and muslims to get married. None of which can be classified as a God-honoring Christian marriage. We'll allow a Christian and Non-Christian to get legally married, even thought they are unequally yoked, and you know that's against what God said in the Bible.

Worse, we'll allow two teenagers to get married only because they had pre-marital sex and the girl is pregnant. As honorable as that it, what a train wreck of marrage this will become. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for this to be a God-Honoring marriage.

What does it take to get married in the State of California? All it takes is that you go down to the clerks office and fill out an application and then have a officer of the court or minister to legalize the marriage.

In Conclusion

As a Christian, I'm glad we don't enter the union of marriage lightly. The problem is that we can't expect the rest of the nation to follow suit. It is not up to us to legislate this either.

In speaking of Gay Marriage, my position remains the same. Marriage is the union between two consenting adults, even if it is a same sex partnership. To me as long as two people love each other and are willing to commit themselves to each other, it not up to me as a Child of God to pass judgement and say you can or can not get married.

Why can't "Civil Union" be enough? It's not enough, even if legally a civil union provides all the legal rights that marriage has, it does not provide the emotional rights or the spiritual rights either.

As Christians, if we believe that "Civil Unions" are enough, then I dare you to call your marriage to your wife or husband a "Civil Union." Christians are not and should not be the final decide on what marriage is in a non-Christian world.

A Funny Hit and Run Story

I was at Solebee's Body Shop. A guy came in and his car had been hit in the front of his house. The driver backed into his car really hard and took off. Basic hit and run. The car is in bad shape.

The problem is that the when the driver took off, he left his rear bumper embedded in the car, including the license plate. So now the cops know who hit the car.

Technically, the bumper should be considered a note.

Yellow Power - It's the Asians Turn Now

Now that the African-Americans have one of their own in the White House, it’s the Asians turn now!  It frustrates me that I can’t achieve what the average American can achieve, because of this racist nation, we call the United States.

Where’s my two acres?

Where’s my mule?

Fellow Asians, stand with me until we are equal with the whites and the blacks.

We will no longer be patronized by the man. C’mon Julie Chen, you can do better than Big Brother.

My white friends…imagine a world where your clothes are no longer clean.  A world where your nails go unpolished.  Where the only person left to cut your hair is Jose Eber?

I expect my deed and stable next week.

Yellow Power!

The War Ends Now - A Call for Christians to Reconsider their View on Homosexuals

I made a big mistake this last election. I made an assumption that made me not campaign for an important issue. Yes, I worked hard supporting John McCain to become president, but I did not campaign to defeat Proposition 8.  I assumed that liberal California would defeat the proposition. I was wrong, now I feel I need to make things right.

EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS NEED TO END THE WAR AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS TODAY!

I'm not going to waste this important blog by trying to convince you that Homosexuality is or is not a sin. That's not the issue.

Since I'm addressing my fellow Christians, I'm going to take the position that Homosexuality is a sin (more on this in a future blog). With the assertion that homosexuality is a sin...

END THE WAR! OPEN YOUR ARMS AND GET BACK TO WHAT GOD HAS CALLED US TO DO and that's preach the GOSPEL.

You may disagree with me by using the term "war" but even if you don't see your attitudes toward gays as "war-like" it really is.  During the whole Prop 8 campaign, I saw believers resort to lies and misconceptions to scare people into voting yes.  My children will be taught about gay marriage (btw they already are). Churches will lose their non-profit status by now marrying same-sex couples (no, Churches are allowed to discriminate by definition).

I know very few homosexuals that would describe Evangelicals as kind, loving people.

FIRST, LET'S CHANGE OUR PERSPECTIVE

Remember the Great Commission? Matthew 28:18 - "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations." I think we sometimes for get that the "all nations" part does not mean foreign missions but it means even our own backyard.

God has called us, Christians, to be salt and light in this world.  Our job is to show the lost what it means to have a personal relationship with God. To shine the light of God to a dark world and to flavor the world around us, like salt to draw people to the fact the Jesus died for everyone.

Let's not forget that the lost world include the homosexual community as well.  Just like any non-believer, homosexuals who do not know Christ needs to be saved like we did when we were lost.

