Archive | Media and Entertainment RSS feed for this section

Don’t you want your kid to be famous?

3 Feb
@JustinBieber via Instagram

@JustinBieber via Instagram

Does your child want to be famous?

How many kids fantasize about starring in a Disney Channel show, appearing in the pages of fashion magazines or singing onstage in front of thousands of screaming fans?

Think about it Mom and Dad. Your immensely talented kid could be adored and idolized for her artistic gifts.  He could be raking in big money that can help support the rest of the family. All of you can rub elbows with the rich and famous.

Don’t you want your kid to be famous?

Thousands of those kids are pursuing those dreams right now. Well, let’s rephrase that. Mom and Dad are pursuing those dreams right now by uploading their kids’ videos on YouTube, shelling out thousands of dollars for the right headshots, moving to California so their child can be closer to the action, and spending hours in acting, singing and dance lessons.

All in hopes that their child will be the next Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber.

Lord have mercy! Why on Earth would you want that for your kid?

BBC radio recently ran a segment on “Would you want your child to be famous” * and invited a children’s talent agent, mother of an aspiring teen rocker and an American culture and parenting blogger to discuss the issue.  (Spoiler alert: I was the blogger.) Despite the recent headlines, many parents still pursue this for their children and swear/hope/pray their child will never let fame go to their head or act out in infamous ways. The other radio guests talked about “supporting their dreams” and being the voice of reason for them. I applaud these parents for wanting to help their kids attain these goals, but I could never do it. My children, who are entering their teens, are too immature to grasp the ramifications of some dreams, and as their mother, I sometimes have to protect them from themselves. I also have serious doubts  any parent can be a “voice of reason” when their talented child is surrounded by entourages made up of agents, photographers, directors, producers and others in the entertainment industry.

As history has shown us, the child entertainers who make the successful transition to well-balanced adult are few and far between. For every Justin Timberlake and Natalie Portman, there are dozens of others who fall victim to drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, brushes with the law, outrageous behavior or diva-mentality – and it often starts while they are still in their teens. Even under the so-called “watchful eyes” of their parents and handlers, Drew Barrymore was snorting cocaine at 13, Demi Lovato developed an eating disorder at 8-years-old, and Joe Jonas smoked pot with Lovato and Miley Cyrus at 17.

Well-intended parents are encouraging their children to join a brutal business without understanding how it really works. I’m a veteran stage actor and video talent, and I can attest all is not bright in the spotlight. Auditions are grueling and time-consuming, and very few of them actually lead to anything; however, you keep trying in hopes that you’ll be the perfect fit for another project. If you’re not the perfect fit, you have to endure a producer or director ripping you to shreds over personal traits such as your voice, body, skin, height or weight. People in the business understand actors, models, singers and dancers are commodities that are bought, sold and packaged to meet a particular need, and those needs constantly change.

Performers tend to be highly creative and sensitive people, and it takes a lot of emotional strength to maintain the thick skin that is needed to survive the constant rejection and critiques. Most adults don’t have that kind of inner strength and stability, and yet stage parents expect an emotionally developing child or teen to have it. Without those traits, both child and adult performers can easily develop problems with insecurity, depression or narcissism.

For the rare performer that does “make it,” fame can be a fickle beast. Adored one moment and forgotten the next. It can be tough on adults, but even worse on a young person who isn’t mature enough to understand or deal with the changes. How will he react when no one is there to cater to their every need and offer endless praise, when the entourage leaves because the money runs out, or when good feelings can only be found in drugs or alcohol? How will his parents react?

For those parents who are encouraging their children’s fame dreams, I have no doubt your child is immensely talented, but I beg you to consider the real costs of fame – pressure, criticism, strained families and growing up way too fast.

They’re children for only a little while. Hollywood can wait.


What do YOU think?
Would you let your child pursue an entertainment career? Please share your thoughts in the comment section.

*You can download the BBC’s “World Have Your Say Segment” at Look for the Thursday, Jan. 30 WHYS link. The fame discussion is in the middle of the program. You can also get their podcasts off iTunes.


Hear no evil, see no evil, stop no evil: A follow up on the Grammys

28 Jan

So you didn’t watch the Grammy Awards? Good for you.

I don’t mean to sound crass, but you’re not doing anyone any favors by proudly proclaiming you won’t watch such filth nor are you helping anyone by labeling the show and other media programs as “evil.”

