Louisville Blogs

Glenn Beck wants you to boycott Christian churches. Not ALL of them. He specifically says that you should "run" from any church that uses the word "social justice" and "economic justice" on its website, because those words are "code" for Nazism and Communism. You can hear him speak on the matter here. Leaving aside the issue of whether you can have a single code that applies to two philosophies as different as Nazism and Communism, I would really like to know what Beck would think of this radical guy I've been reading about. He tells people that if they want to be perfect they should sell all they have and give it to the poor. He doesn't suggest that they should tell the poor to get a job, or stop having kids, or quibble with them about how they should have spent their money the last time they had any. In fact, he says if someone asks you for your coat? You should give them your coat and your shirt. Wow... That would be awkward in downtown Louisville, walking around shirtless after being stopped by a beggar or two. This guy is so radical that he thinks that in the end times, nations will be lined up and judged not by the size of their army or the strength of their economy, but about how they treated the "least" among them when those people -- "the least" -- were sick or poor or in prison. When asked about taxes, he asked: Whose image was on the money? And when told it was a government leader, he said, then give to the government leader what is his. He hung out with ... TAX COLLECTORS. And prostitutes. Does that sound like the sort of guy who would "run" from a church that believed in "social justice"? (Psssst.... If you haven't figured out the radical leftist in these stories is.... JESUS.) Now, I want to be clear. I believe in freedom of religion, of separation between church and state. I don't think that our health care system or welfare systems should necessarily reflect MY Christian values. And I furthermore don't think that all Christians have to agree with me on the best way to say, administer, welfare systems or health care. It's one thing to take Jesus' instructions to -- say -- turn the other cheek and apply it to your own interpersonal difficulties, it's another to try to use it to run a police department. I understand that. But Glenn wasn't giving political advice. He was telling you what church to go to. He wasn't suggesting you boycott all of them, just some of the ones that really care about the teachings of Jesus.

ADD A COMMENT

	kyredcamaro   thu mar 11 2010 at 10:47 am         ·  Glenn Beck is an idiot. And, question the intelligence of anyone that listens to anything that he says.
	DavidsonDuke   thu mar 11 2010 at 10:56 am         ·  Beck's interview with now ex-representative Massa was a classic. Links don't really work in these comment boxes, but google Dana Milbank and Washington post and look for the entry, "Massa flirts with the right, but Beck isn't tickled"
	Beverly Bartlett   thu mar 11 2010 at 11:09 am         ·  I didn't see that, but have read about it. I think it's amusing that he apologized at the end for wasting viewers' time, but it seems like to me that exposing that guy was actually one of Beck's bigger accomplishments.
	DavidsonDuke   thu mar 11 2010 at 11:11 am         ·  That's just it. He was already "exposed," so to speak, and Beck didn't do his homework. He didn't know that Massa opposed the Senate healthcare vote because he wanted a single payer system. Beck was warned, but he thought he'd dirt on Emmanuel/Obama. The more salacious stories were already reported.
	Iggy Stooge   thu mar 11 2010 at 11:14 am         ·  All I can say is youtube glen beck/ted nugent interview and you will be a believer! this can save the world!
	NotAvgJoe!   thu mar 11 2010 at 11:21 am         ·  Beck has always been a sensationalist. Its his whole shtick.
	Film Guy   thu mar 11 2010 at 11:28 am         ·  Would Jesus hock Cash4Gold?
	J.S. Holland   thu mar 11 2010 at 11:31 am         ·  I didn't know people still cared what Glenn Beck said and did.
	Beverly Bartlett   thu mar 11 2010 at 11:32 am         ·  DavidsonDuke, you're right... I was just going for the cheap shot of saying it was one of Beck's bigger accomplishments! :-)
	DavidsonDuke   thu mar 11 2010 at 11:35 am         ·  I'm slow. BTW, Beck's Nielson ratings last week showed him as rising to the 2nd highest rated cable news show, a hair behind O'Reilly.
	darkladynight   thu mar 11 2010 at 11:40 am         ·  yeah what glen beck will not be open about the fact that he is a mormon. i will say this even though i am not a christain i prefer the buddy christ jesus than the religious rights version of jesus. i have one question to mr beck have you read the bible actually?? specifically the new testament?? hate to break it to ya mr beck jesus is a socialist and the original communist.
	Beverly Bartlett   thu mar 11 2010 at 11:41 am         ·  I saw Anderson Cooper the other night say something like: "I think Glenn Beck is good at what he does." I guess that was a nice professional thing to say, but I really wanted to ask: "What does he do, exactly?"
	Mysanthropyc   thu mar 11 2010 at 11:50 am         ·  I have a cousin who is interning at Fox News in NY. I asked him about Beck and he says that the guy's whole thing is just an act. He said he's actually a nice guy person-to-person, but his stances, his whole thing is just for cash, and it's sad to see that some people really believe in him the way they do. Also he told me that on the flip side, Bill O'Reilly readily believes his own bullshit, and really is the primadonna everyone believes him to be.
	truejager1   thu mar 11 2010 at 12:15 pm         ·  Religion and politics have no business in being in the same discussion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That is what makes America great. Glen Beck has some valid points and also has some way off the mark. I am a Catholic, but am a non-praticing one. I was a soldier and the two do not mix. And anymore regilion is nothing but big business with all the tax breaks given to them. I do no know how may $500,000 to $1,000,000 homes I have been in that are ministers or preachers. The better part is it is typically just them and their wife. I can think that of better things to do with my money than give it away. Just look at South East Christian. Got to love those big churches.....
