On finding harmony in Facebook relationships...or not

I'll start with the obvious:  there are many, many different opinions.  If you look hard enough, each and every one of them has found expression, at one point or another, on the internet.  And most of them are expressed regularly on Facebook.

This can be a good thing, but it can also be a terrible thing.  It's good, of course, in that you are passionate about your opinions.  You should be.  And it can be terrible in that when opinions are not expressed in a way that is uplifting, friendships and relationships can be destroyed permanently.  (Long-time readers of this blog--if you're still around after yet another prolonged hiatus--may recall my chronicling of the end of a friendship thanks to this sort of behavior.)

It is about the dangers that I want to opine today.  You see--and this may come as a surprise to, well, absolutely no one--there are people who are unable to express a political opinion without insulting anyone who dares to think differently.  As a supporter of ideas put forth by one Sarah Palin, I've seen that more than once.  I know that people who support President Obama's policies (as, obviously, I don't) have been similarly insulted by others.  (And no, I'm not going to get into which group has received more insults in the past four years.  I honestly don't care.) 


But I write not to bemoan the lack of civility on Facebook.  (I could, but I won't.)  As someone who has friends whom I have met in various and sundry places (such as, for example, playing a now-long-dead internet game show), and wanting to maintain harmony with these friends despite their not sharing my political stances, I have two suggestions, both of which I have already taken for myself:

1.  Start your own political blog.  Then, of course, you can rant to your heart's content, and those who are just as passionate about your viewpoint as you are, or who at least respect you and your opinions, can have a non-Facebook location at which to discuss what you like, or don't, about Candidate X.  This blog has served as such a location for me, allowing me to present my opinions to upwards of 30 people!*

And once you have that set up, you can move on to step 2.  (Or skip to it, as you don't have to have a blog to go to step 2.)

2.  Start a public Facebook page for your blog (or simply your opinions), and move all your political stuff to it.  Why, yes, since you asked, my blog does have such a page, located here.  And yes, almost without fail, I place my political stuff solely on that page these days.  And then friends (or even non-friends) can subscribe to updates from that page if they want, or they can skip it.

But Snowed, doesn't that mean your opinions will be seen by far fewer people?  Who cares.

See, as I said earlier, I want my blog to be uplifting.  I believe it can be so even while being heavily political (and even with a large dose of Palin appreciation).  That is exactly why, on hearing that yesterday's edition of the daily comic strip that adorned the top of this blog for several years used language that did not mesh well with the overtly Christian theme of yesterday's post, I got rid of the comic strip entirely.  I didn't like doing it, as I appreciate its political slant, but if it's going to be a stumbling block, it will have to be seen in places other than my blog, to allow my blog to more toward being more uplifting.

I don't want my blog, or my political opinions, to be a stumbling block for others.  I hope my friends share that attitude.  If you don't--if you can't respect that not everyone is going to agree with you--I will be much quicker in hiding your posts entirely from my page (as I'm sure many have hidden mine).  And I will do that because, from my viewpoint, you are prioritizing your political opinions over your friendships.  I may briefly lament the loss of a relationship, as hiding your posts, to me, is just one step above a full defriending.

I can't put opinions over friendships anymore.  If I am going to be showing godly love to others, then relationships have to come first.  And in this case, I am extremely passionate in wanting everyone to share that viewpoint.

* Yeah, that number is pretty much spot-on.  If nothing else, it keeps me humble.  It is because of those staggering numbers that I refer to myself as a sixth-rate political blogger.**

** I actually did have someone tell me that I was better than a seventh-rate blogger once.***

*** Once.

On Love

Warning:  somewhat long-winded and rambling post ahead.

