If you aren’t, this item might take care of that. A friend E-mailed me this bit of information:

Each year the staff at Beloit College in Wisconsin puts together a list to try to give the faculty a sense of the mind set of this year’s incoming freshmen. Here’s this year’s list:

• The people who are starting college this fall across the nation were born in 1985.
• They are too young to remember the space shuttle blowing up.
• Their lifetime has always included AIDS.
• Bottle caps have always been screw off and plastic.
• The CD was introduced the year they were born.
• They have always had an answering machine.
• They have always had cable.
• They cannot fathom not having a remote control.
• Jay Leno has always been on the Tonight Show.
• Popcorn has always been cooked in the microwave.
• They never took a swim and thought about Jaws.
• They can’t imagine what hard contact lenses are.
• They don’t know who Mork was or where he was from.
• They never heard: “Where’s the Beef?”, “I’d walk a mile for a Camel”, or “de plane Boss, de plane”.
• They do not care who shot J. R. and have no idea who J. R. even is.
• McDonald’s never came in Styrofoam containers.
• They don’t have a clue how to use a typewriter.

Wow. Just…wow.

The controversy over the photo of flag-draped coffins containing the remains of U.S. troops was one of the feature segments on Friday’s “Today” show.

Host Matt Lauer interviewed Amy Katz, a friend of photographer Tami Silicio, the photographer who was fired after the photo she took appeared in Sunday’s Seattle Times. Katz is the one who sent the photo to the newspaper.

Katz, naturally trying to justify her friend’s right to take the photo and the motive behind it, claimed that Silicio wanted families to know that their loved ones’ remains were being treated with respect and to give them comfort.

A 1991 Department of Defense policy prohibits photographing the preparation of bodies. Lauer pointed out that the justification for the rule banning such photographs is that it protects the privacy of the families. Katz’s answer: “The military families are not having a choice. It’s not like anyone is going to them and saying, ‘Do you want these to be shown or not?’”

Of course, it’s not like Katz went to any of them and asked if they wanted the photo published in the Seattle Times, either, is it? How does her action give them this choice? It’s the same thing!

Asked about her reason for forwarding the image to the newspaper, Katz explained: “Up until the time I saw the photo, I knew that there was a conflict in Iraq. But when I saw that photo, I realized there was a war going on. I had no idea.”

Exactly where has she been for the past year? I’ve known there was a war. I’ve known that our soldiers have been dying in battle. And I didn’t need this one photo to “enlighten” me. No one else I know is walking around thinking that we haven’t been at war and paying a price for it.

Let’s be realistic, people.

Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, who served in the Navy during the Vietnam War, said photos of caskets coming home from Vietnam had a tremendous impact on the way Americans came to view that war. ”As people began to see the reality of it and see the 55,000 people who were killed coming back in body bags, they became more and more upset by the war,” he said. ”(The ban) is not about privacy. This is about trying to keep the country from facing the reality of war.’

Why do we need to see the bodies being prepared for the return home to realize the reality of war or to grieve for our troops? We don’t. If you want to honor the troops, publish the photos of the soldiers. Create a section of the local newspaper and show the photos of every one of them lost since the war began. Show us the faces of the troops, not the coffins. If you really want to honor them, tell us who they were, not how many bodies there were. I can count on my own.

Why do I need to see the bodies coming home before the families of the soldiers themselves? I don’t. I owe the soldiers a debt of thanks for defending my way of life. But I don’t need to see pictures of rows of caskets to remind me of that. Those who do need to stop for a moment and think about their priorities.

What is so reprehensible about this controversy is that most of the people calling for these photos to be made public aren’t trying to honor the soldiers; they’re trying to exploit the deaths to forward their own agenda by trying to parade the dead as a call to end a conflict they don’t agree with. It’s certainly an effective argument. But it also cheapens the sacrifice the soldiers have made by reducing the individuals to a political statement.

There’s nothing wrong with remembering our fallen soldiers. There’s something very wrong with using them as pawns.