	JQR   thu mar 11 2010 at 12:36 pm         ·  " I didn't know people still cared what Glen Beck said and did. "- Holland Acknowledged, you do seem to be out of touch.
	jimmyknives   thu mar 11 2010 at 2:11 pm         ·  Just when you thought mojo was as weird as it was ever going to be.......Jesus and Glenn Beck show up.
	darkladynight   thu mar 11 2010 at 2:45 pm         ·  i admit i do not like glen beck or fox news for a couple of reasons. firstly the news and analysis on fox are slanted and biased. i always thought that good journalists tried to be objective and tell the facts regardless of personal opinions. secondly fox news distorts the truth. I have on a couple of occasions decided to look for my self about something broadcast on fox news and low and behold they either lied or distorted the truth. then again maybe i am old school in thinking that fox news is not a real news channel and glenn beck is not a real journalist
	Mysanthropyc   thu mar 11 2010 at 2:48 pm         ·  Truth, facts, and objectivity be damned, Fox has a responsibility to it's shareholders and political base first. How could you be so selfish as to demand transparency and ethics in reporting?
	Beverly Bartlett   thu mar 11 2010 at 5:00 pm         ·  Glenn Beck may well be "an act," but I think that makes it even worse. If he's doing things like telling people not to get vaccines -- or implying they shouldn't or whatever he did -- just for kicks or cash -- that reprehensible. So is trying to scare them away from churches that do good work. DarkLadyKnight, you don't even want to get me started on what is "real journalism." I'll bend your ear all day. (Ok, that saying looks funny in print!) Truejager, I think your point about being a solider and being Catholic is really interesting. I don't really feel qualified to speak on either front, but I read an essay about it somewhere -- can't remember where now -- and found it really moving. I will say, however, that I don't think it's fair to lump Southeast Christian in with just generically bad "mega-churches." I think there are megachurches that are all about money and numbers -- for that matter, there are small churches like that. But I've never seen any evidence of that on Southeast's part. I disagree with with their church's official position on lots of things. (No surprise. I go to a different church with a different take on things.) But I think that Southeast is, on the whole, remarkable for the good they do in our community and the hand they extend to people. That speaks well of their love of Christ.
	J.S. Holland   thu mar 11 2010 at 5:35 pm         ·  I am indeed "out of touch" - I don't pay attention to talking-point-parroting tv/radio pundits to tell me what I should think. That goes equally for Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann. Squares on both sides.
	Beverly Bartlett   thu mar 11 2010 at 5:39 pm         ·  You're right. I do not understand why liberals embrace K.O. I mean... sometimes he might be mildly amusing. But the same could be said about the Three Stooges. Jon Stewart is more of a real journalist that either of those two.
	frederic   thu mar 11 2010 at 8:55 pm         ·  I'm procrastinating agnostic--I keep meaning to get around to questioning the existence of God. Guess until I do I'm agnostic, but non-practicing.
	rob   fri mar 12 2010 at 4:04 am         ·  I want to know more about these alleged prostitutes.
	chuck   fri mar 12 2010 at 7:47 am         ·  If you actually believe this pandering "info-tainment" crap that Fox pushes as news, you need to watch the Youtube video with Glenn Beck. He cries on cue using Vicks Vaporub and is clearly heard saying "I guess I've used this stuff too much, it's not working anymore." http://bit.ly/23XG5o Sadly, there are plenty of folks that believe that Glenn Beck is the real deal. These folks have a lower than average IQ, but they are still our friends and neighbors. ;-)
	Foxfire   fri mar 12 2010 at 10:33 am         ·  Jesus was advocating that people should help each other. Not that Roman Government should pay for entitlements.
	Beverly Bartlett   fri mar 12 2010 at 11:49 am         ·  Was that what he was saying? Hmmm. I included the reference where he said that the NATIONS of the world would be judged by how they treated the "least" among them -- the poor, the hungry, the sick, the people in prison. Now, if you don't care what Jesus said: Fair enough. But good luck trying to convince me that he would think it was a really bad idea for the government to give poor kids health care.
	frederic   fri mar 12 2010 at 11:50 am         ·  It's supposed to be government of the people, by the people, for the people. That's the theory, anyway.
	Foxfire   fri mar 12 2010 at 12:35 pm         ·  Hmmmm...Beverly, So my tax dollars should pay for poor kids healthcare, food, housing and college. Where does it F******G end?! Well I'm gonna be a bit radical and say that maybe poor people shouldn't have kids if they can't care for them. Condoms are free at the clinic!
	frederic   fri mar 12 2010 at 1:04 pm         ·  I'm pretty sure most of your tax dollars will still go to help private interests exploit poor kids, if that makes you feel better. Contrary to popular belief, the poor do not have all the money.
	Mysanthropyc   fri mar 12 2010 at 2:06 pm         ·  Stop believing the hype. This "my tax dollars" bullshit has got to end. It isn't YOUR tax dollars anymore than when you pay rent, it's YOUR rent money. Tax dollars are collected to run the government, who in turn allocate funds to help their constituents or whatever else is deemed appropriate. The programs funded by tax dollars are there just in case people paying taxes need them. Fortunately for you, you're well enough to put yourself in a position where you don't need it. But just as soon as things goe south, and I pray they don't for you, you would be able to take advantage of said programs. So, short of voting, or calling/writing your representative who I'm SURE is listening to you, you have no say where "your" tax dollars go.
	Beverly Bartlett   fri mar 12 2010 at 2:09 pm         ·  Foxfire, who are you mad at? Me? Or Jesus? I'm just repeating what Jesus said. If you don't care what he said, then ... that's your right. If you do... then I don't see what good comes of getting mad at me about it.
	Beverly Bartlett   fri mar 12 2010 at 2:12 pm         ·  Good point, Mysanthropyc. I also have grown weary of the "entitlement program" phrasing. Wow, it sounds so bad -- "entitlement programs." I don't know how being "entitled" to food stamps is even more selfish than being "entitled" to having new roads built to my fancy new subdivision or being "entitled" to having police protection or being "entitled" to have national security. It's all entitlement programs.... people just use the phrase to refer to the ones they don't like.
	Mysanthropyc   fri mar 12 2010 at 2:17 pm         ·  Whatever happened to WWJD??

