The song opens with two staccato chords from Robert Lamm's keyboard.
A trombone riff from James Pankow follows.
The motif is repeated three more times. On the fourth repeat, Danny Seraphine joins in with the drums, and then they are off and running, accompanied by the throbbing of Peter Cetera's bass, with tambourine by Walter Paradizer in the background.
And then Terry Kath steps up to the microphone and roars:
Hey there everybody
Please don't romp or roam
We're a little nervous
We're so far from home
So this is what to do
Sit back and let it through
And let us work on you
That is the opening of the aptly named "Introduction", the first track on the album Chicago Transit Authority, and the album that introduced the rock group Chicago to the world. The album hit the shelves on April 28, 1969. Listen to it, and you'll find it captures the raw energy and excitement of seven men who wanted to create "a rock-and-roll band with horns", to quote trombonist James Pankow.
They succeeded.
Originally known as Chicago Transit Authority, they dropped the Transit Authority part when the real Chicago Transit Authority threatened to sue. Now known as simply Chicago, they followed up with Chicago II, III, IV, V . . . and on it goes. Wikipedia lists thirty-six albums, along with several live albums and a list of compilations. They began with seven men, and as of this year, four of the original seven are still with the band.
"Chicagophiles" range across at least three generations, maybe more. Chicago boasts fans from the early days of the 1970's, to those who never heard of Chicago until recently.
I became a Chicagophile in 1972. I was eight years old and fell in love with "Saturday In the Park". However, I didn't get my first Chicago album until 1976, when I was 13. One of my Christmas presents that year was Chicago IX, the Greatest Hits album. The day after Christmas, while taking down the decorations, my mother suggested that "I play my new album".
While one could criticize Chicago for "going commercial" in the 1970's, and for losing their "edge", you could not deny their success. If you listened to AM radio, as I did during those years, you heard "Just You 'N' Me", "Call On Me", "I've Been Searchin' So Long," "Old Days," "If You Leave Me Now," and others as they rose and fell on the Top 40.
Tragedy struck on January 23, 1978, when Terry Kath accidentally shot and killed himself. I've seen this event referred to as "the night Chicago died," and I tend to agree. They were never the same after Terry died.
But where others may have given up and disbanded, Chicago did not. They came roaring back with a new guitarist and a new album, "Hot Streets", one of the very few Chicago albums not to contain a Roman numeral.
Over the years, Chicago has seen its share of changes: personnel changes, changes in the music industry, changes in musical style. They have dealt with the death of Terry Kath and the contentious departures of original members Peter Cetera and Danny Seraphine. They have suffered the attacks of "noted" music critics. I'm sure there have been times when they've been considered down, out, and gone.
And yet, they remain.
They still play, they still tour, they still release music. Recent concerts have seen them pair up with '70's icons Earth, Wind, and Fire and the Doobie Brothers. Their fans, both old and new, still turn out, still support them, still love them.
This week, after 22 years of being snubbed, Chicago has finally been nominated for the first time for induction in Cleveland's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. At the moment, they are number one in the fan voting.
James William Guercio's original liner notes from the Chicago Transit Authority album end this way: " . . . if you must call them something, speak of the city where all save one where born, where all of them were schooled and bred, and where all of this incredible music went down barely noticed; call them Chicago."
Through triumph and tragedy, through vinyl, eight-track, reel-to-reel, cassette, CD, MP3, and streaming audio, through praise and criticism, through changing times and changing music, Chicago still goes on, playing the songs, entertaining the fans, making their statement with their music.
Because, after 46 years, the invitation remains:
So this is what to do
Sit back and let it through
And let us work on you.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Statcounter
Friday, October 9, 2015
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Worship Wednesday: Teaching Islam or about Islam?
In Walton County, Georgia (the Atlanta metro area), a group of parents is up in arms about the teaching of Islam in the public schools. One parent is quoted as saying that he has a problem with the God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims being the "same God".