This post has languished for many weeks as a draft while I figured out how best to express myself.  Please know that it got its start during the Chick-Fil-A brouhaha.  Now, let me say that I'd prefer not to write on the Chick-Fil-A argument.*  Also, I'm sure that not many people want to hear yet another voice added to the cacophony of voices about Chick-Fil-A and gay marriage.**

Unfortunately, this topic seems not to want to go away.  And it shouldn't.  As Christians, we are called to love one another, and too often love is forgotten in the midst of getting ahead, being right, or whatever.  As it happens, I have friends on both sides of the issue that enveloped Chick-Fil-A in July/August, and while I would probably identify more with one side than with the other, I can see both sides of it.

And I'm sick of this.

I'm sick of hearing about some people who applaud Chick-Fil-A for standing up for Christian beliefs while calling gays who want to marry things they would never call anyone to his face.  I don't like seeing people assuming that all gays are automatically pedophiles, or whatever.  (Yes, some say that, apparently.)  Though I am thankful that pretty much every supporter of Chick-Fil-A of whom I know hasn't said that.

I'm also sick of hearing about some people who support gay marriage and who have decided to accuse anyone who believes that gay marriage is wrong of being a bigot, a homophobe, etc.  (Those accusations really aren't hard to find.)  I don't like seeing tweets from liberals, some well-known, others not so much, expressing not just a passing thought but a hope, a fervent desire, if you will, for anyone supporting Chick-Fil-A to die of heart disease soon.  Though I am thankful that pretty much every supporter of gay marriage of whom I know isn't saying these sorts of things.  But some are.

The two questions I see in this issue are the following.  And they both have the same answers.

1.  Are gays going to stop being gay just because some people think they're sinners, going to hell, unnatural, etc.?
2.  Are Christians opposed to gay marriage (obvious disclaimer:  not all are) going to give up their beliefs because some people think they're bigots, haters, etc.?

The answers:

A.  Almost certainly not.
B.  But they are going to get pretty ticked off, and recent history shows that they'll probably do something to antagonize the other side of the argument.  For those in favor of gay marriage, that was to organize the boycott in the first place.  For those in favor of Chick-Fil-A, their response was to sign on with the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day (which came and went while I slowly wrote this thing).
C.  In response to the actions mentioned in B, the other side ramps up whatever they're doing, and so on and so forth.

In preparing for this post, I've read/watched many perspectives on the matter, including those from a somewhat prominent Christian blogger, a somewhat well-known gay activist, a gay Christian, a former Alaska governor, and the daughter of a former presidential candidate and increasingly moderate "Republican".  Some were in favor of the appreciation day, some were in favor of gay marriage, some (I think) were in favor of both, and some were in favor of neither.

So, you will see that by now I have heard all the arguments.  "It's about free speech."  "It's about our rights."  "They favored legislation to kill gays in Africa."  (That one's not true, by the way.)  "They have the right to do whatever with their money."  "Municipalities have no right to deny building permits just because they disagree politically with them."

It's been hashed out enough, I think.

When I originally started writing this post (seven weeks ago***),  I had intended to write about understanding each others' concerns.  There were concerns that believing gay marriage to be wrong might eventually become a thought crime (as it has apparently become in other countries), or that churches would be forced (yes, forced) to marry gays whether or not they agreed with the idea of gay marriage (as has happened in at least one other country).

But I don't think that's the real point anymore.  Not for me, as a Christian, at least.

A friend, in the middle of a long discussion about this, said that the real issue here is perception.  Christians can be as civil as possible in expressing their opinions, but thanks to how others have used their bully pulpits in the past, this is how a lot of gay people will see them:

Tolerance in action.  Or not.  Image courtesy CBC under "Fair Use" clause.)

We are called as Christians to love.  When we are sitting behind a computer screen, or in a group of like-minded people at a restaurant, it is easy to forget that we are to love not just our friends but our enemies.

But Snowed, I don't look at anyone as my enemy!  Good.  How are you treating people with whom you have fundamental disagreements?  Have you ever even had a discussion with someone with whom you have a fundamental disagreement?  It's simpler to avoid that, to be sure.  But avoiding confrontation is not what we are called to do.