Want to hear some really bad twin names? Last week, The New York Times Magazine featured an interview with Harry Markopolos, the Bernie Madoff whistleblower. The best part was deliciously off-topic. He has twins whom he named: "Harry Louie" and "Louie Harry." That? That is terrible. Every year, the Social Security Administration gets a lot of attention when it releases its ranking of popular baby names. But they also release a companion list that gets less attention -- the ranking of twin names. I have to say, I find this list deeply disturbing. There is far too much matchy-matchy twin nonsense on the list. Consider Taylor and Tyler (the number 5 most popular twin combination.) Or Christian and Christopher (number 25.) CHRISTian and CHRISTopher? Seriously? It's practically the SAME NAME. Come on people. Then there's number 85 on the list: Adrian and Adriana. Great. Sibling names, especially twin names, should sound like they belong to the same family, certainly. You don't want to name one child Cosmos and the other Darren. Of course, no rule is absolute. There is room for individual taste and judgment. Maybe you have a good REASON to give your twins wildly disparate names. Still, even if Cosmos and Darren are named after their grandfathers -- lovely though the sentiment may be -- I would avoid it. If you're the kid named Darren, you're going to have issues. And if you're the one name Cosmos? Yeah, you will too. Likewise, Gabriella and Madge would be a bad combination. But while you want names that seem to "fit together" -- here is the critical point: You really want to avoid matchy, matchy names like many of those that dot the twin name list. I know those kind of names were once in fashion, but then people wised up. Come on. Show some imagination. Matchy-matchy in sound is bad: Jayden and Jaylen (number 27). Matchy-matchy in theme is bad: Summer and Autumn (number 57). Faith and Hope (number 14). So extremely matchy-matchy that they share a nickname is very bad: Alexander and Alexis (number 87.) Harry Louie/Louie Harry? I'm sorry. You can not come up with a scenario in which I'm going to give my blessing to that. Name one child Harry and one Louie and move on. However, the worst in the list is Number 75, which has a hidden sort of matchy-matchy. The combination is: Heaven and Nevaeh. If you're unfamiliar with the name Nevaeh, it's.... Heaven spelled backwards. Well, isn't that wonderful. "Here's our daughter Heaven and that's her backwards sister." The fact that one set of twin parents thought that was a good idea baffles me -- that 14 did in a single year? Heaven help us.

ADD A COMMENT

	J.S. Holland   tue mar 09 2010 at 9:05 am         ·  And then there's George Foreman, who has five sons, all of whom are named... "George". He also has a daughter named... "Georgetta". *headdesk*
	VeggieMomster   tue mar 09 2010 at 9:13 am         ·  OMG, this is ridiculously funny. I was getting up to stir my oatmeal when I read about Cosmos and Darren, and I lost all the strength in my legs as I LOL'd. I'm not a fan of pluralized names. I knew a girl when I was a kid named Summers. Yack. And, I met a kid recently named Rivers. How about just River? Is he so special that he gets to be multiple rivers at one time? He can't share? That "zuh" I have to udder at the end gives me duckface, and might wrinkle my lips in the long run.
	VeggieMomster   tue mar 09 2010 at 9:14 am         ·  LMFAO... ahem, I meant "utter" of course. Funny, since I was pecking away with one finger while breastfeeding. My bad.
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 09 2010 at 9:35 am         ·  That's funny, I named a book character "Hughes" once, because I thought his family seemed like the pretentious sort of people that would think one Hugh was not enough. ;-) J.S.: I know this is one of my more obnoxious opinions but (in general) I'm not a big fan of people naming their kids after themselves. Another family member? Sure, but yourself? So you can only imagine what I think about naming ALL your kids after yourelf. Good grief. Plus, if you had to go that way Georgia is so much better than Georgetta! ;-)
	rob   tue mar 09 2010 at 10:38 am         ·  I carry the III suffix. That's why I named my kid Gandhi. I'm waiting for someone who personally knows the Jell-O twins - Oranjelo and Lemonjelo - to chime in. My cousin Phil had them in an Arizona 4H camp. My aunt Barbara's friend babysat them in Marion County, Kentucky. My friend Karly's mom was working in University Hospital when they were born. The only thing is, they don't exist. They're like the mythical Midgetville out in Shepherdsville.
	George Smith #325659   tue mar 09 2010 at 10:46 am         ·  Who cares about twins names or Bernie Madoff? Amway has ripped off millions of people for several decades, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars: Amway is a scam, and here's why: Amway pays out as little money as they can get away with, so they support the higher level IBOs ripping off their downline via the tool scam. As a result, about 99% of IBOs operate at a net loss, while the top 1% make several TIMES more from their Amway tool scam than from the Amway products. This was made illegal in the UK in 2008, but our FTC is unable to pull their heads out of their butts to stop it here. Read about it on my blog, I suggest you start here: http://tiny.cc/D5oJh and forward the information to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed.
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 09 2010 at 11:06 am         ·  If I had twins, I'd named them: Am and Way.
	Sherry Deatrick   tue mar 09 2010 at 11:23 am         ·  Beverly - you are hilarious. Great post. Buffy and Jody would be my pick for twin names (an homage to "Family Affair"). Even if my twins were the same sex, I'd name 'em Buffy and Jody. No matter if they were boys or girls. That's just how I roll.
	rob   tue mar 09 2010 at 11:26 am         ·  I'm hoping for quadruplet girls so I can name them Sophia, Blanche, Rose and Dorothy.
	Sherry Deatrick   tue mar 09 2010 at 11:31 am         ·  hey Rob - do you know why drag queens prefer to impersonate Dorothy instead of Rose?
	rob   tue mar 09 2010 at 11:32 am         ·  It's probably a lot easier for them. Since Bea Arthur has left us, I'm going to leave it at that.
	LadyD   tue mar 09 2010 at 11:35 am         ·  "But while you want names that seem to "fit together" My question is why do they have to seem to "fit together"? I have identical twin boys....they are individuals....they treat them any other way. They don't have rhyming names (Jeffrey and Christopher) they don't dress alike (I can count on one hand how many times they have dressed alike). They are individuals and thus should be treated as such!
	J.S. Holland   tue mar 09 2010 at 11:36 am         ·  Why no Sherry, why DO drag queens prefer to impersonate Dorothy instead of Rose?
	rob   tue mar 09 2010 at 11:37 am         ·  Sorry, Sherry, I missed the opening.
