IDidntDoIt
-
Content Count
530 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by IDidntDoIt
-
-
A couple of observations...
1. What is the underlying source of the funding?
Is it something the legislature passed strictly to increase tourism?
If the purpose of the funding is the production of tourism dollars, then they would be unmitigated fools to deny it. Why? Because everybody knows that the Baptists bring in TENS of THOUSANDS of tourists. The fact that it is a religious tourist is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, and should be thrown out as a consideration.
As a matter of fact, if the basis for the financial awards is without specific limitations and the scope is sufficiently broad, and in spite of that the invitation is withdrawn, then the state should be sued for religious discrimination if they withdraw the offer.
There is a difference between neutrality, which is the ideal position of the state toward the church, and an anti-religious bias. Neutrality is fine. Are they offering this to virtually any comers, or is there a properly defined set of criteria to be met? If there are no criteria except to bring dollars into the city from tourism, and the state were to benefit (projected) substantially from the exchange, there is nothing wrong with providing an incentive to ANY group. If indeed that is the structure of the offer, then to fail to make good on it to a religious group simply because they are a religious group amounts to religious discrimination and that is UNconstitutional opposition to the church by the state.
Now, if this is a unique offer that would not normally be extended to an entity sponsoring a convention -- of ANY sort -- then yes, there might be some issues to discuss and some which in fact might preclude the lawfulness of the offer.
Reading the article leads me to believe it is simply an effort to increase tourism, and there appeared to be no qualifiers, ergo no problem...
2. On the other hand, this group is BAPTIST
-
Well, blow me over and slap me sideways from Tuesday's lunch menu...
We talk about a wall of separation between Church and State... that's nothing compared to the wall of separation between the ACLU and the Church...
I must say, however, having lived in the most litigous state in the nation, that it is a welcome sight to see someone take up the issue of the Church's right to acquire property, and to see that government does not usurp power beyond its legitimate limits. Hurray for King & Spalding...
-
Excellent post, Surepip.
I know of the personal pain and family tragedy of cancer. What I have not gotten into previously here, is that my father was lost to squamous cell carcinoma 9/30/81. I will not here go into the 5 year horror story of his slow, and excruciatingly agonizing death that began with a 13 hour surgery that removed 38 tumors, proceeded to an overdose of 6000 rads of cobalt, and ended up with two other surgeries that left him significantly facially deformed, mute and in agonizing pain. My uncle, who was not close to Dad, stated shortly before he died, "I've never seen anyone fight like he has to live." Lots of pain involved there, in spite of the fact that it's 25 years ago. Seems like only yesterday...
It is exactly that pain that helps me understand ktan's position and feelings on this matter. Ktan, my heart really does go out to you in this time of obvious suffering. I wish I could tell you it will all go away. The change in my life since my dad passed away, however, prevents me from doing so. It will just mostly hurt for a long time.
I do, however, agree with you, Surepip, that there are larger issues at stake here. Cancer is a devastating, life changing disease. However we have to do it, we as a community need to enlarge the pool of attendance to get across the idea that cancer is sometimes a lifestyle disease... that there are things we can do to change our susceptibility to this terror monger. It is about getting people to become aware of their risk factors and reduce them. It is about saying, "Life is wonderful; let's live it a little better so we can live it a little longer."
-
Great analysis, Pubby...
So, next school board eleciton cycle, let us demand school board members who will prohibit the review of student remarks at the graduation...
-
Ktan,
No I am not a candidate for ANY political office. I cannot be by virtue of my position with the state. Neither am I campaigning for the man who left his flyer on your vehicle.
My whole point is that it seemed you were attacking someone for something that has clearly been a precedent of Relay for Life for several years. I've never even met this man, so I do not have a political dog in this fight, don't know what any of the candidates for DA stand for, but would like to be informed.
I do understand your feelings... perhaps more than you realize... I just want you directing your anger at the right source of the problem. If you want to overturn the precedent, that's up to you with no ill feelings from me about it. It just does not seem fair for you to disparage someone for doing something illegitimate when in all probability what he did was to come through what he thought was the front door, acquiring proper access, and participating in what even the leaders of the event ruled was legitimate.
If you want to go after the Relay organizers for a gaffe, that's fine, but don't blame the politician if he has gone about his solicitation of your vote in an acceptable manner approved by the organizers of the event.
-
Each has a compelling interest to intermingle. Each keeps the other in check. The Chaplaincy serves not as a gov't sponsorship of a faith but recognizes the spiritual needs of its leaders & military personell.
As MLK said: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”
I have no problem with using the church as a polling place, as long as it is not the sanctuary but some other part of the building. The sanctuary would simply not be appropriate for either.
Now I do recall from personal experience, that certain things have to be removed from the walls such as anything that would be related to certain "political" ideas. Several come to mind that I shant name.
Sandwiches for you next time, Ol' Boy.
