I am normally not a big fan of acronyms. They are particularly annoying when you don't know what they stand for. However, I have decided to take advantage of that reality and create my own acronym for strategic use in conversation. For those of you that read my blog, you will be in on the gambit, for others, oh well.
The root of my acronym is in a message I heard a few years back by Bill Johnson in which he said that he often times is asked for his opinion on things on which he has no opinion. Furthermore, he is not required to have an opinion on everything and is not required to state it even if he does. Brilliant!
To my acronym: IHNO (pronounced like "I Know") When conversation requires my obligatory response and I am not fully engaged or interested, I can put on a concerned/agreeable/distressed face, whichever is required by the situation, and say "IHNO". Which means of course, "I have no opinion." The duplicity is delicious. The conversation continues and I have extricated myself with two syllables.
If you are reading this, you are welcome to use my acronym. Who knows we may start a movement. Then again, you may just decide to respond IHNO!
Friday, May 28, 2010
A few of my favorite things
Raindrops on roses and whiskers...oops! Wrong list.
There are things in life that are just so good. Why not list them?
Fish tacos! Don't knock them until you try them--especially with good salsa verde.
Fresh peaches! enough said.
Pandora. Internet radio where you can create your own radio stations.
Podcasts.
Going to restaurants with Josh. (It is like having your own tour guide who knows the local language.)
To be continued--I am still alive, you know.
There are things in life that are just so good. Why not list them?
Fish tacos! Don't knock them until you try them--especially with good salsa verde.
Fresh peaches! enough said.
Pandora. Internet radio where you can create your own radio stations.
Podcasts.
- Freakonomics
- The God Journey
- Mars Hill
- Bethel weekly message
Going to restaurants with Josh. (It is like having your own tour guide who knows the local language.)
To be continued--I am still alive, you know.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Inaccurate Labeling
lib·er·al
/ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
In a recent discussion of the Arizona law pertaining to illegal immigration I discovered the weakness of current labels to accurately define a persons perspective on difficult issues. The discussion was with one of my friends who I would describe as "Liberal". I suspect that most people would describe me as "conservative".
His argument was as follows:
My response was:
My response: If they are not citizens they are entitled to no such protection.
His response: But how will the enforcement officials know whether they are citizens.
My response: We have a constitutional conundrum.
His response: I agree.
So now I am confused. My "Liberal" friend is being conservative by definition in adhering to the spirit of the constitution. I am being liberal in that I want to protect the liberties of citizens of this country but not necessarily extend them to criminal elements that may be here illegally. Oy vey!
In virtually every country on the planet, documentation of citizenship is something that is required. I am not sure if papers are carried and available for inspection on demand in all countries. I do know that most countries take extraordinary precautions to protect their borders from intruders. The United States does not.
Last week a sheriff's deputy was shot with an automatic rifle by drug smugglers and left bleeding just south of Phoenix. Texas, Arizona, and California have thousands of miles of borders that are essentially unsecured. Estimates are that 11 million illegals are in this country now. And we have a conundrum. If we grant amnesty to all that are here now, there is no mechanism in place to prevent more illegals from coming and no plan in place to secure the border.
In the meantime these illegals work here, many for cash with no taxes. They are eligible for social services for which citizens pay. What's not to like about that set up? Granted, most are hard working people of good character. But some are drug smugglers, murderers and thieves. Immigration and our Southern border may well be one of the defining issues of the 21st Century with far reaching ramifications on all aspects of the political, social and economic fabric of our country. It will force a resolution to the constitutional conundrum that will likely require a restriction on the liberty we now enjoy in order to preserve a future liberty that may well be at risk. As our politicians fiddle, the issue burns and burns out of control. Would that we would have an intelligent discussion of this on a national basis and bring it to resolution.
/ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
In a recent discussion of the Arizona law pertaining to illegal immigration I discovered the weakness of current labels to accurately define a persons perspective on difficult issues. The discussion was with one of my friends who I would describe as "Liberal". I suspect that most people would describe me as "conservative".
His argument was as follows:
- The constitution protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.
- Enabling law enforcement officers to request documentation constitutes unreasonable search and seizure.
- Therefore the AZ law is unconstitutional.
My response was:
- If a person is in the country illegally they are not a citizen of this country.
- If they are not a citizen of this country, they are not protected under the constitution.
My response: If they are not citizens they are entitled to no such protection.
His response: But how will the enforcement officials know whether they are citizens.
My response: We have a constitutional conundrum.
His response: I agree.
So now I am confused. My "Liberal" friend is being conservative by definition in adhering to the spirit of the constitution. I am being liberal in that I want to protect the liberties of citizens of this country but not necessarily extend them to criminal elements that may be here illegally. Oy vey!
In virtually every country on the planet, documentation of citizenship is something that is required. I am not sure if papers are carried and available for inspection on demand in all countries. I do know that most countries take extraordinary precautions to protect their borders from intruders. The United States does not.
Last week a sheriff's deputy was shot with an automatic rifle by drug smugglers and left bleeding just south of Phoenix. Texas, Arizona, and California have thousands of miles of borders that are essentially unsecured. Estimates are that 11 million illegals are in this country now. And we have a conundrum. If we grant amnesty to all that are here now, there is no mechanism in place to prevent more illegals from coming and no plan in place to secure the border.
In the meantime these illegals work here, many for cash with no taxes. They are eligible for social services for which citizens pay. What's not to like about that set up? Granted, most are hard working people of good character. But some are drug smugglers, murderers and thieves. Immigration and our Southern border may well be one of the defining issues of the 21st Century with far reaching ramifications on all aspects of the political, social and economic fabric of our country. It will force a resolution to the constitutional conundrum that will likely require a restriction on the liberty we now enjoy in order to preserve a future liberty that may well be at risk. As our politicians fiddle, the issue burns and burns out of control. Would that we would have an intelligent discussion of this on a national basis and bring it to resolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)