Messages

But the stories changed and the common depictions in the restaurants and elsewhere strayed from the original story substantially and in very problematic ways.  Here's just one example:  Link

  Images like this were never part of Sambo's restaurants.  Their images were much more like the Little Golden Book (?) edition from the late '50s of Little Black Sambo that I had as a child, where the images were clearly Indian.

So, if we decide that single parenting is bad for children, we should remove all the children from divorced, abandoned, or widowed parents?

The LBW/BCP daily lectionary is in the midst of 2 weeks of reading from the book of Proverbs, where Solomon contrasts the wise from the foolish.  Your posts to this forum keep coming to my mind during Matins.

Do you remember Sambo's restaurants?  I read that the last one just closed (or changed its name) in response to the current unrest. But the illustrations in those restaurants were very much based on stereotype.

The illustrations used in the restaurants came from The Story of Little Black Sambo, a British childrens' story about a boy in India who encountered some hungry tigers who, chasing each other, turn into butter, which Sambo's mother used to make pancakes. 

The name "Sambo's" was a combination of the owners' names.  T imagery of the very popular children's story became part of their in-store marketing in the 1960s, after they'd become a successful "pancake house"/coffee shop operation in Southern California.  The by-then national chain went bankrupt in the early 1980's, a direct result of the Federal Government's forcing the company to restructure it's innovative, very successful, and very popular incentive program for restaurant managers and employees.  (I followed the company closely as a university business student at the time.)  Most of what remained after the bankruptcy concluded was taken over by the Bakers Square chain, with Denny's picking up many of its other locations. 

The original restaurant in Santa Barbara remained in the family and has been run the last many years by Sam's grandson, who changed the name of the restaurant two weeks ago.

spt+

from Encyclopedia Britannica on conservatism and liberalism

Well, now that's three different descriptions for "liberal" you've presented. 

[Select one of the following:]

Moreover, one not even "identify as Christian" (whatever that means!). Thrivent is now a "holistic financial services organization" for people wanting to live lives "full of meaning and gratitude."

It takes some work, but eventually someone interested in membership reaches the membership application.  And there you'll notice that it is still "Thrivent Financial for Lutherans."  I suppose that by not having changed the formal name of the organization, they can say that they've kept their promise that being "for Lutherans" would never, ever change.  And indeed, every page on the site does include the notice, "Thrivent is the marketing name for Thrivent Financial for Lutherans."

As for being a "holistic financial services organization" (whatever the hell that means), the application still has these requirements:

Select one of the following:

  __ I am a Christian, seeking to live out my faith; or

  __ I am the spouse of a Christian who seeks to live out his or her faith; or

  __ If applying on behalf of a youth under age 16, the youth is being raised in the Christian faith.

The Thrivent Way. We are a membership organization of Christians, and our members are our owners. Our purpose is to serve our members and society by guiding both to be wise with money and live generously. We believe that all we have is a gift from God and that generosity is an expression of faith. We succeed when our members, their families and their communities thrive.

I agree to support and further The Thrivent Way, and verify that the information I provided is true and correct.

As one who was a member of both Lutheran Brotherhood and AAL and opposed the merger, it all still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Pax, Steven+

Then I saw a cross that wasn't even there.

Does anyone know the story behind the new Thrivent Logo? The one without the cross?

I think the second "t" is intended to represent a cross. 

Pax, Steven+

Because you make it sound as if I oppose placing children in "traditional" families. I don't.

The you should stop being so gleeful everytime the government shuts down adoption/fostering agencies that only place children in families with a mother and father.

Liberalism has undergone changes. A communication problems exists when the opponents are thinking we're talking about the "classical liberalism" when we are actually talking about issues like those in Mrs. Witt's description of "liberal."

Until you introduced the Institute's description of classical liberalism, using phrasing that usually indicates a comparison rather than a contrast, no one posting on this topic -- with the possible exception of you -- was having any communication problems with your, Mr. Howard's, and Mrs. Witt's expression of being an early-21st century "liberal."

spt+

I think that is a list of nice sentiments, but I'm not sure what it has to do with being a liberal, at least with classic liberalism.  In many ways, the statement could be construed as a rejection of liberalism.

Do you also disagree with this post on "classical liberal principles"? https://theihs.org/news/core-classical-liberal-principles/?gclid=CjwKCAjw8pH3BRAXEiwA1pvMsWhsYY9B65NVutYzXoLaJB0wCayxvJioWx4npc0OSSFV445Z9YLJChoCVYsQAvD_BwE

"Also?"  You do realize, Brian, that Mrs. Witt's description of "liberal," one that you say you identify with, is quite different from the description of classical liberalism offered by the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University.

Steven P. Tibbetts, citizen

1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members.

Most non-liberals believe this, too.  The question is how to do this best, and who participates in that care.  If you think by "a country" means, in the USA, "the Federal Government" then we're going to have a disagreement.  If you think that when family, friends, neighbors, and enterprises of various sort are doing that care that "the country" is therefore not caring for the weakest, then we have a serious perception problem.

2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

Okay.  Let's look at our enumerated rights.  Who grants them?  How are they exercised?  How are they denied, and by whom?  How are those rights similar to "healthcare"?  How are they different?   

3. I believe education should be affordable and accessible to everyone.

It is to everyone in this country through the 12th grade.

4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you....   and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this.

What is that "fair share"?  This is a serious question.  How much are "the wealthy" currently paying?  Are you aware of how that compares to the past?

5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. I'm self-employed, so I already pay a shitload of taxes. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, that means increasing my already eye-watering tax bill. I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.

There's nothing stopping you from doing that.  Well, except perhaps the conditions you've attached to your benevolence, an option you don't seem willing to grant to everyone else.

6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage.

Should a 16-year-old teenager working a summer job while living at home with her siblings and both parents be paid the same "decent, livable wage" as the single mother of 2 while doing the exact same job side-by-side?  How do you determine what "a decent, livable wage" actually is? 

7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians,...   Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine.

What are Christians forcing on you?  Might you be forcing your will on Christians

8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe we should have the *same* rights as you.

LGBT people, at least in this country, already had the same rights as everyone else.  No, you (and, from the way you phrased your statement, it seems I truly do mean "you") wanted new ones created just for you.  Yeah, really -- brand spanking new "rights."  And you got the Supreme Court to cram it down everyone else's throat.  And you have the nerve to declare this right after your insistent declaration of #7. 

9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet...

Good.  Why do you object to every effort to put that into practice?

10. I believe we should take in refugees, or at the very least not turn them away without due consideration. ...  Because we're fooling ourselves if we think that somewhere in the chain of events leading to these people becoming refugees, there isn't a line describing something the US did.

You started this point well, but then you just had to finish by laying the fault on us for the problem existing at all.  I don't think you're listening very well to what you are actually saying. 

11. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.

12. I believe our current administration is fascist. ... but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.

I'd find it easier to have this discussion if you hadn't been dismissing the notion that the actual authoritarian actions of the previous administrations -- the kabuki theatre at every airport, siccing the IRS and FBI on political opponents, etc. -- are antithetical to liberty and a free society.

13. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed.

I believe that the least bigoted generations of white people in history are having their goodwill and generosity thrown back in their faces.  And I don't believe you actually know what misogyny is, either.

14. I believe in so-called political correctness.

I know, because speaking frankly, honestly, or truthfully hurts too much.

15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

There's nothing stopping you.  Literally nothing is preventing you.  Well, except the notion that if the Federal Government isn't pouring money into these things -- oh, wait, it is! along with some of the largest corporations and wealthiest people in the nation -- that these things aren't being funded. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20200611111027/https://pastebin.com/WBzAFDgA

Common sense letter from a professor who can't attach his name to is and keep his job. It has been authenticated by professors at other universities, including Thomas Sowell, who received copies.

Note that this appears on the Internet Archive, for it has been removed from where it was originally posted. 

I'd also observe that from the University of California on down, the education system in the State has been aggressively "affirmative action" for 2 generations. 

Paz y bien, Estéban+

Nor is it accurate to trace every type of Marxism back to Karl Marx. Thus, I keep asking, "What is meant by Marxism in this discussion?"

We're not talking about removing monuments to every single person who did something wrong. We're talking about the specific southern generals who rebelled against United States in the name of protecting the institution of slavery.
Discussions of other cases are simply ways to deflect attention to the real issue.

Statement on Thomas Jefferson statue at MU

Contact: Christian Basi, 573-882-4430, BasiC@missouri.edu

COLUMBIA, Mo. – University of Missouri System President and interim MU Chancellor Mun Choi, three University of Missouri curators, and university administrators met Thursday, June 11, with leaders of the Legion of Black Collegians as well as Roman Leapheart, a student who circulated a petition to remove the Thomas Jefferson statue at Mizzou.

"The conversation was an example of the power of civil discourse and included discussion of complex issues and different perspectives," Choi said. "After further discussion with other curators, the university decided not to remove the Jefferson statue. We learn from history. We contextualize historical figures with complex legacies. We don't remove history.

"We are committed to maintaining open lines of communication, including continuing conversations and learning from all involved."

Choi recommended that university faculty and students explore how MU can contextualize this historical figure.[/size]

News reports are that 4000 students at the Mizzou signed the petition.

FWIW, the state capital is Jefferson City.

spt+

How is Marxism (from Karl, not what USSR and other nations did with it) different from what we read about the early Christians in Acts 2 & 4? According to Wiki, "there is currently no single definitive Marxist theory," so you might need to clarify what you mean by Marxism.

Jesus Christ.