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 09 2010 at 11:38 am         ·  Twin names should fit together the same way that any siblings names have fit together. If you name one daughter an ultra cool name like Isabella and name her sister Bertha .... it's just wrong. Jeffrey and Christopher do fit together I think.... They're not matchy-matchy, but they don't sound like the parents were bipolar either! I'm also eager to hear about the drag queen issue.
	Sherry Deatrick   tue mar 09 2010 at 11:43 am         ·  Why no, Rob, that's not it! It's because no man is a Nylund. Badonk donk.
	J.S. Holland   tue mar 09 2010 at 11:44 am         ·  *vaudeville music*
	ToschaLynn   tue mar 09 2010 at 12:43 pm         ·  I completely agree. Being a mom of twins myself I couldn't imagine naming my kids any of the above names.. My twins are more traditional and I feel sorry for any child who has to go through life explaining the not-so-through-descisions of their parents.
	rob   tue mar 09 2010 at 1:11 pm         ·  So you're a mother of twins?
	ToschaLynn   tue mar 09 2010 at 1:16 pm         ·  If the last comment was directed toward me, then yes I am a mother of 3 yr old twin boys. Who I couldnt be prouder of!
	frogbert   tue mar 09 2010 at 3:24 pm         ·  Twins are kind of creepy. Thanks Brian De Palma and your 1973 movie "Sisters" for ruining most male fantasies for me.
	Bragi   tue mar 09 2010 at 3:29 pm         ·  Tom and Jerry Itchy and Scratchy Ren and Stimpy Bug and Daffy There's a reason I shouldn't have kids...
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 09 2010 at 3:42 pm         ·  Frogbert and Bragi! (You all actually do look alike.)
	frogbert   tue mar 09 2010 at 3:46 pm         ·  He used to be a growth on my shoulder. I'm so proud of how far he's come since we were seperated!
	Bragi   tue mar 09 2010 at 3:47 pm         ·  You know, you mention that and I just turned on the Dilbert cartoon on NetFlix...
	Sherry Deatrick   tue mar 09 2010 at 4:07 pm         ·  Not all twins are creepy but they sure did fascinate Mengele. Now, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are pretty scary. Esp. in this 1933 film, voiced by Jack Oakie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXiZ-qqXqj4
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 09 2010 at 4:22 pm         ·  I feel the need to disassociate myself with the twin as creepy thing. I don't think twins are creepy at all. I think they're cool!
	rob   tue mar 09 2010 at 4:27 pm         ·  Have you seen The Shining?
	frogbert   tue mar 09 2010 at 4:34 pm         ·  I used to hang out with a couple of twins named Dale and Gale. I liked Gale a little better because, well, that's my middle name so we had kind of a connection there. When everyone in school started calling him Girly-Man because of his Girly-Name, i disassociated myself with both of those creepy guys.
	Liz Wynter #322763   tue mar 09 2010 at 7:11 pm         ·  I once knew a guy named Suk-Bum. It was pronounced exactly as you might think. Neveah isn't looking too bad after that.
	GtownGuy   wed mar 10 2010 at 12:41 am         ·  My Dad had a twin sister - no rhyming names. Otherwise, the only twins I have ever really known in over 60 years were sisters named Sue & Lou. Lou's first name was actually Nina, pronounced with a long i. Or was that Sue's first name?? Had to really concentrate just to tell them apart.
	On dat GROWN UP   wed mar 10 2010 at 10:17 pm         ·  Yea I definetly feel sorry fa people wit matchy matchy names as I'm stucky wit one and I kno wha its like......Kena n Jenna!

I overheard a woman talking about her problems with her young daughter recently by saying: "She's a typical Gemini." I didn't say anything then, but I'll say it now. She's doing her daughter a terrible disservice by using astrology in parenting because, not to put too fine of a point on it, astrology is bunk. Sometimes other parents ask me about my children's "birth signs" and I'm always at loss as to what to say. I want to be polite, but I also don't want just out and out lie. And the truth sounds impolite. Because the truth is this: I don't know. Because I don't care. Because it is bunk. If my son smarts off to me on early on a Monday morning, there are any number of reasons working together to explain why. It may be because he didn't get enough sleep. Or because he hasn't completely learned that it's unacceptable. Or because, well, I sort of smarted off to him too. As a parent, it's my job to correct those situations. It is not my job to say: "Ah, that's just what happens if Mercury is in retrograde when you were born. Typical!" If you look at writing sites where clients find freelancer writers, you will find people looking for someone to write horoscopes. Do you want to know what they're asking about? Is it your training in Astrology? No. It is your understanding of Astrology? No. Do they care if you personally believe in Astrology? No. It's how cheap you would work? Twenty-five word horoscope for a quarter? The job is yours! A growing number of children are born by scheduled C-section. If you honestly believe that a fully-formed, full-term child's personality will be determined by whether the C-section is scheduled for the morning of the 19th, as opposed to the afternoon of the 20th. Then... I don't know what to say to you. Other than this: You owe your child better than that.

ADD A COMMENT

	Liz Wynter #322763   mon mar 08 2010 at 11:43 am         ·  Why is astrology any different than any other religion with which you disagree? I'm a Jew in a town of "believers," and I've been told more than once that by not giving my children the benefit of some magical rabbi from two thousand years ago, I'm being a bad parent. At the very least, these people add, I should expose them and give them a choice. Points never made for a single other religion I've heard. Why is astrology fundamentally different? They sound equally unlikely to me. If I'm expected to not go around judging others because they believe that once a week they drink grape juice and it's some dead guys' blood,I'm not going to judge people who believe in astrology either.
	Abby Miller H.   mon mar 08 2010 at 11:47 am         ·  reading ANY respected literature shows that the astrological signs and descriptions of them are VERY accurate. I encourage you to at least read a book on it before you say it's bunk. There are several good, well respected books out there that describe children, adults, people in relationships, friendships, all from astrological signs. and they're spot on. I'm just saying before you call it bunk...do some research. you may be pleasantly surprised by what you learn about others...and yourself! :0)
	MaryBeth Mayfair   mon mar 08 2010 at 11:49 am         ·  If it's bunk then why should it matter if the writer's training is in astrology or not? Also, while I didn't hear the conversation I think that perhaps you are making a mountain out of mole hill. I sincerely doubt that this woman consults the astrology charts every time she makes a parenting decision. Sounds more like an offhand comment to me.