... Congress, in voting a plan for the government of the Western territories, retained a clause setting aside one section in each township for the support of public schools, while striking out the provision reserving a section for the support of religion. Commented Madison: "How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment." (Richard B. Morris, Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, Harper & Row, 1973, p. 206. The Congress here referred to was the Continental Congress; the Madison quote is from his letter to James Monroe, May 29, 1785, according to Morris.)
"Each has a compelling interest to intermingle. Each keeps the other in check."
But that implies a RELATIONSHIP -- NOT a WALL with chinks in it, but with doors through it, which tends to minimize the exclusionary qualities of the wall to begin with.
"The Chaplaincy serves not as a gov't sponsorship of a faith but recognizes the spiritual needs of its leaders & military personell."
But here, you have the STATE paying the CHURCH to address Spiritual matters of STATE personnel. Where, oh where has that little wall gone... Where oh where could it be? (to the tune of a similarly lyriced nursery rhyme)
"As MLK said: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”"
Martin spoke eloquently, which proves my point. The state should not take it upon itself to attempt to silence the church. It does not have the authority to tell her ministers what to do. When they address matters of scripture, or morality or any other matter that is covered by the Scripture, the State has no standing to correct, interpret or even give advice. Ergo, when the church addresses issues of morality, i.e., aboortzion, euthanasia, issues relating to sexuality, the Fed has no grounds to silence her, whether the issue becomes a political matter or not. The scriptural, spiritual, religious, moral nature of the Church supercedes the authority of the State, and any agent of the state who tries to regulate the Church thusly has stepped beyond his limits of authority.
The point is that the State in attempting to silence students at graduations or football events is trampling upon their right to self expression and freedom of religion. The need to deal with matters spiritual is even acknowledged at Gitmo. How much sense does it make to have the Fed provide for the religious needs of terrorists, but refuse citizens the rights specifically granted them under the first and second amendments to the US Constitution? The Constitution states that the Fed will make no law concerning religious expression. It is something that is ruled unregulatable by the Constitution. The principle of the Constitution is that it limits the powers of Government. It is assumed that things not mentioned in the US Constitution are left to the states (that IS the context of Jefferson's original "Wall" comments, by the way).
I would also suggest that any politician who tried to force the church to remove items of a religious nature just because they happened to coincide with a current political issue may have just gone over his limits of authority, too. Electioneers have also been known to get too big for their britches, too.
-
Well, if you're going to be fair about it, you also need to contact Bruce Harris, Ken Ball, Mason Rountree, and most of the other politicians who participate in the one two years ago. Some of them even pitched tents, having paid for the space.
Now if they paid for the space, that means some of the organizers for Relay for Life APPROVED IT. I think if you really are so upset about the matter, you really need to contact the organizers for Relay for Life who gave politicians their permission to set up booths on site before you blow up at someone who is merely following precedent.
Very respectfully, you should understand that decisions have a time-boundedness quality to them. The precedent has already been set years ago, and if Drew Lane is the one who left the material on your vehicle, he was only following a tradition that has already been in place. Your anger about this needs to aimed squarely at the Relay for Life organizers who have veto power over such things, not simply at a politician who is trying to get his message out in the same tradition as many before him have done.
The thing that matters here is not merely your opinion of it or my opinion of it, but the settled fact of the matter that it has been an accepted practice for several years of the Relay for Life organizing committee. If, in fact, there was such a heinousness about it as you suggest, then the place to lodge the complaint is those who opened the door in the first place, not those who are simply waling through already opened doors, and who may have been welcomed into the process by the event's organizers.
-
TBAR,
Have you actually survived reading this? Is your blood pressure up? Have you taken your epi pen to be close to you? Are you sure you're not feeling any chest pain or tightness, or knots in your belly? Cause I know that this is one issue that the BLOWTORCH of Paulding County has been very clear on... That there must be a WALL of separation that doesn't even have a "chink" in it.
Well, for this matter of the New Orleans election, there is certainly and co-mingling of interests. While the government may declare there may be no POLITICAL posters, they certainly would be in a sort of a fix to say that the Church must not have any display of theological content at a polling place. I personally see no problems whatsoever with polling places at churches. However, I would suspect that Barry Lynn, et. al., would go into anaphylactic shock if not stroke or a catatonic state over a government function as central to the core of government functions as an election is. The church has a right to display the Ten Commandments without labeling them the Ten Suggestions, and to display the "Lord's Prayer" and a cross, and even church documents that may have bearing on electoral issues. Churches utilized as polling places can even have Prayer meetings about the election on the same premeses. So, my good friend, is there to be an absolute WALL of separation, with virtual "no contact" provisions, or could there actually be some interplay between the Church and the State?
By the way, thanks for the TexMex. Banditos is GOOD FOOD... but I like sandwiches as well...
Now back to the Separation bit... If there is to be a WALL with "no chinks" in it, then should we not bar any religious person from working in Government? Because, after all, what we bring to the position is what we are, and in many cases, talk of spiritual and religious issues bubbles up... Consider for example state sponsored Alcohol and Drug rehab programs. The vast majority of them include 12 step programs. We both know that 12 step programs have a theological base to them. I well understand some have tried to sanitize them, but the basic principles from the Christian and Hebrew Bibles are still there.
