The harvest is plentiful; the laborers are few. Instead of praying to the Lord of the Harvest, I am tempted to take time reserved for my family. “They should understand; I am serving God,” I reason, and give what is not mine to sacrifice in the first place. “King David said to Ornan, ‘No, but I will surely buy it for the full price; for I will not take what is yours for the LORD, or offer a burnt offering which costs me nothing.’” My offense is greater than the worldly man. Not only do I ignore my family, but I offer stolen goods to God.

You didn’t offend me. I just thought it was broad-brushing it. There are fiscal Republicans and as well as social Republicans; and though the more conservative Republicans prefer the fiscal and social to be found in the same person, they realize that is not always the case and you can have a social Republican who believes in big spending or a fiscal Republican who believes abortion is ok.

The Honolulu papers do put a major dent in the “he’s not born in Hawaii” theory. And it’s made me reconsider my position. Again, my frustration is more with the lack of proper vetting.

No rift at all, my friend. I’m not much of a person who likes “surface” talk or “small” talk as some people call it. If we’re going to dialog let’s make it relevant and interesting and below the “surface”.

So I’m still having fun.

And I laughed for a good 30 seconds at your comment about being ushers at a gay wedding. That was much needed the day I read it.

From your 5th paragraph, I presume that I’ve offended you, and if that is the case I sincerely apologize. I was referring to outspoken people such as Limbaugh, Tancredo, etc. Statements about Obama “pandering to the blacks” and having been “elected by people who can’t even pronounce the word ‘Vote’” and advocating a “literacy test” at the polls (that last term has a lot of history behind it). Also Palin refusing to speak out against the guy at one of her rallies last summer who yelled “kill him!” and others who made similar statements. And especially those who have told the media that they openly pray for his death. But I was not meaning to imply that all conservatives are racist or violent. I’ll admit I don’t have many conversations with conservatives, though I’ve yet to hear any of them take umbrage with any of the stuff I mentioned above. But I’ll certainly admit that your party is much larger than those individuals. And that those individuals I mentioned have views in other areas as well – therefore it’s possible for someone to support them in general, either without agreeing with, or without being aware of, the things I cited above.

I am also weary of seeing various posters on sites such as newspaper websites, digg.com, etc. using the term “Osambo”. In contrast, “Ostupid” or something would be one thing, but of course “sambo” is a racist term. It would also be difficult to honestly deny that those who stress his middle name are doing so with an anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bent. But again, I recognize that these are just some random crazies on the internet, which the left certainly also has its share of, and doesn’t imply anything at all about conservatives in general.

I see Obama’s dilemma. If it’s true he was born in Hawaii, then to give any type of panel to view/scrutinize the certificate gives credence that maybe it’s not real. But it’s a big enough issue that an independent panel of forgery experts could simply see the original document and offer judgment.

As for Palin’s son Trig, he was born April 18, 2008. When Bristol, Sarah’s oldest daughter, gave birth on December 27, 2008 to her son it pretty much settled the issue for most people. However, if there is still concern and Palin hasn’t produced it, then she should.

I’m not sure what would happen if he wasn’t born in Hawaii. It’s not about getting a “better” person in there. There’s no chance a “conservative” would replace him and I’m not sure who would be elected/chosen. The point is following what the constitution says. If we are going to toss out a part of the constitution, then there’s no point in having a constitution.

I would have to disagree with your last paragraph in that the recent gubernatorial elections and the senate race in Massachusetts seem to indicate otherwise. The left and the far left might believe that–I don’t know, I hadn’t heard about violence or racism party-wise–but the independents and even some Democrats clearly don’t OR the independents and some Democrats at least don’t care and are willing to still vote for Republicans. Plus, to broad-brush all conservatives with those terms seems a little harsh. It’d be like me saying all liberals are socialistic, baby-killing, extremists.

PS You going to the Final Four this year?

Besides, even if it were shown at this point that he weren’t a citizen…then what? President Biden? Hillary? Wouldn’t they just take pretty much the same actions as Obama is? So…trying to imagine myself in a conservative’s shoes here, what’s the point? I think the president of the USA should focus on governing, not on jumping through whatever endless series of hoops an angry fringe group demands.