I've written about this before, but why have we drawn the line in the sand with homosexuality? Why has the Christian community singled out the homosexuality as the sin that we just can't tolerate?  I almost see it as making homosexuality the new unpardonable sin. I realize that I'm speaking in extremes, but I've attended many churches and I have yet to come across or read about a single evangelical church that has any kind of outreach to the gay community.

Yes, we can visit AIDS Hospices and care for the dying but on the other hand we can stand at an intersection and hold up a political sign to keep their lifestyle illegal.  Maybe its just me, but I can't imagine Jesus holding political signs or attending Yes on 8 rallies. I can see Jesus walking down the streets of West Hollywood compelling to lost to accept him has their personal savior.

Let's not forget the being gay does not condemn you to Hell. Not having a relationship with Jesus Christ is what condemns you to Hell.  So as a Christian, I don't see a person as homosexual or heterosexual, I see a person who either does or does not know Christ and I build my relationship from there. It's not up to me to make the decision whether they are ready to accept Christ based on who they sleep with.

I'm sure you find it easy to walk an adulterer, drug user, or the promiscuious through the sinners prayer, but it seems we need to "cure" a person of their homosexuality before we begin to talk to them.

I'm finding that this blog is getting pretty long, so I'll follow this up with two more posts regarding "Homosexuality and the End of the World" or Legislating Morality, and "the New Mission Field." 

CALL TO ACTION

Here's what I'd like to see my fellow Born-Again, Evangelical, Conservative Christian brothers and sisters do:

1. END THIS WAR. As Christians, we must no longer single out the gay community as the group we refuse to show Christ's love and character to. Stop the need to legislate their behavior.
2. SEE HOMOSEXUALS AS INDIVIDUALS. Don't look at a person as gay or straight, but as Christians, see them as lost or saved.  Introduce the lost to Christ and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.

Democrats and Prop 8 - Ban on Gay Marriage

The election is over and we have a new President.

So, here’s what I find fascinating. How can a state whose majority is comprised Democrats give Obama California’s electoral votes, but not defeat Proposition 8 with a large majority?

Let’s assume that all Republicans voted for Prop 8. Now reduce that number by the Libertarians who philosophically could not vote for Prop 8. That means there was a large contingent of Democrats who voted for the ban on Gay Marriage.

This leads me to conclude that the Democratic party in California is not as cohesive as they think they are.

-- added after original post --

Here's an article from AP - http://tinyurl.com/6oabhv. It basically states how Prop 8 can pass and Obama win California.

ased on exit polls, all races were split down the middle in voting for or against prop 8, with the following exceptions.

White voters, voted against the proposition. African American voters were overwhelmingly in support of Proposition 8.

Why I'm Voting No on Prop 8

I've been avoiding this blog for a while, but I did want to get it up before the election on Tuesday. Yes, I'm not following my own people on this one. I think its important for me to put this down on "paper."

Here are some of the short reasons:

1. I don't generally vote for propositions, especially any budget appropriations. That's the legislature's job, not the people. I'm only voting for the Parental Notification proposition - Prop 4.

2. Barack Obama is going to do worse to this nation than Gays marrying. Nuff said about this one.

3. Your views on Homosexuality changes when you actaully have homosexual friends. As a Christian, I can't bring myself to vote for this.

4. As much as I would like to legislate my Christian values, the government is not inherently Christian. You can not pass legislation that will cause people to live as Christians. What's next, laws that outlaw Islam?

There's only one reason in my mind to vote for Prop 8 and that's to counter act maverick judges who think they can create laws from the bench. It's not the judges job or the people's job to create laws, that's why we elect senators, govenors and assemblymen to do that. This is a republic, people.

Back to voting no. I'm not going to get into theology at this time, but I'm not convinced that the Bible prohibits homosexuality. In the Old Testament, it definitely does. But it also prohibits each shellfish and pork. It also has harsh words to say about women experiencing their monthly cycles and "spilling your seed."

