How’s Your Communication?

“Husbands, love your wives.”                                          Eph 5:25 NKJV

One of the biggest challenges in marriage is communication. Here’s an example: in the past husbands went to work and wives stayed home to raise the children. Now, someone has estimated that the average man speaks about twenty-nine thousand words a day and the average woman speaks about thirty-three thousand words a day. That may not be accurate, but let’s use it as an illustration. He’s been out in the workplace all day and by the time he gets home he’s used up twenty-six thousand of his words, leaving only three thousand he feels no need to say. But she’s been locked up all day with the dishes, the diapers and the drudgery. She has talked to her mother, to friends and neighbors and used up about eight thousand words. So when he gets home she has twenty-five thousand words waiting for him. After a silent supper he spends the evening watching TV, then they go to bed. As he’s about to fall asleep a voice says, “Are you awake?” If you are wise, you will be! If not, tomorrow night there will be fifty thousand words lying beside you. Do the math; in ten years there will be enough words to fill the central library. But maybe not; maybe there will be no words. A frequent reason given in divorce is: “We just got to where we had nothing to say to one another anymore.” The Bible says, “Husbands, love your wives.” Love listens when we have nothing particularly interesting to say. It listens because only when we have been heard and validated, do we feel cherished. So, “How’s your communication?”

http://theencouragingword.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/hows-your-communication/

Ministry of presence

^“Then they sat on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights. No one said a word to him, because they saw how great his suffering was.” — Job 2:13

Just about everyone can tell you exactly where they were when the Twin Towers came tumbling down on September 11, 2001. I remember being glued to the TV in utter shock at what was unfolding. With each passing day it became apparent that the missing would be considered casualties. The mission turned from rescue to recovery.

One story that caught my attention was an interview with a minister who came to Ground Zero daily in order to console the families of the casualties. During the interview, the reporter asked him what words of comfort he offered to the bereaved families. “What can you say to give them comfort?” asked the reporter. The minister replied with words that deeply resonated with me:  “I don’t actually say anything. It is merely a ministry of presence. I just stand by their side, hold their hand, and cry with them.”

All too often when people hear about the suffering of their friends they are very reluctant to call. They simply don’t know what to say so they just procrastinate and never pay the visit that they know they should. In truth, like Job’s friends, nothing need be said. The closeness of another person, the warmth of the human touch, simply being present is all it takes.

According to Jewish law, when one experiences a loss of a close relative they are required to sit in mourning for a period of seven days. During this period they are visited by friends and family who come to offer them comfort. Interestingly, Jewish law dictates that the visitor must sit quietly. Any conversation must be initiated by the mourner. Jewish law is sensitive to the needs of the mourner and understands that they are not ready to hear explanations or religious philosophy. They just need to know that they have the closeness and support of friends.

Do not underestimate the value of your presence. In tragic moments – and in good times – we give our friends and family so much simply by being present with them. There is a time for conversation and a time for silence. And there are moments in life when silence says so much more than words ever could.

http://www.holylandmoments.org/devotionals/ministry-of-presence

Don’t Trust the B — or it’s sponsors!

ABC’s trash show “Don’t Trust the B— in Apt. 23,  though a repeat, brings degradation whether it is a new episode or old.  It is what it is:  trash!

Express your concern to the advertisers of this show who are empowering the increasing profanity-filled lewdness on network television.

 

There were a total of 18 advertisers with 8 repeat (44% of advertisers were repeaters.)

Click here to send a message to the sponsors of “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apt. 23.”

 

Old Advertisers include:  McDonalds, Netflix, Kia, Hellmann’s – Unilever, L’Oreal and others.

 

New advertisers include:  Burlington, Mazda, Virgin Mobile and a few others. And while the word “b—ch” may not be explicitly stated in the title, it has certainly been used  within the show.  Just five years ago that type of disgusting language would have been rarely heard on network television. Now such language is becoming regular fare.

As one commentator stated:  “People are raised mimicking media — TV is the other parent — and kids are growing up without common decency and respect for each other.   They’re fed that women are second-class citizens; women are bitches …”

And Erin M. Fuller, president of the Alliance for Women in Media, stated:  “Obviously, they’re using it to be polarizing and controversial and attention-getting. Why else would you use that word?  I don’t think … that word is a celebration of women.”

Yet, as indicative of how far we’ve fallen, this new show has garnered little criticism, but loads of acclaim for its “edginess” and “humor.”

We need to let our voices be heard!  Express your concern to the advertisers of this show who are empowering the increasing obscenity-filled lewdness on network television.

 

Click here to send a message to the sponsors of “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apt. 23.”

http://www.americandecency.org/archives/don%E2%80%99t-trust-the-b-or-it%E2%80%99s-sponsors/#more-6737

Disney’s Cynical Pro-Obama Ploy

On the heels of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s latest stupid regulations commanding a shrinkage in the size of sugary drinks in restaurants, movie theaters and stadiums, the Walt Disney Co. has announced it will ban ads for products on its broadcast and online platforms that it has scientifically determined are “junk food” and do not meet the company’s nutrition standards.

Curiously, Disney announced that it would begin this new effort immediately — wait, no, at some time in 2015. So why announce this now? It would seem so that Disney could be praised and honored by first lady Michelle Obama — or the other way around. It just smells. It carries a distinct aroma of campaign 2012.