So, is Government really so separate from the Church after all? Think about the Government hiring chaplains at hospitals, prisons and in the military. Do you think all those chaplains are "sanitized"? Some few probably are, but I know lots of them that do little else but preach the Gospel. Think about Charles Colson's groups. Think about his Christian World View emphasis. Seems to be a little bit of conflict here, my very good friend...
I understand the risks of having "Cross-pollination" but after all, Congress begins each sesison with prayer, many representatives and senators are unabashed Ministers of the Grace of God. Do we insist on such a WALL that insists there be no mutual interplay? Maybe we need to ask a few more questions before we all get on board this train that seems to have a full head of steam...
-
ktan,
I've lost my mother this last year. I know what losing a loved one feels like and it's not a pleasant thing.
However, I have to say, I think you're a bit overboard on claiming Relay for Life is out of bounds for politics. It certainly was not for the last election. Both candidates for Sheriff were there politicin' as was the Chairdude, and candidates for State Senate. As a matter of fact, I've seen business set up booths there, doing raw, unabashed sales, right there in front of everyone.
Relay for Life in this county has become a community event with all kinds of interests represented.
If you take the position that nothing else can happen at the event but memorials for Cancer, then I think you'll lose a whole lot of your support.
Yes, we as a community want to gather to support Cancer research and remember cancer victims, and celebrate cancer survivors. However the thing that makes Relay for Life such an overwhelming success is its breadth of support from the community, and its ability to embrace multiple interests simultaneously.
I think it's a good thing that politicians show enough interest in the cause of cancer research, memorials and survivors to show up at the events. I wish I could have been there. I'd have taken the brochure and read it, to find out what these politicians actually stand for.
I really do not want to be offensive to you about this, because I still feel the sting from the loss of my mother last summer. However, I think once you see what all comes together for Relay for Life, and see the strategies and tactics behind it, you, too, will appreciate the inclusiveness of the program.
-
I really hate to do this, but this separation of Church and State thing has got to get TBAR's attention. With all the blowtorchin' he's been doing around Pcom lately, I think it is absolutely imperative that we take measures to protect our county treasure from the harsh realities of the political world.
I've been reading (with some amusement) his blowin' off about all this Church & State separation nonsense, and have come to know that he really, really does believe some of the things he goes off about. (Of course, I also realize he has a perfect right to be wrong, but that's OK, too.)
The point of the Alert is the election in New Orleans. I had been even half way pretending to pay attention to some of his yammering's about all this mess, and then I ran across the website of the Louisiana Secretary of State tonight. I saw that Ray Nagin was leading Landreux a few points with about 25% of the vote counted. So, I thought, while I wait for some more results, why don't I just look around a bit while I'm on this site and see what's here? Boy did I ever make a major discovery that is going to radically affect our mutual compadre, TBAR if he ever sees this. I mean the boy may actually blow a gasket here. He will not be able to sit down for at least 30 days after this discovery I made tonight. He might even take some of his life savings and put it into doing an expose (supposed to have an accent over the "e") on the whole of the New Orleans voting system.
I mean this appears to be a totally systemic problem out of all proportion to everything the boy stands for. I'm even concerned he may go into something serious, you know, throw a clot, or have an asthma attack, or go into anaphylactic shock, or have a heart attack, or stroke, or even trip into a catatonic state when he discovers this. I mean this is an order of magnitude transgression of the separation principles he so loudly espouses right here in front of God and everybody...
I really think someone needs to call 911, transport the boy to the hospital, get him sort of sedated before he reads the rest of this post.
TBAR ******NOTE****** DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER UNTIL YOUR ARE ACCESSIBLE IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT.... WAIT, MAKE THAT UNTIL YOU ARE IN A TRAUMA CENTER. I REALLY DO NOT WANT YOU TRIPPIN' OUT ON ME HERE... Please, folks, make sure someone is with the boy before he reads even one more line of this post.
LEGAL NOTICEI WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS TO TBAR FROM READING THE REST OF THIS POST WITHOUT BEING IN A MODERN FULLY EQUIPPED AND PROPERLY STAFFED TRAUMA CENTER... LIKE GRADY...!!!
Ok, now that the notice business is out of the way, for those of you who are a bit more settled, and have your feet a little more securely places, and tend not to be badly shaken when reality finally dawns, I have an announcement to make about what I have discovered this night on the internet. You see, I subscribe to Crayon newspaper (I named my edition of it, "The Lindsey Ledger.") Well, as I visited the Ledger, I dropped down to Drudge's column and found that there was some info about the New Orleans mayoral race. So, I thought about just skipping it, cause I haven't lived in Louisiana since October, 1988, when I moved to New Jersey. But, then on a whim, I just decided to take a peek to see what ole Drudge had spotted.
