“You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” Deuteronomy 5:11
Nothing frustrates me more than arguments made by Christians that we are somehow an oppressed group in the United States. Rick Perry’s latest ad is an example of what drives me so crazy about a politician pandering to some Christian voters who are ignorant enough about the facts to believe him. Oftentimes when discussing taking God’s name in vain, people are referring to those who use “God” or “Jesus Christ” as a curse word. However, I would submit that attempting to use God to falsely represent facts and to fake rage for a political argument is just as sinful. Worse, it creates an environment where actually sharing the Gospel becomes more difficult, because many people’s ideas about Christians come from people who argue as Perry does in this ad.
Myth: Obama is Waging a War on Religion
Seriously? Does Perry really think Obama is waging a war against religion? Never mistake a difference in political views as a war on religion. In America, we have no idea what a "war on religion" looks like. This charge by Perry is laughable if I didn't think many people will believe it. For anyone who questions Obama's Christian faith or his respect for religion, listen to Obama's "Call to Renewal" Speech given in 2006. Or see his White House celebrations of religious traditions, like Hanukkah, Easter and other celebrations. Christians can disagree with each other politically without accusing each other of "waging war." Perry references prayer in school (decided in 1962 by the Supreme Court when Obama was 1) as an example of Obama's war on religion. He also cites allowing homosexuals in the military as an assault on religion. These are political differences, not a war on faith. It's a shame that Perry has become so desperate as to resort to these accusations.
Myth: Kids can’t celebrate Christmas.
Where are kids not celebrating Christmas? Are students in school on Christmas day this year? No? You mean they’re off for two weeks to celebrate Christmas? This can’t be! Perry said we can’t celebrate Christmas. Oh, it’s described as a “Winter Break” so therefore they can’t celebrate Christmas? Calling it a winter break forces kids not to celebrate Christmas? That’s so ridiculous. And what are all these kids giving their teachers as presents this time of year? Winter presents? What are all the food drives and toy drives held by schools and organizations for? Winter Preparedness? Has Obama blocked "all-Christmas" radio waves from entering the schools? In order to avoid lawsuits and to include other Americans such as Jewish-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and others, school districts may refer to Christmas with the more generic “Winter” term, but why do some overreact and say that is somehow a war on religion? It's simply being respectful. When Perry says that kids can’t celebrate Christmas, he is either lying or ignorant. He’s also misrepresenting history and attempting to divide the American public.
Myth: Kids can’t pray in school
The Supreme Court ruled in Engel v Vitale that schools could not lead a compulsory prayer. It says nothing about children not being allowed to pray. Children pray in school every day - just show up on a test day. Or during the week when students gather during off-times to pray. Teachers pray in school every day. There are many teachers of faith who pray for their students by name every day. No one can stop a teacher from being in prayer for their students. Since when did Jesus require Christians to pray out loud over a speaker at the beginning of the school day? I seem to remember Jesus talking about entering a closet to pray. It is simply false to say that kids can’t pray in school. It’s a shame this falsehood continues to be told by Christians who should know better. One who believes God can be “taken out of school” or any other public place simply believes in a small god. One who is upset that a formal prayer can't be said at the beginning of the class day by the entire class misses the purpose of prayer in the first place. The moral decay in our society has no connection to whether students are led in a prayer before the school day. Instead of fighting for symbolic political victories, Christians should exert Christ’s love through their communities.
As a Christian myself, commercials like Perry’s make me sick to my stomach. It’s an attempt to falsely enrage a group for a political vote, and unfortunately, for some it will work. Perry’s ad misuses God’s name for political purposes. He cheapens Christian faith in the process. Hopefully, Christians will reject the false premises in the commercial and instead allow their words and actions to be a testimony to the love, mercy, and grace found in Jesus Christ.