We are called to love others.  To do that, we have to get to know others.  And that includes others who have been hurt by the actions and/or words of Christians (possibly even our own).  I mean, just look at that picture again.  To many, this is what Christianity means.  We have to show these people (as well as those who treat others in this way) the true love of Jesus.  It's not going to be easy, and it's not going to be quick.  No, we have years (centuries, in some cases) to overcome.  And yes, as in the case of gay marriage, we won't agree on what all the solutions are. But we have to be willing to have that dialogue, to engage with those who do not look/act/think like we do.  Because He did.

* Anyone who follows my blog knows that I haven't really wanted to write about much of anything for a while.

** "Gee, I wonder what 'Snowed In' has to say about this?" - said by no one, ever.

*** I do have a life that doesn't involve the internet, y'know.

Life's a Tripp premieres tonight

As I posted earlier this year, Bristol Palin has a new reality show entitled Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp, to air on the Lifetime channel.  That show will premiere this evening (June 19) for those, unlike me, who actually receive Lifetime.

Bristol and Tripp Palin.  Image courtesy Zap2It.com under Fair Use clause.

Already, of course, there is controversy over the as-yet-unaired 14-episode series.  Part of this series includes Ms. Palin's confrontation with a Los Angeles-area heckler and hater of her mother, and apparently because Ms. Palin had the audacity to respond to him, he is suing her.  Spare me.  Who started this confrontation again?  Watch and see for yourself.  The heckler starts at 1:44, and almost right out of the gate, he shouts "Your mother's a whore!"  Classy guy.  How dare she stand up to him!


Of course, as I've also pointed out here before, Bristol can take care of herself.  Anyone who has read her blog (which I've linked several times from my Facebook page, but not, I don't believe from here) knows this already.

The show airs tonight at 10/9c on Lifetime, and not only do I recommend you watch it, I recommend that you DVR it (or tape it, if you still live in the 1990s) so that I can see it later.

Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin at Right Online 2012

This weekend the Right Online 2012 conference is going on in Las Vegas.  This is a conference for conservative new-media types and bloggers (even, I suppose sixth-rate ones such as myself).  It features a lot of speakers whom I would love to hear. 

As neither the day job nor the Snowed family budget allow for traveling to Las Vegas for two days, I usually end up missing such events as this.  (Heck, my time budget doesn't even allow for blogging a good portion of the time.)  Thankfully, a lot of the speakers and sessions are streamed online at this page.

I got to see two very good speakers last night in Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin.  Both of them talked about the impact that the "new media" can have; in addition, Governor Palin spoke of the failure of the old media (which isn't a new theme for her, but it still rings true).

And thanks to The Right Scoop, both speeches have already been preserved for posterity.  (Specific links to the individual speeches are here and here.)

Here is Sarah Palin's speech (approximately 35 minutes, and worth it):



And here is Michelle Malkin's speech (approximately 18 minutes, also worth it):

What's important again? Part 3

I have a couple of friends named Danny and Christy, and they may not know it, but they are heroes.  They haven't (as far as I know) done anything earth-shattering, but what they are doing is definitely a lot better than what we see some overexposed celebrities doing on the news, or TMZ, or wherever.  And it's even better than...wait for it...writing a sixth-rate quasi-political blog (which hasn't been updated in about seven weeks until this entry).

See, Danny and Christy have two wonderful children.  One of them, their daughter, has Down syndrome, and she had some serious health issues that had to be resolved very early in her life.  If I were meeting Danny and Christy for the first time, I would probably think, "That's great that they have sacrificed to raise that sweet girl and keep her healthy...but they needn't do more than that." 

But they are.

Danny and Christy are in the process, through an organization called Reece's Rainbow, of adopting another little girl, about the same age as their daughter, who also has Down syndrome.  The little girl, Juliette, is currently living in an orphanage in eastern Europe, and Danny and Christy would love to bring her to live with them.

Juliette, who hopefully will be Danny and Christy's daughter soon.  (Image courtesy Reece's Rainbow)

The only hangup at the moment, as far as I can tell, is money.  It costs a lot of money to bring a child home from an orphanage in eastern Europe.  Thus, Danny and Christy are raising money through their blog, Bringing Juliette Home.  They need something like $30,000, and so far they have raised about a sixth of that.