Former NFL star Pat Tillman was one of the latest troops killed in the War in Iraq. He actually died in Afghanistan, but by now, you know this.

You probably have heard a great deal of coverage of this single death. You have unquestionably heard more about Tillman than almost all of the other soldiers who have paid the same price before him.

Many praise Tillman as a hero because he gave up a multi-million dollar NFL contract to serve his country in a time of war. If it says a great deal about him that he would have such a bright and promising future only to set it aside to answer a higher call of duty, it perhaps says even more about us if we are somehow shocked that he was any more vulnerable there than any of the other thousands of men and women fighting for their country.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to diminish Tillman’s sacrifice in any way. But his story is one of hundreds that came to an unfortunate and untimely end in a foreign land. The fact that he was a star athlete shouldn’t make him stand out above any of the others, and we must not diminish their memory in any way. For no matter how much he had here at home, he paid exactly the same price all of our fallen soldiers have paid: the highest one of all.

The next time you mourn this single soldier, ask yourself how you would feel if you were the mother or father of the soldier who died just before Tillman. Where are their tributes?

Coming soon to a store near you (if it’s not already there): the technology that takes the “guilt” out of watching a movie with sex, violence or profanity, by simply removing the content. RCA’s Clearplay DVD player, selling for just $70, can be programmed to automatically edit out such scenes virtually any movie at your local rental store. Just load in special software, and poof! There goes the offending content.

Filmmakers, including Steven Speilberg, Martin Scorsese and Steven Soderbergh say Clearplay Technology violates copyright laws and are suing. Clearplay claims it’s not violating copyright laws but instead is just filtering out material the consumer could remove himself with the fast forward button…and we all know how taxing holding down one button can be! (I suspect that the “copyright violation” allegation comes into play because Clearplay sells new “filter” information for every new movie that comes out. You must buy or rent the movie, then buy Clearplay’s new filter information for their DVD to work properly. In this way, Clearplay is “profiting” through the sales of copyrighted material registered to other people.)

This reminds me of a woman my mom worked with years ago. Every Christmastime, she would object to the office’s plan for a “Christmas party” because of her religious beliefs. She would attend only if the office would call it a “December party,” instead. Of course, there was no “October party” or “February party.” December was the only month to receive such yule tidings. Also, there were Christmas decorations (though nothing specifically of a Nativity nature) and Christmas gifts being exchanged so that no one who attended could possibly have missed the fact that it was a celebration of Christmas itself. But they named the event a “December party” and she happily attended. She didn’t exchange gifts, but she partook of the event itself.

By calling it something else, she felt that it was okay to participate in something otherwise sinful and inappropriate. But they all knew — she must have, too — that it was a Christmas party. She never suggested that the office not have a party: she set the terms required for them to enjoy her attendance. It made her feel better for taking part in something her “beliefs” told her she shouldn’t have taken part in to begin with.

I point this example out because that’s exactly what the hypocrites who buy these gizmos are doing. The wonderful thing about freedom in this country is that if you don’t like something, you don’t have to buy it. If there’s a television show you object to, there are hundreds of other channels waiting for you. If enough people don’t like it (and don’t watch!), the show disappears. If enough people are offended by a movie’s content, if flops. It’s as democracy as our capitalistic system gets.

If there is a movie that you feel has too many obscenities or is too violent, you have a choice not to watch it. To avoid a film for that reason says nothing bad about you. You are exercising your right. But to watch a “sanitized” version of a movie you object to means you’re simply taking part in something you object to and calling it something else.

What was Shakespeare’s line about a rose by any other name?

Think about it this way: when you go out and buy or rent a movie, drop it into your machine and watch the “edited” version of it, who really wins? The very people who produced the so-called “filth” to begin with! They’re still getting their royalty on the film you spent your money on. You’re continuing to support them financially.

As for you, if a story has a legitimate reason for using violence or profanity, the removal of it must detract from the story, so your own entertainment experience is diminished. If the story is chock-full of it for no reason, it isn’t a good story, anyway. Why waste your time on it?