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Election 2012 - The Republican Field
In less than 14 months, the vote for the 2012 election will occur. In less than 4 months, the primaries will begin. With the economic conditions worse than 2008, President Obama appears to be very beatable. He is searching for any reason he can claim to be re-elected. It wouldn’t surprise me if one or two Democrats challenge him in the primary. But for right now, he is unopposed. So it’s time to turn attention to the challengers within the Republican primary. Much can change between now and January, but positions are beginning to solidify; however, I am reminded of my previous post here from 2007. On to the current participants:
Rick Perry (“The Aggie”) – Perry entered the debate the front-runner; however, his last debate performance was weak, so he needed a good showing tonight. He has a number of qualities going for him, but he seems to be weak in articulating his ideas. (It may be the Aggie in him). I have never been a Rick Perry fan. I did not support him for Governor, and I don’t care too much for his personality. But in a weird turn of events, I found myself supporting his candidacy for president over the others running. I admire Perry for defending his position on immigration, and I think he’s right. The Republican Party cannot continue to bash illegal immigration without continuing to lose the Hispanic vote. If the party loses the Hispanic vote, then welcome to becoming a minority party in the US. So, while Perry’s position is considered “soft” in a Republican primary, his position will play well among independents. However, he stumbled badly in saying that people who disagreed with him were “heartless.” Bad move – his campaign staff had to cringe at that point. In speeches, Perry seems to be adequate; however, he struggles with his words in debates, channeling Bush at times with the way he stumbles over words. While being a good debater is not a requirement to win an election, at this point in the campaign, these debates are the only chance many voters have to see the candidates. So as Perry struggles to articulate his positions, stumbles over a prepared attack on Romney, and wobbles on questions concerning foreign policy (see his answer on Pakistan), the momentum of his campaign halts and doubt enters into the minds of the voters as to how strong a candidate he is. It is evident that running for president was a recent decision, as he appears to still be trying to wing it in the debates. This has to change or he will fizzle out. In fact, he may already be fizzling. Another obstacle he faces involves convincing others that as another Texas governor who stylistically sounds like W, he will somehow be different. Of course, candidates need to earn trust of the voters. However, as an aggie, Perry must convince others that his promises and commitments will last longer than 10 months. Because, as we have learned about aggies, what they promise today may change tomorrow.
Mitt Romney (“The Overly Robotic One”) – I don’t get Mitt Romney. He’s trying way too hard to channel Reagan. But he is keeping some hair gel company in business. He gives very good answers and is extremely comfortable discussing a variety of issues. He appears to be sharp, but I get the impression that he has never struggled in life. Not that one has to, but I just wonder if he understands what people go through on a daily basis. Many of his answers seem cold. He’s polished, but he should be, he’s been running for president for over five years. However, fifteen years ago, he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for Senate. He passed Romneycare which became the blueprint for Obamacare. As he began to run for president five years ago, he realized he had to change all his views. No matter how well he answers questions, I never really believe that he believes what he is saying. I think he knows what he needs to say and articulates it well, but he is very Dukakis like in his passion. He will probably be the nominee, but I just don’t get the appeal.
Michelle Bachmann (“Ms. Annoying”) – Bachmann has become insignificant. Stylistically, I cannot stand the end of Bachmann’s answers. After every answer, she squints her eyes, purses her lips, and smirks. On substance, she misrepresented history, taking the exchange between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson completely out of context. She tried to act like her accusation concerning Perry and HPV and harmful side-effects was never said. She tries to include the words “Tea Party” in every answer, and apparently she loves to say “innocent little girls” over and over. When she completes her answer, it seems like she says to herself, “Wow, that was really good. I’m proud of myself, people like me. By the way, does everyone remember that I created the Tea Party caucus in the House?”
Ron Paul (“The Crazy Uncle”) – I’m not going to waste much time on Paul. His supporters love him, but they aren’t many in number. For every good point he makes, he follows it up with an off-the-wall comment. He was strong in the debate last night, but he was not asked any foreign policy questions. Unlike Romney, I believe Paul believes every word he says.
Newt Gingrich (“The Professor”) – Newt is the smartest guy on the stage. He is articulate. And he is completely unelectable. It’s why Perry said that he wished he could mate Cain and Gingrich together to make a VP. Gingrich will find his way into the cabinet as Secretary of State in the next administration.
Herman Cain (“The-Guy-Everybody-Likes-But-Nobody-Thinks-Can-Win”) – The most confident, comfortable, articulate candidate on the stage. But when the moniker explains who he is, it reads “Former CEO of Godfather Pizza.” It is practically impossible for someone to go from a CEO of a company to the Presidency without any prior elected office experience. At the same time, everyone loves him. But since everyone also thinks he won’t win, he gets overlooked. Potentially a good VP candidate.
