Christians and Giving. Not Just for Christmas.

Last week Saturday, my son and I went to a Saturday evening church service to read the lessons during advent.  It was short and sweet, looking forward to the birth of Christ.

Yes, I know, it may not have been December 25th.  I am not here to argue that point, because the point is, Jesus was born.  That's the important part of the message.

The part of the service that interested me the most was that of the Gospel.  John the Baptist, who went out before God, to baptize people in the name of God, even got arrested for it, but stayed faithfully strong through everything.

 In Luke 3:7-18, groups of people came in crowds, masses, to be baptized by him, for what ever their own purposes were.  John tells them to be the good fruit worthy of repentance, because even one that comes from a line of good blood won't help you if you're the rotten fruit that spoils the bushel.  Now, what was so interesting about this particular lesson?  Well, it's about the masses asking John the Baptist, "What shall we do?" And John basically tells them that whom ever has extra share with those who don't have.  For example, those with 2 coats should give one to someone who doesn't have one.  If you have extra food, you should give it to someone who has nothing to eat.  Tax collectors, which can be interpreted today as politicians/government to only take what is meant for them to take.  Soldiers (which can be our law enforcement people as well as military, but would be most public workers) should be satisfied with what they make.

Now, mind you, this isn't about gathering the Christmas spirit by saying that it's only this time of year to be generous or humble.  This is something to live as part of our daily routine, to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves.  It struck me as very interesting, because I'd had a certain couple of ladies wonder if I was missing something when I disagreed with them about people and/or corporations making as much money as they wanted.  I don't see that message here in the Gospel.  These couple of ladies always tried to find a way to chastise me in a certain blogging area that I don't participate in any more, because some of them were like talking to a brick wall that spit cement back.

I'm just wondering, now, if people who head the corporations are allowed to "make as much money as they want", how are the contributing to the fact that if they have extra, they should give it to someone who doesn't have?  It's one thing to be charitable, because in reality, there will always be someone who is in need, and they should get the help that they want to get up onto their feet.  This does NOT mean that we can help everyone, because some plain do not want to be helped.

But, in the case of those who are capable of doing something, and just fell flat on their face at some point, and need a hand up, to me, rather than "making as much money as I want", just to look good in public by 'giving away' a portion of my extra, it would make more sense to spend my extra by offering this person a job, where they can feel proud to earn what they received.

Some corporate top leaders rake in millions, maybe even billions.  Them giving about $10grand is a piece of cake, it's not even close to being the extra.  That's only a portion of their extra.  Yet how many people right now are hurting for something?  Everyone is in need all over, it seems.  Unemployment is high, and there is a skills gap.  We finally got something going to try to close that gap.

I am finally happy that our governor, Scott Walker, is now going to tame down his far right controversial law making practices, and do things that are for ALL people of Wisconsin, which is to help us stabilize the economy by ensuring that there are enough jobs for those who can work, but also to grant those who want to be trained in the fields that need people can be trained in those skills.  Because seriously?  It takes more work to try to figure out ways to jump through the hoops to try to defraud the system, than it is to actually work for a living.  The accomplishment of working for your own keep is a satisfactory feeling as well.  

With more people able to get an education with the grants, the better off we will be.  Many of our baby boomers are on their way to retiring.  That leaves a LOT of positions with skills needed to be filled, and not necessarily ones that our current unemployed workers are qualified to take.  With this, we can ensure that more of us can live up to the expectation of helping those around us.

And while we're at it, lets all remember, those who won't work, won't eat.  If one can't, well, that's why we are here to help.  If one can, but refuse, that's a choice, and we MUST remember that we can't help everyone, because one who won't work won't appreciate or take your help, either.

Merry Christmas to everyone.  One last note...  You don't have to be Christian, or even religious, to care about people.  Helping people in need when you are able to do so is not about obeying a request from a higher power.  It's about doing the right thing, because it feels good to do so.

Domestic Terrorists: Gun Control or Gun Rights?

In the recent time, we have experienced yet another tragedy, where there was a single person on a shooting spree that has killed several people, including children, mothers, friends, and more. Now there are heated debates on how to settle these types of tragedies. On one side, there are those who say that we ought to encourage more gun ownership. Really? It did the mother a lot of good, when the very guns she had in her own home was used against her.

I do have to wonder, though, is what would happen? So, teachers bring guns to school. For what purpose? Escalate the violence? And what about the safety of the children, should they get their hands on it? If the teachers lock it up, what good is it for when the next attacker comes in to shoot up the school? And if that never happens, why are we paranoid for the "just in case"? Stop and think about it... this is NOT a logical answer because it's your last minute knee jerk reaction, and it makes little sense. It strikes me as weird, when many of our conservatives say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sure. True, only to a point. Some methods are better than others. In a recent attack in China, there was a man who ran into a school with a large knife, and stabbed 27 people. All of them survived. Yet all of the shooting victims died. 