	Beverly Bartlett   mon mar 08 2010 at 11:58 am         ·  I know what you mean, Liz. There are people who teach their children religious doctrine that I don't agree with -- and I'm sure I could come up with cases where I actually think it's harmful. But that's more the individual application of the religion. I can't think of a prominent world religion that says your fate and your personality are determined by a single event that you had no control over. That's a rather critical difference for me. Teaching a child that they can't, for example, ever get along with their sibling because of their conflicting star sign does them a disservice in a way that being "theologically incorrect" or "mistaken about your belief in life origins" does not. That's where I'm coming from.
	Deanna Godman #325597   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:03 pm         ·  I have the same issue with people who insist that their child's behavior is because of gender. It pigeon-holes all children, not just their own.
	DavidsonDuke   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:06 pm         ·  Okay, Abby. What are the references to peer-reviewed literature that say astrology is highly accurate?
	SciFiNut   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:24 pm         ·  I think (hope) Abby is pulling our legs. Astrology has been proven to be "bunk" many times. If people who studied astrology would focus on, oh I don't know, curing cancer instead, the world would be a better place.
	Abby Miller H.   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:25 pm         ·  Lemme look 'em up...gotta love the internet right? lol. I am a Leo...and all descriptions of Leo's describe me to a "T." My hubby and mom are virgos...also spot on descriptions. Astrology is older than medicine and have some great applications. No, I wouldn't pigeon hole my kids b/c of their sign but I will say they were supposed to be born August 20th...dear Lord I thought...two leo's. I'm very glad they are born under the sign of Cancer. Much calmer. Gimme some time to look up the lit...or perhaps Beverly would like to since it's her blog. I don't want to jump in...just saying that there are some intriguing books out there that I've enjoyed over the years. :0)
	Abby Miller H.   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:25 pm         ·  P.S. Bev...what's your sign?
	SciFiNut   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:27 pm         ·  Abby, please don't do this. Don't embarrass yourself publicly. The apparent paths of the Sun, the Moon, and the major planets all fall within the zodiac. Because of the precession of the equinoxes, the equinox and solstice points have each moved westward about 30 degrees in the last 2,000 years. Thus, the zodiacal constellations named in ancient times no longer correspond to the segments of the zodiac represented by their signs. In short, had you been born at the same time on the same day of the year 2,000 years ago, you would have been born under a different sign. In fact, there should be 13 signs, not 12.
	SciFiNut   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:30 pm         ·  I don't know how to copy/paste these links without clicking through to my profile, but here's a reference, fwiw: http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html
	Abby Miller H.   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:31 pm         ·  scifi....what's your sign? :0) i'm not embarrassing myself. but if you seriously look at the descriptors of astrology signs you will see they're quite accurate. God made this a pretty cool and complex world. I'm open to all aspects of it, not just the ones to which i ascribe. Great blog topic btw...
	Liz Wynter #322763   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:34 pm         ·  I can definitely see where a person would have a problem with a belief system that pre-determined a person's character and decisions would be problematic. Is little Jimmy acting up in school? He can't help it! It's his star sign showing! Okay, I get your point. By the same token, wouldn't a lot of evangelical Christians dislike astrology for this reason? Isn't any interference with free will and choice a contradiction of their theology? Aren't they all about having the freedom to accept Jesus? Or maybe they're closet Presbyterians.
	SciFiNut   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:36 pm         ·  Dr. Erika Bourguignon, professor of anthropology at Ohio State University, refers to astrology as a pseudoscience and a divinatory art, and John Maddox, editor of the science journal Nature, has commented on astrology as it was dealt with in his publication: . . . one of the things we have published on astrology a few years back was a very carefully done study in California with the collaboration of 28 astrologers from the San Francisco area and lots of subjects——118 of them altogether——and lunar charts were made by the astrologers. It turned out that the people couldn't recognize their own charts any more accurately than by chance. . . . and that seems to me to be a perfectly convincing and lasting demonstration of how well this thing works in practice. My regret is that there's so many intelligent, able people wasting their time and, might I say, taking other people's money, in this hopeless cause. Sir Maddox was referring to the project of Dr. Shawn Carlson of San Diego, which tested astrology and was reported in Nature.
	AshNky22   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:37 pm         ·  I'm with SciFi on this one. Astrology is a bunch of horse shit. My 6 year old was a planned c-sections and this baby is a planned c-section too. Are you telling me that I can control their personality since me and the doc get to pick the due date? Please.
	The JOKER~   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:37 pm         ·  who gives a shit what you think ?????
	Abby Miller H.   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:40 pm         ·  Linda Goodman, I'd have to argue, is probably the most well known author...her book, "Sun Signs" was the first book on astrology ever to make the "New York Times" bestseller list. She has some great work. Also, a lot of people think she was THE person who advanced the New Age movement. It's cool if some disagree, but I do challenge you to look at the descriptors and truthfully say they don't describe you, your spouse, your best friend to a "T." I don't think we all understand the world around us to any extent, but I don't think I can judge someone who sees the literature, matches it to their child or spouse, and thinks, "hey, there's something to all this." My only point was to at least look at it before you say it's bunk.
	DavidsonDuke   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:40 pm         ·  re: Presbyterians. After the Reformation, it was common in biographies of church leaders to omit their birthdate. At that time, it was common to begin a biography with a birthdate and then to describe how the person's life played out in accordance with astrology. By omitting the birthdate of Reformers, the authors were trying to curb that practice. Abby, I really want to see the lit. By saying "any respected literature" you made a very strong claim.
	SciFiNut   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:40 pm         ·  Chuck Porter's genius contribution to the thread. Bravo!
