New entry for the "Novel Approaches to Unemployment" file:
No names will be given to protect the...horizontal...;however, this minor episode was A New One On Me. A particular young adult male in residence here has been unemployed for a couple of months. It is a tough economic and employment environment here, more so than in some areas of the country. To date, his attempts to secure employment have resulted in only one, unsuccessful interview. Curiously, because he has a smart phone, he has the luxury of trawling the internet and submitting various employment applications online...from the horizontal position in bed! And here was I, not so many years ago, actually wearing out shoe leather!!
From time to time, thoughtful friends of mine have forwarded job leads to me, to pass on to this unemployed relative of mine. Today was another example. This time, the lead was for an opportunity promising hard work, tough hours, and decent pay: a third-shift position at the nearby Chrysler assembly plant. Who knows if it's a long shot but at this point, it is folly to pass up any opportunities from my viewpoint.
So, after reading this e-mail, I went upstairs to address the Still-Horizontal [it is 2:43 pm, CST] Unemployed Resident to pass along this news.
"How do you know this, Mom?"
Well, because it was e-mailed to me, and still is on the screen if you want to run downstairs and take a look at it.
But, going vertical after so many hours of being horizontal, might be a challenge.
"Just e-mail it to me."
That way, there's no need to disturb the horizontal perspective, or exert any extra modicum of effort. Gack.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Beyond Understanding
File this under “Inexplicables, Gender-determined.”
It’s news to no one that this crazy, mixed up world we live in is careening faster and faster out of any comprehensible orbit. As William Butler Yeats [in “The Second Coming"] famously put it “the centre cannot hold”.
Indeed, how can anything hold when so little is anchored or anchorable these days? Since the focus of this evening’s rumination has to do with gender issues, I’ll start with this little plum from today’s cnn.com post: http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/03/lgb-t-the-big-surprise/?hpt=hp_bn1; the article from which this excerpt was taken is entitled,
“LGB and T: The Big Surprise:
When Donna was a young man, back in high school, she was a wrestler. After a 30-year hiatus, she got back into the sport. She beat enough women half her age to place sixth in the last U.S. nationals.
As for the obvious questions - the International Olympic Committee has specific criteria for someone like Donna to qualify as a female athlete. She has met those guidelines. She has had the necessary surgeries. And she has been on hormone therapy for two years. She's a woman. And she’s determined to pin the competition.
Call it the LGBT community.
If you go to the link referenced above, Donna is the blonde in the pink dress—hard to miss.
So, here’s what I’m scratching my head about at the moment. Great effort, talent, toil, and tears are bent toward changing who we are from the surface ink of any tattoo du jour to the very criteria of what constitutes a person’s sexual identity.
And yet.
Can anyone seriously doubt the notion of ‘hard wiring’ when it comes to certain components of human gender? Sure, you can surgically excise or append, replumb, and change the hormone marinade. I’m not even taking issue with the fact that people do these things…it happens.
But juxtapose these cutting-edge [sorry] developments against the soundtrack of the latest first-person shooter game, and then tell me how much we’re able to change about ourselves.
What I’m talking about is familiar to generations of good hearted mothers who aren’t sure whether to be alarmed or complacent when their sons seem to emerge from the womb making automatic weapon noises. What the hay?!
With three sons now aged 22, 20 and 14, I’ve long since given up understanding the male fixation with warfare and annihilation. And I’m too tired to let it keep me awake. But the resiliency of the male –warfare link is staggering. I’m not ignoring the fact that many women have talents, passion, and records of military valor. It’s just that I don’t really know how to think about it all.
On the one hand, the appetite for the trappings of warfare seems insatiable. No doubt there is a biological imperative at work here to ensure that, in the bigger picture, a society is provided for and defended.
On the other hand, there is only so much mayhem and destruction any individual can absorb, and when that limit is met, handing around appears to be very hard to do.
One of the more discouraging stories I’ve read lately follows a young soldier in a Welsh Guardsman unit who completed a number of tours in Afghanistan and,against great odds, survived to return home. Despite psychiatric therapy to help him cope with the inevitable, debilitating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder he suffered, he succumbed to suicide before the age of 30, leaving a mother, sibling, and baby daughter. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2081638/Lance-Sergeant-Dan-Collins-Afghanistan-hero-bear-horrors-war-longer.html
I used to point out such accounts to my gung-ho son as cautionary tales, but it doesn’t register with him. He’d rather tell me the specs of the latest iteration of a Kalashnikov rifle, as if I cared. Ever since I first gave birth, I’ve harbored a theory that armed conflict would be considerably less probable were it the prerogative of women: what could be more antithetical than living the profound journey that results in new life and then engaging in the death and destruction of war?
Yet I know that tomorrow, when homework is done and put away, there will emanate from the downstairs man cave of the young warriors in residence a barely tolerable impersonation of a snarling Russian warlord.
And I will stir the soup.
It’s news to no one that this crazy, mixed up world we live in is careening faster and faster out of any comprehensible orbit. As William Butler Yeats [in “The Second Coming"] famously put it “the centre cannot hold”.
Indeed, how can anything hold when so little is anchored or anchorable these days? Since the focus of this evening’s rumination has to do with gender issues, I’ll start with this little plum from today’s cnn.com post: http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/03/lgb-t-the-big-surprise/?hpt=hp_bn1; the article from which this excerpt was taken is entitled,
“LGB and T: The Big Surprise:
When Donna was a young man, back in high school, she was a wrestler. After a 30-year hiatus, she got back into the sport. She beat enough women half her age to place sixth in the last U.S. nationals.