If you really want to make a difference in America’s media landscape, DO SOMETHING about it. Don’t pat yourself on the back for avoiding it.  Believe me, these folks are not crying because they lost you as a viewer. They actually love when conservatives loudly complain about programs, music or movies.  As a matter of fact, our complaints help them. Why? Because it makes others think, “Well, if they hate it, it must be AWESOME!”

My in-box has been burning up with notes from people who are proudly declaring their abstinence and summoning the wrath of God on people they declare to be evil, vile and other not-so-nice words. I agree many in media and entertainment do behave despicably and produce content that hurts society; however, I haven’t posted the abstainers’ or judges’ comments because they would do more harm than good. The indignation, as righteous as it may be, won’t change the situation. The condemnation won’t change the people responsible. None of it will bring anyone closer to God.  There are more effective ways to express disapproval and spur real change.

Look, I’m not saying you have to watch or listen to this stuff. I agree a lot of it is crap, and there have been many times I needed to pour bleach into my eyes and ears because of things I’ve caught on television or radio.  However, I am saying you have to get out of your bubble, acknowledge this stuff is out there, and work to change it. Complaining to the networks won’t work, nor will boycotting their shows. These tactics actually boost the offending items’ popularity. However, there are two tactics that do work. Go after their advertisers and tell your government representatives to hold the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) accountable.

No advertiser will run commercials, which finance these shows, if they fear they’ll lose a huge portion of their consumer base. Just a few years ago, parent groups were able to get “Skins,” an MTV series with a whole lot of underage sex, pulled off the air because they targeted the show’s advertisers.  The FCC has regulations that prohibit the airing of “obscene” material before 10 p.m., and they can levy some pretty hefty fines for public stations that do it. (CBS, the host of the Grammys, is considered public. MTV and other cable outlets are not.) Granted, the FCC has been pretty lax about enforcement in recent years, but that’s why it’s so important for you to be persistent. Contact your federal representatives and demand action.

You can also have dialogues about these issues. I use Roadkill Goldfish to start those dialogues, but I also spend a lot of time personally talking with other people and listening to their thoughts and ideas. I encourage you to take the time to talk to people who may have a different opinion. Find out WHY they think the way they do. Use hard facts to point out flaws in their arguments.  Show alternatives.

I believe we can change today’s culture, but we can’t do it if we’re patting ourselves on the back with our sanitized hands.

It’s time to roll up the sleeves and get our hands dirty as we help others out of the muck.

Grammy Awards, we appreciate the Sunday night grinding lesson

27 Jan
Image: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Image: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Maybe it was wrong to teach my daughter to cross her legs when sitting in a chair.

Thank you, CBS and the Grammy Awards. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways at 8 p.m. on a Sunday evening.

I sincerely appreciate you starting the show with Beyoncé demonstrating the proper way to sit and writhe in a chair. Wear a thong and spread your legs. Got it. It truly was an amazing and child-friendly tutorial on how to use household furnishings as erotic props, and I thank you.

The bonus lesson from Jay Z was pretty awesome as well. He showed that men really don’t “exploit” women in the music industry. Come on, folks. Beyoncé is his wife, and he’s got a baby girl at home. Did you miss hearing him dedicate his Grammy to them? The haters are just jealous they don’t have the courage to publicly embrace their sensuality, and they’re really thinking, “She is a beautiful singer/dancer, AND I’d like to talk to her about her recent paper on advancements in neuropsychiatry.”

I was a bit disappointed about the use of the  seven-second delay on some of the lyrics. Thankfully, some of the good stuff got through, and I was able to read lips for the other things. A few folks may consider it censorship because you bleeped lyrics that showcased the beautiful intimacy of love between a man and woman. Where would our world be without a couple singing loving affirmations such as, “I’m rubbing on it, rub-rubbing” and “Slid the panties right to the side; ain’t got the time to take drawers off?”

The performance reminded me of a speech the late curmudgeon Fred Rogers shared when he was inducted into the Television Hall of Fame:

Fame is a four-letter word; and like tape or zoom or face or pain or life or love, what ultimately matters is what we do with it. I feel that those of us in television are chosen to be servants. It doesn’t matter what our particular job, we are chosen to help meet the deeper needs of those who watch and listen–day and night! …We all have only one life to live on earth. And through television, we have the choice of encouraging others to demean this life or to cherish it in creative, imaginative ways. (From The World According to Mister Rogers (Kindle Locations 540-558).)