If you like to be spoon-fed “clean” versions of everything, then run out and get yourself one of these machines. It’s just like the “December party.” It might just make you feel better about watching that “naughty” movie. Just don’t let those rose-colored glasses you’re wearing make you trip over some harsh piece of reality on the way to the rental store.

If you really want to do something about violence and profanity in entertainment, then stay away from the titles you object to. If enough people do that, it will send a message.

1. If you had to choose one, which natural disaster would you most want to experience in person and why?
A) Hurricane
B) Tornado
C) Wildfire
D) Earthquake
E) Flood

2. If you only had 30 characters (including spaces) to work with, what would you want to have on your tombstone?

3. Name any celebrities you have met in person.

4. If your best friend went through your music collection, which artist would he or she give you the most grief over finding?

5. Take the Pantone Color Test. You must first click on the month of your birthday, then click the link that takes you to individual dates. I won’t ask your birthday, but list the three keywords that appear below the block of color and tell me how accurate you think they are.

6. I won’t ask you to divulge who you’re voting for, but at this point, how sure are you that you know who you actually will vote for:
A) No doubt about it.
B) Pretty sure.
C) Pretty unsure.
D) Completely undecided.

My answers:
1. D) Earthquake. I’ve actually been through two minor quakes, and they are over with the fastest.
2. “He took care of his friends.” I know, it’s sappy.
3. From “The Price is Right:” Bob Barker, Janice Pennington, Rod Roddy, Kathleen Bradley, Chantel Dubay; From “The Young and the Restless:” Peter Bergman, Shemar Moore, Tricia Cast, Scott Reeves; From “Star Trek:” William Shatner, James Doohan, George Takei, Majel Barrett-Roddenberry; from CBS News: Harry Smith
4. Hanson
5. Spiritual, Appealing, Wise. I am spiritual. I like to think I’m wise. But the appealing part…nah.
6. C) There are things I like about both candidates, things I don’t like about both, and things I really dislike about both sides of the political circus.

OK, I admit it: I’m confused. You might be, too, when you get to the end of this essay!

When I first heard about the removal of Amused‘s Journal from AOL’s Editor’s Weekly Picks because of “masked profanity,” I almost thought it was a joke. Ironically, the furor it has spawned all began when Musenla quoted a joke. Comedian Chris Rock’s comment that started it all is at the bottom of her entry, “LA Confidential.”

Note the “f” word and the asterisks.

The next day, Musenla got a letter from the editor of AOL J-Land, informing her that because of “masked vulgarities,” her journal had been stripped of the honor. “Due to our membership audience,” the editor explains, “we cannot feature journals with vulgarity, masked or otherwise.”

Musenla says she has no grudge against the Journals editor(s). But she is quite correct when she adds that a warning would have been reasonable. She should have been approached about the problem and given the chance to correct the problem. If she had used the “F” word itself, the editor’s action would have been more reasonable; that she intentionally obscured the word to prevent it from causing a problem shouldn’t have caused a problem in itself!

AOL J-Land has has a lot to say about the incident, and the issue of censorship. John Scalzi at “By The Way,” says, “I don’t particularly see this as an issue of censorship (note that the offending entry in question is still up), just AOL exercising its judgement as to what’s appropriate to provide a link to.” (Scalzi is an employee of AOL, it should be noted, but he has a good point.)

Over at “This Sublime Dance,” Jamie says he’s sick of the mood of censorship that is done to “protect our children:” “I learned my first swear word from my grandma. My dad offered me a sip of beer once and I nearly died on the spot. I learned what sex really was…having a goofy conversation with other members of my fifth grade class. I fired my first gun in Boy Scouts. When I was growing up my mom’s best friend was gay. One of the first girls who liked me and I liked back was black. My best friend was Jewish. The girl I walked home with every day and who showed me hers in exchange was Mexican. And I grew up in Iowa. So what are we protecting our children from really?”

As someone who works in the media, my livelihood depends on the First Amendment. So I’m not about to say that censorship is right, though I often agree that things that others say should be censored probably don’t belong on public display.

