T.G.I. FRiDAY's Partners With Tea Party

at 02/12/10 9:44AM *

Through an old agency connection I got pulled in as a subcontractor on a pretty exciting gig about a month ago. T.G.I. FRiDAY's is interested in producing some full-spread ads for placement throughout various Tea Party event programs. Smartly, they agreed to pay for printing the programs in exchange for a full sponsorship. This is an interesting shift of their attention away from their core demographic: 18-24 year old males for whom Bennigan's feels a little too crowded.

The restaurant, due to the current political climate, felt it was time to really own the "G" in their name. Some will call it a cynical choice, but the Far Right is bound to co-opt a restaurant chain to which they can confidently send their throngs, so why not FRiDAY's? To create a little buzz about the campaign and partnership, they are allowing us to give you a sneak peak at two of the ads. Get excited. The Far Left are about to have never felt so foolish for what they believe, and the Right, never more justified.

Prayer in Schools

In case it isn't abundantly clear. None of this is true.

That's it. I'm boycotting every restaurant but Friday's now. And I'm going for the $1 Margaritas. Fetuses like alcohol.

by wifelet at 02/12/10 10:33AM
hah, i'll have to go have some buffalo wings now. shoot

by shadow at 02/12/10 6:29PM
Hilar.

by megan at 02/14/10 11:20PM
Um. Wow. Glad we can have our alcohol as long as we sanctify it first!

by curlie at 02/15/10 11:01PM
that's awesome. I'd love to know how their sales do after this...

by jules at 02/20/10 10:41AM
nicely done.

by chooselove at 03/07/10 6:49PM
this guy reminds me of you, for some reason

by shadow at 03/08/10 8:10AM

On Liking the Right People

at 02/09/10 10:26AM

I got my grapes crushed recently by some friends over my distaste for Glenn Beck (It was not the first time, but part of a pattern across several people over a year's time, which is why I mention it anonymously, not because I'm trying to fire off a passive/aggressive, you-know-who-you-are internet zinger. Which - good grief - I hate.). There were text-book scandalized gasps and some rather hasty math done that I was a ravenous Obama devotee. I’m far from in love with him, I’m just not convinced he’s the Antichrist. The reason I can’t stand Beck and his ilk is because I am conservative. I’d like at least one person to step forward and share a conservative view point without a bone-in ham on each hand.

Here’s the thing: My gasping friends haven’t attended Tea Parties (to my knowledge, though I will happily retract if corrected). They’ve voted. They’ve prayed. They’ve bought books. They’ve tuned their radios and TVs. They've felt the thrill of shared, nationally broadcasted, debatably clever, seemingly righteous indignation. But they haven’t protested, they haven't lobbied and they do not want anything close to a red-neck uprising. Nor I. In fact, I voted the same way they did. I prayed the same things they did. So, in terms of my net effect on the nation, I’m not doing an ounce less than my friends. The only thing I’m not doing is giving Glenn Beck my money.

Be careful, my dears, when whipping each other over unactionable thoughts held, and for crying eyes, don't beat your friends with your favorite flavor of commentary extremism, be it left or right. You'd do better to fight about how you take your coffee.

Not sure I agree with you on the last statement. I don't think fighting/brow-beating is in good form, but a good book says that iron sharpens iron. Why not have debate of ideas? Talking things out with people usually results in a reasoned position rather than a emotional position.

by shadow at 02/09/10 11:10AM
I'm not a big fan of Beck either. He's a little too fatalist "the world is coming to an end as we know it" for me. The voters of Massachusetts did more good for our country, through our democratic system, than the Tea Parties (I'm not against those though because I just see them as symbolic representation that we are not going to stand for the assaults against our Consititution/future freedom.) I think the Tea Parties are showing the liberal groups that we do have a voice and we can make verbal stinks like they can, but we've accomplished more with our voting power and with the people we interact with on a daily basis. I personally think we accomplish more convincing someone to vote conservative through discussion/debate, than do go scremaing through the streets holding Lipton Tea Bags. Or Luzianne. I'm not partial.