	AshNky22   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:50 pm         ·  I'm an Aquarius and the description does not fit me. My husband is an Aquarius and it does not fit him...You also have to remember a lot of times the descriptions for each sign are so damn broad almost anyone can fit under any one of them in some way. My sign says I work best in groups. I hate group projects, I dislike most people in fact, and I'm an anti social bitch usually, same goes for the husband.
	Beverly Bartlett   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:51 pm         ·  Deanna, I SOOOO agree with you about that! Mary Beth, it doesn't matter to me if the writers are unqualified, except to the extent that uninformed, untrained writers are EVIDENCE that it's bunk. Liz, I don't know exactly what you mean by the closet Presbyterian line. (I AM Presbyterian. Proudly out of the closet on that.) But I agree generally that the two do not seem particularly compatible to me. Abby, SciFiNut is addressing the research issue very well, I think. So I'll just let him speak for me for the time being. In my limited poking around, I found nothing that struck me as serious, impressive work that validated it. And my own personal observation -- to the extent that people are using that as evidence -- is that it is wildly inaccurate.
	ShawnH   mon mar 08 2010 at 12:53 pm         ·  I don't understand how you can judge a persons parenting style by one comment. Maybe she took that kid home and beat its ass. Maybe she was trying to make an excuse for her kids behavior to the people around her. It's not like you can discipline kids in public anymore without fear of getting reported. Unless you personally know this person and know they use astrology to guide their parenting skills, this is a pretty strong statement.
	SciFiNut   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:03 pm         ·  Shawn I think Beverly's point is that it's sad and pathetic if the parent honestly believes a child is a *typical* sunsign. IMO, the world would better off if we all forgot about astrology and focused on studying real science and solving real problems.
	J.S. Holland   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:04 pm         ·  Even if it were true that Astrology is bunk - and I'm not saying it is - why such hate regarding the subject? Let superstitious people do their thing.
	SciFiNut   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:07 pm         ·  **Let superstitious people do their own thing.** Good one. But do we really want to insult the other belief systems by calling astrology a religion? That's like referring to playing slot machines as gaming.
	VeggieMomster   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:13 pm         ·  Religion is also superstition. Even if "God" exists, "He" has nothing to do with religion.
	J.S. Holland   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:13 pm         ·  SciFiNut, astrology is crucial to many New Age religions. I know some people who would consider this article a type of religious attack, even though Beverly is clearly speaking of bourgeois supermarket tabloid astrology, which is a whole 'nother thing.
	Beverly Bartlett   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:19 pm         ·  J.S. I certainly didn't intend to be demonstrating "hate" and I don't think I used language that was that strong. (This gets to Shawn's point as well.) It's not as if I said the woman was a terrible mother or that she shouldn't have children or that she was stupid and/or should go to jail. I said she was "doing a disservice" to her child -- perhaps it would have been better if had added "ON THIS ONE THING" for emphasis. I don't see that it's any different than writing about how some parents rely on chicken nuggets too much and that is a disservice to their kids. I see this as demonstrably true and nonhateful, even if it does step on my own toes a wee bit! ;-)
	MaryBeth Mayfair   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:21 pm         ·  I don't get the astrology as religion thing. People always ask me if I know a lot about astrology because I'm pagan. Really? The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact I can't really come up with any pagan religion that uses astrology as part of their religion. (Maybe I'm having a brain fart, but nothing comes to mind.) Now the solstice and the equinoxes, sure. However, that has nada to do with astrology.
	SciFiNut   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:21 pm         ·  JSH, if many New Age religions rely on astrology, then the people practicing those New Age religions have been misled. Astrology is based on slightly less logic and science than Scientology, which is to say, it's all made up, and it's all science fiction, or as the OP put it, bunk.
	J.S. Holland   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:23 pm         ·  Like I say, Beverly, there are people for whom Astrology is part of their religion and not an idle game of "let's see what this magazine says my horoscope is today", people for whom the tone of this article is a lot more offensive than I think you realize.
	J.S. Holland   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:25 pm         ·  "..people practicing those New Age religions have been misled." Well, that's no concern of mine. I'm not in the business of telling people what to believe and what not to believe.
	SciFiNut   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:34 pm         ·  JSH, pray tell in what business are you? Your post makes it sound like you're defending some unspecified New Age religions. Are you some sort of expert on those religions and how astrology fits in? I went through a period years ago where I studied both sides of the astrology debate, and I conclude there is an infinite supply of scientific evidence providing that it is 100% bunk. Linda Goodman is, in my opinion, for all intents and purposes, the devil incarnate for popularizing astrology with her sun-sign theories. I'm pro-religion. But calling astrology a religion is just wrong, man.
	Beverly Bartlett   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:43 pm         ·  Well, J.S. it's not my intention to be mean-spirited about anyone's religion if that's how they honestly view this. But I have been known to speak up against all sorts of religions when they take to labeling and limiting people and to teaching their children to use tools that hamper their ability to actually understand the world -- and that's what I'm speaking out against here.
	Lowell   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:46 pm         ·  I believe this was likely an off-handed comment by the parent. Don't people say things they don't mean? To make light of a situation? Rather than go into all the heavier, more personal details of their home life? I seriously doubt [m]any parent[s] would "blame" behavior (exclusively) on astrology. It's a joke...silly conversation. Much like Chit Chat. And, for what it's worth, I do not believe in astrology or read horoscopes. Far too cynical for that. However, I am a "typical Gemini". Every attribute dead on. Go figure.
	J.S. Holland   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:51 pm         ·  We agree on that, Beverly - except the debunkers, skeptics, and scientific rationalists who oppose Astrology do more than their share of labeling and limiting as well. Me, I'm content to neither embrace it or oppose it, but to accept it as just another part of life's rich pageant.
	Abby Miller H.   mon mar 08 2010 at 1:57 pm         ·  Well said J.S. I think you just stated my position much more eloquently than I could have. :0)
	Helen Keller   mon mar 08 2010 at 2:10 pm         ·  "I am a Leo...and all descriptions of Leo's describe me to a "T." My hubby and mom are virgos...also spot on descriptions." Just thought I'd mention the Forer Effect in relation to this. There are explanations for such things (other than claiming influence of stars & planets) which have been tested and observed scientifically. Not that you can't/won't still believe what you like.
	rob   mon mar 08 2010 at 2:15 pm         ·  I had a girlfriend who was really into astrology. She was wrong less often than most of the other women I've dated.