If you are reading this and feel so inclined, I hope you will head over to Danny and Christy's blog and donate to help them adopt Juliette.

And Danny and Christy, if you happen to read this:  you truly are heroes.

Happy belated birthday, Trig

As most Palinistas are aware, yesterday was Trig Palin's 4th birthday.  (And, as everyone who has accepted reality over really strange conspiracy theories knows, Trig is the son of former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin.)

Every time I have ever been around a child with Down Syndrome, he or she has always been one of the sweetest people I have ever met.  I have friends who have been raising a DS child over the past year and a half, and whenever I see her, I have seen the most loving child who very often has a big smile on her face.  Children with Down Syndrome are truly a blessing, though they are also a challenge.  My friends, as well as the Palins, have truly risen to that challenge, and for that they are to be commended.

As readers of my blog may remember (if they haven't all gone somewhere else that updates more often than this particular blog) that last year, Trig's birthday brought about some of the nastiest, hate-filled writing I have ever seen.  Thankfully, it also brought out a firestorm of condemnation toward such hatred, as I blogged the very next day after the last piece I just linked.

I think Ron DeVito may be correct when he posted the following yesterday in his birthday greeting to Trig:  "How you react to him – and Gov. Palin as his mother – tells the whole world who and what you are as a person."

(Image courtesy Palin Promotions under Fair Use clause)

 

And so today I wish nothing but good things for the Palin family, particularly Trig.  Happy birthday, Trig.  May your fifth year be filled with blessings and happiness.

Palin on Today: what to watch for

Now that, as was plastered all over the net today, pretty much anyone following the news in this country knows that Sarah Palin will be hosting the Today Show tomorrow, here are a few things I expect to see during the broadcast.  (You might call this a drinking game, but as this is a morning show, I do not recommend drinking any adult beverages, especially if you are planning to leave for work after watching.)

• Some mention of Katie Couric, who will be guest-hosting some other morning show at the same time.
• Some mention of Tina Fey, who originated an infamous quote about Russia that many people think Sarah Palin said, and whose quote was incorrectly attributed to Governor Palin in a Politico article just today.  Really?
• Some mention of the four men still contending for the Republican nomination for President.  And I'm sure Matt Lauer will ask some snide question to the effect of whether she is plotting to steal the nomination in an open convention.
• The phrase "you betcha" will be spoken almost certainly by someone who is not Sarah Palin.
• The word "rogue" will appear in the first five minutes of Governor Palin's appearance.
• Trig and Tripp will both be mentioned multiple times...as they should be; Sarah Palin is a proud mother and grandmother.
• And, of course, there will be some mention of President Obama.  I wouldn't be surprised to hear some version of the phrase "failed policies".

Mostly, though, I think viewers will see a very easygoing Sarah Palin who does not match the caricature that has been imprinted on too many people's minds.

Now, here are a few things that you will not see, though they will undoubtedly happen:

• A lot of people with nothing better to do will post innocuous things Sarah Palin says during the broadcast on Twitter and find some way, logical or not, to attack her for it.
• People will complain that she was even allowed on "a real network".  Bonus points if you find complaints referencing "Faux News", which is, as you know, the peak of originality for some of these haters.
• I'm sure Ms. Couric will have something to say about Governor Palin.  But I know I won't see it, as I have no desire to allow Ms. Couric's show into my home.  I'll watch next week, when Robin Roberts is back.  Maybe.

All in all, I'm looking forward to watching.  See the preview for yourself (without having to endure the general ugliness of the YouTube comments):

Useless celebrity of the month: Spike Lee

For many months now, I have been moving away from my previously much more frequent posts labeled "useless celebrity".  I had wondered, in a somewhat recent entry under this label, whether spotlighting celebrities for saying ill-informed things was rewarding them for their behavior; indeed, I didn't even name the celebrity who inspired that particular post, as he probably could have used the attention, and I did not wish to give any to him.