I pulled up the headline about the New Orleans Mayor's race and found that Nagin was winning by about 5% with about 25% of the vote counted. Well, having a little bit of Louisiana politics in my history, I decided to check things out a bit further. I hit one of the drop down buttons that gave details about the election down to the precinct and ward levels. There are 17 precincts in New Orleans and each precinct has a number of wards, up to 11 in each precinct. Well, being the naturally curious person that I am, I ventured on a bit further. After hitting that drop down button, there was all kinds of voting information listed there. I mean the detail was phenomenal...
And there, hidden right amongst all that data, what do you think I saw? I was shocked... My jaw dropped... I could not believe what I was reading. It was absolutely unbelieveable. I wanted to call TBAR to be sure that what I was seeing was not just some figment of my imagination, but was real... Then I thought about the poor man, with all his blowtorchin' and bellyachin' and a hollerin' and a snortin' about all this separation of Church and state issues, I really thought better of myself. I mean, sure, I'd have gotten an ear full and a bit of a reality check, but I'm just not at all sure my reality check would have been worth what it obviously would have cost our hometown idol here. So I thought better of it and decided instead, I needed to get all of you to help insure the boy's survival by makin' sure he does NOT read one more line by himself. I mean, even though it's possible, I wouldn't have the boy stroke out for nothin', much less get catatonic on us. I mean, really, he's an entertaining sort of a guy even when he's dead wrong on something.
Well, anyway, now that I feel I've sufficiently warned many of you and him about what I'm about to disclose, I shall proceed with this earth-shattering discovery I made this evening.
You see, with all of TBAR's yammerin' about the separation of Church & State, I figured surely, there'd be some provision of the law that at least followed up somewhat on that when it came to the "holy grail" of a Federal Republic form of government... you know, Voting...
Well, apparently, the people in Louisiana have not heard of TBAR, nor heard all of his yammerin' about this separation of Church and State business... nope, not at all... How do I know that?
Well, it's plumb easy to figure out. All you gotta do is open your eyes, read a little, think a little and put two and two toghether to come up with some things.
Really, can you imagine what really would happen to TBAR if he suddenly discovered that in one of the major cities of this nation, a city we've all focused on rebuilding, there was suddenly a discovery made that the Church and State were in cohoots together on this election business? I mean this is much more serious than some little co-mingling of funds. This is Church and State cooperating right down to the precinct and ward levels of local Louisiana politics. I mean it's like this was something that was actually assumed to be normal. For goodness sake, the Lousiana Secretary of State actually published this on his OFFICIAL State of Louisiana web site, right there in front of God and everybody to see, as if he assumed there was actually nothing wrong with the Church and State being involved with each other... right up to and including the most significant of governmental processes -- ELECTIONS.
I thought about poor ole TBAR, and what this would do to his lil' ole opinion about everything being so sterile, and no cross-pollination, no, not even any liaison between Church and State, not even diplomatic relations between the two of them. Can you imagine what is going to happen to the boy once he discovers the State of Louisiana, the City of New Orleans and about 15 of 17 precincts, multitudes of wards are actually cooperating in this most critical of state matters? Seriously... They really are, and there is published proof of it. Incontrovertible proof that is beyond dispute. I mean it is PUBLISHED LIVE DATA (kind of like Pcom). So, since it is a published matter on the web site of the Louisiana Secretary of State, don't you think that should be fairly reliable reporting? I think if something has gone so far as to be reported by the OFFICIAL Secretary of State web site, the information should be pretty accurate.
Well, this co-mingling of interests of the Church and state are actually published on that very web site. You can actually go check it out for yourself... Verify my facts if you feel you need to ... I'm not afraid in the least of just getting caught up in the hysteria of this mess. I'm actually pretty calm about it... I'm just worried about my good buddy, TBAR. I just know he is going to blanch out on us about this... That's why I'm asking everyone of you to be sure he is in full access to a trauma unit before he reads anything further.
So, you ask, what is the basis for my claim that the Church and the State of Louisiana are a cohootin' on this election? Well, that's a very simple matter for anyone to deduce. All you have to do to convince yourself is go to that Louisiana Secretary of State web site, pull down the button for local detail and check out where the votes took place. Why almost every one of 'em took place in either a Church or a Church School. Now that is seriously flying in the face of all that TBAR has been trying to tell us for the last several weeks. If it really is to be a "Wall of Separation" and that Wall is to keep the Church out of state business, and the State out of Church business, then does it not make sense that something has gone seriously awry down there?
This just flies right into the very eyeball of TBAR's Wall... There in Louisiana, if the Churches didn't let the State use their property to have polling places, even with all the entanglement it causes, the elections could not be held. But, are they LEGAL with all this cross-pollination and things that are going on down there? How on earth could this election be certified by the Louisiana Secretary of State as being a LEGAL election if there is such a Wall of Separation between Church and State? This just does not seem to square with all the yammerin' TBAR has been a doin' lately.