Thank you for meeting America’s deeper needs, CBS.

Is it hate speech? You decide.

27 Dec

Many people aren’t exactly sure how to define “hate speech,” but they’re pretty confident they’d know it if they heard it.

Would you?

Take a look at some recent examples of comments that may or not be hate speech.  Check the ones you think qualify for the label.

The official definition of hate speech can be a little fuzzy. Most sources define it as oral or written messages that “incite hatred” against a person or group on the basis of their race, religion, sex, ethnicity or sexual orientation. What does “incite hatred” mean? To rouse strong dislike or ill will.

Freedom of speech is a right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. Does that mean Americans have the right to say whatever they want when they want to say it? Absolutely not.  An act of speech loses its protection when it creates a dangerous situation, such as provokes violence or incites illegal actions; when it libels or slanders an individual or organization by sharing false or misleading statements; or when it meets the legal definition of obscenity.

Is “hate speech” protected? In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Westboro Baptist Church had the protected right to hold protests at military funerals. Their protests usually involved members holding signs such as “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.”

Hateful? Yes.

Immoral? Oh yeah.

Infuriating? You betcha.

Illegal? No.

Although the courts protect such speech, many of America’s institutions of higher education do not. These colleges and universities have faced pressure to respond to the concerns of concerns of those who are the objects of hate. Consequently, they have adopted policies/penalties based on speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

The societal penalty for saying something hateful or insensitive used to be a stern reprimand or shunning of the speaker. The best thing to do was NOT to give the person the attention he or she craved. Ignore them, and they’ll go away. However, many people have been conditioned to be loud, persistent, and sometimes outrageous and threatening, whenever they encounter something that offends them. Some have been become a little too eager to throw a “hate speech” label on differences of opinion, and unfortunately, some have become hypocritical with their views on such speech.

Now take a second look at the quiz comments with a little background information:

  • “I hope and pray every day that someone anally rapes you.”
    The comment was left on Facebook for a  Christian youth speaker. The speaker is a white male; the writer is another white male.
  • “You deserve to be gang-raped for your stupidity.”
    The comment was left for a female blogger who wrote about why she didn’t want her daughter to emulate Miley Cyrus’s behavior. The blogger is conservative and of mixed ethnicity. The gender and ethnicity of the commenter are unknown.
  • “Hey, tranny. Know your place.”
    A transgendered student at Vassar College found this  note left on a dorm door. Other reports of similar notes followed; however, the hate was later discovered to a hoax. The “victim” and another student wrote the vile messages and then filed the reports themselves, claiming to be the victims of unknown haters.
  • “I’m gonna find you, _____, you toxic little queen, and I’m gonna (expletive) you up.”
    This is a tweet from actor Alec Baldwin directed at a reporter who accused his wife was tweeting at a funeral. Baldwin is a white male, and the reporter is a gay white male.

Does this information change any of your responses? Based on the working definition of the term, all the comments should qualify as hate speech because they incited hatred against an individual because of religion, gender or sexual orientation. However, many would argue the first example does not qualify because the recipient is a white, Christian male. Others would argue the second example does not qualify because the recipient, although female and multi-racial, has conservative viewpoints. The third was considered blatant hate speech and its news coverage created public outrage; however, few outlets bothered to cover the story when the comments were revealed as a hoax. The fourth got a pass because the speaker is an outspoken Hollywood actor known for his liberal political beliefs. (Baldwin finally faced consequences several months later after another hateful outburst.)

Hate speech is hate speech regardless of who it’s aimed at or who’s doing it. Too many media outlets perpetuate the problem when “news personalities” and other VIPs mock or discredit ANY person because of their beliefs, gender, race or any other personal factor; their actions add an implied endorsement to the treatment. They also add to the problem when they fail to exercise due diligence with allegations.

Hatred is ignorance that needs to be disputed with facts and dialogue, and ALL people benefit when you take vitriol out of the darkness and expose it in the light so people can see what it really is.