by staci at 02/09/10 11:41AM
Colbert's Glenn Beck parody "Doom Bunker" had me screaming with laughter.

by holly_ann at 02/09/10 11:51AM
Nice ham, btw.

by holly_ann at 02/09/10 11:51AM
Glenn Beck is a godly man as much as French fries are good French cuisine. He's worshipping the same name with a very different meaning.

by radthanael at 02/09/10 12:00PM
Jay, I'm totally up for measured conversation, and thereby sharpening one another. And I actually found my way into some in the same conversation I'm mentioning above. But. Talking things out and exploring ideas in a way that leaves everyone room to think is, sadly, rarely my experience. It's usually more of a frightened shock that anyone could sanely think anything farther left then themselves.

by chaz at 02/09/10 12:15PM
Amen to it all.

by hoose at 02/09/10 12:33PM
And this is why you're a good person. I enjoyed listening to Michael Savage when I was 15. But then I got tired of all the anger. I still have my political opinions, and it still upsets me when the Constitution is ignored. But I don't have to yell about it, and the world's not about to end. God is in control, and I desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one.

by dwatkins at 02/09/10 3:39PM
"God is in control, and I desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one." Daniel, amen.

by chaz at 02/09/10 6:26PM
The gasps I got when I said that Bush was as much of a sinner as Obama... I'm surprised there was any oxygen left in the room. I cannot, and will not, support Beck, Limbaugh, or whats her toes.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever. Thank GOD for that.

by scbrewer at 02/09/10 8:38PM
I so agree with you. Far left? Far right? Both extreme. Both dangerous.

by justg at 02/10/10 6:22AM
agreed. totally agreed.

by whipsmile at 02/10/10 8:39AM
Speaking of fighting about how we take our coffee... a coworker gazed into my mug the other day and said "Hmm. Coffee with training wheels." I opened my mouth to quote your line about not judging how others prepare their joe... but forgot what you said. So I just said "Whatever."

by timstarr at 02/10/10 10:49PM

Merry Christmas!

at 12/22/09 3:40PM

Disclaimer reads: This year’s family photo wasn’t as flattering as we would have liked, so we are cartoons.

I've picked up the Ukulele of late. Here's a little number for your edification.

Lovin' the uke. Nice job and Merry Christmas to you, too! (Jady said he thought the same thing about the song at first. :-) )

by missy at 12/22/09 3:51PM
My holidays have been made a little brighter by your song and by the lyrics lesson. Merry Christmas to you, too.

by hoose at 12/22/09 4:32PM
Isn't flame-top on a Uke a bit super fluidous?

by 71lespaulcustom at 12/22/09 5:05PM
well done, sir... and is that a picture of FDR in the background?

by mropolo at 12/22/09 8:17PM
Yes, that is FDR. My Mimi needlepointed it in 1976. The detail, which you can't make out here, is amazing.

by chaz at 12/22/09 8:42PM
WooHoo on the uke!!! What an under-rated instrument! I smiled for 2 minutes and 38 seconds! Thank you for that and a Merry Christmas to you and yours!

by justg at 12/22/09 10:48PM
The needlepoint of FDR is a great touch.

by curlie at 12/23/09 10:17AM
*like*

by darth_bluejay at 12/23/09 10:56PM
Did you stutter at the beginning?

by buddabignbald at 12/24/09 1:02PM
N-n-no.

by chaz at 12/24/09 1:55PM
happy
holidays!

by fullofgrace at 12/24/09 2:04PM
Nicely done.

by megan at 12/24/09 5:58PM

Art Imitating Art

at 11/23/09 1:13PM

My Mom had a painting of this photograph commissioned when I was a kid. It’s finally mine.