Can you actually believe it? ELECTIONS of all things, being held on CHURCH Grounds. I guess we'd better get the notice sent to the US Supreme Court to get ready to schedule this thing. Cause if anything TBAR has been a yellin' about has any validity to it, this election gets THROWN OUT...
Now, if this election does NOT get thrown out, what could there possibly be for an explanation of this? Could it be that there may just be some limits to this idea TBAR has been peddlin'? Oh, well, let's not go there, lest we cause serious disruption to the peace and harmony on this web site Pubby so graciously puts up for us... Cause if we really did get into it, it would probably be world war III (or is it IV, now?)
-
OOOOOOHHHhHHHHHH I wish I could get into this!!!!!!
All I can say is this: PsychoMom is a GENIUS, and bwitchy is INCREDIBLE!!!
-
My Expedition for a "WONTGO", I don't think so Misty!
Wait a minute... I thought an Expedition was a:
Found
On
Road
Dead
Or is it:
Fix
Or
Repair
Daily
-
I admire you for not engaging in the poor me syndrome, and dealing with your criminal behavior uprightly.... (I'm smiling)... (OK, I'm grinning, but I haven't laughed yet...)
Seriously, one of the biggest things you may have accomplished is to demonstrate to your kids that actions have consequences, and obnoxious behavior does not excuse it.
When the officer pulls you over, one of the things going through his mind after you've opened your mouth is a measurement of your criminal thinking. That is specifically defined as:
1. Denial (I didn't do it) -- (Where do you think I get my Pcom handle from? -- I work for the Department of Juvenile Justice!!!)
2. Minimization (I was only doing 82)
3. Justification (We had this really bad time in Florida... see, I've got the police report to prove it, and that makes this OK) (Oh, REALLY?)
4. Blame Shifting (I was preoccupied by what this robber did in Florida, so he really should get this ticket)...
(OK, I'm beginning to snicker a little bit, now... but just in fun, not the ugly way...)
-
Suggestion for next time:
Get out your trusty little digital camera, photo it, and send an accompanying email with the photo as an attachment.
-
WOW!!!
The winner -- 33.68%
Second -- 33.29%
Elliott -- 33.06%
That is some incredibly close results out of 50,000,000 votes.
These three are a really talented bunch.
Taylor is a lot of fun and laughs. He takes a basically decent voice and creates a show with his antics. Some people are really drawn to the combination. It would be interesting to see the results if we could only listen to the voices. Taylor's is smoother than Elliott's. But, he does not have great range. When he reaches his upper registers, he tightens his throat -- a sure way to lose his voice -- perhaps permanently.
Katherine is eye candy and has amazing things she can do with her voice. She does, however, occasionally miss a note or at least get pitchy. When she is on, there are few who are even in her league. She has a significant range, and has power throughtout the entire range. She also has great tonal control -- at times... Consistency has got to become her watchword. Yes, she can do phenomenal things vocally, but then goes from a phenomenon to an also ran...
Elliott has the truest pitch of all the contestants, and the ability to do some very difficult intervals. He has sung some of the most difficult music performed on the series, and has done it remarkably well. I just happen to like (personal preference here) his jazz renditions better than anything else I've heard him do. Probably his biggest weaknesses were his vibrato (a bit much), and the huskiness of his voice. Still -- a major talent, even if he did go home tonight...
Who do I want to win? I like Taylor's antics -- he's very entertaining, but I think I'd rather listen to Kat. So... with me, it's pretty much a toss-up. If I were to vote (I probably won't), the decision would hinge entirely on next week's performance.
I've thought this year's contestants, particularly the last 6 or 7 were especially good performers -- yes, even Chris, though I must confess that he does not do much of the music I prefer.
This has been an interesting ride... we will see where it ends next week...
-
Yes, they can do whatever they want to do.
Another peculiarity of RR is that if an action is taken, regardless of by-laws or RR and no objection is raised at the meeting itself or at the reading of the minutes at the next meeting, the action stands.
What they should have had is a reading of the minutes, and motion to adopt. At that motion, an objection to the action could have been raised which would then have nullified the "additions" to the ballot. Failing any objection, the action stands.
Another apparent curiosity of this club is that apparently, since there are no by-laws for the election of officers, there probably are no duties for officers either. That gives them enormous fiduciary latitude, particularly in light of the high probability that they also would be minus a budget.
Since there is no bylaw, there probably are, in fact, no minutes. Who is to take them? No bylaw declares the responsible party. In addition, since there are no bylaws, what bank would allow them to WRITE Checks on the account? If there are no officers specified, no duties for officers, no responsibilities for officers, how would the organization designate authorized signatures to the bank? Without officers authorized to transact fiduciary matters, there is no legal authorization to withdraw funds.
-
The typical scenario that a resume encounters is Suzanne.
Suzanne is a very competent administrative assistant whose boss is Jim.