Again putting on my “pretend I’m a conservative” shoes, I think the smarter move for your party would be to focus on your main pillar of small gov’t and fiscal responsibility, but to also show you’re willing to play ball. That will draw people from the center. Wasting time on fringe issues, open racism, and threats of violence will only make the conservatives be viewed as foolish by the independents. I’m of course not alleging that every conservative is racist or violent or petty, and am absolutely not suggesting that you are any of those things. But in general the conservative party is viewed from the outside as moving in that direction. I may be a staunch liberal, but I also strongly favor the idea of having more than two viable parties. As much as I consider most of the conservative platform to be naive or downright unethical, I don’t want to see that party disappear.

I didn’t know the Big Ten was going after Texas. I heard they were going after Mizzou and Mizzou was talking with them. Apparently, Mizzou doesn’t think it gets the respect it should in the Big 12.

I’d be surprised if Texas went but anything is possible.

First, he won’t simply produce it. Seriously, just bring the thing out in public and let us see it.

Second, an internet “scan” won’t do in this day and age of Photoshop. If you or I could Photoshop a birth certificate, then I’m sure any politician with enough power and money could get a really good one done to put on the internet.

Third, it was possible in 1961 to register foreign births in the state of Hawaii. That in itself is concerning.

Fourth, two of Obama’s blood relatives have stated they witnessed his birth in Kenya, the country his father was from.

Fifth, and it’s a little off point, but it’s annoying when Sarah Palin is questioned as to whether Trig is her son and so she simply produces the birth certificate and lets the media see it, but when President Obama is questioned about his birth certificate he doesn’t produce it. (Has he even produced it yet publicly?)

Six, the media jumped all over Palin in regards to Trig but the media remained largely silent over President Obama’s birth certificate. Their silence allowed much of the intrigue on this issue to gain momentum. Why wouldn’t they cover it? Why wouldn’t they ask him questions about it? This just fueled the fire.

So there are too many unanswered questions for me at this point.

KU is at 55 and counting.

I think they can crack the Top 10 if they win the few remaining home games left this year, as next year will begin with non-conference teams and it will be a number of cupcakes that they should easily beat.

KU’s active streak is what drove me to look into it. I thought KU would at least be in the Top 10. But, alas, they are not. And even cracking the Top 10 will be challenging to do as good as the Big 12 looks this year.

Rock Chalk!

Man is infinitely valuable, having been made in God’s image and likeness, but man is dreadfully fallen, having been born in sin.

A marriage is made covenant when a man and his wife make love on the night of their wedding, but how is that process made possible (naturally) when two persons of the same sex are “married.” I understand that homosexuals are just as human as I am, but just as I was not born male or in some other family, there are some sacrifices that I must make. Life is not about having what we want all the time. But apparently, that’s what our country wants us to believe.

I would totally appreciate that as well, IF they took that stand across the board. If virtue is what Wal-Mart stood for, then I would completely understand. I wouldn’t call Grand Theft Auto virtuous by any means, and that item seems to be ok to sell at Wal-Mart.

I don’t understand why they deem it ok to sell one type of media but they have a problem with a CD that has ‘dirty words’ on it? (And yes, I do realize that they are not singling out Green Day – it’s a general statement.)

I do understand that Wal-Mart has a ‘policy’ about CDs, and that they (of course) cannot sell EVERY CD made. First of all, I just have to say that this is just not any CD. And this might just be one humble person’s opinion (but I don’t think so) – 21st Century Breakdown is a masterpiece, a wonderful HUGE piece of art that quite possibly may be the next album of the year.

This is personal to me because music is such a big part of my life; it’s a shame that people might miss out on this wonderful gift because of a backward policy.

The lyrics are all over the net, btw. Try http://www.greendayauthority.com and click on the lyrics link to the left.