You look joyful and hopeful in the photo. In the painting, you just look...kinda crochety. :)

by isabeau_danjou at 11/23/09 2:02PM
I want to know if you still wear that outfit! Ahhh....the good old days!

by maddieandiansmama at 11/23/09 8:28PM
oooo....sckary

by sunnylee at 11/23/09 11:46PM
...and all this time I thought that was one of your daughters... oops!

by timstarr at 11/24/09 12:52PM
I think Paint Charlie smells what Photo Charlie did.

by radthanael at 11/26/09 12:20PM
That is exactly what I have always thought. LOL

by lovnprayers at 11/29/09 8:01PM
Maybe I shouldn't have told the artist the story before she painted the picture. That might have swayed her interpretation.

by lovnprayers at 11/29/09 8:03PM
did she put you in blue because you are a redhead?

by lefantstaf at 12/10/09 9:11AM

Permission

at 11/19/09 11:58AM *

Seems like all these morality issues we are fighting about share a root, in the more conservative camp anyway: we don't want a law on our books calling good what God called sin. That's the long and short of it. It's interesting to me in that theme, and often in the same conversation, I hear notes of rebellion against the Government to "Take Back Our Country™." After all, it's allegedly within our right according to the laws of this land. And since God put all rulers and nations and authorities into power himself (Rom 13:1-2), and since we are to obey the laws of the land, we have the right to be part of a second American Revolution, or, perhaps a secession (Yes, Texas, everyone knows. Maybe work on your poker face).

Let's pretend for a moment that permission made its way explicitly into our US Constitution (Which it did not. It is there called, quite plainly, "Treason."), and did not live exclusively in that break up letter of old, our Declaration of Independence (Which it does. It would be nice if it could be cited in court with a straight face, or to any avail, by a band of Self Deputized Nephews of Their Uncle Sam, assuming they were not shot on sight.). Let's say it's all there totally, explicitly permitting us to "throw off such government, and to provide new guards for [our] future security." That is rebellion. And Samuel told King Saul that God said, "rebellion is as the sin of divination." (1 Samuel 15:23) Think of that. God said rebellion is as bad as divination. It would appear to me our founding fathers, so nobly informed by their Christian faith, called good something God called sin. Probably don't worry about it, though. Just carry on. Keep stock-piling ammo.

EDIT: I removed the specific, named issues initially at the beginning of this post because they are too hot and too easy to tangent, and were not my main point.

Amen.... minus the last three sentences, of course! :P

by curlie at 11/19/09 12:04PM
I'm upset that the laws of America don't reflect my faith. It was a lot better in the first century for Christians, I think.

by radthanael at 11/19/09 1:58PM
Perhaps you've overlooked one thing. The rebellion that Samuel had in mind was clearly that against God. Were those who rebelled against Hitler, either overtly or covertly, sinning by doing so? I think not. Rebellion may be writ large or small, and we all do it. Sometimes we are justified in the doing. Sometimes we are not. It's pretty easy to paint with too broad a brush.

by parker1000 at 11/19/09 8:04PM
Thanks. That clarifies things for me. I appreciate it.

by staci at 11/19/09 8:27PM
I'm not convinced 1st century Christians had it that great, but I know for a fact that the Roman policy of "a Christian in every pot" benefitted the 1st century lions hugely.

by lyryk at 11/20/09 12:41AM
Andy, someone else pointed that out about Samuel, too, but I'm not able to read a governmental exception between those lines, not yet anyway. And more than in Samuel, both Paul and Peter said to obey the governmental officials because they were ordained by God, and anyone resisting them would bring judgment on themselves. And they said that of what would have been Roman government at the time, a government doing a lot worse than socializing their healthcare and bailing out their banks, to name just two (Though to name one of the hottest topics, I hardly think, in light of what else was being practiced in the public squares at the time, and legally, giving homosexuals a marriage certificate would have seemed like fighting about how to file the speeding tickets.)