An erumor that has made the rounds allegedly details that, in a California schools, students "can't say the name of Jesus", but that they can pray to Allah. Some parents are also bothered by the fact that the "radical" side of Islam, the teaching that encourages some towards terrorism, is--according to them--not covered.
My son, since he is in special education, has not been exposed to the same lessons that the public school students in these articles have been exposed to. So I can't speak to the particular curriculum that these parents are referring to. I can only offer my opinion about teaching religion in the public schools.
I think it's important to teach about the major religions of the world: Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism (and any other major religion I have left out.) If you're going to understand something--or oppose something--you need to know what it is you are trying to understand or oppose.
But what I don't completely know is, how do you teach about religion without teaching that religion?
Teaching belief in a particular religion should, in my opinion, be the province of family, church, or whatever religious institution you belong to. And if you don't belong to a religious group, or choose to be an atheist, I still think you should know the major tenets of each religion, if only to tell people why you choose not to subscribe to any of them.
I do believe it's possible to teach facts about a particular religion without teaching belief in that religion. Perhaps I'm naïve, and perhaps I don't understand what today's teachers face. I'm the daughter of a teacher, but my father--who was that teacher--died in 1993, and curricula has changed much since then.
I believe you can say, "Here is what Christians believe," and lay out the major beliefs of Christianity: belief in one God, belief that Jesus is His son, belief that Jesus rose from the dead, and that He died for our sins as an atonement for them. It's acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice and repentance--turning away from--our sins that makes one a Christian. And it's the help of the Holy Spirit that allows Christians to live the life that God wants us to live--to love God first, to love our neighbor as we do ourselves, to do good, to shun evil. (That's the gospel according to Tina. :-) )
Specific to Islam, I do think it's important to know what the five pillars of Islam are. I think it's important to know about Muhammad, that he was the founder of Islam and that Muslims consider him to be the prophet of Allah. Just as I would consider it important for people to learn about Jesus, or Buddha, or Hinduism, or Judaism. (Yes, these are links to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia does source most of their material, so I consider it a good starting point for research, although I would not rely on it as my sole source.)
But how do you do it without showing partiality to one religion or another? And how do you do it without offending practitioners of that particular religion?
Public school teachers today walk a fine line, as mentioned in one piece I have found about Islam in the public schools. They are required to teach a particular curriculum, have high test scores, prepare students for college or work--and at the same time, they have to deal with demanding parents and the expectations of principals and boards of education.
Teachers today also have to deal with what I call the "entitlement" of students. A Facebook friend of mine, who is a community college professor, has talked about the inability or refusal of his students to follow clear directions in his class. I've also read about parents who hover over their children even in college, demanding to know why a particular professor gave a specific grade to their child. College students today are also demanding that they not be exposed to anything that might "trigger" them. (I understand the importance of guarding your mental health, as in cases of PTSD, but in some cases, it's getting to the point where some students don't want to be exposed to anything that's the least bit "upsetting".)
So where does this leave the teaching of religion--particularly Islam--in the public schools?
I think parents have the right and the duty to see their child's curriculum, to know what a child is being taught. Should they have the right to "opt out" of certain units, as some parents have decided to do with the unit on Islam? Right now, I believe that if a parent feels very strongly about a particular unit, and has reviewed the lesson and discussed it with the teacher, and still feels the need to opt their student out, then they should have the right to do so.
What about the "radical" part of Islam? Well, perhaps an overview of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations is in order. And, perhaps an overview of the Crusades should be added in order to provide balance. But, to be honest, I don't know how to cover those subjects without running the risk of offending Muslims or Christians.
Ultimately, I believe it's up to the parents to instill a belief in a particular religion, while also encouraging their children to think and reason, so that their faith will be their own. If parents do that, I don't think they need to fear that a public school will "indoctrinate" their children into a particular religion.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
An erumor that has made the rounds allegedly details that, in a California schools, students "can't say the name of Jesus", but that they can pray to Allah. Some parents are also bothered by the fact that the "radical" side of Islam, the teaching that encourages some towards terrorism, is--according to them--not covered.