You say, “maybe you shouldn’t rush to judge people on their writing skills or their way of speaking.” I find this very interesting. I never thought I was judging people on their writing skills or on their way of speaking (not sure what you define as “way of speaking”), but rather, I was judging their manner of treating other people. To call someone a name is very disrespectful and uncalled for. It simply is not necessary.

Mike is right in saying that, by calling him names, people are attacking him and not his argument. It is a logical fallacy-an “Ad Hominem” argument. Instead of addressing someone’s argument, they rather try to degrade the person’s argument by calling the person names. Admittedly, it is much easier to just call someone a name than to address their argument. In our New Age, public-schooled culture, the art of logic has been lost and many don’t understand how to properly argue.

I have been engaged in many conversations online concerning numerous topics and I have to say, people have directed at me some of the rudest and most profane comments I have ever read. I say “read” because whenever I have entered into a controversial conversation with someone face to face, never have they called me a name or said anything degrading towards my person. I think this says something. It is much easier to debase someone whom you can’t see and have never met, than it is to do it to their face. And it is even more difficult if you have even a general knowledge of who they are.

I don’t know you, Cheryl, or anyone else who has commented, but if I did, I would want to treat you with respect. So why do we think that if we don’t know and can’t see someone, that it is OK to disrespect them and be rude to them? And I freely admit that I am also tempted to do the same. It is much easier to react than to think. I find this very disconcerting.

You say, “To a Green Day fan, ‘idiot’ is a compliment.”

Then apparently I’m receiving a lot of compliments.

I think Andrea’s point is that people are attacking me instead of my position/belief. I’ve been said to have “snottish views”; I’ve been told to “get with the times”; I’ve been called a “narrow minded idiot”; I’ve been told that perhaps I’m “living in 1953″.

These are all comments about me. They have nothing to do with my position or why the belief I have is wrong. These people have attacked me, instead of attacking my position and belief and showing why they are wrong.

I don’t have the “objectionable” lyrics to the CD. I have searched online and been unable to find them.

My porn reference was to make the point that censorship in some form occurs any places where music, movies, magazines or books are sold (the sticker the RIAA requires to be put on certain CDs is a form of censorship in and of itself as they’ve labeled the CD “objectionable” and by doing so have set it apart from others). So if Billie Joe Armstrong is going to cry “censorship” on his music then how far does he (and you and others) want “un-censorship” to occur?

You have no problem with all sorts of music being sold at Walmart. But what about movies? Do you want Walmart stocking porn movies? So where does it start and where does it stop?

How is Walmart abusing their power?

Walmart has not singled out Green Day from any other group with objectionable material on their CDs.

You bring up a great point! Is Walmart’s policy consistent with its other policies for movies, magazines and books? An excellent question. It veers off topic so I won’t address it here.

And compliments to you for expressing your Freedom of Speech and emailing Walmart. I’m sure they read your email and didn’t censor it.

You are right that it will not hurt sales for Green Day. And think even more how much Walmart lost out on! About 215,000 albums were sold in the first week! That’s a lot of cash. And Walmart was willing to forgo the money from the sales they would’ve made. So I applaud them for following their policy.

What’s wrong with censorship?

I appreciate that certain gas stations don’t sell pornography. That’s censorship.
I appreciate that Blockbuster and Hollywood Video don’t rent pornography. That’s censorship.
I appreciate that the video game consoles in McDonald’s are “kid” friendly and don’t have violent games. That’s censorship.

So what’s wrong with censorship?

You obviously disagree with this policy. But the question is, “Do they have the right as a company to decide what they will carry and what they will not carry?”

Of course they do. They make that decision thousands of times a day in regards to thousands and thousands of items including music, movies and magazines.

They do not sell every single CD available.
They do not sell every single DVD available.
They do not sell every magazine available.

No one accuses them of discrimination or censorship over this. We realize that it’s not practical to sell every thing available in a single category. So what upsets you is their policy. But, again, do they have a right to set policies and rules in how they run their company? If not, why not?

Walmart is under no obligation to carry any particular group’s CD.