Andy, I hope you won't read even a drop of sass or internet bravado into my response. I have been struggling mightily with what I read in the New Testament and the way many American Christians abide our supposed calling to make America a Christian Nation proper. I don't want to live in a first century government, not by a long shot, but I'm not sure I'm willing to spill my, or my children's blood to avoid the conditions under which the Gospel thrived. I'll write my congressmen, I'll vote, but don't call me when the shooting starts (I've never heard you tell anyone to load up, so that's more about the general tone of the national discussion.). I guess that's what I'm really getting at in my response to the current political climate. Jesus went to such a length shame to prove He wasn't interested in a Christian Nation, only for Americans to wring our hands, and each other's necks, over what a lousy job we are doing of being one.

I spend most of my time on the internet sniping away meaninglessly with obscure, alleged "humor," and some of that exaggerated technique invariably comes out when I write about something serious, but this topic is one with which I have legitimately wrestled for some time now, and on which I could most certainly use some guidance (*cough, cough*).

by chaz at 11/20/09 10:23AM
This just popped into my head with regards to Hitler. It may not hold up to rigorous logic, a condition to which my thoughts are not strangers, but hitting this "comment" button is free of charge, so I'll send it out into the ether.

I wonder if WW2 could be strictly considered a rebellion. I get more of a feeling rebellion has to do with a subject acting against a figure of authority. If that is the case, America's involvement might be considered more peer discipline than rebellion since Germany was not an authority over us, nor we over them. We were just two peers having a frank exchange of ideas. Does anyone buy that, or should I go back to the drawing board?

by chaz at 11/20/09 11:50AM
Thoughts provided courtesy of Charlie Trotter's Hair Splitting Emporium.

by chaz at 11/20/09 11:53AM
I think there's a difference between what the American government did to stop Hitler (governments seem to be given the "right," for lack of a better term, to handle such things *at least* within their borders, if not without) and participating in a full-out resistance if you were a German citizen. Although I admire the efforts of the people involved in the resistance, I don't see resistance or the long-touted "civil disobedience" being allowed for under Romans 13. I think you're spot on, even though it's not popular, convenient, or comfortable. I remember the day when I realized that sit-ins and the like during the Civil Rights Era, while admirable causes where human logic is concerned, were technically violations of Romans 13. Or the Underground Railroad, for that matter. That wasn't comfortable, so I don't say any of this as if I have it all figured out. I just think that we have swallowed so many camels in our attempts to strain out gnats that it's ridiculous.

by curlie at 11/20/09 12:25PM
Wow, I'm surprised no one has brought up the typical followup to the fact that we're supposed to obey government! Usually that statement is followed right up with pointing out that we serve God first, so our obedience to the government comes second to obeying God and His moral laws. So for the causes mentioned as Civil Rights and Hitler's massacre of the Jews, we usually see that the people standing up for theirs and others' rights are doing so morally and in view of God's law even if it is against man's law. It's wrong to kill someone because of their race or religion and thus we can oppose a government who would say otherwise just as Chinese Christians oppose their government in serving God.

In our American causes today I don't see anyone actually rebelling. Sure people may talk big, but no one's going out shooting anyone and they're not going to. Sure they like to wish they could solve the problem of the government taking over our lives by turning to a different more local government, but in actuality all most people are going to do is vote, call their congressman, write blogs, newspaper articles, and books, give speeches, and complain.

by sparker at 11/20/09 3:00PM
I am glad to hear that you are wrestling with the topic of "rebellion," since it is not a simple topic. Perhaps your biggest historical question is, "Were the founding fathers of the U.S. justified in what they did?" I've struggled with that, myself. I have no definitive answer. Did it violate the letter of Romans 13? Absolutely. Is that the end of the analysis? I think not. It's a complex question that requires tons of judgment. Unless, of course, you take the position (which I do not) that rebellion against one's government cannot ever, ever be justified unless that government is demanding that you, personally engage in an overt sin against God. That, I think, is simply going too far, and is surely not what Paul intended.