My son, since he is in special education, has not been exposed to the same lessons that the public school students in these articles have been exposed to. So I can't speak to the particular curriculum that these parents are referring to. I can only offer my opinion about teaching religion in the public schools.
I think it's important to teach about the major religions of the world: Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism (and any other major religion I have left out.) If you're going to understand something--or oppose something--you need to know what it is you are trying to understand or oppose.
But what I don't completely know is, how do you teach about religion without teaching that religion?
Teaching belief in a particular religion should, in my opinion, be the province of family, church, or whatever religious institution you belong to. And if you don't belong to a religious group, or choose to be an atheist, I still think you should know the major tenets of each religion, if only to tell people why you choose not to subscribe to any of them.
I do believe it's possible to teach facts about a particular religion without teaching belief in that religion. Perhaps I'm naïve, and perhaps I don't understand what today's teachers face. I'm the daughter of a teacher, but my father--who was that teacher--died in 1993, and curricula has changed much since then.
I believe you can say, "Here is what Christians believe," and lay out the major beliefs of Christianity: belief in one God, belief that Jesus is His son, belief that Jesus rose from the dead, and that He died for our sins as an atonement for them. It's acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice and repentance--turning away from--our sins that makes one a Christian. And it's the help of the Holy Spirit that allows Christians to live the life that God wants us to live--to love God first, to love our neighbor as we do ourselves, to do good, to shun evil. (That's the gospel according to Tina. :-) )
Specific to Islam, I do think it's important to know what the five pillars of Islam are. I think it's important to know about Muhammad, that he was the founder of Islam and that Muslims consider him to be the prophet of Allah. Just as I would consider it important for people to learn about Jesus, or Buddha, or Hinduism, or Judaism. (Yes, these are links to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia does source most of their material, so I consider it a good starting point for research, although I would not rely on it as my sole source.)
But how do you do it without showing partiality to one religion or another? And how do you do it without offending practitioners of that particular religion?
Public school teachers today walk a fine line, as mentioned in one piece I have found about Islam in the public schools. They are required to teach a particular curriculum, have high test scores, prepare students for college or work--and at the same time, they have to deal with demanding parents and the expectations of principals and boards of education.
Teachers today also have to deal with what I call the "entitlement" of students. A Facebook friend of mine, who is a community college professor, has talked about the inability or refusal of his students to follow clear directions in his class. I've also read about parents who hover over their children even in college, demanding to know why a particular professor gave a specific grade to their child. College students today are also demanding that they not be exposed to anything that might "trigger" them. (I understand the importance of guarding your mental health, as in cases of PTSD, but in some cases, it's getting to the point where some students don't want to be exposed to anything that's the least bit "upsetting".)
So where does this leave the teaching of religion--particularly Islam--in the public schools?
I think parents have the right and the duty to see their child's curriculum, to know what a child is being taught. Should they have the right to "opt out" of certain units, as some parents have decided to do with the unit on Islam? Right now, I believe that if a parent feels very strongly about a particular unit, and has reviewed the lesson and discussed it with the teacher, and still feels the need to opt their student out, then they should have the right to do so.
What about the "radical" part of Islam? Well, perhaps an overview of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations is in order. And, perhaps an overview of the Crusades should be added in order to provide balance. But, to be honest, I don't know how to cover those subjects without running the risk of offending Muslims or Christians.
Ultimately, I believe it's up to the parents to instill a belief in a particular religion, while also encouraging their children to think and reason, so that their faith will be their own. If parents do that, I don't think they need to fear that a public school will "indoctrinate" their children into a particular religion.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Manic Monday (a day late, again, due to illness): Going into hiding
On Saturday, October 10th, I may go into hiding for the day.
Or out of town.
Donald Trump is coming to Atlanta, and he will be speaking at a location that, according to Google Maps, is seven minutes from where I live. The traffic in the area will be nightmarish.
Do I plan to go? No, I do not.