However, when a celebrity crosses the lines of decency and honor, they need to be called out and shamed, and, in my opinion, people who agree with me ought to decide not to patronize any of the celebrity's work until he apologizes for what he has done.

I refer here to Spike Lee, who, as many people know (and many more don't), retweeted what was purported to be the address of George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin.

(Aside:  I am not going to address anything further about the killing in this post.)

Notwithstanding that tweeting anyone's address is a violation of Twitter policies, and also notwithstanding that this would have been little other than inciting of confrontations even if it were Mr. Zimmerman's address, Mr. Lee (and many others) retweeted an address belonging to people entirely unrelated.

Per Fox News:

An elderly Florida couple have been forced to move into a hotel after their home address was wrongly tweeted as belonging to the man who shot teen Trayvon Martin.

The tweets were traced back to a man in California and the address was also reportedly retweeted by director Spike Lee to his almost 250,000 followers.

The couple, aged 70 and 72, have been harassed with hate mail, been hassled by media and had scared neighbors questioning them since the tweet, their son Chip Humble told the Orlando Sentinel.

Fearful for their safety, and hoping to escape the spotlight, the couple have temporarily moved to a hotel.

Well, at least there's a good reason for all this:

The confusion seems to stem from the fact the woman's son is named William George Zimmerman and he lived briefly at the address in 1995.

Way to do your research before doing something utterly stupid, unnamed California tweeter.  But I'm certain that once confronted with the error, the originator corrected it, right?

When William Zimmerman pleaded with the man who tweeted the address, the man responded, "Black power all day. No justice, no peace" along with an obscenity.

Oh.  Spike Lee, by the way, has had nothing to say about this in days.  Certainly he has not apologized to the terrorized couple as of this writing.  Now, he may have been distracted by the racial tweets some have directed at him (which, just to be clear, I do not condone in any way), but I think he owes something to this couple.  Perhaps seven figures' worth of something.

And until he makes this right (if he can), he is deserving of little more than scorn.  And maybe a little pity.

Update 3/28:  Spike Lee has apologized (hat tip to Jim Treacher).  But is it too little, too late?  I know the McClain family has already lawyered up, so I'd be surprised if this story ends here.

Update 3/29:   And he's settled with the McClains.  Good.  I'm glad he did.  I'm not so thrilled, however, at the original idea of tweeting out the address of anyone, killer or not.  And Mr. Lee is now paying for such stupidity.

Bristol gets it: calling out hatred is not a one-way street

Bristol Palin, in only the third entry in her new blog, nails it in calling out President Obama for his selective treatment of women who have been publicly insulted.

Now, as I have previously said on my Facebook page, I am absolutely not excusing what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke.  Calling people out for their double standards and/or selective outrage does not excuse the person on my side who says something uncalled for.

Regardless, I think Bristol Palin has a singular vantage point to make her point, as she does in her post entitled "Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call?" (which, for those who have forgotten, refers to President Obama's call of consolation, or something, to Ms. Fluke):

“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” you said.  “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture.  I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.

But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung.  Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family.  He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.”  (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I’ve found in God after my past – very public — mistakes.)

Now, unless I'm quite mistaken, Miss Palin, despite her status as the daughter of a public figure, was not herself a public figure when the insults against her began.  (Obviously that has changed at this point.)  Ms. Fluke, on the other hand, put herself out in front of a faux Congressional hearing and said what she said, and I see a huge difference there.

Again:  none of this excuses any of the comments made about either one.  As I have also acknowledged on my Facebook page, I used the word "slut" once on this blog, in reference to a celebrity, and I regret that statement.

And I do know that then-candidate Barack Obama basically said that Bristol's then-pregnancy should be kept off-limits.  And that is good.  However, a lot of people who revere President Obama totally disregarded that statement from him then, and, really, for the four years since. 