Rick Santorum (“The Guy Most Likely to Slash Someone’s Throat on Stage”) – Someone needs to buy a massage for Santorum. Or a drink. Or give him an aspirin so his pain goes away. He always looks angry. Relax, Rick. Take it easy. I know you have spent four years running for president and are frustrated that you are at one percent, but being angry isn’t helping you.
Jon Huntsman (“The Worst Joke Teller”) – Huntsman hopes his moderate appeal will help him in New Hampshire, which he hopes will propel him to the upper-tier. But Huntsman has hurt himself early on by attacking conservatives within the party. I like many of his positions on science and foreign policy, but he comes off as disingenuous much of the time. He is also really bad a trying to be funny as his attempts at humor always fall flat.
Gary Johnson (“The Stage Crasher”) – Did anyone know Gary Johnson was running for president? Did anyone know he was a former governor of New Mexico? I kept thinking that security accidentally let someone in last night, or that perhaps SNL had infiltrated the stage. But basically, Johnson is a younger Ron Paul. Not sure why he was included. But he had one of the best jabs of the night: “My neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs that Obama has.”
The Moderators: The job of a moderator should be clear – it’s your job to ask questions and moderate the debate. That’s it. I don’t care about word clouds, I am tired of YouTube questions, I’m not interested in how you decided the sound signal for the time limit. Just ask the questions. The less we see you, the better. You shouldn’t be so casual. Cut out the jokes. Stop giggling over your mistakes. Again, just ask the questions. You’re not running for president.
Conclusion: Romney won the debate, Perry lost. The others hope to be in the top three. Meanwhile, every day the pressure mounts on Chris Christie to get into the race. I don’t see anybody else who can shake up the field at this point.
Rick Perry (“The Aggie”) – Perry entered the debate the front-runner; however, his last debate performance was weak, so he needed a good showing tonight. He has a number of qualities going for him, but he seems to be weak in articulating his ideas. (It may be the Aggie in him). I have never been a Rick Perry fan. I did not support him for Governor, and I don’t care too much for his personality. But in a weird turn of events, I found myself supporting his candidacy for president over the others running. I admire Perry for defending his position on immigration, and I think he’s right. The Republican Party cannot continue to bash illegal immigration without continuing to lose the Hispanic vote. If the party loses the Hispanic vote, then welcome to becoming a minority party in the US. So, while Perry’s position is considered “soft” in a Republican primary, his position will play well among independents. However, he stumbled badly in saying that people who disagreed with him were “heartless.” Bad move – his campaign staff had to cringe at that point. In speeches, Perry seems to be adequate; however, he struggles with his words in debates, channeling Bush at times with the way he stumbles over words. While being a good debater is not a requirement to win an election, at this point in the campaign, these debates are the only chance many voters have to see the candidates. So as Perry struggles to articulate his positions, stumbles over a prepared attack on Romney, and wobbles on questions concerning foreign policy (see his answer on Pakistan), the momentum of his campaign halts and doubt enters into the minds of the voters as to how strong a candidate he is. It is evident that running for president was a recent decision, as he appears to still be trying to wing it in the debates. This has to change or he will fizzle out. In fact, he may already be fizzling. Another obstacle he faces involves convincing others that as another Texas governor who stylistically sounds like W, he will somehow be different. Of course, candidates need to earn trust of the voters. However, as an aggie, Perry must convince others that his promises and commitments will last longer than 10 months. Because, as we have learned about aggies, what they promise today may change tomorrow.
Mitt Romney (“The Overly Robotic One”) – I don’t get Mitt Romney. He’s trying way too hard to channel Reagan. But he is keeping some hair gel company in business. He gives very good answers and is extremely comfortable discussing a variety of issues. He appears to be sharp, but I get the impression that he has never struggled in life. Not that one has to, but I just wonder if he understands what people go through on a daily basis. Many of his answers seem cold. He’s polished, but he should be, he’s been running for president for over five years. However, fifteen years ago, he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for Senate. He passed Romneycare which became the blueprint for Obamacare. As he began to run for president five years ago, he realized he had to change all his views. No matter how well he answers questions, I never really believe that he believes what he is saying. I think he knows what he needs to say and articulates it well, but he is very Dukakis like in his passion. He will probably be the nominee, but I just don’t get the appeal.