Now that Christ has fulfilled the law, why is the aforementioned list acceptable and not homosexuality? In fact, homosexuality and "spilling" was forbidden, because God needed to grow his nation, "Israel". The fulfillment of that law has been met in Christ.

Let's assume though that Homosexuality is wrong. Why have Christians drawn the line in the sand and created and "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to gays? The only "us vs. them" is Believers and Non-Believers. Our job is not to win the war against Non-Believers, but to compel them to Believe. The actual belief is the Holy Spirit's job.

The church is losing the battle to bringing Homosexuals to Christ because we are presenting a militant picture of Christ that wants to keep them from marrying and having children. I believe that Jesus would walk down the streets of West Hollywood and win souls based on his ability to show love and die for anyone. But that's an image we don't want to see, drag queens following Christ.

What's the difference between two people of the same sex wanting to get married and two teenagers getting married because the girl is pregnant? The difference is the same sex couple actually want to get married. My point here is that there are plenty of heterosexual couples that should not get married because they are just bringing children into this world to live in unhappy and sometimes violent home.

My wife's parents never should have gotten married, let along have children. But the state of California let them get married. My wife was born, thank God. But hardly to a loving and safe household.

The state didn't ask them if they got counseling, or if they had what it took to love each other and love their children. No, the state made them fill out an application and take a blood test. In fact, there's not much the state could to do to prevent them from getting married, except if they were of the same sex.

Yes, gays have domestic partnerships to give them legal rights. It's really not the same. Partly because those legal rights only extend to the borders of California (which is the greatest state in the union...with the exception of the Bay Area...never mind I'm getting off track). Your still telling a person that we will treat you differently because you chose to live a lifestyle out of the norm (Note: please do not get hung up on my use of the word "choice" at this time). What we are really saying is that we'll let homosexuals have the legal right to live as committed partners, but please don't taint the word, "Marriage." Sorry, but we heterosexual have already tainted the word.

Finally, I want to address the idea of "legislating morality." My dream is that we would live in a Christian nation, meaning everyone in this nation knew Christ as their personal savior and lived a Christ-like life. I hate to break it to you, fellow believers, we do not live in that nation. We haven't lived in that nation for a long time. At the same time we can't create a Christian nation through laws. If you really want to create a Christian nation, bring more people to Christ.

I see this issue the same as abortion, which I would outlaw (with the exception of rape, incest and life-threatening) if I could. The best way to stop an abortion is not to outlaw it, but to convince the mother that she has a life in her womb (with fingernails). I would also convince her that there are enough child-less parents out there who would love a chance to raise that child.


I will not stop Homosexuals from getting married, just as I will not stop being the best example of Christ that I can possibly be.

In spite of everything I said, I'm voting for McCain. And my long standing policy of never voting for a Democrat stands.

Obama Lies in Another Attack Ad

Barack is at it again. This time instead of putting other people's words in his own mouth, he decides to place other people's words in John McCain's.

This Obama-Approved ad and to continue to polarize the nation using the abortion issue, Barack states that John McCain accused Barack Obama "of letting infants die."

Let's look at the facts. The first one is the most glaring, John McCain never said those words. Those words were said by the Pro-Life organization "BornAliveTruth.org." It was the groups effort get Obama to support Illinois legislation to protect babies born alive during botched abortions.

You'll see this tactic all the time by liberals in the media, they will take extreme quotes made by extremist groups and attribute them to people who are part of the same line of thinking. No wonder it was so easy for Barack to think McCain would attack him that way.

Here's the ad.

Attack Ad Makes Me Want To Vote for McCain

Here's an ad attacking Sarah Palin by the Defenders of Wild Life. The funny this is that the ad is 100% true and when you look at the history behind the ad, you really have a special admiration for our future Vice President.



Here are the facts:

1. The state of Alaska, under Sarah Palin's leadership, did sanction the hunting of alaskian wolves. Unlike the rest of the nation Alaska has a serious wolf over-population problem ranging for 7,000 to 11,000 across the state. They are predators endangering the moose and caribou population. The hunting is an effort on control the population.
2. Sarah Palin did offer a $150 "bounty" for the left leg of hunted wolves, which the state court overturned due to perceived cruelty. What wasn't mentioned was that the legs were going to be donated to State biologist for researching the wolf population.
3. In 2007, Alaska needed to "thin out" the wolf population by 300-600 wolves. The regular hunting season killed only 200 wolves that year and the $150 incentive was proposed to meet the needed 100 wolves. Source: Alaska Department of Fish & Game

Again, I weep for the feelings of bleeding heart environmentalist liberals.