Just in case it was not clear, my reference to those rebelling against Hitler had nothing to do with the U.S., but with people who lived under German rule, whether in Germany or in one of the occupied countries. I do not conclude that their rebellion was wrong, in general. That's not to say that there weren't people who approached it in a fashion that was wrong. But when I think of those who rebelled by hiding Jews, I'm convinced that was right. When I think of those who tried to assassinate Hitler to save the country, while I'm a little less sure, I am ultimately pretty comfortable that this was justified.

Bible exhibit A has to be (as I see it) Rahab. She lied. She rebelled, engaging in an act hostile to her country. And she made it into the lineage of Jesus Christ, pointedly so, having been saved (one might say "miraculously" without pushing it too much) from the punishment God had decreed against her countrymen.

After that, where one turns in scripture is more problematic. I would suggest the prophets, collectively. The way they chastised the "powers that be" of their day does not seem consistent with the respect that Paul enjoins in Romans 13. Several rejoinders could be brought against that. First, they were fussing at the leaders of God's own people; that's quite different from the situation in Romans 13. And they never (that I recall) suggest anything like an armed revolt. The main reason I cite them is due to their tone. Actual, overt, armed rebellion against the government is truly hard to justify in scripture. But I think the way the prophets went about their business must say something to the more generic question about "rebellion" in general.

Final answer? There is no simple way to resolve the matter. I believe there must be, on one end of the spectrum, situations where overt rebellion is justified (in the name of the justice that the prophets demanded). On the other end of the spectrum, "I don't like nationalized health care" (and I don't) is surely not a scriptural justification to throw off the government. Where the American Revolution fits on that scale I cannot determine, nor do I have to. But I am pretty sure that nothing presently being faced by citizens of these United States could possibly justify actual rebellion against our (very flawed) government.

Keep struggling, young man -- I commend you for doing so when the questions are not easy!

by parker1000 at 11/22/09 8:55PM
If Paul's intention is always to keep the Kingdom of God and its cause first and foremost, as Jesus said (Matthew 6:33), on what basis can you decide that it could not be Paul's intention to declare all rebellion (except in that which directly goes against God's word) sinful?

What offenses did the British commit against the colonists that can begin to compare to the excesses of Nero? And yet where do we see a peep from Peter or Paul about rebelling against the government?

Rahab assisted the people of God against a people doomed to destruction. The prophets were Israelites chastising fellow people of God. The Kingdom Christ established was always intended to incorporate people from many nations, and Jesus and the Apostles are unanimous in their dictates that the Kingdom always comes first and foremost-- matters of politics do not even enter most of what is written in the New Testament.

We ought to respect authority and leave ruler-establishing and ruler-overthrowing to God. Our tool is the Gospel of Christ and exhorting all men to turn to it, for that is the source of salvation-- not what a particular nation-state is or is not doing (Romans 1:16).

In terms of matters of justice-- we ought to act justly as individuals and proclaim what is good and right and holy even when it is unpopular or frowned upon by persons in authority. Example: Nazi Germany. It would be one thing to attempt to harbor Jews or find other means of showing love, mercy, and compassion in the face of horrendous evil, but it is quite another to have worked actively to foment rebellion or to undermine the government.

by deusvitae at 11/22/09 10:34PM
Good comments, everyone, and way to keep it civil. Lots of good food for thought here. Andy's right, this is more complicated on every side than can be tidily wrapped up with a bow. I and my ham hands have some things to think about.

by chaz at 11/23/09 12:20PM
Man, I was waiting for the bow!!!

by curlie at 11/23/09 1:05PM

476-480 of 480 entries « prev 1 2 … 92 93 94 95 96 next »

T.G.I. FRiDAY's Partners With Tea Party

On Liking the Right People

Merry Christmas!

Art Imitating Art

Permission

chaz

profile

links

groups

friends