Obviously, the gun played a large part in how the people died vs. lived. On the other hand, we talk about gun control. Seriously, what, exactly is gun control? To regulate the ownership and sales? Okay, so... we make more laws about how to sign up and get one, and keep closer track of who has one and who doesn't. Then what? So we make it more difficult for honest people to get them? Then what? The burglars and the black market still have their stash, and it's not going to slow down any time too soon. That's such a delayed reaction, it's NOT funny. In a more realistic way, we need to ensure that we are paying closer attention at WHO is getting their hands on these weapons. 

Sure, we could try to take them away from "gang-bangers". But, if you noticed, the shooter at the Connecticut school was NOT a gangster. The shooter at the Brookfield Spa in Milwaukee was not a gangster. The shooter at the Sikh Temple, while a white supremacist, wasn't exactly what you'd call a gangster. The shooter at the Colorado movie theater was not a gangster. Neither was the shooter in Minneapolis. Nor Columbine.  

Here are some scary statistics about who is the guilty party of these mass shootings. This talks about how there is usually a lone shooter, and more than 4 victims died. About half are work related, though the other half is public. Most are white male, though there was one woman. It's very scary that most of these people obtained the guns LEGALLY. And 68 were semiautomatic, and another 35 were assault weapons. 20 revolvers, and 19 shotguns... so, I would say that it would make more sense if we controlled what types of guns were legal for private use. If you think about it, semiautomatics are also pretty common in the military, and assault weapons are made for one thing, and one thing only. It's to hurt people. Nothing more. So, why not keep the revolvers and shotguns, and keep the rest under lock and key? And stop coming after us honest people for our weapons, we are not the problem. 

We need to figure out a way to make rules about certain things w/o discriminating. So, let's say someone is autistic. Excuse me, but, never have I read that autistic people are naturally violent. On the other hand, SOME - who are schizophrenic, may be violent. Depression isn't necessarily a marker either. I just wonder sometimes whether or not we are covering mental illnesses in the appropriate manner. There is still a stigma of being mentally ill, to where we want to sweep it under the carpet if we may be ill. Insurance also covers mental illness at a much lower rate and less often than a physical ailment. Why is that? Answers, anyone? It's important that we are able to access the health care that we need. 

Take a look at the most recent CN mass shooting, and the hurt that is left behind. Yet, aside from vigils and prayer chains, what is being done to help those who are still feeling the sting of an aftermath? It's nice to do fundraisers to help cover funeral costs for those who can't afford it, but who is paying for the bereavement counseling and the grief support groups, and other mental health issues that the survivors may be experiencing?

 Maybe it would be nice, since Christmas is almost here, to go ahead and send gifts. That would be heartwarming for the survivors.  

On the other hand, we must still ensure that the wrong people don't get their hands on firearms? Do we tell parents of these mentally ill that they are not allowed to own a gun? That's discriminatory. Maybe make it mandatory that since we HAVE to register as a gun owner, when we sell or give away that gun, it's mandatory to notify who and where it was sold/given to. How about with every gun, there needs to be a test bullet sent to a mainframe and keep records similar to a weapon version of CODIS? I don't know. But, to push for more rights sounds just as ridiculous as buying back honest people's guns. Neither is a good solution, because it's still a knee jerk reaction in haste. So, what do you think? Are there answers? Any common sense approaches? The more we TALK, not argue, the better solutions we have.

Successful Holiday Party!

Earlier in the evening, I hosted an international type holiday party and invited people to attend.  I asked that they bring a nontraditional dish to pass, because it's more fun to mix it up.

We had various neighbors, relatives, church friends and more attend, and it was a great social gathering.

One of the neighbors brought home made Italian wafer cookies that had a hint of anise flavor in it called pizelle.  Another neighbor brought two different types of dip and some nacho chips.  One of the pastors came with Tanzanian curry rice which was absolutely delicious!  My mom brought home made Japanese style egg-rolls, which are always awesome.  Someone else brought shrimp cocktail, and another pastor brought mini cream puffs.

I made 2 of my favorite things, guacamole and goulash - though if you add sour cream to the goulash, it turns into paprikash.  We had an evening full of good company, and it was nice to get to know a few of our neighbors as well.

Hopefully, next year, we can host this again, and have a bigger gathering.  It was really fun.

Whose Mad? Say What?

Okay.  So you're a parent.  You have a kid whose fairly smart, and usually has a good head on their shoulders.  The kid wants to be a dolphin expert some day.  You can afford a descent vacation to take a field trip to Sea World.  You let the smart kid who wants to work with dolphins to the area where kid can feed them.  Kid gets excited over not having any fish left for dolphins, and picks up the empty container despite signs and warnings NOT to do this near the pool.  Dolphin acts like a dolphin, reaches up, bites at the cardboard, and bites the kid's hand while at it.  Kid is fine, just some superficial wounds, understands that she messed up...  Sea World staff responds, attending to the family.

Sounds like a learning session...  but, the parents are mad because the dolphin "attacked" the kid?  Um.  No.  The dolphin attacked the container, thinking there was food in it.  Duh.  The kid is worried more about the dolphin eating the cardboard container than her own hand.  The parents want something done about it, even though there are isolated incidents such as this that happen.  The last one was 6 years ago.

Solution:  Parents should keep better eye on their kids while going to sea world.