Why? Because I don't plan to vote for Trump. The more I see him in the news, and the more I hear about him, the more I am turned off by him. He may know "the art of the deal", and he may have business expertise, but that doesn't necessarily qualify you to run the United States of America. He seems to think that all he has to do is run his mouth and people will fall in line. That isn't going to work when you are facing down Vladimir Putin or the Ayatollah Khameni of Iran. He may make a good advisor to the Secretary of Commerce, but not President.
I feel the same way about Ben Carson. I admire the man, and he'd make a good Surgeon General, but I don't think his medical expertise necessarily makes him qualified to be President.
Right now, I'm not sure who I am going to back for President. I know who I won't back, but not yet who I will back.
For now, though, Donald Trump is not on my short list. And that's why, on Saturday, I will be nowhere near where he is speaking. Even if I have to go into hiding.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Or out of town.
Donald Trump is coming to Atlanta, and he will be speaking at a location that, according to Google Maps, is seven minutes from where I live. The traffic in the area will be nightmarish.
Do I plan to go? No, I do not.
Why? Because I don't plan to vote for Trump. The more I see him in the news, and the more I hear about him, the more I am turned off by him. He may know "the art of the deal", and he may have business expertise, but that doesn't necessarily qualify you to run the United States of America. He seems to think that all he has to do is run his mouth and people will fall in line. That isn't going to work when you are facing down Vladimir Putin or the Ayatollah Khameni of Iran. He may make a good advisor to the Secretary of Commerce, but not President.
I feel the same way about Ben Carson. I admire the man, and he'd make a good Surgeon General, but I don't think his medical expertise necessarily makes him qualified to be President.
Right now, I'm not sure who I am going to back for President. I know who I won't back, but not yet who I will back.
For now, though, Donald Trump is not on my short list. And that's why, on Saturday, I will be nowhere near where he is speaking. Even if I have to go into hiding.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Friday, October 2, 2015
Family Friday: #yesiamachristian . .. but do I need to hashtag it?
This post will combine all three of my major blog topics: politics, religion, and personal reflection. :-)
Yesterday, no more than five minutes after I got home, I got a news alert on my iPad reporting a school shooting in Oregon. I thought, "Here we go again," with a mental yawn, thinking that this might be another false alarm.
Within minutes, after going on Twitter, I learned that this was not the case. One tweet said, "Early reports say it's bad." And then I saw CNN: ten dead, 20 wounded.
I followed reports throughout the day with this sense of, "Again. Again? How many more?" I fear I am becoming desensitized to reports of mass shootings, and I don't like it. This is something that should never be "normal" for any society. I don't care if you live in Roseburg, Oregon, Norcross, Georgia, or Haifa, Israel.
When the news announced that President Obama would be speaking about this shooting, I decided not to watch. I had a feeling of what he would say, and I was right--a call for more gun control. I did agree with him when he said "we've become numb to this". He was angry. And I didn't blame him.
Over the next several hours, a report surfaced that the gunman had lined people up, asked them if they were a Christian, and shot them if they said yes. Now, a trending hashtag is #YesIAmAChristian.
I'm bothered by these reports. First of all, they remind me of the Columbine shooting and Cassie Bernall. She was the young woman who reportedly said "yes" when asked if she believed in God, and was shot for it. It turned out that she wasn't the one who said "yes", it was another young woman, Valeen Schurr. Due to the confusion of the day, I can understand why that remark could have been attributed to someone who didn't say it. I don't want this narrative of "he shot people who said they were Christians" to be shared if it's not true. Although, an article in the Washington Post did have the headline of "Oregon shooter said to have singled out Christians for killing in 'horrific act of cowardice'". That's frightening, if true.
But second: Do I really need to hashtag #YesIAmAChristian in order to prove that I am a Christian?
I've heard criticism of "hashtag diplomacy". When #bringbackourgirls was a trending hashtag, I heard comments such as, "How is a hashtag going to help bring them back?" While Twitter and other social media sites are helpful in spreading news and spreading awareness, if that's all you're going to do, what's a hashtag worth?