But is this really censorship? Not really. AOL didn’t come in and delete the “offending” entry, or the portion of it they had a problem with. They didn’t shut down her journal. They simply chose to stop advertising it. Was what she said inappropriate? Definitely not. She took the effort to “mask” the word so that it wouldn’t be vulgar. We all know what the word means. And even if she had removed the word and asterisks altogether, we all know that Chris Rock uses language you’re not likely to hear in Sunday School. Who are we kidding?

The fact is, AOL has a right to enforce its rules. They aren’t the government, after all. They have a “Terms of Service.” We all had to agree to it at one point or another to be able to get an account. So we’re pretty much bound by its rules. It’s just unfortunate that the rules are apparently so open to interpretation. They shouldn’t be.

Does that mean that “Patrick’s Place” will never be a top five pick because I’ve referred to the offending word as the “F-word?” Apparently. If the letter “F” and a string of asterisks is masked vulgarity, I suppose the “F-word” must be, too, by AOL’s definition. But there must be a way to talk about an offensive word without being offensive. I’ve heard my preacher talk about bad language during a sermon. He referred to the same word as “the F-word.” No one stormed out of church. It wasn’t a “masked” obscenity, you see: it was the self-censorship of a bad word to make it understood without being a bad word. When I hear the term, “masked vulgarity,” I think of double-entendre. I don’t think of blocking up a swear word to avoid using the swear word itself. And I don’t think anyone else does, either.

I noticed something interesting in this week’s Editor’s Picks. Thelist contains four journals that are little more than a consumer commercial for AOL. The top pick belongs to AOL’S Money Coach, Jean Chatzky. There’s nothing wrong with this choice, per se, except for the fact that Ms. Chatzky’s journal has a single entry that is little more than a commercial for her service on AOL. There is no information about cutting debt, saving money or smart shopping…topics we might expect from a money coach. Instead, in the single entry, she talks about how excited she is to have been chosen as “Money Coach.” Congratulations to her.

The next three journals are written by people who went to New York to meet with Ms. Chatzky personally. (I’ll not link to them…you can find those links on Chatzky’s journal.) It’s interesting that only one of those journals has more than ten entries: two of them have only three. The third has exactly ten entries. All of them refer to how the Money Coach is helping them get out debt and refocus their finances.

The best journal of the five is relegated to the last spot. Lisa’s Life has nothing to do with AOL’s Money Coach, and is instead the kind of journal you and I would write (or already are writing).

Is this really reflective of the Journal community, or is it a self-serving promotion? We all know the answer to that.

By the way, the featured journal over at Keyword: News Community now belongs to Aaron, a husband, Democrat, and Church Elder. It’s odd, but when I click on the “Click into Aaron’s Journal” link on the keyword window, I’m taken not to the journal’s front page, but to a specific article that quotes the outspoken Michael Moore. The first sentence states:

“I have never seen a head so far up a Presidential a** (pardon my Falluja) than the one I saw last night at the “news conference” given by George W. Bush.”

Except that here, the asterisks are mine. Aaron uses the actual word itself. I’m “masking” a vulgarity…he’s flat-out using one. He’s in the Spotlight slot, while Musenla’s journal was removed from the top five picks. Like Musenla, the words aren’t his (whether he agrees with them or not), he’s just quoting someone in the public eye.

Anyone care to explain the difference?

(Incidentally, some of you may know that my journal had been the featured journal at Keyword: News Community just prior to Aaron’s. I was told my journal would be there for a week. It stayed for three weeks! I was grateful for the exposure and this isn’t about sour grapes at all. I’m just trying to understand what the rules really are. What’s allowed, what isn’t, and where do we go from here?” That’s all I’m asking.)