As for the obvious questions - the International Olympic Committee has specific criteria for someone like Donna to qualify as a female athlete. She has met those guidelines. She has had the necessary surgeries. And she has been on hormone therapy for two years. She's a woman. And she’s determined to pin the competition.
Call it the LGBT community.
If you go to the link referenced above, Donna is the blonde in the pink dress—hard to miss.
So, here’s what I’m scratching my head about at the moment. Great effort, talent, toil, and tears are bent toward changing who we are from the surface ink of any tattoo du jour to the very criteria of what constitutes a person’s sexual identity.
And yet.
Can anyone seriously doubt the notion of ‘hard wiring’ when it comes to certain components of human gender? Sure, you can surgically excise or append, replumb, and change the hormone marinade. I’m not even taking issue with the fact that people do these things…it happens.
But juxtapose these cutting-edge [sorry] developments against the soundtrack of the latest first-person shooter game, and then tell me how much we’re able to change about ourselves.
What I’m talking about is familiar to generations of good hearted mothers who aren’t sure whether to be alarmed or complacent when their sons seem to emerge from the womb making automatic weapon noises. What the hay?!
With three sons now aged 22, 20 and 14, I’ve long since given up understanding the male fixation with warfare and annihilation. And I’m too tired to let it keep me awake. But the resiliency of the male –warfare link is staggering. I’m not ignoring the fact that many women have talents, passion, and records of military valor. It’s just that I don’t really know how to think about it all.
On the one hand, the appetite for the trappings of warfare seems insatiable. No doubt there is a biological imperative at work here to ensure that, in the bigger picture, a society is provided for and defended.
On the other hand, there is only so much mayhem and destruction any individual can absorb, and when that limit is met, handing around appears to be very hard to do.
One of the more discouraging stories I’ve read lately follows a young soldier in a Welsh Guardsman unit who completed a number of tours in Afghanistan and,against great odds, survived to return home. Despite psychiatric therapy to help him cope with the inevitable, debilitating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder he suffered, he succumbed to suicide before the age of 30, leaving a mother, sibling, and baby daughter. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2081638/Lance-Sergeant-Dan-Collins-Afghanistan-hero-bear-horrors-war-longer.html
I used to point out such accounts to my gung-ho son as cautionary tales, but it doesn’t register with him. He’d rather tell me the specs of the latest iteration of a Kalashnikov rifle, as if I cared. Ever since I first gave birth, I’ve harbored a theory that armed conflict would be considerably less probable were it the prerogative of women: what could be more antithetical than living the profound journey that results in new life and then engaging in the death and destruction of war?
Yet I know that tomorrow, when homework is done and put away, there will emanate from the downstairs man cave of the young warriors in residence a barely tolerable impersonation of a snarling Russian warlord.
And I will stir the soup.
Friday, December 23, 2011
So Much More
“Stay tuned for our upcoming segment on ‘Getting to the Heart of Christmas’.” Thus chirped one of the carefully coiffed TV anchor/hostesses on a popular breakfast talk show this morning.
Of course, since this was a secular, network program, I had no illusions that anything remotely related to the “heart of Christmas” would ensue. The closest mainstream media ever chooses to get is using the word “Christmas,” and even then, it is doubtful that any passing thought is given to the derivation of the word. That, of course, is “Christ” and “mass,” two terms considered politically incorrect unless the second is used in the context of physics.
What followed was a story about families who had lost virtually all but their lives in a ravenous wildfire near Austin, Texas four months ago that apparently burned for 35 days. Featured were accounts of two families, one with four children whose belongings were literally reduced to cinders, including one young daughter’s favorite Barbie doll. The second story had to do, somewhat ironically, with one of the firefighters who had fought the blaze and yet also lost all but his wife, baby and a single photo album. Tragic stories, under any circumstances, but somehow especially so at Christmastime…which, of course, is about the celebration of families brought together as a seasonal tradition.
Or is it?
Cut to the next scene as a pleasant reporter, donning a Santa hat, recapped the story briefly with the two families before gleefully leading them through a warehouse door to a waiting crowd of festive WalMart employees standing amidst mounds of wrapped presents and glittering trees. The camera zoomed in on several astonished faces, as the reporter explained that what we were seeing was truly “the heart of Christmas.”
No mistake, it is truly heartening to see those who have suffered loss not only cared about but provided for. The camera panned and then zoomed in on the little girl who had lost her doll as the reporter guided her to a brand new Barbie doll, just for her. As a smile broke out and she pumped her small fist in delight, the reporter was clearly moved and declared “this is really the heart of Christmas!” And now back to you in the studio.
But…this is only part of the story, and a comparatively minor, mortal part at that. Whether they realize it or not, all people inhabit two worlds, one mortal and one eternal; and this story did not scratch the surface of the heart of Christmas.
What am I talking about?
Merely the fact that we are eternal beings, wrought in the image of God, and for whom mortal life is an important way station, but not the destination. Unpopular concept, that. But you have to reckon with it if you want to come anywhere near the real heart of Christmas.
Is this a time of year when extra focus is placed on acts of kindness and compassion? Without a doubt. But there’s a reason for this, and it is rooted in the historicity of Christmas.
Perhaps we need to look as far back as “A Charlie Brown Christmas” to find an example in popular media that told the truth about Christmas. Near the end of this animated classic, Linus Van Pelt volunteers to tell Charlie Brown what Christmas is all about by taking the stage in his shepherd garb and simply, matter-of-factly, reciting a passage from Luke 2. This little scene stands out in greater relief than ever now, not only because of its simple audacity in telling the truth, but also because we are hard pressed to find anything like it in the maelstrom that is today’s media.