	DavidsonDuke   mon mar 08 2010 at 2:35 pm         ·  Here's a description of Taurus ("my sign"): Taurus is the sign of practicality and possessions. Not really. People born under the sign of Taurus tend to be very patient, practical and dedicated people. Nope. Such people are usually very cautious when dealing with people, life and money. Nope. They have a curious power of dominating others, even when not conscious of trying to do so. some truth People who were born in that time are extremely faithful, with a strong need for security and a settled routine. I hate settled routine. Although they are very earthy, they can also be highly romantic and sensitive when it comes to love. Hope so. They have great power of endurance, both physical and mental, and can pass through enormous strains of fatigue as long as the excitement or determination lasts. Only in the short term. They make wonderful hosts and hostesses, and have great taste about food, and in the management of their houses they can make much out of little. First part yes, second part no. These people often become excellent directors, have good business intuition, but are generally considered richer than they really are, as they always dress well and look well. Mostly true, actually, but no business intuition.
	SciFiNut   mon mar 08 2010 at 2:50 pm         ·  Wow...I've been missing the beauty of astrology. You CAN divide billions of people into 12 convenient little buckets and predict with amazing accuracy what qualities they'll possess. I think I'll start my own Church of Astrology and charge admission -- I mean, collect tithes -- from the followers. --There's a sucker born every minute-- has never been truer than in 2010.
	Beverly Bartlett   mon mar 08 2010 at 3:43 pm         ·  Now, now Scifinut. I don't think there is any need to besmirch the reputation of the good people being born this year. I don't think any of them are posting here! ;-)
	Liz Wynter #322763   mon mar 08 2010 at 8:18 pm         ·  Bev, I didn't mean to suggest that Presbyterians are New Agers. Sorry! I just think it's funny that Evangelicals would also believe in astrology. Being able to predict the future must mean that it's predestined to happen. And if someone's personality is determined by the stars, it can't be a matter of free choice. I was just joking that a Baptist who believes in astrology must be a secret believer in predestination.
	ShawnH   mon mar 08 2010 at 9:37 pm         ·  so Scifi have you been hurt by any astrology? Why so defensive? Why not let people believe what they want to believe. Unless we should just all follow what you belive blindly. But then isn't that the same thing?
	Beverly Bartlett   mon mar 08 2010 at 11:12 pm         ·  I don't understand why you think SciFiNut is insisting that people blindly believe what he does. He is arguing exactly the opposite of that. He's arguing that people should look at the scientific evidence, as he has done. And no problem, Liz... I was just momentarily confused, not offended. When you're making sophisticated jokes about points of doctrine, you have to forgive some of us for being slow on the uptake! Sorry!
	Mixed Mojo   tue mar 09 2010 at 12:45 am         ·  We all search for meaning in a cold indifferent universe in our own wacky ways. Astrology certainly isn't any sillier or harmful than all the other things to which people grasp so desperately. I find it funny how most Christians think Astrology is of the devil at worst, nonsense at best. Most "real" Christians anyway. I guess that isn't so true anymore since we've all become relativistic appropriators of whatever new age nonsense that makes us feel good (whether we admit it to ourselves or not). From what I understand, the charts they use are ancient. Created many many centuries ago by relatively ignorant boy rapist in togas. The earths relative position to the rest of the universe has changed significantly since then (astrologically speaking) so all of these readings we get today are "inaccurate". Funny how so many people think there is some value to Astrology but no one actually KNOWS there is. That is because there isn't beyond being a fun parlor game.
	Mixed Mojo   tue mar 09 2010 at 12:52 am         ·  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilSBQpcbuYY I know this is entertainment but it makes as many good points as anything else.
	Mixed Mojo   tue mar 09 2010 at 1:10 am         ·  Do you know the nurse that helped birth you had more of a gravitation affect on you at the time of your birth than any of the planets did. Good thing she didn't leave the room or who knows what kind of monster you may have turned out to be. Skepticism and scientific rationalism aren't any fun and make people who subscribe to them look like smug pricks, but skepticism and scientific rationalism DID help get us out of the Dark Ages much much more than Religion and Astrology did.
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 09 2010 at 9:29 am         ·  Believing in, say, the Beatitudes is hardly the same as believing in astrology. I certainly don't defend everything that done in the name of religion. There's quite a lot, in fact, that I denounce. But it doesn't go against science to, for example, follow Jesus's instructions about how to treat the poor. Teaching my children to visit the sick is a value that benefits society. Teaching them that they're irreparably bull-headed because of the day they were born is counter-productive - AND not true.
	Sherry Deatrick   tue mar 09 2010 at 12:16 pm         ·  How does Nbiru (Planet X or Marduk) affect astrological predictions today? <snark>
	mooncityfairy   wed mar 10 2010 at 5:39 am         ·  During a class I took in college years ago we were asked to review 2 scenarios: one was about a man who was 700 years old who was told to build an ark & put all animals (in pairs) on said ark before a flood, & he did, & life was good. The 2nd story was about whether or not the stars determined our personalities. We were asked which 1 we thought was "true" and which one was "ridiculous". Everyone in the class said the 2nd story was ridiculous & the 1st true...their reasoning? It was what they believed. I was the only person who said "They are the same". Not only are they based on things that can't be proven *try as many have for both over the years* but many people have gotten rich off of both. And believe it or not, astrology is seen as a faith to some people & goes deeper than when you were born correlating with certain personality. Also to address the scheduled c-section argument. I think zodiac personalities are based on when you are supposed to be born (9months) after conception, not when your mother decides to cut you out. My friend doesn't have a Leo personality at all, she acted more like a Virgo. I found out years into our friendship that she was born a month early. Same w/my cousin, he doesn't fit his zodiac either he was 2 mos. early. As for the article, I could question *your* parenting and ask why in the hell you let your kid get away with mouthing off to you. Lack of discipline is hurting these kids more than believing zodiac profiles.
	mooncityfairy   wed mar 10 2010 at 5:57 am         ·  I know I'm about to sound like I'm hardcore into astrology but it's a different viewpoint than what's been expressed, and I'm a mediator type so hey I'm going to argue the other side for balance. We cant make personality calls based on the day they were born, but we can in the order they were born, in the sex they were born, in the race they were born? People make judgments on how they think people should act and how they expect them to act based on these things, what makes the day different? Other than being organized I fit a Virgo personality, but I also act like a typical youngest child also. People make judgments on my personality based on my race often and then are surprised when I don't conform to that. I've heard people expect their children to have unfavorable personalities b/c of their hair color. This is not exclusive to just people's signs. Very few individuals believe in astrology through and through and a whole lot more of you need to fess up and admit that you've read zodiac stuff and related to it or read it "just to see if it's right".