This entry was inspired by John M. Scalzi’s “By The Way” site. Here goes:

1. Yes, I really do work in TV.
2. I am not height/weight proportionate.
3. I am making progress (32 pounds so far) to change that.
4. My favorite TV show is “The Price is Right.”
5. Yes, I’ve seen the show in person, but I wasn’t eligible to play because I know the people backstage.
6. I’ve only been out of the USA once, and that was a visit to Canada.
7. I hate to fly.
8. My favorite season is autumn.
9. My favorite color is royal blue.
10. If I could visit any foreign country, I’d pick England.
11. My favorite author is Dean Koontz.
12. I can’t decide on a favorite movie…there are too many in the list to narrow it down to one.
13. I have been stupid with credit cards.
14. Donations are cheerfully accepted!
15. I’m working on a novel.
16. I don’t like to party and I don’t like bars. Call me Mr. Popularity!
17. I’m originally from South Carolina.
18. I don’t think the Confederate Flag belongs at the State House. (Yes, they’re STILL arguing about that!)
19. I like sweetened tea: people who prefer unsweetened tea might as well drink water!
20. I’ve never seen an episode of “Seinfeld.”
21. I decided to do this list so that I’d have an excuse to promote my “Saturday Six!” (Sorry, John!)
22. I think there is too much politics in most churches.
23. The first thing I notice about a person is whether they’re male or female.
24. I wish I had blue eyes.
25. I often feel like I’m in over my head.

My friends will tell you that I’m usually running about ten minutes behind schedule. I’ll take advantage of that lovable tardiness and turn the Friday Five into the Saturday Six. Give ‘em a try.

1. Name the last movie you watched on DVD.

2. If you could spend one day as:
A) a member of the opposite sex
B) a member of a different race
C) a member of the opposite sex AND different race
D) an animal
…which would you pick and why?

3. If you won the lottery and received $200 million dollars in one lump sum, who would get the first check you wrote?

4. If you could change careers, what job have you secretly been wondering about?

5. Describe your earliest memory.

6. What deceased relative would you most like to sit down to dinner with and what would you most want to ask them?

My answers:
1. “My Fair Lady” — So I like old movies!
2. The opposite sex: Maybe then I’d understand why all women think we’re all dogs!
3. The first check would go to my church.
4. Massage Therapy. The licensed kind, not that suspicious “adult” venture.
5. Being held by someone with blond hair and a crew cut in my grandmother’s hallway. My mom told me after I described this that the first six months after I was born that’s where my crib was, and I didn’t know this prior to recalling this memory. The best we’ve been able to figure out was that the person I’m describing is either my uncle or my great uncle.
6. My grandmother. I’d like to ask her if she’s been watching my life the past twenty-two years since she died and whether she’s proud of what I’ve done with it.

Your turn! Enjoy!

Here’s how it all began, on April 17, 2004!

My friends will tell you that I’m usually running about ten minutes behind schedule. I’ll take advantage of that lovable tardiness and turn the Friday Five into the Saturday Six. Give ‘em a try.

1. Name the last movie you watched on DVD.

2. If you could spend one day as:
A) a member of the opposite sex
B) a member of a different race
C) a member of the opposite sex AND different race
D) an animal
…which would you pick and why?

3. If you won the lottery and received $200 million dollars in one lump sum, who would get the first check you wrote?

4. If you could change careers, what job have you secretly been wondering about?

5. Describe your earliest memory.

6. What deceased relative would you most like to sit down to dinner with and what would you most want to ask them?

Either answer the questions here, or answer them in your own journal and leave a link to your entry here.

My answers:
1. “My Fair Lady” — So I like old movies!
2. The opposite sex: Maybe then I’d understand why all women think we’re all dogs!
3. The first check would go to my church.
4. Massage Therapy. The licensed kind, not that suspicious “adult” venture.
5. Being held by someone with blond hair and a crew cut in my grandmother’s hallway. My mom told me after I described this that the first six months after I was born that’s where my crib was, and I didn’t know this prior to recalling this memory. The best we’ve been able to figure out was that the person I’m describing is either my uncle or my great uncle.
6. My grandmother. I’d like to ask her if she’s been watching my life the past twenty-two years since she died and whether she’s proud of what I’ve done with it.