Curiously, I don’t recall, either as a child first watching this, or as an adult, ever being aware of any rejection of this simple message. It was an interesting moment in a cartoon, easily passed over these days as a quaint, vintage footnote.
Ah, but there’s so much more for the seeker of truth. The heart of Christmas is not doing good deeds for strangers, no matter how heartwarming. Encouraging as these moments are they are byproducts several concepts removed from the bedrock reality that Christmas is, at heart, a rescue mission.
It is the historical account of the one, true God condescending to take on mortal flesh and leave eternity and enter time for the express purpose of testifying to the truth of sin and providing a path of redemption. Of course, grasping this transcendent fact does not lend itself to five minute video segments. Nor is it a mere heartwarming video vignette to get our day off to a nice start before we go about our usual business.
Getting to the heart of Christmas requires acknowledging and owning the uncomfortable truth of our imperfection and helplessness to help ourselves; and the devastating consequences that indubitably follow if that’s the end of our story.
The heart of Christmas is the incredible good news that we can have what we REALLY need and escape the judgment we deserve. Our destiny can be an eternal future with our Maker; and that is So Much More than a five minute feel-good story.
Of course, since this was a secular, network program, I had no illusions that anything remotely related to the “heart of Christmas” would ensue. The closest mainstream media ever chooses to get is using the word “Christmas,” and even then, it is doubtful that any passing thought is given to the derivation of the word. That, of course, is “Christ” and “mass,” two terms considered politically incorrect unless the second is used in the context of physics.
What followed was a story about families who had lost virtually all but their lives in a ravenous wildfire near Austin, Texas four months ago that apparently burned for 35 days. Featured were accounts of two families, one with four children whose belongings were literally reduced to cinders, including one young daughter’s favorite Barbie doll. The second story had to do, somewhat ironically, with one of the firefighters who had fought the blaze and yet also lost all but his wife, baby and a single photo album. Tragic stories, under any circumstances, but somehow especially so at Christmastime…which, of course, is about the celebration of families brought together as a seasonal tradition.
Or is it?
Cut to the next scene as a pleasant reporter, donning a Santa hat, recapped the story briefly with the two families before gleefully leading them through a warehouse door to a waiting crowd of festive WalMart employees standing amidst mounds of wrapped presents and glittering trees. The camera zoomed in on several astonished faces, as the reporter explained that what we were seeing was truly “the heart of Christmas.”
No mistake, it is truly heartening to see those who have suffered loss not only cared about but provided for. The camera panned and then zoomed in on the little girl who had lost her doll as the reporter guided her to a brand new Barbie doll, just for her. As a smile broke out and she pumped her small fist in delight, the reporter was clearly moved and declared “this is really the heart of Christmas!” And now back to you in the studio.
But…this is only part of the story, and a comparatively minor, mortal part at that. Whether they realize it or not, all people inhabit two worlds, one mortal and one eternal; and this story did not scratch the surface of the heart of Christmas.
What am I talking about?
Merely the fact that we are eternal beings, wrought in the image of God, and for whom mortal life is an important way station, but not the destination. Unpopular concept, that. But you have to reckon with it if you want to come anywhere near the real heart of Christmas.
Is this a time of year when extra focus is placed on acts of kindness and compassion? Without a doubt. But there’s a reason for this, and it is rooted in the historicity of Christmas.
Perhaps we need to look as far back as “A Charlie Brown Christmas” to find an example in popular media that told the truth about Christmas. Near the end of this animated classic, Linus Van Pelt volunteers to tell Charlie Brown what Christmas is all about by taking the stage in his shepherd garb and simply, matter-of-factly, reciting a passage from Luke 2. This little scene stands out in greater relief than ever now, not only because of its simple audacity in telling the truth, but also because we are hard pressed to find anything like it in the maelstrom that is today’s media.
Curiously, I don’t recall, either as a child first watching this, or as an adult, ever being aware of any rejection of this simple message. It was an interesting moment in a cartoon, easily passed over these days as a quaint, vintage footnote.
Ah, but there’s so much more for the seeker of truth. The heart of Christmas is not doing good deeds for strangers, no matter how heartwarming. Encouraging as these moments are they are byproducts several concepts removed from the bedrock reality that Christmas is, at heart, a rescue mission.
It is the historical account of the one, true God condescending to take on mortal flesh and leave eternity and enter time for the express purpose of testifying to the truth of sin and providing a path of redemption. Of course, grasping this transcendent fact does not lend itself to five minute video segments. Nor is it a mere heartwarming video vignette to get our day off to a nice start before we go about our usual business.
Getting to the heart of Christmas requires acknowledging and owning the uncomfortable truth of our imperfection and helplessness to help ourselves; and the devastating consequences that indubitably follow if that’s the end of our story.
The heart of Christmas is the incredible good news that we can have what we REALLY need and escape the judgment we deserve. Our destiny can be an eternal future with our Maker; and that is So Much More than a five minute feel-good story.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Knowing Now
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074866/Christopher-Hitchens-dead-Writer-dies-aged-62.html
I've just read two stories [which seem to be identical, although credited to two different writers] announcing the death of Christopher Hitchens, a British born ex-patriot who made his home in the US and his career as a writer and pundit with a lacerating pen.