Jim is a mid-level manager for Mega-Corp. Mega-Corp has just landed a contract for a very tidy sum, but they do not have the expertise or the man-power to get the job done. The contract also has some very tight time lines. They must recruit, hire and train a battery of people to do a particular job in order to comply with the terms of the contract. Jim also has lots of other responsibilities to manage. He knows what he needs, has the authority and resources to begin hiring. He needs one person with a particular expertise to design solutions, and a crew of 5 experienced installers, one for electronics, one for electric, one for displays, one for rigging and one for sound.
Immediately, Jim places ads in multiple sources. The ads all come out in the Sunday papers. Jim comes to work on Monday morning and has 15 emails with attachments, all seeking employment in response to his ads. This is wonderful. Tuesday comes, and brings with it 178 next day mail packages, all addressed to Jim, all containing "resumes" for Jim to examine. Wednesday is hump day. Jim is innundated with over 255 new resumes for the jobs he has advertised. Realizing he is overloaded, he calls Suzanne into his office, and gives her all 437 packages, and says, "Suzanne, screen these resumes and sort them according to the job sought."
Suzanne, a very competent administrative assistant, looks at the stacks of documents she has to go through and asks the first logical question. "How long do I have to get this done?" Jim replies, "I want to start interviews on Monday." She has two days to screen, bring the best to Jim, have him review them, select the ones he wants to interview, and then make the phone calls to the interviewees to schedule appointments.
Suzanne, is also a person of great integrity, and wants desperately to get the very best candidates to the interviews. Doing just a little math, she realizes she has about 5-6 hours to go through 437 resumes, select the top 10 for each job, send them on to Jim, get them back from him with only the top 5 for each job to interview.
So, with roughly 300 minutes to go through 437 resumes, she has less than one minute to open each package, look at the enclosures (usually a cover letter and a resume) and make decisions about who gets cut and who goes forward. OH, and during this screening process, she has to keep Jim's phone answered, respond to visitors to Jim's office, and keep Jim on track. Instantly, she knows she does not have the capability to READ every piece of paper these 437 people have submitted. Ultimately, she has somewhere between 10 and 25 seconds to look over each set of documents and make decisions about them.
The "winners" of this "employee search" have a few things in common. They have documents that are flawless - no spelling errors, no factual mistakes, they are well balanced, graphically pleasing, organized and structured so that they can communicate the most important elements at a glance in what resume writers know as the "hot zone." They have solid content that applies to the job for which they are candidating, that is concisely stated and coupled with their strengths, skills, experience, education and objectives, fit the model for which Suzanne is desperately searching.
Some people have the writing, graphic design, formatting and insight skills to build their own resume, structure it so that it grabs attention, says what an employer is seeking to read and becomes the "eye candy" that gets an invitation to an interview. Others, very clearly, do not.
Getting the interview is what resumes are all about. For those with an outstanding network of personal relationships who are willing to make outstanding "behind the scenes" recommendations, perhaps the resume is a little less important. But for the person just looking for a new position among strangers, the resume, cover letter, broadcast letter and an assortment of other professional business communications are the order of the day. Without them you are not in the game. With poor quality documents, you are also not in the game.
The "Suzanne Story" is obviously not reflective of all hiring situations. However, it has more things in common with many hiring events than one would suspect. Research has clearly demonstrated that if a resume does not lock the attention of the reader in the first 20 seconds, that resume gets "filed"... permanently residing in the abyss, never to be retrieved again and forever forgotten.
A Best Impression Resume Service will begin providing resume services to the citizens of Paulding County and the surrounding Northwest Georgia area this week. Founder Richard Lindsey has not only a "way with words," but also has a Master's Degree in the Communications field. He not only knows what to say, but how to say it best.
A Best Impression Resume Service has multiple levels of services to offer the community so as to accomodate the needs of many different types job seekers, from a simple retype to a complete consultation. For the skilled writer who would like a critique, that is available as well. Additional services include production of cover letters and interview coaching. Reasonable package pricing is available.
-
Just a few comments here.
1. It is not known what the ages of the vandals are. If they are 17 or older the law treats them as adults. 17 is the age at which formerly delinquent acts become criminal acts. An entirely different judicial system becomes involved.
2. Specific persons committed these acts of vandalism... Not all the teen-agers of Paulding County.
3. The specific number is not known at this time. Chances are there was only a small group, perhaps as small as 2 or 3.
4. Most teens in this county view these acts of vandalism exactly as do most adults -- as acts of vandalism that should be punished.
5. It is appears from an earlier post that some of the teens of this county turned in people they thought were the vandals.
6. ALL OTHER TEENS ARE TOTALLY INNOCENT OF THIS ACT OF VANDALISM. DO NOT SMEAR THE INNOCENT WITH THE ACTS OF THE GUILTY SIMPLY BECAUSE OF PERCEIVED COMMON AGE FACTORS, IF INDEED THE CULPRITS ARE EVEN JUVENILES.
-
There is no biblical precedent for this abominable behavior.
This family (I refuse to dignify them and call them a church) is sick, and appear to get psychic income from "persecution." The only problem with their self-fulfilling prophecies, and their twisted thinking is that it can get them killed. They do not seem to think about that.
