An AC Neilsen survey suggests that 6 out of 10 Americans believe that fast food is responsible for the obesity problem in the US.
It is the way it is phrased….fast food restaurants are a cause of the obesity epidemic. It’s not unlike other polls that suggest 7 out of 10 believe Iraqi’s were involved in the terrorist attacks on US soil in September 2001.
An eatery in Seattle is requiring customers to…..sign a liability waiver before they eat a fat-by-design dessert called the Bulge.
“I will not impose any sort of obesity-related lawsuit against the 5 Spot or consider any similar type of frivolous legislation created by a hungry trial lawyer,” the release says. After a diner signs it, a waiter hauls out a sugarcoated, deep-fried, ice cream-swaddled, caramel-drizzled, whipped-cream- anointed banana.
“We thought, what can we do to illustrate how stupid it is to make restaurants responsible for monitoring the eating habits of Americans?” 5 Spot co-owner Peter Levy said. “We came up with the most fattening and delicious dessert we could think of.”
Obesity is a serious health problem in the west.
AIDS
15 million people have died from AIDS in Africa.
11 million children have lost a parent or parents to AIDS.
Thousands of doctors, politicians and Aids activists have gathered for what is seen as an important opportunity for Aids experts to exchange ideas about best practice in combating the epidemic.
At the The International Conference on Aids and Sexually Transmitted Infections in Africa being held in Kenya front line workers battling this disease for the last two decades are seeing tiny signs of hope.
Afghanistan
As the long process of stabilizing and rebuilding the country continues, one of the biggest problems facing a fragile government is the rise in the production of opium. Afghanistan now provides about 75% of the world’s opium crop. Farmers can make 38 times as much growing opium as they can from growing wheat.
Blogs-Hitler-Home and Gardens
A blogger who works for the Guardian finds an interesting article in a 1938 copy of Home and Gardens about a visit to Hitlers mountain home. He scans it in and posts it….and gets a copyright violation notice from the magazine.
So he takes it down, and the post and email exchange gets picked up by the New York Times and Wired News. UK fair use or copyright law isn’t the same as US law.
I’m not sure it is in the company’s best interest to take the stance they have.
And blogger Waldman has a point.
Waldman said he thinks the article has a lot to teach the contemporary world.
“These days we often find ourselves confused by the moral rights and wrongs of foreign policy,” he said. “All too often, it is never clear who is the good guy and who the bad. With the vanity of the present day, we assume this is something that is new to us. This document tells us it was ever thus.”
If people are interested in this kind of history, a trip to the library would satisfy.
His point is well taken and has nothing to do with law. We live in now. Looking into the past we see another ‘now’, and the emotions and attitudes that preceded us.
I haven’t been out leap-blogging the past week very much, and it’s odd…I feel a bit ‘out of touch.’ Hmmm, I think I need to remedy that.
A matter of conscience?
Martin Roth has an interesting post up. Should I Consult Christian Leaders before I Berate Them?
A reader took him to task regarding his post on Australian Fred Niles.
If Martin’s conscience is pricked, I think he needs to do what is best for him.
However, my attitude is mixed. If any ‘leader’ makes a public comment, I think it is up for discussion, especially on blogs. Roth is one of the last people I would ever be able to accuse of being disrespectful, uncivilized, abusive, ignorant or uncharitable. He is a blogger we can learn grace and good discussion from. I’ve never seen Martin ‘berate’. Truthfully, having started on his blog and working for a short time with him, I wasn’t quite prepared for some of the bad attitude I did face from others when I moved on.
It’s a question of balance in blogging, and each of us must find our own, knowing that blogging has it’s own form of self-correctiveness.
My question to Martin would be this. If you were acting as a journalist, would this reader’s email concern you as much, or would it be part of the job?
I didn’t ‘consult’ or ‘inform’ Ted Olsen of Christianity Today when I disagreed with him over a public comment he made on blogging. I seriously considered notifying him of my post, but would he have gotten the email?
Would I write the PM’s office or a politician every time I did a post? No.
Olsen found the post about his quote on his own, and gracefully engaged others here. Good discussion has come from it. We are not always going to agree with ‘leaders’ (some in name only), and I think it is how we disagree that is important.
It’s difficult. I hate people talking behind my back. I despise gossip. However, if I put up an opinion, it’s public and it’s fair game for a post from another blogger without them consulting me first. If I was a ‘leader’ I’d try do what Olsen did. I’m not sure Fred Niles gives a hoot what Martin Roth thinks.