Although famous on many fronts, Mr. Hitchens is probably best known as a brilliant and caustic atheist who bravely, or perhaps foolishly--depending on your point of view--stared his own mortality in the face, refusing to capitulate in any way to the concept of faith. I saw a TV interview with him when his cancer was already quite advanced; when asked about his position on faith and the afterlife, he said he appreciated the sincere prayers of Christians who had told him they were praying for him, but he completely discounted the efficacy of prayer or even the existence of the God to whom these prayers were directed.
"There will be no death bed conversion," he declared, echoing the late Carl Sagan.
"If you hear accounts stating otherwise,do not credit them. They will not be true."
Apart form his undeniably great intellect and talent as a writer, I find it rather stunning to learn of someone so very exercised and vociferous about atheism and hatred for religion of all sorts. The story referenced in the link above is worth reading if only to see some of his more outrageously memorable quotes; here are a few,as they appear in today's London Daily Mail:
'A lying, thieving Albanian dwarf' - his description of Mother Teresa
'The Missionary Position' - the title of the book he wrote about her
'The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals'
So there! If nothing else, he is an exemplar of untrammeled intellectual freedom. And perhaps, now that his spirit has departed the realm of mortality and passed into eternity, he better understands the Source of the freedom he enjoyed in life, and which he will never know again.
It's not often that someone dies and one can know, incontrovertibly, about his or her eternal destiny. But Christopher Hitchens would appear to be one of the exceptions. I say this with no satisfaction. As a Bible believer, I accept the truth and descriptions of the only two destinations we face as eternal beings. No one deserves to be in hell, an actual place, more than any other person who dies rejecting Christ. Some, like Hitchens, are just louder and more vociferous about their rebellion.
Having been told once by a therapist to "believe the behavior" of others while trying to understand them, I've found it curious to see just how adamant Mr. Hitchens was in his atheism. Any time someone devotes considerable energy and passion to promoting an idea, it's a sure bet they take it seriously. When the object of such passion is to DENY something, it seems axiomatic that they consider that object to be powerful and, possibly, threatening.
If it's simple nonsense, which he reportedly disdained, why bother with it at all? The obvious answer is, as he himself affirmed, that religion is an undeniable force in society, throughout human history, and geography. He found it troublesome in the extreme that so many have, allegedly, been so duped by so pervasive and pernicious a concept as religion, in all its forms. Thus, it apparently was a significant aim of his life to denounce it emphatically and often, not only in print but also in live debates.
A salient irony, is that his own brother, Peter Hitchens, is a professing Christian.
I find it nearly admirable, yet certainly sad, that a mortal human being can be so very sure that there is no supernatural or spiritual dimension to life at all. How does he know? Most likely, he would ask me just how do I claim to know.
But the certainty is that this is a singular and mutually exclusive case of truth claims. Both cannot be right.
Mr. Hitchens has stepped over the threshold, and now he knows for sure.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074866/Christopher-Hitchens-dead-Writer-dies-aged-62.html#ixzz1gi0K2Ibd
I've just read two stories [which seem to be identical, although credited to two different writers] announcing the death of Christopher Hitchens, a British born ex-patriot who made his home in the US and his career as a writer and pundit with a lacerating pen.
Although famous on many fronts, Mr. Hitchens is probably best known as a brilliant and caustic atheist who bravely, or perhaps foolishly--depending on your point of view--stared his own mortality in the face, refusing to capitulate in any way to the concept of faith. I saw a TV interview with him when his cancer was already quite advanced; when asked about his position on faith and the afterlife, he said he appreciated the sincere prayers of Christians who had told him they were praying for him, but he completely discounted the efficacy of prayer or even the existence of the God to whom these prayers were directed.
"There will be no death bed conversion," he declared, echoing the late Carl Sagan.
"If you hear accounts stating otherwise,do not credit them. They will not be true."
Apart form his undeniably great intellect and talent as a writer, I find it rather stunning to learn of someone so very exercised and vociferous about atheism and hatred for religion of all sorts. The story referenced in the link above is worth reading if only to see some of his more outrageously memorable quotes; here are a few,as they appear in today's London Daily Mail:
'A lying, thieving Albanian dwarf' - his description of Mother Teresa
'The Missionary Position' - the title of the book he wrote about her
'The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals'
So there! If nothing else, he is an exemplar of untrammeled intellectual freedom. And perhaps, now that his spirit has departed the realm of mortality and passed into eternity, he better understands the Source of the freedom he enjoyed in life, and which he will never know again.
It's not often that someone dies and one can know, incontrovertibly, about his or her eternal destiny. But Christopher Hitchens would appear to be one of the exceptions. I say this with no satisfaction. As a Bible believer, I accept the truth and descriptions of the only two destinations we face as eternal beings. No one deserves to be in hell, an actual place, more than any other person who dies rejecting Christ. Some, like Hitchens, are just louder and more vociferous about their rebellion.
Having been told once by a therapist to "believe the behavior" of others while trying to understand them, I've found it curious to see just how adamant Mr. Hitchens was in his atheism. Any time someone devotes considerable energy and passion to promoting an idea, it's a sure bet they take it seriously. When the object of such passion is to DENY something, it seems axiomatic that they consider that object to be powerful and, possibly, threatening.
If it's simple nonsense, which he reportedly disdained, why bother with it at all? The obvious answer is, as he himself affirmed, that religion is an undeniable force in society, throughout human history, and geography. He found it troublesome in the extreme that so many have, allegedly, been so duped by so pervasive and pernicious a concept as religion, in all its forms. Thus, it apparently was a significant aim of his life to denounce it emphatically and often, not only in print but also in live debates.