The major reason for their outrageous behavior is that they have no other means of attracting attention. Giving them attention merely feeds them. The absolute worst thing that could happen is for some suffering family member of a military hero to harm them. This would only further the martyr complex they are obviously attempting to develop.
These sick people are perfect examples of isolationism at work. Had they known some of the victims of 9/11 personally, particularly some of the outstanding Christians who gave up their lives to stay and testify to the lost and dying on their floors of the towers, rather than rabbit to safety, they could have nothing else to say.
This post should in no way be construed as either endorsing everything they say nor refuting everything they say. It is merely about their very, very sick methodology, which clearly speaks that they need God's help more than the mourners they are abusing.
-
History is such a fine teacher, my friend, that even the Founding Fathers knew it oft repeats itself. Thus, we don't even allow a ding in the Wall of Separation lest it all come crashing down.
Give me a call if you get a chance. We can grab a sandwich in Dallas, have a slice of pizza, or grab a Tex Mex dish.
IDDI, the thing I like about you --- despite the fact that you're Pentecostal & I have to keep reminding you to put your arms down
--- is that even when we disagree, we both know that we're brothers in Christ. And I will say this: I think Pat Robertson has lost it. I thought he was whacked years ago, but here lately I think he is bordering on the need to have someone tell him that it is time to retire. He is saying things that show his wheel is spinning but the hamster is dead. And he is even lying. Calling for assasinations. He is whacked.
Now, if you would just stop reading the revisionist history & use the basic historical/political knowlege of the =era= without using today's dictionary, you would understand this stuff much better.
“Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world…”
--James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, (1785).
"History is such a fine teacher, my friend, that even the Founding Fathers knew it oft repeats itself. Thus, we don't even allow a ding in the Wall of Separation lest it all come crashing down."
Sort of has that Jericho ring about it doesn't it???? I've been in many churches that wanted to have Jericho marches. I always advised them to OUTSIDE to do it... I'm just not very suicidal...
"IDDI, the thing I like about you --- despite the fact that you're Pentecostal & I have to keep reminding you to put your arms down
--- is that even when we disagree, we both know that we're brothers in Christ"You keep reminding me to put mine down, but I'm having to remind you what to do with yours to begin with.
I heard a line once about a preacher who was talking to his congregation on a Sunday morning about the need for spouses to refrain from fighting. He said that he and his wife had been married for over 30 years and had never fought. They always reasoned things out together. One deacon sitting on the back pew leaned over to whisper to another deacon beside him and said: "Yeah, my wife and I live three blocks away from them, and we hear them reasoning things out together all the time."
"And I will say this: I think Pat Robertson has lost it. I thought he was whacked years ago, but here lately I think he is bordering on the need to have someone tell him that it is time to retire. He is saying things that show his wheel is spinning but the hamster is dead. And he is even lying. Calling for assasinations. He is whacked."
I'm not going to debate you on Patsy. The assassination bit was just a tad over the edge... Who knows, he may have been right (that is different than me saying "He was right"), but even if he was, there are some things you don't say in mixed company, much less on the satellite...
Now, as far as this revisionism thing goes, "Now, if you would just stop reading the revisionist history & use the basic historical/political knowlege of the =era= without using today's dictionary, you would understand this stuff much better." You just need to do some ORIGINAL research, rather than belch out all this AU blather.
As for lunch, what about tomorrow? I've got some things that might run over on Tuesday AM, Court on Wednesday, and taking a kid for an interview on Thursday out of town...
-
Yeah, we've all got a few nutcases. Even the Baptists.
Hate to disagree with you IDDI but you know I am on this issue. That is a revisionist take on the Separation.
Besides, if we don't keep the State from fostering a Favored Faith, we open the door for other faiths to one day be Most Favored.
BTW, when can you come up one day & do lunch?
Lunch sounds great... I'll be in Monday through Thursday this week.
I KNOW you will disagree with me. That's the point of the post.
"That is a revisionist take on the Separation" is an opinion. It is a claim without any supporting evidence. No warrants involved. READ the letter!!!
"Besides, if we don't keep the State from fostering a Favored Faith, we open the door for other faiths to one day be Most Favored" Another opinion, claim without supporting evidence, no warrants involved... Allegation, Allegation, Allegation.
All I'm gonna do is call your hand on all the assumptions and suppositions you are using for unsupported claims. Get with it man, that Baptist seminary should have taught you better research skills than this...
But then, I dunno... it IS Baptist
"I've noticed that here lately y'all are just a boring bunch. There is no drama. No sarcasm. No atttude. No spunk. -
I've noticed that here lately y'all are just a boring bunch. There is no drama. No sarcasm. No atttude. No spunk.
No =life= willing to charge headlong into the foray.
Lately everyone seems to be getting along too well like it is Pleasantville or something.
Where's that almost Baptistic spirit where we'll argue at the drop of a hat & we'll even supply the hat?