Michelle Bachmann (“Ms. Annoying”) – Bachmann has become insignificant. Stylistically, I cannot stand the end of Bachmann’s answers. After every answer, she squints her eyes, purses her lips, and smirks. On substance, she misrepresented history, taking the exchange between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson completely out of context. She tried to act like her accusation concerning Perry and HPV and harmful side-effects was never said. She tries to include the words “Tea Party” in every answer, and apparently she loves to say “innocent little girls” over and over. When she completes her answer, it seems like she says to herself, “Wow, that was really good. I’m proud of myself, people like me. By the way, does everyone remember that I created the Tea Party caucus in the House?”
Ron Paul (“The Crazy Uncle”) – I’m not going to waste much time on Paul. His supporters love him, but they aren’t many in number. For every good point he makes, he follows it up with an off-the-wall comment. He was strong in the debate last night, but he was not asked any foreign policy questions. Unlike Romney, I believe Paul believes every word he says.
Newt Gingrich (“The Professor”) – Newt is the smartest guy on the stage. He is articulate. And he is completely unelectable. It’s why Perry said that he wished he could mate Cain and Gingrich together to make a VP. Gingrich will find his way into the cabinet as Secretary of State in the next administration.
Herman Cain (“The-Guy-Everybody-Likes-But-Nobody-Thinks-Can-Win”) – The most confident, comfortable, articulate candidate on the stage. But when the moniker explains who he is, it reads “Former CEO of Godfather Pizza.” It is practically impossible for someone to go from a CEO of a company to the Presidency without any prior elected office experience. At the same time, everyone loves him. But since everyone also thinks he won’t win, he gets overlooked. Potentially a good VP candidate.
Rick Santorum (“The Guy Most Likely to Slash Someone’s Throat on Stage”) – Someone needs to buy a massage for Santorum. Or a drink. Or give him an aspirin so his pain goes away. He always looks angry. Relax, Rick. Take it easy. I know you have spent four years running for president and are frustrated that you are at one percent, but being angry isn’t helping you.
Jon Huntsman (“The Worst Joke Teller”) – Huntsman hopes his moderate appeal will help him in New Hampshire, which he hopes will propel him to the upper-tier. But Huntsman has hurt himself early on by attacking conservatives within the party. I like many of his positions on science and foreign policy, but he comes off as disingenuous much of the time. He is also really bad a trying to be funny as his attempts at humor always fall flat.
Gary Johnson (“The Stage Crasher”) – Did anyone know Gary Johnson was running for president? Did anyone know he was a former governor of New Mexico? I kept thinking that security accidentally let someone in last night, or that perhaps SNL had infiltrated the stage. But basically, Johnson is a younger Ron Paul. Not sure why he was included. But he had one of the best jabs of the night: “My neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs that Obama has.”
The Moderators: The job of a moderator should be clear – it’s your job to ask questions and moderate the debate. That’s it. I don’t care about word clouds, I am tired of YouTube questions, I’m not interested in how you decided the sound signal for the time limit. Just ask the questions. The less we see you, the better. You shouldn’t be so casual. Cut out the jokes. Stop giggling over your mistakes. Again, just ask the questions. You’re not running for president.
Conclusion: Romney won the debate, Perry lost. The others hope to be in the top three. Meanwhile, every day the pressure mounts on Chris Christie to get into the race. I don’t see anybody else who can shake up the field at this point.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Huckabee vs Padme and Her Young Skywalker
“One of the most troubling things is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet that boasts of, hey look, we’re having children, we’re not married, but we’re having children and they’re doing just fine…” - Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee waded into some difficult political/cultural waters last week in questioning Natalie Portman’s pregnancy. Since she is engaged and not yet married, Huckabee felt the example she was setting of having a baby before marriage was troubling. His point was the fact that a leading indicator of poverty is single parenthood. However, he confuses his point by saying, “There aren’t really a lot of single moms out there that are making millions of dollars each year…Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and would not get healthcare.” He’s a little off on his statement. Most single moms are not poor. What he probably meant to say is that a higher percentage of single moms are in poverty (29%) than the national average (14%). So, a single mom is more likely to be in poverty than a married mom or a single dad, but “most” are not poor. So he exaggerated his argument a bit, but I understand the point he was trying to make. However, when a pro-lifer discusses pregnancy and bad examples, he or she must be very careful with the words chosen.