A salient irony, is that his own brother, Peter Hitchens, is a professing Christian.
I find it nearly admirable, yet certainly sad, that a mortal human being can be so very sure that there is no supernatural or spiritual dimension to life at all. How does he know? Most likely, he would ask me just how do I claim to know.
But the certainty is that this is a singular and mutually exclusive case of truth claims. Both cannot be right.
Mr. Hitchens has stepped over the threshold, and now he knows for sure.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074866/Christopher-Hitchens-dead-Writer-dies-aged-62.html#ixzz1gi0K2Ibd
Friday, December 9, 2011
Holiday Correspondence
Yesterday my e-mail inbox contained a cute 'elf' animated greeting from a friend. Today, this same inbox brings unhappy tidings, courtesty of OneMillionMoms.com.
Excerpt follows:
"Macy's has fired a Christian woman for refusing to violate her religious beliefs. Her offense? She prevented a man dressed as a woman from entering the women's dressing room.
According to Liberty Counsel, Natalie Johnson says she saw the young man walk out of the women's fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a "female." Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl's clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals.
The group argued with expletives that Macy's is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy's is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.
Johnson's boss referred her to Macy's LGBT policy which allows "transgender" people to change in any dressing room they want.
The manager demanded that she comply with the LGBT policies or lose her job. Johnson refused to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs and was terminated from her job.
Macy's has essentially opened women's dressing rooms to every man. The LGBT agenda has become the theater of the absurd.
TAKE ACTION
Email Macy's President Terry Lundgren and urge him to immediately apologize to Natalie, reinstate her position with Macy's and put safeguards in place to protect women customers from men who would enter their dressing areas.
IMPORTANT! Personally call Macy's headquarters at 513-579-7000 and express your outrage at this injustice to female employees and customers.
Other numbers to call:
Jim Sluzewski, Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications - 513-579-7764
Macy's Media Relations - Julie Strider, 646-429-5213
Sincerely,
Monica Cole, Director
OneMillionMoms.com"
Having just spent a pleasant several hours with a friend at Macy's in the Chicago Loop on Sunday, this was not a welcome bulletin. I'm including the response I sent below, just to be "on the record", as we used to say back in J-school.
Dear President Lundgren:
This past Sunday I enjoyed a wonderful few hours shopping with a friend at your Chicago State Street Macy’s location, a site I had long enjoyed as a resident growing up in the northwest Chicago suburbs. I was one of many loyal shoppers, and a former Marshall Field’s Woodfield employee, who was saddened by the passing of the Field’s era, but who continues to happily shop Macy’s. In fact, I found some wonderful bargains this past Sunday at the downtown Macy’s. It was a great day.
Therefore, I was stunned and confused to receive an e-mail reporting that one of your employees has been fired for attempting to keep an allegedly transgendered male customer from re-entering the women’s fitting rooms. I include an excerpt of this account below:
“Macy's has fired a Christian woman for refusing to violate her religious beliefs. Her offense? She prevented a man dressed as a woman from entering the women's dressing room.
According to Liberty Counsel, Natalie Johnson says she saw the young man walk out of the women's fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a "female." Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl's clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals.
The group argued with expletives that Macy's is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy's is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.
Johnson's boss referred her to Macy's LGBT policy which allows "transgender" people to change in any dressing room they want.”
The organization that forwarded this account included an e-mail template with which to communicate to you. However, this issue is important enough to me that I first wanted to ascertain directly from Macy’s whether this account is, in fact true; and, second, to take the trouble to communicate personally.
I sincerely hope that the reference to the Macy’s LGBT policy is inaccurate, but I count on you to give a truthful response. Should this report be true, I will be extremely disappointed, both by your treatment of your employee, Natalie Johnson, and by the direction of the relevant corporate policies that indicate Macy’s is forsaking the natural family customer base upon which Macy’s storied retail history has been built. If this is the ethos behind the Macy name, the ubiquitous red star logo, and the legendary Thanksgiving Day parade, I will be beyond disappointed.
Furthermore, I could not in good conscience continue to be a Macy’s customer and am willing to demonstrate this by mailing you my current Macy’s credit card, including the “Thanks for Sharing” sticker for the benefit program for which I just re-enrolled, to the address below:
Terry J. Lundgren, President
Macy's
7 West Seventh Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
I have just called both your Primary Phone: 513-579-7000 primary phone number, where my call was not answered, as well as your media relations representative, Julie Strider, who also was not available and whose voice mailbox was too full to accept my message.
I look forward to your prompt response and trust that the report I referenced above is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. If not, you will be receiving my credit card and losing my business as long as the corporate policy referenced herein exists.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Holliday
Kateye7hollidays@comcast.net
6537 Glen Abbey Drive
Loves Park, IL 61111
Excerpt follows:
"Macy's has fired a Christian woman for refusing to violate her religious beliefs. Her offense? She prevented a man dressed as a woman from entering the women's dressing room.
According to Liberty Counsel, Natalie Johnson says she saw the young man walk out of the women's fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a "female." Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl's clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals.
The group argued with expletives that Macy's is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy's is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.
Johnson's boss referred her to Macy's LGBT policy which allows "transgender" people to change in any dressing room they want.
The manager demanded that she comply with the LGBT policies or lose her job. Johnson refused to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs and was terminated from her job.
Macy's has essentially opened women's dressing rooms to every man. The LGBT agenda has become the theater of the absurd.