Could #YesIAmAChristian be a form of "hashtag evangelism"?
Several months after the Columbine murders, Family Christian Bookstores began selling T-Shirts, key chains, and other items with the slogan, "Yes I Believe In God". That was the moment when I started being turned off by Christian merchandising. To me, that was a shameless, crass attempt to cash in on a family's grief and a horrific tragedy.
This campaign, #YesIAmAChristian, reminds me of the Facebook memes that say, "Repost if you're not ashamed of Jesus." So, if I choose not to hit "share", does this mean I'm ashamed of Jesus and that he will be ashamed of me when he comes back?
If I decide not to tweet #YesIAmAChristian, does this somehow mean I'm not one? Or that I'm ashamed to say so?
For the record, yes, I am a Christian. I would hope that, if someone ever pointed a weapon at me and demanded an answer to that question, I would say, "Yes," and not worry about the consequences. I would also hope that if I were forced to choose between confessing God or having my family killed . . . I'd confess God. It would rip my heart out to do it, and I hope I'd never, ever have to make that choice.
But anyone can hashtag "yes, I am a Christian". I can sit here at my keyboard and type #YesIAmAChristian as much as I want to--I could tweet it on Twitter, post it on Facebook, over and over and over again--and it wouldn't make me one.
What makes me a Christian, first of all, is that God loved first. "We love because he first loved us." Next, what makes me a Christian is my (albeit imperfect) acceptance and response to that love. And I carry out my response in how I live, which includes how I treat others.
Perhaps the shooter really did target Christians in his rampage. He will have to answer to Christ for his actions.
Perhaps there were those who did say, "Yes, I am a Christian," and who were murdered for it. I admire their courage, and I believe God will give them a special welcome.
And I'm sure that many who are hashtagging #YesIAmAChristian are very, very sincere, and they want to stand by those who were murdered yesterday. They want to share their faith. They want to
announce their faith because they don't want to be ashamed of God, ashamed of Jesus.
But do I really need to hashtag that I am a Christian?
I don't think so.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Yesterday, no more than five minutes after I got home, I got a news alert on my iPad reporting a school shooting in Oregon. I thought, "Here we go again," with a mental yawn, thinking that this might be another false alarm.
Within minutes, after going on Twitter, I learned that this was not the case. One tweet said, "Early reports say it's bad." And then I saw CNN: ten dead, 20 wounded.
I followed reports throughout the day with this sense of, "Again. Again? How many more?" I fear I am becoming desensitized to reports of mass shootings, and I don't like it. This is something that should never be "normal" for any society. I don't care if you live in Roseburg, Oregon, Norcross, Georgia, or Haifa, Israel.
When the news announced that President Obama would be speaking about this shooting, I decided not to watch. I had a feeling of what he would say, and I was right--a call for more gun control. I did agree with him when he said "we've become numb to this". He was angry. And I didn't blame him.
Over the next several hours, a report surfaced that the gunman had lined people up, asked them if they were a Christian, and shot them if they said yes. Now, a trending hashtag is #YesIAmAChristian.
I'm bothered by these reports. First of all, they remind me of the Columbine shooting and Cassie Bernall. She was the young woman who reportedly said "yes" when asked if she believed in God, and was shot for it. It turned out that she wasn't the one who said "yes", it was another young woman, Valeen Schurr. Due to the confusion of the day, I can understand why that remark could have been attributed to someone who didn't say it. I don't want this narrative of "he shot people who said they were Christians" to be shared if it's not true. Although, an article in the Washington Post did have the headline of "Oregon shooter said to have singled out Christians for killing in 'horrific act of cowardice'". That's frightening, if true.
But second: Do I really need to hashtag #YesIAmAChristian in order to prove that I am a Christian?
I've heard criticism of "hashtag diplomacy". When #bringbackourgirls was a trending hashtag, I heard comments such as, "How is a hashtag going to help bring them back?" While Twitter and other social media sites are helpful in spreading news and spreading awareness, if that's all you're going to do, what's a hashtag worth?