Let's face it:  Bristol Palin has received a lot of hatred ever since John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate.  Most of this hatred has been because of either her mother or her child.  And she is right to call on the president to make a statement about the insults she has received, and to call for civility toward all women, or, really, all people.  As she says:  "After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals."  Well stated.  And well worth a read.

Game Change: a hit piece masquerading as truth

Tonight, HBO will air what they believe to be a blockbuster-type movie, "Game Change".  As most people know by now, "Game Change" the movie ignores well over two-thirds of what was covered in the original book.

The original book had a fascinating portion about the 2008 Democratic presidential primary season, covering the implosion of John Edwards, the absolute mismanagement of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and the rise to prominence of Barack Obama.  There were literally hundreds of pages of material detailing how, for example, even when Senator Clinton's campaign appeared to be doing well, it was still reeling.  There were several moments when the Obama campaign was stressing over issues as well.  Brought to life on the small screen, it would truly have been must-see TV*.

But no, HBO and the makers of "Game Change" decided that the portion of the book that needed to be brought to life the most was the portion involving Sarah Palin.  And why not; the conventional wisdom when this movie was commissioned was that Governor Palin would be a huge factor, if not the front-runner, in the 2012 Republican presidential primary.  And HBO planned for maximum exposure for their movie, scheduling it to air the Saturday after Super Tuesday, when, they were sure, Governor Palin would have had a huge day.

And why?  Because they planned to kill her campaign with this movie.

This movie, as has been reported in many places, showcases a fictional version of Sarah Palin who couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted her the C and the A.  Gone is the fighter who took on corruption in both parties, instead, you can find, as John Nolte discovered (to his disgust), some "cold, snippy, power-hungry and cruel" two-dimensional character who "is 'flipping' fascinated to discover Germany was our enemy during the world war", who "had no idea in 2008 that England has a prime minister", and who was "shocked to learn Saddam Hussein wasn't behind 9/11, [needed] a flashcard to memorize what NAFTA is and [had] never heard of the Federal Reserve."

Monica Crowley had little good to say about it or its network either:

The film centers on Palin's selection as John McCain's VP and what a "huge mistake" it was, because, you know, she was such a Big Dummy. There's a brief mention of how McCain actually went into the lead over Obama by about 5 points after her selection and dynamite convention speech. But other that that, she's cast as the sole reason McCain lost. (Never mind that McCain was a terrible candidate, wouldn't go full-frontal against Obama, and that the entire global economy was collapsing. No, it was Palin who single-handedly lost the election for the ticket.)

Her conservative values are mocked, from her belief in limited government to her faith in God. Each time she prayed in the film, the leftwing elites around me in the theater laughed at her. But really, they were laughing at US. This is what they really think of us. This is what Obama thinks of us: "bitter clingers," and all that.

But who is really surprised by this type of treatment given Sarah Palin by HBO?  This is a movie in which the principal stars and executives have given over $200,000 to Democratic causes and absolutely nothing to Republicans.  This is a movie with an executive producer (you might have heard of him...his name is Tom Hanks) refused even to take a copy of a much truer movie about Sarah Palin entitled "The Undefeated".  Oh, and this is indeed the same Tom Hanks who can currently be heard narrating a Obama 2012 campaign video.  Certainly he would produce an impartial movie about his preferred candidate's potential opposition, right?  Don't make me laugh.

But I think the best response to this work of fiction came from SarahPAC:



Bottom line:  "Game Change" on HBO is not worth your time or attention.  Give it a pass, and while you're at it, you might evaluate whether HBO is truly geared toward someone on your side of the political aisle.

p.s.  If you have not seen "The Undefeated", you can check it out tomorrow night on ReelzChannel, or you can buy it right here**:




And, for those interested in the original "Game Change" book, you can purchase that here**:



* I hope I can use that phrase without running afoul of any trademarks.  I know NBC Thursday nights certainly don't deserve it anymore.

** As with all Amazon links on this blog, I get a pittance from all sales.  PLEASE BUY SOMETHING!