TAKE ACTION
Email Macy's President Terry Lundgren and urge him to immediately apologize to Natalie, reinstate her position with Macy's and put safeguards in place to protect women customers from men who would enter their dressing areas.
IMPORTANT! Personally call Macy's headquarters at 513-579-7000 and express your outrage at this injustice to female employees and customers.
Other numbers to call:
Jim Sluzewski, Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications - 513-579-7764
Macy's Media Relations - Julie Strider, 646-429-5213
Sincerely,
Monica Cole, Director
OneMillionMoms.com"
Having just spent a pleasant several hours with a friend at Macy's in the Chicago Loop on Sunday, this was not a welcome bulletin. I'm including the response I sent below, just to be "on the record", as we used to say back in J-school.
Dear President Lundgren:
This past Sunday I enjoyed a wonderful few hours shopping with a friend at your Chicago State Street Macy’s location, a site I had long enjoyed as a resident growing up in the northwest Chicago suburbs. I was one of many loyal shoppers, and a former Marshall Field’s Woodfield employee, who was saddened by the passing of the Field’s era, but who continues to happily shop Macy’s. In fact, I found some wonderful bargains this past Sunday at the downtown Macy’s. It was a great day.
Therefore, I was stunned and confused to receive an e-mail reporting that one of your employees has been fired for attempting to keep an allegedly transgendered male customer from re-entering the women’s fitting rooms. I include an excerpt of this account below:
“Macy's has fired a Christian woman for refusing to violate her religious beliefs. Her offense? She prevented a man dressed as a woman from entering the women's dressing room.
According to Liberty Counsel, Natalie Johnson says she saw the young man walk out of the women's fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a "female." Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl's clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals.
The group argued with expletives that Macy's is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy's is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.
Johnson's boss referred her to Macy's LGBT policy which allows "transgender" people to change in any dressing room they want.”
The organization that forwarded this account included an e-mail template with which to communicate to you. However, this issue is important enough to me that I first wanted to ascertain directly from Macy’s whether this account is, in fact true; and, second, to take the trouble to communicate personally.
I sincerely hope that the reference to the Macy’s LGBT policy is inaccurate, but I count on you to give a truthful response. Should this report be true, I will be extremely disappointed, both by your treatment of your employee, Natalie Johnson, and by the direction of the relevant corporate policies that indicate Macy’s is forsaking the natural family customer base upon which Macy’s storied retail history has been built. If this is the ethos behind the Macy name, the ubiquitous red star logo, and the legendary Thanksgiving Day parade, I will be beyond disappointed.
Furthermore, I could not in good conscience continue to be a Macy’s customer and am willing to demonstrate this by mailing you my current Macy’s credit card, including the “Thanks for Sharing” sticker for the benefit program for which I just re-enrolled, to the address below:
Terry J. Lundgren, President
Macy's
7 West Seventh Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
I have just called both your Primary Phone: 513-579-7000 primary phone number, where my call was not answered, as well as your media relations representative, Julie Strider, who also was not available and whose voice mailbox was too full to accept my message.
I look forward to your prompt response and trust that the report I referenced above is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. If not, you will be receiving my credit card and losing my business as long as the corporate policy referenced herein exists.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Holliday
Kateye7hollidays@comcast.net
6537 Glen Abbey Drive
Loves Park, IL 61111
Sunday, September 11, 2011
SNAPSHOT- TEN YEARS ON: 9-11-11
THEN:
I was at home, most likely in the kitchen of our previous house; we moved into this one in 2003. My older children were at school. The ages of all five on that date were 12, 10, 7, and 3, while the youngest was 10 months old. I was unaware that the world was changing until my husband called me from his office and told me, “I think we are under attack. Turn on the TV.”
Several minutes later, I was on the phone with a friend…we were both agape in our respective homes, monopolized by the real-time, raw footage playing before us on our TVs. I remember it was hard to think at all. Time seemed frozen. The kids were somewhere in the house, probably not far from me, but I wasn’t attending to them. Alina, now 17, remembers playing with her Madeline doll and not understanding why I didn’t seem to hear her.
“There’s goes the second tower,” I remember Susan saying on the phone. Sure enough, as if in suspended animation, the by-now-inevitable implosion played across the screen.
I remember being at work when the Challenger shuttle blew up in the late 1980s. I remember being sent home from school early in first grade when President Kennedy was shot dead. But this was a different order of magnitude.
NOW:
10:37 p.m.
My children are 22, 20, 17, 13, and 10. The oldest is out with a friend, the second is asleep in preparation for his 5am start time for work in the morning. The third is collecting her school work for the start of a new week tomorrow. The fourth and fifth are talking about what it must have been like 10 years ago, when she was 1 and he was 3, wondering why Mom was riveted to the TV screen. Last night, we were with my parents and 25 others, celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary. A decade earlier, we were at the same restaurant celebrating their 50th.
Tonight, my husband and I have lately returned from a cookout with an adult growth group from our church. Minutes ago, I finished grading Cecily’s Easy Grammar homework and entered her weekly average score on her Grade Logue.
This morning I was at church, listening as a man on the platform read out the speech that had been given by President George W. Bush in the aftermath 10 years ago. The image of the American flag, and various images from 9-11-01 were projected on the walls, succeeded some minutes later by the hymn and praise chorus lyrics we sing Sunday by Sunday. The principles expounded in the sermon that followed were true 10 years ago and are true today. They will always be true because they are transcendent and timeless.
But our collective consciousness is irretrievably altered, and in a way without precedent.