Comment Policy:
I welcome your feedback, but I will not tolerate personal attacks against me, my family or another commenter. It’s okay to disagree, but be respectful. Attack the issue, not the person.  Vulgarity, racism, religion bashing, slams about sexual orientation, name calling, advertisements and generally being a jerk to others will send your comment to the trash bin.

Why aren’t the masses calling for Phil Robertson’s head?

19 Dec

Lots of folks want Phil Robertson’s fuzzy head on plate.

The patriarch behind the hit reality show, “Duck Dynasty,” engaged in what some consider hate speech in a recent interview with GQ magazine. In the article, Robertson shared his opinions and beliefs about topics such as hunting, family, faith, sin and homosexuality.  GLAAD, an organization that promotes the image of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the media, was outraged and issued a statement through their spokesperson: “Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

A&E, the network that airs “Duck Dynasty,” re-examined their ties and responded, “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series ‘Duck Dynasty.’ His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

So what do other media outlets think about Robertson? Check out a few of today’s headlines:

  • Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson Spews Anti-Gay Comments in GQ Profile (TV Guide)
  • GLAAD Slams ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Phil Robertson for ‘Vile’ Comments About Homosexuality (Hollywood Reporter)

I suspect a little negativity and bias with loaded words like “spews,” “slams,” and “vile.”  To its credit, the GQ article was pretty open about its bias and used a good bit of snark and vulgarity throughout the piece to describe Robertson and his beliefs.

We know how the media feel. How do the people feel? Surprisingly, the media outrage has not led to a public stoning of Robertson. The majority of the feedback on social media and news sites has been supportive of his right to express his opinion and disapproval of A&E’s punitive actions against him.

Why the change? Why aren’t the masses calling for Robertson’s head and spewing hate at him? Maybe it’s because we’re tired of the “I don’t like your point of view; therefore, you must be destroyed” tactics that have killed dialogue and made people fearful to speak out.

Maybe it’s because we recognize Phil Robertson doesn’t deserve this. No one does. You may not agree with everything Robertson says, but you can’t deny he’s a guy who turned his life around, sticks to his convictions, supports his family and genuinely loves others enough to share his source of joy with them.

Maybe it’s because most people realize that it’s okay to have an opinion and disagreement doesn’t mean hatred.

How Finnick Odair helped me bond with my daughter

1 Dec
Both teens and moms agree - Finnick Odair is awesome.

Something that moms and their teenage daughters can agree on – Finnick Odair is awesome.

I may have scarred my daughter for life with four little words – “Finnick Odair is AWESOME!”

My 14-year-old daughter looked at me with a quizzical face. She began to speak, but then swallowed her words. A few seconds passed and then she turned to me with a smile, “Team Finnick, baby!” she exclaimed. “Forget Peeta and Gale.”

Whew, no damage done. Chalk it up as mother-daughter bonding over a rather attractive guy who protects an old lady and is really good with a trident.

We had just left the movie theater after watching “Catching Fire” with the entire family. My husband rolled his eyes at my comment, and my son reminded me I was a married woman who was old enough to be Finnick’s mother. I had to correct him for his mistake, “I am old enough to be YOUR mother,” I said. “I am old enough to be Finnick’s favorite babysitter.” My daughter mumbled, “I’ll be old enough to date him in four years.”

My daughter and I share an unusual bond thanks to “The Hunger Games” trilogy. She came home with the first book three years ago, and when I asked her what it was about, she responded, “Oh, it’s about a government that makes kids kill kids.” She definitely got my attention. I was ready to have a stern conversation with the English teacher who recommended the book, but I decided to read it before going on a tirade. The trilogy created the best mother-daughter bonding experience we’ve ever had.

The bond has made a few other mothers chastise my parenting and clutch their pearls over the books’ violent content. Much ado about nothing. While violence underscores the premise of the series, it is certainly not glorified or used as a primary focus. The trilogy promotes the importance of relationships and loyalty while providing a cautionary tale about freedom. Author Suzanne Collins deserves kudos for creating an amazing heroine and role model for young women. Katniss Everdeen is not another hormonal, rebellious or selfish teen; she’s a brave, smart, compassionate, honest and unflinching loyal young woman. My daughter idolizes Katniss, and I’m okay with that.