Could #YesIAmAChristian be a form of "hashtag evangelism"?
Several months after the Columbine murders, Family Christian Bookstores began selling T-Shirts, key chains, and other items with the slogan, "Yes I Believe In God". That was the moment when I started being turned off by Christian merchandising. To me, that was a shameless, crass attempt to cash in on a family's grief and a horrific tragedy.
This campaign, #YesIAmAChristian, reminds me of the Facebook memes that say, "Repost if you're not ashamed of Jesus." So, if I choose not to hit "share", does this mean I'm ashamed of Jesus and that he will be ashamed of me when he comes back?
If I decide not to tweet #YesIAmAChristian, does this somehow mean I'm not one? Or that I'm ashamed to say so?
For the record, yes, I am a Christian. I would hope that, if someone ever pointed a weapon at me and demanded an answer to that question, I would say, "Yes," and not worry about the consequences. I would also hope that if I were forced to choose between confessing God or having my family killed . . . I'd confess God. It would rip my heart out to do it, and I hope I'd never, ever have to make that choice.
But anyone can hashtag "yes, I am a Christian". I can sit here at my keyboard and type #YesIAmAChristian as much as I want to--I could tweet it on Twitter, post it on Facebook, over and over and over again--and it wouldn't make me one.
What makes me a Christian, first of all, is that God loved first. "We love because he first loved us." Next, what makes me a Christian is my (albeit imperfect) acceptance and response to that love. And I carry out my response in how I live, which includes how I treat others.
Perhaps the shooter really did target Christians in his rampage. He will have to answer to Christ for his actions.
Perhaps there were those who did say, "Yes, I am a Christian," and who were murdered for it. I admire their courage, and I believe God will give them a special welcome.
And I'm sure that many who are hashtagging #YesIAmAChristian are very, very sincere, and they want to stand by those who were murdered yesterday. They want to share their faith. They want to
announce their faith because they don't want to be ashamed of God, ashamed of Jesus.
But do I really need to hashtag that I am a Christian?
I don't think so.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Worship Wednesday (one day late, again): The original court reporter?
Right now, my ladies' group is doing a study on Beth Moore's "When Godly People Do Ungodly Things". In one of the lessons, she made the comment that Satan is methodical when he launches his attacks on believers. She said that he keeps meticulous notes.
If that's true, I wondered, does that make Satan the original court reporter?
Court reporters are committed to making an accurate record of court proceedings. In that respect, they have to be meticulous and detailed.
But the more I've thought about it, the more I wonder how accurate I am being in using that analogy. You see, while Satan is meticulous, he's also very selective in the "facts" he uses in his meticulous notes. He may have very methodical and meticulous notes on our sins and weaknesses, and all the mistakes we've made, but he leaves out stuff like God's forgiveness, love and grace.
If it's true that our sins are removed as far as the east is from the west (see Psalm 103:12), then I wonder if God is the one that "strikes from the record" the sins He has removed from us.
After all, isn't He more meticulous than Satan?
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
If that's true, I wondered, does that make Satan the original court reporter?
Court reporters are committed to making an accurate record of court proceedings. In that respect, they have to be meticulous and detailed.
But the more I've thought about it, the more I wonder how accurate I am being in using that analogy. You see, while Satan is meticulous, he's also very selective in the "facts" he uses in his meticulous notes. He may have very methodical and meticulous notes on our sins and weaknesses, and all the mistakes we've made, but he leaves out stuff like God's forgiveness, love and grace.
If it's true that our sins are removed as far as the east is from the west (see Psalm 103:12), then I wonder if God is the one that "strikes from the record" the sins He has removed from us.
After all, isn't He more meticulous than Satan?
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
The stupid is strong on Facebook!
It happens every few years. A Facebook status goes around saying the following:
"Better safe than sorry is right. Channel 11 News was just talking about this change in Facebook's privacy policy. Better safe than sorry. As of September 27th at 09:30 p.m. Eastern standard time, I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, or posts, both past and future. By this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement atleast once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. You MUST copy and paste."