MEDIA SNIPPETS:
• I was impressed by the immensity of the new 9-11 memorial waterfall captured in broadcast and internet coverage. President and Mrs. Obama, and former President and Mrs. Bush looked tiny in comparison.
• With some surprise, I listened and watched President Obama read Psalm 46 at the remembrance ceremony at the Pentagon this morning. That was part of this morning’s reality. Less than a year ago, and probably again next week, there will be renewed babble about the (im)propriety of building a Muslim “community center” several hundred feet from Ground Zero.
• I was actually awed as I listened to Vice President Biden speak about the losses suffered, and the smelted resolve of Americans as a result of the 9-11 attacks. Rarely have I seen or heard a message, on any topic, put across with so much passion, power, eloquence, and strength under control. It changed my opinion of him.
• It was unexpected to me to see shots from around the world showing people of other nations paying tribute to the losses suffered by the US that day. I remember one photo caption described how a fire brigade from Clerkenwell, somewhere in London, stood at attention…not much more than a dozen, but they all stood straight and somber.
I was at home, most likely in the kitchen of our previous house; we moved into this one in 2003. My older children were at school. The ages of all five on that date were 12, 10, 7, and 3, while the youngest was 10 months old. I was unaware that the world was changing until my husband called me from his office and told me, “I think we are under attack. Turn on the TV.”
Several minutes later, I was on the phone with a friend…we were both agape in our respective homes, monopolized by the real-time, raw footage playing before us on our TVs. I remember it was hard to think at all. Time seemed frozen. The kids were somewhere in the house, probably not far from me, but I wasn’t attending to them. Alina, now 17, remembers playing with her Madeline doll and not understanding why I didn’t seem to hear her.
“There’s goes the second tower,” I remember Susan saying on the phone. Sure enough, as if in suspended animation, the by-now-inevitable implosion played across the screen.
I remember being at work when the Challenger shuttle blew up in the late 1980s. I remember being sent home from school early in first grade when President Kennedy was shot dead. But this was a different order of magnitude.
NOW:
10:37 p.m.
My children are 22, 20, 17, 13, and 10. The oldest is out with a friend, the second is asleep in preparation for his 5am start time for work in the morning. The third is collecting her school work for the start of a new week tomorrow. The fourth and fifth are talking about what it must have been like 10 years ago, when she was 1 and he was 3, wondering why Mom was riveted to the TV screen. Last night, we were with my parents and 25 others, celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary. A decade earlier, we were at the same restaurant celebrating their 50th.
Tonight, my husband and I have lately returned from a cookout with an adult growth group from our church. Minutes ago, I finished grading Cecily’s Easy Grammar homework and entered her weekly average score on her Grade Logue.
This morning I was at church, listening as a man on the platform read out the speech that had been given by President George W. Bush in the aftermath 10 years ago. The image of the American flag, and various images from 9-11-01 were projected on the walls, succeeded some minutes later by the hymn and praise chorus lyrics we sing Sunday by Sunday. The principles expounded in the sermon that followed were true 10 years ago and are true today. They will always be true because they are transcendent and timeless.
But our collective consciousness is irretrievably altered, and in a way without precedent.
MEDIA SNIPPETS:
• I was impressed by the immensity of the new 9-11 memorial waterfall captured in broadcast and internet coverage. President and Mrs. Obama, and former President and Mrs. Bush looked tiny in comparison.
• With some surprise, I listened and watched President Obama read Psalm 46 at the remembrance ceremony at the Pentagon this morning. That was part of this morning’s reality. Less than a year ago, and probably again next week, there will be renewed babble about the (im)propriety of building a Muslim “community center” several hundred feet from Ground Zero.
• I was actually awed as I listened to Vice President Biden speak about the losses suffered, and the smelted resolve of Americans as a result of the 9-11 attacks. Rarely have I seen or heard a message, on any topic, put across with so much passion, power, eloquence, and strength under control. It changed my opinion of him.
• It was unexpected to me to see shots from around the world showing people of other nations paying tribute to the losses suffered by the US that day. I remember one photo caption described how a fire brigade from Clerkenwell, somewhere in London, stood at attention…not much more than a dozen, but they all stood straight and somber.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Get a Clue
I have just looked at a published photograph, and I am angry. I'm not 'teed off;' I'm mad, and I take exception to the point of view that has provoked my wrath.
The photo I refer to appears in roughly the middle of the September 10, 2011 edition of WORLD magazine, which arrived in my mailbox today. I have been a faithful WORLD subscriber for more than 15 years and was grateful to discover it after I could no longer stomach the flagrant bias of my previous news source, Newseek. So, one of the the lenses through which I digest news of the day is the editorial perspective of WORLD. Measured against the only truly inviolable plumb line, Scripture, I have never known of WORLD to steer me wrong. It's a trusted source of mine.
The cover story, and much of the internal copy, is devoted to the tenth anniversary of 9/11...a milestone that gives me pause. But my reaction to a two-page photo of one of the unthinkable explosions left me agape.
It's not that I hadn't seen similar images before. But it's been a while. It's too psychologically painful, and probably impossible, to sustain 'top of mind awareness' of such horrors, ten years on.
But my ire is provoked not by the fiery images of the attacks, nor even by the news that more than 1,000 victims still have not been identified by physical remains.
No, what I'm mad about is the still-trumpeted view, held by many--including one of my own sons--that "9/11 was an inside job." Even last night, in a media stupor, I scanned through a dozen or so online comments purporting to prove that the whole catastrophe was orchestrated by the US government and the Bush administration.