I wish Huckabee would have responded differently. The radio interviewer brought up Portman and mentioned that he thought it was a bad example. Then Huckabee responded with the quote at the top of this post. He could have responded more lovingly and positively. By doing so, his general point could have perhaps been better communicated to his audience. I wish he would have responded as follows:
“I would like to congratulate Natalie Portman on her engagement to her fiancé and their baby. I hope all is well and that the baby is healthy and that the delivery goes smoothly for her and the baby. This is definitely an exciting time for her. I am sure she would say the Academy Award pales in comparison to becoming a parent. Being a parent is a blessing; I wish her and her fiancé the best as they love and nurture their child and grow in their relationship as well.
“I am sure Natalie would also say how fortunate she is to be in a position where she can raise her child and not worry about finances, health care, or education. Because that is not always the case for new parents. And it is an issue our communities must address. Unfortunately, in our society, a single mom is twice as likely to live in poverty as a married mom. So we need to be mindful of the difficulties that single moms face. As someone who believes every life is of value, even life in the womb, I am grateful when women choose to give birth. Because, just as Natalie’s baby is a blessing, so is every child. So if we want to go a political route here, I think we as a society, in order to be truly pro-life, must address situations both pre-pregnancy and post-birth. We need to discuss sexuality with our children both in our churches and our schools, including sex education classes. We need to foster healthy marriages and set good examples for our children and others. We need to encourage adoption in certain circumstances and make the process more welcoming without compromising safety. We need to help poor single mothers acquire an education and develop skills that will allow them to support themselves and their families. And we need to hold the men accountable to support the children they bring into this world as well. Hopefully, with a holistic approach to this issue, we will not only lower the poverty level for single moms, but we will lower the rate of pregnancies for those not yet ready to be parents. Additionally, our overall economy will be strengthened and strains on our government will be lessened.”
I am not meaning to pick on Huckabee alone. I think he would agree with this criticism for the most part. Too often I hear people advocate for the pro-life position, only to criticize those who choose life. After all, Huckabee wouldn’t have complained about Portman’s single parenthood if she had an abortion seven months ago. But which would have been the larger tragedy? There’s just a slight disconnect there that needs to be addressed. As Christians, our reaction to single parenthood in general should be more loving and less condemning.
Mike Huckabee waded into some difficult political/cultural waters last week in questioning Natalie Portman’s pregnancy. Since she is engaged and not yet married, Huckabee felt the example she was setting of having a baby before marriage was troubling. His point was the fact that a leading indicator of poverty is single parenthood. However, he confuses his point by saying, “There aren’t really a lot of single moms out there that are making millions of dollars each year…Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and would not get healthcare.” He’s a little off on his statement. Most single moms are not poor. What he probably meant to say is that a higher percentage of single moms are in poverty (29%) than the national average (14%). So, a single mom is more likely to be in poverty than a married mom or a single dad, but “most” are not poor. So he exaggerated his argument a bit, but I understand the point he was trying to make. However, when a pro-lifer discusses pregnancy and bad examples, he or she must be very careful with the words chosen.
I wish Huckabee would have responded differently. The radio interviewer brought up Portman and mentioned that he thought it was a bad example. Then Huckabee responded with the quote at the top of this post. He could have responded more lovingly and positively. By doing so, his general point could have perhaps been better communicated to his audience. I wish he would have responded as follows:
“I would like to congratulate Natalie Portman on her engagement to her fiancé and their baby. I hope all is well and that the baby is healthy and that the delivery goes smoothly for her and the baby. This is definitely an exciting time for her. I am sure she would say the Academy Award pales in comparison to becoming a parent. Being a parent is a blessing; I wish her and her fiancé the best as they love and nurture their child and grow in their relationship as well.