Commander in Chief Obama?

Interesting facts brought out by Sarah Palin in last nights debate.  She quoted Joe Biden as saying, “You said that Barack Obama was not ready to be commander in chief.”

Biden did actually say that. In August 2007 during the Democratic hopefuls debate, George Stephanopoulos asked if Biden stood by a statement he said that Obama was “not ready” to be president. Biden said he stood by that statement.

Of course, when he lost the nomination, he said of Obama that “He’s learned a hell of a lot.”

So I guess anyone can learn to be president. So why are we so worried about the inexperience of Sarah Palin?

Statler and Waldorf sound off on American Politics

Getting tired of the election.  Take a break a read this photo article from the New York Times. It features Statler and Waldorf, the old guys in the balcony with their take on this year's election.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/26/opinion/20080926_opart.html

 

Got to love the Muppets.

Lost cat returned home after nine years

Here’s a touching story of a lost cat, Dixie, which returned home after being missing for 9 years…

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080910/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_britain_cat

 

Now that the cat has returned, how will the owner distinguish Dixie from the 20 other cats she owns?

The 2008 Emmys

My DirecTv DVR messed up and I missed the preshow and first half hour, but got enough to see this year's trainwreck.
I just have few thoughts. In the press area, the writer of John Adams complained about not having enough time for his acceptance speech but all this time went to the reality show hosts. I'm sorry, as much as I like writers and their shows, its not the public fault that actors and writers go on strike, halt production on our favorite shows and all that we have are reality shows to watch. Worse its not our fault that we love these shows. Sometimes when you make a stand, you may win but the industry is never the same, thus the popularity of reality shows.
On the other hand, who's the brainiac who thought letting reality show hosts host the emmys was a great idea. What a snozzer! The hosts don't understand comedy and every joke they tiold was far from innovative. Cmon, going to commercial before announcing the winner of best reality show host! Who didn't see that one. Heidi Klum is just not comfortable with comedy. She talks and ad libs way too much when she's nervous. It was very hard to watch.
The whole Laugh In segment was even more uncomfortable and sad to watch.
Loved the bit between Ricky Gervais.

Obama Jokes Taboo?

I was just watching the season premiere of Saturday Night Live with Michael Phelps.  Overall it was pretty funny. Tiny Fey was spot on with her impersonation of Sarah Palin. Even as a Republican, I had to laugh.

I found it interesting that amongst the barrage of McCain and Palin jokes, there was not one joke that entire night that made fun of Obama.  Even during the race between Hillary Clinton and Obama, there were very few jokes poking fun at Barak Obama.

My first thought was that this could be a race thing.  There are certainly comedy taboos that apply to Obama and other African American public figures, but none of those taboos are funny, nor apply to Obama. They will also make fun of Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton.

My second thought is obviously the liberal media and SNL writers really want Obama to win so their attacks are solely on McCain and Palin. But then again, they were pretty ruthless to Hillary Clinton and she certainly has a lot of issues in her life to poke fun.  SNL certainly has had a lot of fun at Hillary’s expense.

My conclusion is that Barak Obama is a boring guy.  Much that came up during the RNC was the fact that Barak has not done anything in his career. And we know very little about his personal life, except that he attends churches where the pastors have questionable character. Aside from that, who is Barak Obama? We don’t know enough about him to make fun of him.  He’s just a middle-aged African-American from the Midwest who has sat in the Senate and voted on legislation.  He’s never headed a committee nor written a piece of legislation.  Really, what do we know if this guy.

My next question is who will be the brave comedian to make the first Barak Obama joke?

Conservative Celebrities

With the election coming around the corner, I’ve been working on updating the Conservative Celebrities page on my website.  I have a few additions and confirmations. This list is a little tricky, because I’ve decided to document actual sources for the list.