This time, it's been paired with the following status:
"Now it's official! It has been published in the media. Facebook has just released the entry price: £5.99 to keep the subscription of your status to be set to "private". If you paste this message on your page, it will be offered free (I said paste not share)."
Some versions of the above statuses are, "Channel 13 News was just talking about this change," and "Facebook has just released the entry price: $5.99 to keep your status 'private'."
It sounds so official. There's just one problem: It's not true.
The hoax-busting site Snopes.com has debunked this rumor many, many times. If, for whatever reason, you don't trust Snopes, check here, and here, and here. Or, Google "Facebook privacy hoax" and see the number of links that come up. At last search, there were nearly 140 news articles covering this story, and I'm sure the number will be climbing.
Yesterday, I was amazed at the number of times I saw people copy and paste the above statuses. Some of them were people that are normally pretty intelligent.
What is it about social media that makes people check their brains at the door?
Indeed, the stupid is strong on Facebook.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
"Better safe than sorry is right. Channel 11 News was just talking about this change in Facebook's privacy policy. Better safe than sorry. As of September 27th at 09:30 p.m. Eastern standard time, I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, or posts, both past and future. By this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement atleast once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. You MUST copy and paste."
This time, it's been paired with the following status:
"Now it's official! It has been published in the media. Facebook has just released the entry price: £5.99 to keep the subscription of your status to be set to "private". If you paste this message on your page, it will be offered free (I said paste not share)."
Some versions of the above statuses are, "Channel 13 News was just talking about this change," and "Facebook has just released the entry price: $5.99 to keep your status 'private'."
It sounds so official. There's just one problem: It's not true.
The hoax-busting site Snopes.com has debunked this rumor many, many times. If, for whatever reason, you don't trust Snopes, check here, and here, and here. Or, Google "Facebook privacy hoax" and see the number of links that come up. At last search, there were nearly 140 news articles covering this story, and I'm sure the number will be climbing.
Yesterday, I was amazed at the number of times I saw people copy and paste the above statuses. Some of them were people that are normally pretty intelligent.
What is it about social media that makes people check their brains at the door?
Indeed, the stupid is strong on Facebook.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Manic Monday: A.B.
So, John Boehner is out as Speaker of the House, effective next month. There's a list of people who are glad to see him go.
I'm not a fan of him leading the constant "caving" of the Republican Party.
My question is, though, what is life going to be like A.B. -- After Boehner?
Will Kevin McCarthy be elected next speaker? Will he be the one to take a tough stand against Democrats? Will he be the the party leader that people want?
Or will we have another speaker that will end up caving?
Or will we end up having so much fighting that nothing will get done?
I appreciate the need to stand on principle, and there are times when people need to do just that. But unless our legislative branch learns to work together--and that may mean not getting every single thing you want--our Congress is going to swallow itself alive. I am reminded of a verse in the book of Galatians: if you keep biting and devouring each other, watch out or you may be destroyed by each other.
There has been so much biting and devouring going on in the United States Congress that all 435 members could be tried and convicted of political cannibalism.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
I'm not a fan of him leading the constant "caving" of the Republican Party.
My question is, though, what is life going to be like A.B. -- After Boehner?
Will Kevin McCarthy be elected next speaker? Will he be the one to take a tough stand against Democrats? Will he be the the party leader that people want?
Or will we have another speaker that will end up caving?
Or will we end up having so much fighting that nothing will get done?
I appreciate the need to stand on principle, and there are times when people need to do just that. But unless our legislative branch learns to work together--and that may mean not getting every single thing you want--our Congress is going to swallow itself alive. I am reminded of a verse in the book of Galatians: if you keep biting and devouring each other, watch out or you may be destroyed by each other.
There has been so much biting and devouring going on in the United States Congress that all 435 members could be tried and convicted of political cannibalism.
Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)