“The Hunger Games” has opened up countless conversations for me, my daughter and her friends. There have been many discussions about the books’ characters, and just like every other teen girl conversation, their focus always seems to drift back to boys. They talk about which guy Katniss should choose. Some want her to be with Peeta Mellark, the loyal baker’s son who secretly loved her and fought to protect her during the brutal games. Others support a relationship with Gale Hawthorne, Katniss’s hunky best friend and fellow hunter who promised to look after her family. My daughter and I really don’t care who she chooses; we simply love Finnick, the veteran tribute who risked his own life to save his elderly mentor, Katniss and Peeta during the horrific Quarter Quell.

The conversations have also helped my daughter understand our world a little better. I’ve used Panem’s government control and social inequality to talk about real world tyranny and poverty. The districts’ rebellion has been used to show how just one person can influence millions to stand up against evil. The callousness of the career tributes points out how desensitized society can be about the value of human life.

The most important Hunger Games lesson for my daughter has come from the characters’ willingness to sacrifice themselves for others. Katniss takes her sister’s place during the reaping and begs Haymitch to save Peeta before herself, Peeta nearly dies after placing himself between Katniss and the career tributes, Rue saves our heroine after the tracker jacker attack, Finnick rescues Peeta from near drowning, and the elderly Mags volunteers for a younger woman and then silently walks to her death when she realizes her friends won’t survive with her around.

The characters demonstrate the power of unconditional love, a love that involves the willingness to lay down your life for someone else. The trilogy gave my daughter tangible pictures of this in action and allowed us to have a conversation about what real love looks like. It’s not about chemistry or how someone makes you feel; it’s about a desire that puts another person’s well being and happiness above your own.

The self-sacrifice lesson has also helped me teach my daughter about what’s important in friendships and dating relationships. I don’t want her to be a girl who lowers herself to appease the popular crowd or settles for a bad relationship because she thinks it’s better than no relationship at all. I want her to see herself in Katniss and recognize she too is inspirational, strong, brave, compassionate and worthy of great love. I also want her to find friendship or possibly love with her own Finnick/Peeta, a young man who puts her first, accepts her for who she is, demonstrates kindness and fights by her side for what is right.

I promise not to drool over her Finnick, but all bets are off if he shows up at our house wearing swim trunks and offers to carry me on his back.

Why are we praising the kids who created #lookadouche?

19 Nov

Aisleen tweet

Justin Lookadoo ticked off the wrong people – a professor of theology and a bunch of teens with smartphones.

The youth speaker showed up last week to give a presentation on dating and character to students at a Texas high school. He was met by members of the media. (He must be a big deal to draw in that kind of press attention for a high school assembly.) During his presentation, a few curious kids sent out live tweets such as,  “Are we allowed to ask questions at this assembly? If so,  is “f_ck you” a question?”. When it was over, the braver ones approached him (with media and smartphone videos in tow) to confront him about his views on gender roles and dating.

The students did their research before Lookadoo’s arrival and learned he was one of those barbaric Christians who believe in traditional gender roles when it comes to relationships and dating. He had written a book in 2003 on “dating rules” and conducted seminars for church youth groups.

The media reported Lookadoo said girls need to shut up and be more feminine. Oh heck no! I remember my time on  the dating scene. God gave me a mouth in addition to a uterus, and there was no way I was shutting up to attract a man. Be more feminine? I was not sticking a bow on top of my head and acting dainty just so I could have someone buy me dinner at Applebee’s.

The media ran with it.  Within a few days, outlets all across the country were berating this guy by mocking his hairstyle, called him creepy, insulting his family and so much more. Serves him right.

No, it doesn’t. This is wrong.  Very wrong. A man has been made a target because his beliefs didn’t match a disrespectful mini-mob who turned a high school assembly into a press conference and public hanging. There is no room for mature disagreement and intelligent debate. Don’t waste time talking one-on-one. Go ahead and tweet live so the world can see you’re not taking any crap from a speaker who dares to have a different point of view. Go for the jugular and take this guy out. We don’t need him spreading that trash to impressionable teens. That’s a job for the entertainment media.

Rev. Dr. Jaime Clark-Soles, a professor of theology at Southern Methodist University, wrote a column for Huffington Post in which she expressed her outrage when she discovered Lookadoo was going to be speaking at her daughter’s school. “Justin Lookadoo is in no way qualified to address children in a public school setting. Mr. Lookadoo is a religious speaker who has published religious books with a religious press,” she wrote. “He has also published many of his religious beliefs regarding gender roles (all based on a heterosexual model in which boys and girls are to pair up) on his website.”