I’ve seen lists like mine, but as I read the list I realize that some of these celebrities may not actually be Republicans.  If you like, please look over my list and let me know if there are any additions or corrections that need to be made.

http://mypalal.com/aboutalan/ConservativeCelebrities.cfm

 

Why I Hate Praise Music

I really dislike praise music.  The more I hear it, the more it bothers me.  It's so hard to worship today than I did in my early years as a Christian.  Two events this past week, truly brought this to light.  I'll share both.  Please don't get me wrong, I'm not judging praise music and I'm over 40 so I've been around.  I just hate praise music.

I HATE PRAISE MUSIC

My wife and I were at church last Sunday (Palm Sunday) and we walk in during the opening praise.  We have a praise band, which I have no problem with.  I'm not a big choir person, believe it or not.  We walk in and worship is going on.  We have drums, keyboard, piano, two guitars, bass, backup singers and a lead singer.

What was different about this morning was the lead singer was acting as a lead singer.  He was upfront, doing a few moves, singing like he was on American Idols, you know, giving his own take on the song and had the back up singers going.  This wasn't worship, it was a concert.  I'm not against concerts, just don't make me sing along with it and pretend its worship.  My church has an abundance of great singers and I love to hear them sing, but during worship, I want to be a part of the experience.  I don't want to be forced to be a spectator because I can't sing like the guy up front.

Worship leaders, let me give you a hint.  Please lead worship.  Lead in a way that makes me want to sing and not watch the show.

PRAISE MUSIC IS FOR LAZY COMPOSERS

This bothers me every time I sing.  Music needs to rhyme.  It's a governing truth of Engligh song and poetry, songs have to rhyme.  Let me tell you why.  From the beginning of time, music and poetry had patterns that helped people remember the verses.  "The Psalms don't rhyme!"  Yes, that what I hear.  Even in the original Hebrew they didn't rhyme, but they had patterns called parallelisms. The first line makes a statement and the second line supports that statement or run parallel with that statement.  There is a pattern.

Think about your favorite song, you'll see that it rhymes.  Rhyming does two things for us, it helps us remember the song.  We are not stringing random lines together, but the second line you remember because the last word rhymes with the last word of the first line, or in most cases the second and fourth line rhymes.  Also, rhyming brings closure to a verse.  It an element that brings completion to the verse.  When it doesn't, the verse is just left hanging there uncompleted.

Maybe it's just me but praise songs today feel like a bunch of Christian cliches strung together by a melody.  Composers, please show us that you've truly mediated on a song you wrote by taking the extra step and rhyme.

Whatever Happened to Hymns?

I was watching the movie Junebug.  In the middle of the movie the family was at a church gathering and the pastor of the church coases a spiritually conflicted George to sing "Softly and Tenderly."

Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling,
Calling for you and for me;
See, on the portals He's waiting and watching,
Watching for you and for me.

Come home, come home,
You who are weary, come home;
Earnestly, tenderly, Jesus is calling,
Calling, O sinner, come home!

Granted this is a secular movie, but at the same time, I wondered, what happened to hymns. Let's not forget, hymns are songs.  They rhyme, they have melody, they make indirect statements of my heart.  Why have we given up on them?  Evangelism.  Carefully written words like Amazing Grace, no longer appeals to the non-believers.

Also, why do we need to need to change the melodys of hymns too.  Does Amazing Grace need a jazz arrangement to be relevant? When I Survey the Wonderous Cross really need to be a rock ballad? Can we take a step back and visit the past for a day.  We're missing so many gems that I still believe are relevant today.

Hillary the Monster

I haven’t written in a while.  Mainly because I’m incredibly busy.  I’m hoping to do a little more now that there’s a real battle between Obama and Hillary.

Today Barak’s advisor resigns because she called Hillary a “Monster.” Apparently before this the Clinton campaign was bringing up Barak’s youthful drug experimentation.

I’m just frustrated that this is where campaigning has brought us.  I really don’t care about half the stuff the other side says.  What a person did in their youth is just that, something they did in their youth.