Y'all are a boring bunch.
The topic is headed "Why No Drama, Where'd it all go?"
My simple response??? probably to the land of the chapped butt...
-
"I've noticed that here lately y'all are just a boring bunch. There is no drama. No sarcasm. No atttude. No spunk."
-
OK, more boredom....
"No stories. Nope. Won't go there. But suffice it to say my wife has only talked about it with 4 people ever & I promised I wouldn't unless she agreed. So, no, I won't go be a'tellin'.
And it has nothing to do with those Abdomen Crawling Abominations either."
What's the difference between "no story" and a story that will not be told?
Let's get to the drama, sarcasm, and all the other stuff...
For Tbar
in Religious discussion
Posted
OK, here we go again...
Some of what you have written is good, basic, fair and appropriate. I absolutely agree with a good bit of it. However, like any extremist position, the problem I have with it is the overstatement.
The statement that there is no place for religion in public policy is absolutely antithetical to the first and second amendments to this constitution. There is a considerable majority of the populace of this nation that have a Judeo-Christian worldview, and as voting members of a democratic society, they have a perfect right to express themselves through speech, public gatherings, publications, films, art, commentary, the ballot box, through legislation, congressional, senatorial and/or presidential representation, and through the selection of Judges. It is patently absurd to contend that holding a religious position or having a religious frame of reference is ipso facto grounds for exclusion from the democratic process. In the words of the American General surrounded by the Germans in WWII, when asked to surrender, he gave the one word response, "NUTS!!!"
The founders of this nation may not have been proponents of one or another particular brand of religious persuasion, but one thing they were NOT is OPPOSED to ANY religious thinking being embodied in their works (read that: POLICY). The very foundational documents of this nation have as a basis for their entire declarations, a foundation recognizing the fact that there is a God, and that He has spoken and He has granted rights and privileges to ALL MEN -- YES, EVEN TO JEWS AND CHRISTIANS!!!!! Just WHO, prey tell, do you think is the One who "CREATED all men equal?"
In the hierarchy of laws there are procedures, policies, ordinances, statutes, case law, by-laws and ultimately constitutional law. Constitutional law is acknowledged to be the highest law of this land, and no law can be enforced that is written contrary to the Constitution.
So, if this so-called principle that there is no place in public policy for religion is true, then you need to notify the whole crew who signed the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence as well as the writers of the Federalist Papers. They are the ones who are out to lunch if your principle is as universal as you pretend it is. I contend it is NOT...
The fact is there is no possibility of having public policy that is not somehow affected by religion, and/or spirituality, as both of these concepts go to the very core of one's being. The idea that policy can be created in a religious vacuum is utter non-sense, and leads to nothing but chaos, disorder and anarchy. Withdrawing any religious presence or thinking from public policy implies that only the anti-religious can express themselves. Perhaps you should read some of their ideas and see how they fit before you fully decide to abandon the functions, structure and nature of government to them.
The fact of the matter is that secularism itself becomes a religion, complete with all the trappings, with the diety (LITTLE "D") being the individual. Humanism is a religion (idolatry), as is deism, theism, whether mono or poly.
So the heart of the issue is not whether religion ought to be banned from public policy, but WHICH religion is to be banned from public policy. The focus of the AU is that the Judeo-Christian religion is to be banned. They do not take a similar position on secularism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, hedonism, materialism or any other religious expression -- just Judeo-Christian religious expression. For example, consider the chaos in San Diego over the cross. Do you think they would have the same fight over the yen and yang symbol? Of course not. Would they have the same position over Masonic emblems? Of course not. How about the crescent moon? Of course not. How about the statue of Venus, which was an object of worship by the Greeks? Of course not. How the playboy bunny? Of course not, no one would object to the cute little figure representing hedonism. But if we have a menorah, or a Star of David, or a Ten Commandments, or a cross then, GASP, (Sound of a huge black hole sucking the air out of the entire planet), Horrors, we cannot have that. Someone just might be offended. This is nothing but Political Correctness run amok.
Is it ok to have a publication of the Dhali Lhama (sorry about the spelling) on our desk at work? Of course it is. How about books from the gods (LITTLE "G") of materialism? What about witchcraft or paganism, or wicca, or Zoroastrianism? Of course it is. What about eastern mysticism, or yoga or transcendental meditation, or New Age? Any of that can be in the public square. However, if it even SOUNDS religious or spiritual, whether or not it is classically orthodox Christian or Jewish theology, then it is forbidden to even mention it in the public square. That is some ghastly horror to be locked squarely behind the doors of one's home and be conducted strictly in private. How shameful that it should ever be even THOUGHT of in the marketplace or the public square!!
The abandonment of the democratic process by the Church will leave nothing but a society without any direction, meaning or basis for its own existence -- a nation without a soul. What it will enable is those whose bias is anti-religious to eventually stamp out even the mention of God, or the concept of Judeo-Christian thought. And make no mistake, that IS the agenda...