(Just curious. Does that mean teachers who support traditional gender roles through their synagogue, temple, church or mosque aren’t qualified to lead children in a public school setting? Should they be fired if they are public about their beliefs?)

There are a few inconvenient facts you won’t see in many of the media reports. The comments that are widely circulated in the news and the blogosphere came from the 2003 book, not the 2013 presentation. Lookadoo  didn’t use the assembly to talk about his religious beliefs. The guy knows the difference between a school and church audience. He didn’t slam anyone for their sexual orientation.  None of that mattered to Clark-Soles. She wrote, “Some reporters have said to me: “Justin says he didn’t mention his website or his rules during the actual assembly so you have no grounds for being upset.” My response is this: Would a school dare to bring in a speaker with well-publicized controversial views on race or a track record of disparaging a particular ethnic group? Of course not! So why would they invite someone with similarly outrageous views on gender? Some views on gender roles are just plain dangerous.”

Here are a few other pesky facts. This presentation was optional. Students chose to be there.  No one was forced to attend. No tax dollars were used. Lookadoo spoke at the high school in 2009 and was invited back. He’s done thousands of these things for both public schools and  faith-based organizations.

Clark-Soles offered praise to the students who spoke out.  “I am inspired by and proud of all of the students who have rejected these unjust, sexist convictions that are damaging to all people, no matter what their gender,” she wrote. “Students, you are intelligent, courageous, and mature. Keep up the fantastic work!!!”

What? Praise for the same mature and intelligent bunch that showed no respect to an adult and christened him with the vulgar hashtag – #lookadouche?

As a courtesy to the students, I have blocked out their contact information.

As a courtesy to the students, I have blocked out their contact information.

I took a deeper dive into Lookadoo’s seemingly outrageous views on dating. When I first heard the news reports, I was very angry, but my journalism instincts suspected something was missing from the story. On the surface, the views promoted by the  media can be quite inflammatory; however, they are excerpts taken from his book. Excerpts. One or two paragraphs taken from a book that goes into a whole lot more detail and context. He has a brash way of getting attention, but it’s not oppressive and hateful stuff. This guy is a former juvenile probation officer who has seen kids suffer the consequences of poor life choices, and he’s trying to give them a different perspective in hopes they can be spared unnecessary pain and heartache. (Of course, we all know it is highly judgmental for anyone to suggest poor choices and behavior can have crappy consequences.)

Some women are upset Lookadoo pointed out females can be a vicious bunch. Are you serious? Ladies, do you remember middle school and high school? Do you remember what the dating scene was like? Yes, females can be as vicious. Want proof? Talk to Rebecca Sedwick’s family. The 12-year-old committed suicide this fall after a pack of girls ruthlessly bullied her – over a boy.

Justin, I am so sorry you were ambushed like this. These people weren’t interested in hearing you speak; they were looking for the opportunity to take you down.

News media, I am so sorry you are missing the real stories behind this: a small group has manipulated a school assembly to destroy a man just because of something he believes and our society is calling this bunch “heroes” because they “stood up to a bully.” No they didn’t; they are the bullies. They took his beliefs out of context and portrayed them as “dangerous,” created vulgar names,  defamed the guy and pretty much told the  3,000+ other venues where Lookadoo has spoken that they were idiots for allowing him in. They created a media firestorm.

Maybe I don’t know Christianity as well as a professor of theology like Dr. Clark-Soles does, but something tells me Jesus wouldn’t be celebrating what happened. I also get the feeling the crusade doesn’t mesh well with the whole Jesus thing about “love thy neighbor as thyself.” However, I do know one thing for certain – Jesus loves and forgives. Perhaps love and forgiveness – and basic manners-  are better tactics than social media smears.

(You can find the original Dallas Morning News story about Lookadoo’s appearance at The link may not be accessible for long.)

Comment Policy:
I welcome your feedback, but I will not tolerate personal attacks against me, my family or another commenter. It’s okay to disagree, but be respectful. Attack the issue, not the person.  Vulgarity, racism, religion bashing, slams about sexual orientation, name calling, advertisements and generally being a jerk to others will send your comment to the trash bin.

So play nice.

%d bloggers like this: