Red Light Cameras Not Gone Yet

I reported recently that the city in which I reside held an election in which voters chose to have the city's red light cameras taken down. As one might have predicted, certain people in town, who claim to have no connection to the local pro-camera political action committee, or the company that operates the cameras, filed a lawsuit to keep the cameras in place. Their claim centers on the legal difference between a "referendum" and an "initiative." While they may have a semi-legitimate argument, this is clearly nothing more than an attempt to subvert the will of the people.

However, we must give credit to the city manager who, although he supported the cameras, as far as I can tell, has even more support for the voice of the people:

"Should the judge rule that the election is invalid and that the red light cameras should stay, I will recommend to the College Station City Council that we immediately inform American Traffic Solutions that we are giving them the required 60-day notice that we are canceling our contract and the cameras will be turned off," Brown said.

That is quite honorable, and we can only hope that, if the lawsuit succeeds, the city council will heed his suggestion. A majority of the council apparently agrees with this idea. First, though, we'll have to see how eager the judge is to overturn an election on what some might call a mere technicality.

Did God really say...

We finally made it back to church last week, for the first time in at least a month. I had really been missing it and even an hour before was contemplating skipping again but just made up my mind to feel better and go. So I did. In general, I am sad that our church is more casual, I like getting dressed up on Sundays and treating it like the special occasion that it is, but this time, it was really nice just to be able to pull on a pair of jeans and a sweater and head out. It was also nice knowing that I wasn't going to get any glares when I had to pull out a granola bar half way through the sermon. I guess laid back churches do have their advantages. And I'm so glad I made it, not just to see people who must have thought I was dying but also because the sermon really struck me.

It was the end of a series on "Stupid human tricks" and talked about how we rationalize our sinful behavior and convince ourselves that God's truth is not His truth or that we are somehow the exception to the rule. The minister started by walking us through the first time that happened, way back in Genesis, when the serpent got Eve rationalizing with his not-so-innocent question "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" The correct answer is no, that isn't what God said. The serpent took just enough of God's word that Eve was drawn in but twisted it so that it was no longer the truth. I don't think any of us would be convinced if a serpent tried to get us to eat any fruit, but I do hear ask the same type of questions often and many times I see myself or fellow Christians falling for it.

At this point, I would like to say it was just the world that was asking those questions, but it isn't. This past Sunday, I unfortunately did not feel up to attending church but I did feel up to one of my new favorite "I'm too sick to get off the couch" activities - listing to Mark Driscoll sermons. I picked one on the emergent church, basically because I didn't really know much about them other than the guys tend to wear skinny jeans which probably isn't part of their official doctrine.

Anyway, Mark starts talking about the good and bad of the different types of emergent churches and how so many of them are asking the "Did God really say..." type questions and refusing to answer them. Really, he used that same phrase. It's been everywhere lately. That got me thinking even more, the problem doesn't come with the questions. The problem comes when we refuse to let God's word answer it. To try and philosophize or theorize our own answers instead of turning to His word for His truth. So I thought I would share a few of the questions I have been "hearing" lately and what I think the Bible really has to say about them:

• Does God really say that women should cover their whole bodies and be ashamed of who they are?

No! God made the female form to be beautiful and visually appealing, but most of that appeal is meant for one specific person to see, not the whole world. A woman's body isn't meant to be selfishly or carelessly flaunted, used as a tool to manipulate, or to be considered the source of her worth. True modesty values the complete woman, including her body.

• Does God really say that we should be hateful and mean towards homosexuals?

No! God doesn't want us to be hateful towards anyone but to show love. But He does say that homosexual behavior is sinful and encouraging someone in sinful behavior is not loving.

• Does God really say that women should be doormats for their husbands, with no opinions or self-esteem? That they are inferior in their ability to understand the gospel or to be used by Him?

No! God does not want His followers, men or women, to be weak-minded. Jesus considered Mary's sitting as His feet to learn a good thing. Even Paul (yes, Paul, the supposed woman hater of the Bible) praised Timothy's mother and grandmother for helping instill in Timothy his amazing faith as well as many other women for their work in evangelizing. But God has laid out specific roles for women in both church and family structure and when we are obedient to those commands, He can use us in amazing ways to further His kingdom and bring glory to
God. That is the thing about submission, it isn't weak, it's hard work that often takes a great deal of faith and it doesn't bring glory to a women, it brings glory to her Savior.

Are there any others that come to your mind?

The Wall Fell Down

On Monday night I was able to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall in style with former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and President George H.W. Bush. Rice gave a speech to cap off a day full of festivities. In her remarks, she highlighted the roles played by Bush, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev in the events of 20 years ago. I was very impressed with Rice. She spoke well and displayed great command of a variety of foreign policy issues during the Q & A.

Much was made during the day about how Bush refused to openly gloat when the Berlin Wall fell, to "dance on the wall" as he put it. He received criticism in the press at the time for not seeming excited, but he knew there was plenty of work still to be done (e.g. German unification), and he didn't want to put Gorbachev in a bad political position at home by rubbing it in that the West had won. This restraint helped ensure the smooth unification of Germany within NATO less than a year later, and helped ensure the USSR didn't resort to violence to maintain its grip on power.

The story of how the Wall actually came down is interesting:

The intention was to announce the changes [to travel rules] overnight and phase in the new rules the next morning. Instead one of the Politburo members, Guenter Schabowski, blurted out the plans during a televised press conference - and compounded his error by adding the new rules would come into force "immediately".

Upon hearing this, East Germans went to the Wall in droves. The border guards, unsure of how to respond, eventually stood aside and let people pass through. This courageous, humane choice, the opposite of that made by Chinese soldiers five months previously in Tiananmen Square, but similar to that made by the Romanian army one month later, ensured that freedom would prevail and the wall would crumble.

In a world where so many are still oppressed, the events of 1989 provide hope. The fall of the Soviet Union was not expected by anyone. As pessimistic as we might feel about conditions in China, Iran, Burma, or North Korea today, we can maintain hope (and dictators must remain fearful) that seismic shifts could occur at any moment.

Why little Nigel will never watch Sesame Street.

If you happened to use Google anytime this past week, you might have noticed that the Big Bird feet turned into an "L", the Oscar the Grouch "O" or a variety of other Sesame Street themed Google icons. I thought that was a little premature because the 40th anniversary of Sesame Street is actually today. It's also excessive and annoying.

But since Sesame Street has been around for such a long time, it seems safe to say that it will probably be around when our little one reaches the preschool years. But he/she won't be watching it. I really don't like Sesame Street. I once mentioned that casually and the person looked at me like I was crazy - why not, they asked. Is it because of Bert and Ernie, because that's kind of ridiculous. Well, blog readers, rest assured that it is not because of Bert and Ernie. In fact, it actually has nothing to do with content at all. I'm not particularly worried about the content of TV shows aimed at two-year-olds. Now TV shows aimed at 5-7 year-olds? Yeah, those have tons of stuff our family will consider "inappropriate," but if you can't tie your shoes, you probably will be missing anything too "bad" even if it is there.

Sesame Street has been a thorn in my side for a number of years because I hate the way it is designed. Someone 40 years ago had this great epiphany - why, two-year-olds have really short attention spans so let's feed them information in 30-second tidbits. They will love our show! And that way by the time they are four, they will still have 30-second attention spans and be used to getting entertained that way. Oh wait, that doesn't sound good, but let's not worry about that because the information we include will be "educational." Parents can't object to the alphabet, can they?

Now, I understand that 2-year-olds have short attention spans. That's normal. But I want to teach my kids to have longer and longer attention spans over time. And yes, long is relative. But if you keep feeding kids information in the length of time they like best, we will end up in a world where graduate students can't make in through a 50-minute lecture without whipping open their laptop and playing around on Facebook. Hmm...does that sound familiar?

Just compare the exposure a kid gets to the alphabet by Sesame Street to books. Now reading a book to a toddler is like playing with flashcards, you don't even have time to focus on the words before they flip the page on you. But you can at least name words "flower, dog...the end." Pretty soon you can start actually talking about what is happening in the pictures "oh, look, the pokey little puppy is smelling the flower" before they flip the page. And somehow, miraculously, you get to the point where you can actually read the story. Progression, it's a good thing.

It probably isn't fair to compare books to TV since books are such a great medium for learning and TV, well, isn't. Which brings me to my second problem with Sesame Street. I think in general most people believe the first sentence of this paragraph to be true - except when it comes to Sesame Street! Somehow Sesame Street is considered to be this great educational tool instead of what it is - a TV show. There are probably many other kids shows that are just as ADD as Sesame Street, but not only am I not aware of them, I don't have to be subjected to hearing about their greatness all the time. It's everywhere. Google, newspaper articles, even the National 4th of July show was riddled with Sesame Street propaganda. But not my child, oh no, I don't want my toddler thinking it is grammatically correct to refer to yourself in the third person, even if that person is red and furry.

And as much as I'd like to say our kids will never watch TV, I'm not that naive. I'll try to limit it, but I also like to shower, so compromises might have to be made. So I will pick a show that will at least try to keep their attention on one story line for 10-15 minutes and I won't be doing it under the pretense that I am "educating" them, I will just admit that Mommy needs a break.

If Only Their Stadium Was Even Higher Up

While picking on a collegiate newspaper for grammatical and factual errors is something I am not eager to do, since it is often the editorial equivalent of punching a kid with glasses, I can't pass this one up:

Despite their 2-6 record, the Colorado Buffaloes play in the highest stadium altitude in the Big 12.

It apparently helped them against A&M, though, since they beat us on Saturday.