The first person to leave a comment when this first appeared no longer has an active journal.

A headline in this morning’s Richmond Times-Dispatch caught my eye. There is was, right on page A3, a section of the newspaper usually reserved for serious news junkies and political zealots looking for fresh material with which to slam the Bush administration:

Ancient jewelry more than just Stone Age bling-bling

I ask you: what sort of headline is that??

It’s just a guess on my part, but I’d offer the following advice to headline writers everywhere: those who use the term “bling-bling” probably couldn’t care less about the discovery of shells with holes bored into them, dating back 75,000 years, as early evidence that we crazy humans fashioned ornaments for ourselves.

If I’m right, then it’s likely that people who do get excited about such anthropological finds probably don’t go around dropping non-words like “bling-bling” into their daily conversations.

Like I said…it’s just a guess.

The porn industry in California has been rocked by an HIV scare, as two performers have recently tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. As a result, adult movie production there is under a two-month shutdown.

Mary Carey, a porn star who ran for governor of California, gave an interesting quote: ‘This is kind of a wake-up call for everybody.”

What??

The article goes on to say that the last industry HIV scare was in 1999.

Porn stars must be very optimistic people. Considering that AIDS has been around now (at least officially) for about 20 years, and that sex seems to be an effective way of spreading HIV, the very idea that adult film stars could go five years between HIV scares is amazing!

I’m sure that condoms are more prevalent in adult films these days, but I don’t watch so I wouldn’t know for sure. (At least I’d like to think so.) I’m sure that there are regular tests done to screen “actors” and “actresses.” (I’d certainly like to think this is true.)

But I’m also sure that there are plenty of sexual activities going on in which HIV could be spread because no precaution is being taken. How people in that industry aren’t “scared” every time they get undressed is beyond me.

I’m really beginning to feel sorry for McDonald’s. No matter what they do, they just can’t win.

Before announcing a series of steps to make their menu healthier, everybody accused them of trying to make America fat with their cheeseburgers and salty french fries.

After announcing a series of steps, including the phasing out of the “Super Sized” option and new adult Happy Meals that consist of salads, bottled water, and even a pedometer to measure how much the customer exercises, they’re still not getting a break from food critics.

If they were really serious about being healthy, one food critic argued, they’d change the type of oil they use for frying to reduce the risks of cholesterol.

Come on, people!!

We’re worrying about the oil used to in french fries?? If we’re really interested in eating healthy food, one might reasonably expect us to avoid fried foods no matter what they’d been fried in!

Give McDonald’s a break! They’re making changes based on what their customers want. They’re trying to raise awareness that what we eat is something we control. Argue all you want to that they’re just trying to salvage business in the “healthy diet” craze. The point is, the very people who are wanting those “healthy diets” are still going to fast food restaurants to find them! These people aren’t looking for a real solution to their weight as much as an excuse to not feel guilty about their lunch!

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: we’re fat…and it’s our own fault.

1. “Bling-bling” - It’s not really a word; it sounds more like something a three-year-old might say when she really means, “Bottle.”

2. “Myself” - If you use this word, nine times out of ten you use it incorrectly. You can only use the word “myself” in a grammatically-correct sentence if you also use the word “I” in the same sentence. If you use “myself” as a substitution for “I,” you’re almost always wrong.

WRONG: He went with John and myself.
RIGHT: He went with John and me.

RIGHT: I’m making sure I get a seat for myself. (Myself points back to “I.”)

Isn’t that easy?

3. “Irregardless” - If you use this word, you’re always wrong, because “irregardless” is not a word! You mean “regardless.”

4. “Non-partisan” - It’s a nice concept because it implies “fair and balanced.” Our political system, however, has a vested interest in making you think of virtually everything as a “we vs. they” issue, so virtually nothing in our society — and certainly nothing in our government — ever is non-partisan.

5. “Blog” — I appreciate the desire to come up with a short way to say “online journal.” But couldn’t they have come up with something that sounds better than that?

6. “Juxtaposition” - Most of the people who use this word really don’t know for sure what it means. They only use it because they think it makes their argument sound more educated. Don’t believe me? The next time you hear someone use the word, stop them in mid-sentence and ask them to define it and watch the blank stare!

7. “Political Correctness” - As a Mac person, I already have a problem with “PC,” but in a society where everybody is offended by something, why bother trying to name the pointless effort to prevent somebody from being offended? They will be…no matter what you do.

8. “Oldies” - I didn’t mind this word when it referred to songs my parents listened to when they were in high school in the 60’s. Now that it’s used to describe songs I listened to in college, I’m quite through with it, thank you very much.

9. “Natural” - This word is used to market almost everything these days. The implication is that the product in question, if it is “natural” has only those elements that aren’t manmade. But even when we have raw ingredients that man has acted upon to form something else, isn’t this defeating the purpose of the “natural” definition? If it was so “natural,” we wouldn’t have to make it: it’d be growing on trees in our backyard!

10. “Reality Television” — There is nothing real or reasonable about any of the shows that attempt to pass themselves off with this umbrella title. Even Mark Burnette, who has given us jewels like “Survivor” and “The Apprentice,” prefers “unscripted drama.” I don’t know what I prefer; I just know that “reality” isn’t what I’m seeing.

That’s my list. What are yours? Leave a comment with a link to your journal or list yours in the comment itself.

I’m a Christian, so I know the importance of faith in one’s life. If revealing to you that I’m a Christian makes you think less of me, it might be food for thought for you to consider the fact that it doesn’t make me think less of you. In any case, the story that inspired this post would almost be comical if it weren’t so tragic. It is not my intention to make light of the situation itself or anyone else’s religious practices. If you have insight that I’m missing, please leave a comment. I just don’t get this one.

A Virginia Preacher died after being bitten by a rattlesnake during a church service on Easter Sunday. The snake bite happened during a portion of the service in which members dance around holding live snakes.

The congregation, according to news reports, prayed for the pastor, but no one — including the pastor himself — sought medical attention.

There are a great many people in this country who genuinely believe in the old adage, “God will provide.” Some, unfortunately, seem to interpret this to mean that they don’t have to worry about anything; no matter what happens to them, God will get them out of it.

But wait a minute. People who manage to incur great amounts of debt don’t get to sit around watching TV waiting for God to send over a parcel of cash by special delivery. People who commit a crime aren’t entitled to any special treatment until God sends in a heavenly attorney to defend them.

Why, then, would a congregation simply sit back and pray for divine intervention for their stricken pastor in the twenty-first century, a time when medical advances could most likely have easily saved his life?

Faith? Yes, of course. Their faith is perhaps stronger than most people’s if they really thought that would happen. To them, apparently, it was a simple matter of trusting in the Lord. They paid a price for it.

If you’ll permit me, Dear Readers, I’d like to make three assumptions about these people.

First, I will assume that the night before church, and most nights, in fact, they lock their doors to prevent intruders from entering their homes and possibly doing them bodily injury. Second, I will assume that when they are finished preparing meals, they turn off their stoves so as to prevent a fire. Third, I will assume that most of them drove to church in accordance with traffic laws (at least as much as anyone does) to avoid a car accident. If you think any of these assumptions are unreasonable, please let me know in the comments. Otherwise, I’m left to wonder this: exactly where does their suspension of disbelief occur with regard to taking reasonable precautions in their daily life? If it is reasonable to assume that they take some precautions to protect themselves, why would they stop just because they’re inside a church? God is everywhere. Why would He be expected to protect His children in one place more than in another?

“God will provide.” It is true. He does. God provides many things — medical knowledge, for one — to get us by. But God didn’t make the snake bite the preacher, nor was the serpent possessed by Satan. The snake was one of nature’s creatures that simply did what snakes sometimes do.

It’s a shame that the people in that church didn’t do what most of the rest of us would have done. I hope they’re not doubting God’s presence. But I do hope they’re at least questioning their beliefs about how much God empowers us to deal with the world he’s given us to live in.