“I am sure Natalie would also say how fortunate she is to be in a position where she can raise her child and not worry about finances, health care, or education. Because that is not always the case for new parents. And it is an issue our communities must address. Unfortunately, in our society, a single mom is twice as likely to live in poverty as a married mom. So we need to be mindful of the difficulties that single moms face. As someone who believes every life is of value, even life in the womb, I am grateful when women choose to give birth. Because, just as Natalie’s baby is a blessing, so is every child. So if we want to go a political route here, I think we as a society, in order to be truly pro-life, must address situations both pre-pregnancy and post-birth. We need to discuss sexuality with our children both in our churches and our schools, including sex education classes. We need to foster healthy marriages and set good examples for our children and others. We need to encourage adoption in certain circumstances and make the process more welcoming without compromising safety. We need to help poor single mothers acquire an education and develop skills that will allow them to support themselves and their families. And we need to hold the men accountable to support the children they bring into this world as well. Hopefully, with a holistic approach to this issue, we will not only lower the poverty level for single moms, but we will lower the rate of pregnancies for those not yet ready to be parents. Additionally, our overall economy will be strengthened and strains on our government will be lessened.”
I am not meaning to pick on Huckabee alone. I think he would agree with this criticism for the most part. Too often I hear people advocate for the pro-life position, only to criticize those who choose life. After all, Huckabee wouldn’t have complained about Portman’s single parenthood if she had an abortion seven months ago. But which would have been the larger tragedy? There’s just a slight disconnect there that needs to be addressed. As Christians, our reaction to single parenthood in general should be more loving and less condemning.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Significant Birthdays
There are various birthdays that are symbolic of aging/maturing/growing up. While no one ever pines for their 11th or 27th or 36th birthdays (these simply are “just another birthday” years), others are more significant. This has caused me to ponder which birthdays are the most symbolic and special. While I have experienced some of these myself, others I have to just conjecture as to their greatness. But I hope to celebrate all of these birthdays one day. Here are my Top 10 birthdays an individual can experience:
1. Sixteen – nothing compares to one’s 16th birthday. No one ever anticipates their "Sweet 32." No one ever sang “I am 28 going on 29.” Sweet Sixteen is the best birthday – the ability to have a driver’s license brings about the most freedom from one year to the next than any other birthday ever will. One goes from dependent on others for travel, to freely traveling. (Way too young, in my opinion.)
2. Twenty-one – this birthday signifies arrival to adulthood without the responsibilities of adulthood. Since one is usually still in college, this birthday allows the individual to feel like an adult without having to actually act like one. While I believe driver’s licenses are printed differently now, when I was 21, the “Under 21” stamp was officially null and void, adding to the perks of this birthday.
3. Fifty – half a century ranks as the 3rd greatest birthday year. A person can celebrate being alive for half a century, and, if in shape, can still feel young, yet can begin to get all the benefits of the elderly through AARP, discounts on meals, etc. At 50, one suddenly seems wiser than everyone 49 and younger.
4. Thirty-five – I could easily flip 50 and 35 in the rankings, but will choose to keep 35 here at #4. Our Founding Fathers, in crafting the Constitution, deemed 35 as the appropriate age for a President of the United States. I figure if Ben Franklin and James Madison thought 35 was a good age, then it must be a good age. At 35, one can run the country. To me, that is quite significant and special. A landmark birthday for sure.
5. Eighteen – It surprised me that 18 fell so low on my rankings. We do receive the right to vote at age 18, which to me is a very big deal; however, so few 18 year olds vote, so this must not be quite the perk that I think it is. It may be that being able to purchase tobacco outranks voting for many 18 year olds. I know one graduates from high school typically at age 18, but not on one’s birthday, so graduation from high school cannot contribute to the 18th birthday ranking. It is still significant though, as 18 is the unrecognized age of adulthood. Everyone over 55 considers 18 to be an adult, while everyone under 55 knows that 18 is far from adulthood.
6. One-hundred – This ranking definitely is dependent on one’s health, but to live a century is surely significant. Plus, Smuckers wishes you a happy birthday when you turn 100. However, turning 100 represents just 1% of one’s birthdays, so perhaps it falls lower on the birthday rankings. Still, a landmark that cannot be ignored.