Second, Walmart is consistent with their policies. They have different types of policies for different types of media. Their policy is to not carry CDs with Parental Advisory stickers. They followed their policy. They made no exceptions. Are they consistent with their various policies? That’s another debate.

You can call their policy one that promotes censorship but at least they consistently apply it. They didn’t single out Green Day.

You said: “Is it not the responsibility of the parental figure to ‘parent’?? Why do we leave our responsibilities to some corporate or governmental authority?”

To answer your first question: Yes, it is the responsibility of the parental figure to parent. And while this deals with parenting in a loose sense it more deals with public morality. Simply put, they don’t want CDs like that in their store. End of story. You don’t like it. I do.

To answer your second question: I do not leave my parental responsibilities to companies or the government. But how far are you willing to take your statement? Most people give over the parental responsibility of educating their children to government-run schools. People don’t even think twice about it. And we definitely want law enforcement involved in our lives when our children are threatened, harassed or molested even though it’s our responsibility to protect our children. So, yes, parents are responsible but we definitely take help in the various forms we are given. There are too many fronts to fight to go at it alone.

So I appreciate it when a company takes a stand for virtue not vulgarity. It doesn’t happen too often so when it does, I applaud them especially since such stands are not popular.

The question is ‘why’? Why does Wal-Mart choose not to sell an amazing piece of art as in 21st Century Breakdown, but yet they stock their shelves with video games that have the very ‘vulgar, lewd, immoral’ material that you refer to? Or movies that have the same ‘dirty words’ in them as some Green Day lyrics? I am not saying that I have a problem with them selling any of that (again, this is the USA, so more power to ya); it just doesn’t make sense to me that they would single out one form of ‘vulgar’ material (if that indeed is their ‘policy’) and not another.

I don’t have to resort to name calling because I guess I am not just ‘most people,’ but maybe you shouldn’t rush to judge people on their writing skills or their way of speaking. To a Green Day fan, ‘idiot’ is a compliment.

P.S. Below is an excerpt from my blog. Enjoy.

It is interesting to note that most people today, when entering into moral debates with one another, resort to name calling as their method of “argumentation.” This is especially true of chatting and commenting of sorts over the internet. I have personally come to the conclusion that attempting a civil and logical format for debate online is a complete waste of time.

There is, presently, an alarming lack of knowledge in the area of argumentation. I would venture so far as to say that all those who resort to name calling when engaged in a disagreement (especially online) are doing so simply because they lack the knowledge required to defend their position. They are ignorant, illiterate, and unlearned; and while they may not be stupid in the true sense of the word, they nevertheless render themselves equal to such a state due to their profound lack of knowledge and their deplorable refusal to access their intelligence.

You sell rated R movies, highly violent video games, that parents could give a crap less when they are purchasing either of those items for their children, You sell guns, and alcohol, and cigarettes.
All of those items …even spray paint, along with certain aerosol items require a age limit/ID to purchase, and lest I remind you again, with a warning on the register prior to purchase.

So let’s not cry “Walmart has morals” just yet. I say to you… refuse to carry other “age limiting” items then we shall see who “scores”! Looks like Green Day sales did just find without Walmart.
Can you say…HYPOCRICY?

Cheryl is completely right.

angela
xx

I’m sure that every PG-13 or R-rated movie Wal-Mart carries is censored for “dirty words” then. What about books, too?? And oh, there might be some foul language in a magazine…ooooh. That is exactly why this CD is not being sold at Wal-Mart. Dirty words. They’ve got to be kidding. I wonder who actually sits down and makes these decisions and what year he/she thinks we are living in?

Green Day and their record company applied a Parental Advisement label on the front of 21st Century Breakdown (as they’ve done in the past with other CDs), so that a parent can make the decision whether to buy it or not and allow thier child to listen to the “dirty words” or not. Is it not the responsibility of the parental figure to ‘parent’?? Why do we leave our responsibilities to some corporate or governmental authority?

I don’t think you should give Wal-Mart any thanks or any points for censoring a piece of art. And a damn good one, too. I think they epically lose for not selling this album – this is America, and I think sometimes we all forget that.

Peter Quinn

i agree…