Sometimes when I am responding to a journal entry I’ve read elsewhere, I find that I have enough to say that I quickly exceed AOL’s limit. That’s generally a good sign that I should just create my own entry about it here and get the point across…so here goes.

Andy Rooney, the resident curmudgeon everyone loves to hate over at CBS’s “60 Minutes” has angered many with his latest column on our troops, and particularly the five questions he’d like to ask of them.

I was initially alerted to this commentary by this essay by Ron over at “Think It Over.” I’ll begin my comment where his ends, with the question of whether Andy really feels this way or whether he’s just trying to increase his audience.

Many of the people who are fed up with Andy Rooney cite his question about whether a troop would rather have a medal or a trip back home as being unfair because it puts them in an unfavorable light no matter how they answer. You can’t call this unfair if you’re then going to turn around and use the same type of question on Andy, can you? If he were to select that he genuinely feels this way, then you’d label him an idiot. If he were to select that he’s trying to increase his audience, you’d label him an idiot and an opportunist. It’s a safe bet that Andy believes what he’s presenting…at the same time, a commentator’s job is to get people to listen and then think about and discuss the issues. Clearly, Andy has done his job here!

When I read the transcript of his message, I get something a little different out of it. You have to look at the entire essay, not just the five questions that catapult him to his bigger message. What I read here is a commentary more about our desire to simplify the horrors of war to a moral play of good versus evil so we don’t have to think about the fact that our people are putting their lives on the line. Our soldiers put their lives on the line on a daily basis; why do we only think about this when one of them dies?

By labelling our troops as “heroes,” we’re forgetting that they’re as human as you and I, hopingto get their mission done, and very likely, scared as hell that they might not make it home alive. I KNOW that’s how I’d feel if I was there. They didn’t have a choice in the matter of whether they would go overseas; they were sent as part of their duty. They’re doing work that the rest of us don’t have to do.

Go back to Andy’s questions:

The first three are basically asking about the soldiers’ frame of mind about the war. There is nothing wrong about asking a soldier how he feels about the War in Iraq. Quite frankly, I’m much more willing to consider the opinion of someone who’s there fighting than someone who’s here complaining. They see it every day. They’re living it. That gives them a great deal of respect in my book…and their opinion carries much more weight. I want to know how they feel, because they’re a much better judge of how things are going than I ever could be.

The third question in particular asks whether they think the orders they receive comes from leaders that are out of touch with what they’re going through. I think for the most part that the American people are out of touch with they’re going through. How can it be unreasonable to question whether their superiors are at least doing a better job of keeping “in touch” than we are?

The fourth question is catching a lot of flak. Andy asks, “If you could have a medal or a trip home, which would you take?” The implication by Andy’s critics is that either answer makes the soldier sound bad. This isn’t true. We’d naturally assume that anyone we’d ask would prefer a trip back home over a medal. But what would we get from that answer? Does this mean that the soldier who chooses that option is a coward? Of course not! This simply means that, like the rest of us, they’d rather be enjoying America’s freedom here with their family and friends. This doesn’t tarnish their bravery in any way…it just means they’re human. This isn’t at all like the old joke that asks, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Andy’s 5th question asks if they’re encouraged by the talk of their bravery back home. We assume that they’d all say yes. The point is that they don’t wake up every morning and do their duty that day because they think a bunch of strangers back home thinks they’re brave. They’re doing what we sent them there to do. They have a greater sense of duty than many of the rest of us.

Here’s the bottom line: Andy is supposed to get you riled up. He’s supposed to make you think. But like most other messages out there, you can’t excerpt a portion of the message and take it out of context.

I read Andy’s central message as a conviction of us to stop painting these young people as something out of a comic book who are impervious to the fears and dangers of war and to remember that they are our friends, our neighbors, and our children who are very vulnerable in a hostile land. No matter what we think about the war or the politicians who got us into it, we shouldn’t forget this human side of things.

That’s what I get out of it…but maybe that’s just me.