7. Seventy-eight point four. The current life expectancy in the US is 78.4. When one reaches that age, there must be a feeling of accomplishment. However, it is difficult on a 12 month calendar to celebrate a .4 birthday. But still, if I reach my life-expectancy birthday, it will be a day of celebration that will rank in my top 10.
8. One – While a 1 year old will not remember his/her birthday, this remains the only birthday where it is cute to smash an entire cake all over your face and body. For that alone, it makes the Top 10.
9. Seventeen – One can purchase a ticket to a rated R movie. As a 17 year old, this was a big deal.
10. Whatever one’s current birthday is – While it makes little statistical sense, every birthday has to be on the Top 10 list. Being alive is a pretty good thing. I’m sure every year has its benefits and significance – 25 and car insurance(for guys), 30 and leaving the Twentysomethings, 10 and double digits, 65 and retirement, 29 and being a prime number, etc. So I’ll reserve the tenth spot for every birthday. It’s good to be alive.
1. Sixteen – nothing compares to one’s 16th birthday. No one ever anticipates their "Sweet 32." No one ever sang “I am 28 going on 29.” Sweet Sixteen is the best birthday – the ability to have a driver’s license brings about the most freedom from one year to the next than any other birthday ever will. One goes from dependent on others for travel, to freely traveling. (Way too young, in my opinion.)
2. Twenty-one – this birthday signifies arrival to adulthood without the responsibilities of adulthood. Since one is usually still in college, this birthday allows the individual to feel like an adult without having to actually act like one. While I believe driver’s licenses are printed differently now, when I was 21, the “Under 21” stamp was officially null and void, adding to the perks of this birthday.
3. Fifty – half a century ranks as the 3rd greatest birthday year. A person can celebrate being alive for half a century, and, if in shape, can still feel young, yet can begin to get all the benefits of the elderly through AARP, discounts on meals, etc. At 50, one suddenly seems wiser than everyone 49 and younger.
4. Thirty-five – I could easily flip 50 and 35 in the rankings, but will choose to keep 35 here at #4. Our Founding Fathers, in crafting the Constitution, deemed 35 as the appropriate age for a President of the United States. I figure if Ben Franklin and James Madison thought 35 was a good age, then it must be a good age. At 35, one can run the country. To me, that is quite significant and special. A landmark birthday for sure.
5. Eighteen – It surprised me that 18 fell so low on my rankings. We do receive the right to vote at age 18, which to me is a very big deal; however, so few 18 year olds vote, so this must not be quite the perk that I think it is. It may be that being able to purchase tobacco outranks voting for many 18 year olds. I know one graduates from high school typically at age 18, but not on one’s birthday, so graduation from high school cannot contribute to the 18th birthday ranking. It is still significant though, as 18 is the unrecognized age of adulthood. Everyone over 55 considers 18 to be an adult, while everyone under 55 knows that 18 is far from adulthood.
6. One-hundred – This ranking definitely is dependent on one’s health, but to live a century is surely significant. Plus, Smuckers wishes you a happy birthday when you turn 100. However, turning 100 represents just 1% of one’s birthdays, so perhaps it falls lower on the birthday rankings. Still, a landmark that cannot be ignored.
7. Seventy-eight point four. The current life expectancy in the US is 78.4. When one reaches that age, there must be a feeling of accomplishment. However, it is difficult on a 12 month calendar to celebrate a .4 birthday. But still, if I reach my life-expectancy birthday, it will be a day of celebration that will rank in my top 10.
8. One – While a 1 year old will not remember his/her birthday, this remains the only birthday where it is cute to smash an entire cake all over your face and body. For that alone, it makes the Top 10.
9. Seventeen – One can purchase a ticket to a rated R movie. As a 17 year old, this was a big deal.
10. Whatever one’s current birthday is – While it makes little statistical sense, every birthday has to be on the Top 10 list. Being alive is a pretty good thing. I’m sure every year has its benefits and significance – 25 and car insurance(for guys), 30 and leaving the Twentysomethings, 10 and double digits, 65 and retirement, 29 and being a prime number, etc. So I’ll reserve the tenth spot for every birthday. It’s good to be alive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)