I used to scornfully dismiss such blatherers as kindred spirits to those who doubt the veracity of the Holocaust or Neil Armstrong's moonwalk. The United States is held in thrall by demented despots who would dare to dream up and effect profound terror. Right.
But now it's 10 years later and three--almost four--Arab countries in the grip of bona fide tyrants have been turned upside down. If memory serves, Saddam Hussein was not only captured and hanged, but eyewitnesses reported that the force of the drop actually caused him to be decapitated.
Let's not forget Tunisia. Wikipedia.com sums their recent history up as follows: "The country was governed by the authoritarian regime of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali from 1987 to 2011 before he fled during the Tunisian revolution. Tunisia,... had suffered corruption benefiting the former president's family.[7]"
Also figuring prominently in the so-called Arab Spring is the dethroning of long-time Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The last image I saw of him showed him confined to a hospital bed, within a fenced cell inside an Egyptian courtroom. How far they fall.
And, perhaps before the end of this week, Moammar Gadaffi, Libya's chest-pounding megalomaniac, may well be captured.
I enumerate these erstwhile heads of state as examples of those who not only might have, but actually did tyrannise and terrorize their own citizens.
No matter what your politics are, I am confident to say that no such character has ever occupied the White House. Have they all been paragons of statesmanship? Clearly not. Has every president been known for foibles and stood on feet of clay? Without a doubt.
But it is heinous to me that many give credence to the idea that 9/11 was a US government-driven catastrophe. Think about it. The United States, for all its grave ills and declensions, is still the singular nation to which more people flee than any other. The history, presence, and ethos of America do not support the idea of a government bent on self-destruction. Some have asserted that hatred and jealousy of the US was one of the factors prompting the 9/11 attacks. How could such motives be imputed to those who govern this country and already enjoy its undeniable blessings?
I could go on, but allow me to conclude with another observation that should be axiomatic. Were it true that the US government, or even rogue factions within the government, was behind the 9/11 terror, this nation would be a very different one than it is now. Terrorists terrorize, and while the current US domestic scene today is troubled with weather disasters, it is not quailing in the grip of tyranny.
Satan never succeeds so easily in his deception than when mankind willfully denies pervasive truth.
The photo I refer to appears in roughly the middle of the September 10, 2011 edition of WORLD magazine, which arrived in my mailbox today. I have been a faithful WORLD subscriber for more than 15 years and was grateful to discover it after I could no longer stomach the flagrant bias of my previous news source, Newseek. So, one of the the lenses through which I digest news of the day is the editorial perspective of WORLD. Measured against the only truly inviolable plumb line, Scripture, I have never known of WORLD to steer me wrong. It's a trusted source of mine.
The cover story, and much of the internal copy, is devoted to the tenth anniversary of 9/11...a milestone that gives me pause. But my reaction to a two-page photo of one of the unthinkable explosions left me agape.
It's not that I hadn't seen similar images before. But it's been a while. It's too psychologically painful, and probably impossible, to sustain 'top of mind awareness' of such horrors, ten years on.
But my ire is provoked not by the fiery images of the attacks, nor even by the news that more than 1,000 victims still have not been identified by physical remains.
No, what I'm mad about is the still-trumpeted view, held by many--including one of my own sons--that "9/11 was an inside job." Even last night, in a media stupor, I scanned through a dozen or so online comments purporting to prove that the whole catastrophe was orchestrated by the US government and the Bush administration.
I used to scornfully dismiss such blatherers as kindred spirits to those who doubt the veracity of the Holocaust or Neil Armstrong's moonwalk. The United States is held in thrall by demented despots who would dare to dream up and effect profound terror. Right.
But now it's 10 years later and three--almost four--Arab countries in the grip of bona fide tyrants have been turned upside down. If memory serves, Saddam Hussein was not only captured and hanged, but eyewitnesses reported that the force of the drop actually caused him to be decapitated.
Let's not forget Tunisia. Wikipedia.com sums their recent history up as follows: "The country was governed by the authoritarian regime of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali from 1987 to 2011 before he fled during the Tunisian revolution. Tunisia,... had suffered corruption benefiting the former president's family.[7]"
Also figuring prominently in the so-called Arab Spring is the dethroning of long-time Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The last image I saw of him showed him confined to a hospital bed, within a fenced cell inside an Egyptian courtroom. How far they fall.
And, perhaps before the end of this week, Moammar Gadaffi, Libya's chest-pounding megalomaniac, may well be captured.
I enumerate these erstwhile heads of state as examples of those who not only might have, but actually did tyrannise and terrorize their own citizens.
No matter what your politics are, I am confident to say that no such character has ever occupied the White House. Have they all been paragons of statesmanship? Clearly not. Has every president been known for foibles and stood on feet of clay? Without a doubt.
But it is heinous to me that many give credence to the idea that 9/11 was a US government-driven catastrophe. Think about it. The United States, for all its grave ills and declensions, is still the singular nation to which more people flee than any other. The history, presence, and ethos of America do not support the idea of a government bent on self-destruction. Some have asserted that hatred and jealousy of the US was one of the factors prompting the 9/11 attacks. How could such motives be imputed to those who govern this country and already enjoy its undeniable blessings?
I could go on, but allow me to conclude with another observation that should be axiomatic. Were it true that the US government, or even rogue factions within the government, was behind the 9/11 terror, this nation would be a very different one than it is now. Terrorists terrorize, and while the current US domestic scene today is troubled with weather disasters, it is not quailing in the grip of tyranny.
Satan never succeeds so easily in his deception than when mankind willfully denies pervasive truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)