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 10 2010 at 7:21 am         ·  I don't know what makes you think that I "allow" my child to mouth off to me. I specifically said that if he does, it's my job to do something about it.
	frederic   thu mar 11 2010 at 12:12 am         ·  My Mom used to talk about my Dad's sign a lot, and I looked it up, and I have to admit he was exactly like the description of a Gemini. But then I noticed the dates, and he wasn't a Gemini. My Dad's name was Jim, and I guess I got confused because my Mom was always saying Jim and I do this, Jim and I do that. He was a Libra. Okay. That fits too.
	Sherry Deatrick   thu mar 11 2010 at 1:04 am         ·  Good one!
	frederic   thu mar 11 2010 at 10:10 pm         ·  Thanks Sherry, but I think it'd be kind of a corny joke, if it wasn't absolutely true. I did have the idea my dad was a gemini, I did look it up, it did fit, and when I realized he was a libra and looked that up, it said virtually the exact same thing.

I kind of pride myself on being cheap. Well, not "cheap" exactly. But frugal and (this is important) responsible with the planet's resources. So buying used stuff? I'm ALL ABOUT it. Even so, I kind of have a love/hate relationship with the big children's consignment sales that are so popular. Perhaps the most famous locally is the KidStuff Sale, which is kicking off its spring sale season this weekend at Hoops. (Details here.) Sometimes referred to informally as the "Owl Creek" sale, because it was held for several years in the Owl Creek subdivision, the sale lets people set their own prices for their neat, hung, and organized children's items. The organizer charges a fee for advertising and such, and gets a cut of the haul. But the sellers get the majority of the money from their goods, a good high-traffic place to sell it, AND (always a plus) a way to get rid of their old kid's stuff, without the kids really noticing. (The way they might if you laid out their old Thomas track on the driveway during a garage sale.) It can be a good deal for sellers with good stuff, even factoring in the time it takes to label and tag everything according to their (rather exacting) specifications and doing a required work stint. The first time I went to the sale, as a buyer, I just fell in LOVE with the concept. It had many of the advantages of buying kids gear from garage sales, but with additional pluses. 1)Everything was marked and organized. You weren't left to paw through an disorganized jumble of boys t-shirts trying to find the occasional 4T, like you sometimes find at a garage sale. Instead, everything was hung on hangers, organized in clearly marked sections by sex and size, and with a price labeled in an obvious place. 2)They have nearly everything. Far larger than than any normal "garage sale" and much larger, in fact, that most consignment stores, you were virtually guaranteed that, especially for young children, they would have what you're looking for. You didn't have to troll about, going to 18 garage sales hoping that one that said "baby items" would have a stroller. KidStuff would have strollers. Definitely. Yeah, the prices were usually a little higher than at a garage sale, but only a little. I was happy to pay a modest premium to avoid the aforementioned trolling. So I loved it. But then I kind of got to ... hate .. it. Now, hate is a strong word. But, as is so often the case, success ruins a good thing. In this case, in my opinion, people got greedy and prices start to climb. They computerized the pricing, which made checking out easy and speeded up payment to the sellers. (I've been a seller too.) So that's great. But it also made selling stuff a bit of a pain. I know the official line is that the process of adding computerized tags to your items is simple. And, you know, compared to brain surgery it is. But it's enough of a hassle that it contributes to inflation. For example: I'm not going to go to the trouble of entering descriptions and prices for 100 pieces of baby clothes, print those cards out, cut them into the proper size, and pin them to the clothes one by one if I'm charging 50 cents a piece. I'm just not. It's a fine way to put a price tag on a stroller that you're selling for $25, but it's a pain for a pair of pjs that you were going to sell for $2. So you do it, but you put $5 on it. And then the customer is standing there thinking: "Do I want to pay $5 for used pjs?" My feeling is that prices have increased in the past few years in a way that makes the sale much less of a bargain. I've seen things like Old Navy t-shirts that are labeled at $4. Why on earth would I buy a used Old Navy t-shirt for $4, when if I wait for a sale, I can get a new one for $2? Am I doing this for my health? Don't get me wrong. I still do love parts of it. Consignment sales are great way to buy large items, especially those for younger kids who outgrow things quickly. Activity tables, the smallest sized bikes, bouncy seats, and strollers. They're also reasonable ways to clothe a baby. You have to wade through some overpriced stuff, but most of it is like new. How many times does a baby wear a 0-3 month sized party dress? Answer: Not many. (As your kids get older, it gets dicier. It's hard to find size 8 pants without holes in them. ) But my enthusiasm for the sale has waned a little. What do you think? Do you find consignment sales a good way to clothe the kids or not?

ADD A COMMENT

	kendramimosa   thu mar 04 2010 at 11:17 am         ·  computerization ruins everything.
	frogbert   thu mar 04 2010 at 3:38 pm         ·  I prefer Goodwill and a strong detergent.
	Beverly Bartlett   thu mar 04 2010 at 5:36 pm         ·  Goodwill works for some things, but most of them aren't well organized which... you know... adds to the charm in some respects. But when you're just trying to find some size 6 boys pants and you have to look and look through yards of every other size in the world.... I'd gladly pay $2 instead of $1 for a bit of organization!