Monday, July 28, 2014


This was inspired by a post a friend sent me on Facebook:

2015 -- Please don't call them Zombies.  It is such a hurtful, hateful slur.  They prefer to be called Life Challenged Flesh Consumers (LCFCs).  LCFCs are a most misunderstood and discriminated against segment of our society.  All they want is a little respect and dignity, and the right all Americans have to live their life, or should we say exist after death, doing what comes naturally and normally for them.  Cannot an enlightened culture such as ours tolerate a kind of diversity that includes LCFCs? 

2016 -- Recent legislative gains have been made on behalf of LCFCs, and the popularity and support they enjoy among the elite segments of our country are notable, but the battle for equality is far from over.  Mere toleration of the LCFC lifestyle in not enough.  We must promote the full inclusion of LCFCs at all levels of government, industry and the church.  To that end a representative principle (please do not call it a quota system; that is a hurtful, hateful term) is being applied to all hirings, appointments and elections.  Henceforth, Zombies (they have re-claimed the name once given them in derision and refer to themselves that way proudly now as it recalls the past they have so bravely overcome) will be guaranteed a certain number of seats in all legislative bodies, corporate boards and church councils. 

2017 -- It seems there are still some ignorant people who have not recognized and embraced the superiority of Zombies and the peace and prosperity they have brought us.  Such sick, loathsome people will be re-located to education camps where they will be cured of this malady and taught the truth about Zombie-ism.  Moreover, they will have the privilege of providing nutrition for their Zombie leaders.

2018 -- I, for one, welcome our Zombie overloads.  I love Zombies!

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Frisky Cats

The Sheep Dog's Spot is a full service blog, catering to your theological, cultural and feline interests.  Today, it's cats.  I don't know what they put in Friskies Cat Food, but my cats love it.  I thought it might be sugar, but then I read that cats don't have the proper receptors to taste sweets.  I have tried others brands: the Pet Smart store brand they ignore at first, but eventually eat; some of the grocery store brands they refuse to eat at all; Friskies they wolf down as soon as I put it in their bowls.   I had assumed all cats foods were alike, they pretty much smell alike to me, but apparently not so.  For the uninitiated, canned cat food comes in pate, shreds, or fillets.  The latest marketing gimmick is to add cheese, egg and sauces.  Some of these look good enough for human consumption.  In fact some of the super-premium brands, which I never buy without a great coupon, have whole shrimp in them.  Okay, I can't help but get theological/cultural:  What does it say when our cats eat better than many people?

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Some Immigration thoughts

Recalling some discussion I had about immigration in years past:

Some one said to me that all Americans are immigrants (or the children of immigrants), and that Americans are all hypocrites and evil because they oppose more immigration.  If what that person said is true then the nicest thing we could for people wanting to come to our country is turn them away so that they and their children won't become the evil hypocrites we supposedly are.  What makes one think a newcomer to the US isn't going to be corrupted by our decadence?  I'll  tell you why one thinks that: a lack of appreciation for the power of Original Sin.

There are poor, suffering, persecuted people all over the world.  Why should we give special preference in assisting those who just happen to live close enough to our borders to cross them illegally?  Shouldn't we be transporting the poor huddled masses from all over the globe to our shores to be fair and inclusive?  If alleviating human suffering is our goal, then those are reasonable strategies.  That no one in favor of more immigration is proposing that leads me to believe that they have another agenda, such as political posturing. 

If we raised taxes 10, or 20 or 30% and directed all that money to assisting immigrants, would it make a difference?  First of all, it's a stretch to assume all that money would go to the immigrants themselves and not get lost in government "overhead."  Second, you could tax the American populace into poverty and not raise the many people in poverty into the middle class.  You would just have more poor people to care for.

As I said in a sermon recently, I was talking to a "no borders" advocate.  I asked him if he locked his doors at night.  He said he did. I asked him why?    To keep out thieves and such, he replied.  Doesn't our country have the same right to keep thieves out of our country.  He said it was different but could not adequately explain why.

Has anyone ever given so much to immigration that they themselves have fallen below the poverty line?  I know not one.  Yet many politicians are ready to spend billions of our tax dollars to put a Band-Aid on the problem.  It so easy to spend other people's money.

Yes, my great-great-grandparents were immigrants.  They obeyed the law and came to this country legally.  They became part of the workforce in a growing economy and survived here without government assistance.  That's rugged American individualism.