Name calling is another facet of campaigning that we all have to endure.  Monster is hardly a word that will take you down.

Maybe in my idealism I want to think that people are voting based on whether that person believes the same things you do and represents your interests.

I’m so naïve.

Defending Hillary

I never thought I’d be defending Hillary, but here goes.  During the recent debates, Hillary made the much criticized statement, “It took a president to get it done.”  She was referring to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Regarding the Civil Right Act, she was absolutely correct.  It’s not the complete story.  You can get more detail in my articles about Affirmative Action.

 

President Johnson made it his goal to pass this legislation as a promise to the Kennedy’s after JFK’s assassination.  The problem was that he could not get the support of his own party.  One of his outspoken opponents was Al Gore Sr. It took the support of the Republicans to pass the act and President Johnson praised the Republicans for their “overwhelming majority.

 

It was a President who took up the banner of the Civil Rights Act and work with the Republican party to push the votes beyond the 2/3^rd majority needed to pass this Constitutional amendment.

 

Anyways, I still love watching Democrats take a sentence and label someone as racist or racially insensitive.

Democratic Mud Slinging - Tactic #1: Blow anything said about race out of proportion.

I love primary season.  I get to watch Democrats drag each other through the mud, just to become President.  Sadly when the primaries are over, they use the same tactics they used on each other and then sling it at Republicans and then complain that they run the virtuous campaign.

Don’t believe me?  Let’s go back in time when Al Gore and Bill Bradley where running for the Democratic nomination.  Al Gore sent his attack dogs, Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani, after Bill Bradley and they were merciless on him.  Bradley took the high road and would not use dirty tactics to get elected and Bradley lost.  After Gore won the nomination, where was Bradley?  He was nowhere.  I believe he was livid at the Gore campaign, Bradley refused to campaign for Gore.  And the rest is history.

It’s 2008 and now we see Clinton and Obama going at it.

You’ve probably heard about the Dr. King debacle.  Sen. Clinton, attempting to respond to Obama comparing himself to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., said, “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964…It took a president to get it done.”  Not the smartest statement but hardly racist. 

Obama then attacks Clinton for denigrating the accomplishments of civil rights activist.  Can you imagine if George Bush had made that statement?  We’d be talking about the racist Republicans.  The fact is that the Obama camp took one sentence out of context and has blown it out of proportion.

I’m not a Hillary supporter by any means.  I’m just pointing out the tactics Democrats are using on each other, just so you can see them use it in the Presidential campaign.

The TV Season So Far

Just in case, I’m wrongly accused of siding with the Producers in the strike, here’s an article on the good moves that WGA is making.  In December, the WGA made a deal with World Wide Pants (David Letterman’s production company) which allowed writers to go back to work on the Late Show with David Letterman and the Late Late show with Craig Ferguson.

The LA times is reporting on another deal by the WGA to work with United Artists to allow writers to go back to work writing movies for this famous movie studio.

Again, the WGA is doing as I’ve been suggesting and striking individual deals.  This allows the WGA to define specifically with produces as what they want in their deal.  For examples, they have successfully negotiated internet issues and another company is allowed to resume business as normal.  Keep going WGA.

If you want to read some interesting dialogue about the strike, go over to the Huffington Post.  I love seeing liberals attack each other.  Read the posts between Alec Baldwin and Robert J. Elisberg. These guys hate each other.

Battle of the Sexes

Well, now we're into a new season of reality television. I'm a passive viewer of 1 vs. 100 and this week they had the battle of the sexes. 1 woman vs. 100 men and 1 man vs. 100 women.

Now anyone who knows me, knows I'm not sexist, even though I love the ladies. I just find these few facts about the show interesting:

• The woman was intelligent, but she lost the game on a math question. Hmm.
• I never thought I'd see anyone ever beat 100 people on this show. The man was the first person to ever win a million dollars and it was against all women.

No, I'm not saying men are smarter than women. I just find this episode interesting.

Celebrity Apprentice is awesome. Omarosa is going to be interesting to watch. She's definitely not there to make friends and she's the only one there who has two faces.