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Interesting that Martin Roth should run across this just now - as I have seen this topic brought to the fore in several venues (my own included). I was recently admonished that blogged criticism of NYC Presbyterian minister Tim Keller should not have appeared publicly without making my criticism made known to him privately first. Others have been berated in the last week for bloggingly reacting to some blog-relative comments by the semi-fringe reformed pastor/author/movement-leader, Doug Wilson. There seems to be an air of don’t touch God’s annointed riding the breezes of blogdom.
I think it’s a good question: can one publicly criticize the statements of those who hold a position of stature and leadership? Americans are used to having the freedom to tear down their leaders, but American and Christian describe to different types of groups - are believers likewise free to voice their critique?
I think the answer must be “Yes,” at least if historical Christianity is any yardstick. As noted elsewhere, we have no difficulty voicing our displeasure with the teaching of Christian ministers like Benny Hinn (who seem completely oblivious to the goal and direction of Scripture), so where is the difference? As you say Benjamin Diction, public speech should expect (and indeed, welcome) a public response.
Of course, even proper opinion without the temper of love is worthless at best. And there, I think, is the primary rub in all of this. When does stern reprimand and careful warning give way to antagonistic vitriol and bitter hostility.
Very good point…and you said it better than I did.
I’m tired of ‘touch not God’s anointed being so misused.
Encouragement in scripture means admonishment, lifting up, rebuke gently and with humility….and that cannot be done without love. As you wisely ask, when does stern reprimand and careful warning give way to antagonistic vitroil and bitter hostility?
I think it is interesting that we both took a simialr line on Martin’s little problem. So you must be right! :o)
To be truthful, I think you put it better. But then, you’re the journo type. I’m just an ‘umble jobbing parson…
Yes I have been thinking about Martin’s question and will probably write about it at length later…I need to think about it more first. My initial reaction was that both Carnley and Niles *are* public figures who make public statements and can be seen as being representative - the question is of whom and on what basis. At the same time we can also say that each of us is an ambassador of Christ, and that in some sense we always represent each other too. But extending grace to each other does not mean we should never admonish one another either. Again the question is who deserves admonishment in the cases Martin cites. Somehow I don’t think it is Martin - and I don’t even know the guy! Hmm. Brain has imploded for now.
I think on some level we do represent each other when we pick ‘family of choice’ by deciding to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and we get the same problems we would in a biological family…only a lot bigger and way more of them!
We are given instructions on what to do about setting boundaries with others and how to admonish. It’s a question of applying wisdom which must go hand in hand with love.
I don’t blame people for not liking Christians when they see some of the dysfunction, and we need to remind them and ourselves that a loud voice doesn’t represent the whole family.
Give the fried brain a break..then blog on!
Hi Bene, thanks for taking up this issue. I was hoping that other bloggers might.
I think the key point is possibly that Christians are called to higher standards than other mortals when there are disagreements within the “Christian family”. That is what my reader was saying - that I should have discussed my concerns privately with the person whom I criticised. And that is certainly the Christian way. But as Richard Hall has pointed out on his blog, blogging is by its nature immediate. And as I said in my commentary, the two gentlemen I have criticised (Rev Fred Nile and Archbishop Peter Carnley) have probably issued more media releases than any other Christians in Australia. And I was criticising these public comments of theirs.
However, I do feel now that at the very least I should notify people when I criticise them - otherwise, as Richard says, it’s like talking behind their back - and yesterday I very belatedly sent emails to Rev Nile and Archbishop Carnley, to alert them to my critical comments. I’m now waiting nervously for their replies.
OK I am a bit more clear headed now, but I will spare you the details. Here is a thought. Why should we distinguish between Christians and non-Christians in this matter? Is that partiality justified? *saint starts searching for addresses to write letters of apology with copies of blog*
I just did a check. Fred Nile made his comments about the chador during question time in the Legislative Council of the NSW Parliament. He was speaking in his capacity as an MP. I don’t think the papers did much twisting on this one either. Martin, go chase the postman. To my mind this makes Nile’s comments fair game for public discussion. No favours just because he is a Christian. Everyone else, your blogs and briefcases are safe.
Fred and the chador”
Interesting isn’t it - Christian leaders accept non-Christians criticisms and observations, but call to task comments and observations from Christians? Speaking the truth in love aside - isn’t that a double standard? I would rather accept criticism from a fellow believer than from a non-believer. It’s the non-believer I would like to impress, inform or otherwise win over…
Hi Martin:
You have to do what you believe is right. Keep us posted, this is an interesting issue.
I disagree with your reader that….. “The media cannot be trusted to be accurate in a lot of what they publish, and as they are mostly anti-Christian, this is particularly true with reporting Christian matters.”
It is not an absolute, the ‘media’ consists of people with varying levels of competence and beliefs.
I’ll be interested in seeing if the two gentlemen you notified respond to you.
Hey Saint: Thanks for doing the check. One of the great things about blogging eh?
Blog on!