Imagine that: Michelle Obama praised Disney to the skies because “As parents, we know that whatever is on TV is what our kids are going to want. I remember, as (Disney boss) Bob (Iger) has discussed, going to the grocery store with the kids, and the minute you walk down the aisle the kids are singing some jingle, or they’re pulling on your leg begging you, pleading you for whatever they saw on TV.”

The first lady painted a picture that every parent is “preparing those nutritious meals and snacks, and we’re doing our best to teach our kids healthy habits. But when the kids turn on the TV to watch their favorite shows — all that hard work is undermined whenever there is a commercial break.”

Disney isn’t the Nanny State and has every right to proceed with its own standards, even if such supposedly critically necessary new standards, which could be implemented next week, won’t be imposed for another three years. But to what degree will Disney’s politically correct new standards hurt existing businesses that aren’t at fault?

It is undoubtedly true that most American parents believe Twinkies, super-size French fries and the like would qualify as “junk food.” But the stated ban would also kill commercials for products that just don’t fall in this category — Oscar Mayer Lunchables, and Capri Sun juice boxes, etc.

Disney, on the other hand, will suffer little financial pain. Kantar Media estimates this will affect less than 1 percent of Disney’s total annual advertising sales, which came in at $7.6 billion last year.

The Hollywood Reporter suggests that by 2015, the marketing shift will already be complete any way. “The days of whimsical commercials on Saturday morning cartoons where Cap’n Crunch fights pirates are coming to an end,” said Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research. “Now he’ll be seen checking his weight and playing baseball. … Disney is just catching up to reality.”

There’s something that is so annoying here. I mean, really. Do we really, really care? Should we throw up our hands and scream “Hallelujah!” because we can now mark the beginning of the end of CCD (Cap’n Crunch Disease) and MFLS (Mad Froot Loops Syndrome).

ABC and Michelle Obama (and the journalists following them) aren’t asking a natural follow-up: If the first lady is correct that cereal and chewing gum commercials are so powerful that “whatever is on TV is what our kids are going to want,” what about the TV that’s on in between the commercials? In other words, would someone ask Michelle Obama how she thinks her daughters would enjoy ABC’s sitcom “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23″? Is that healthy for young minds? How about the pro-homosexual lifestyle pushed by her husband’s financial supporters from “Glee”?

The official Obama publicity line is their daughters are completely denied television during the school week, and there’s been negative feedback. ABC News recently suggested online that Obama could be “the first Amish president.” For the record, I think it’s wonderful. But why take money from an entertainment industry whose product is so injurious to children you won’t let your own children near it?

It would have been fun to see a reporter ask Michelle Obama if she supports Robert Iger‘s so-called ABC Family Channel airing a show called “Pretty Little Liars” that teaches young girls about teenage sex, alcoholism, smoking and lesbianism.

ABC Family was thrilled to announce the “Liars” season debut won its time slot in females 12 to 34 and female teens. It generated more than 534,000 tweets on Twitter. Does anyone think this show is “healthy” for children? Don’t you wish Michelle Obama and Disney would say something about this rather than crusading against the alleged horror of a 30-second cartoon starring Cap’n Crunch?

Brent Bozell

Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.

http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2012/06/08/disneys_cynical_proobama_ploy/page/full/

Dick Clark Remembered

Dick Clark, who died Wednesday at 82, was called “America‘s oldest teenager.” That’s not only because he looked so good late into life, but also because he carried with him the teen memories of those of us who grew up watching “American Bandstand” on glorious black-and-white, small-screen television sets.

Every weekday afternoon, I would arrive home from school, say hello to Mom, grab a snack and plop down in front of the TV to watch a dance show broadcast live from South Philadelphia.

There were lots of sensuous girls of Italian decent. Some wore false collars called dickies (which had nothing to do with Clark) and great sweaters. The boys had slicked-back hair and a serious attitude about dancing. Those who weren’t on the dance floor sat in bleachers, waiting their turn in the crowded studio.

Dick basically introduced songs and guest artists. They ran the gamut from the volatile Jerry Lee Lewis (who was later banned after marrying his 13-year-old cousin), to Run DMC. Singers would lip-sync their hits. Sometimes Clark would ask the teens to “rate” a song. They’d respond, “I like the beat. I’ll give it a 95,” or something like that.

http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2012/04/20/dick_clark_remembered/page/full/

Freddy “Boom Boom” Cannon made over 100 appearances, more than anyone else.

“Bandstand” premiered on TV in Philadelphia in 1952; five years later “American Bandstand” was picked up nationally. Clark served as its host from 1956 to 1989.

Later, Clark and Ed McMahon co-hosted a long-running show called “TV’s Bloopers and Practical Jokes.” Dick Clark also hosted for many years ABC’s “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve,” until he suffered a stroke and had to withdraw. He made only cameo appearances after that.

While Dick Clark transcended more than one generation, he “belonged” to those of us who were teenagers in the ’50s. We “invented” rock ‘n’ roll. The music was mostly fun then, before it turned ugly, misogynistic and crude. The ’50s were also happier times, safer times. Drugs were bought with a prescription and kids often lied about sex, because most of us were too afraid to actually “do it.”

I met Dick Clark just once by accident. Sitting in a makeup chair at NBC in New York, preparing to go on a TV program, I noticed a man in the next chair. I began a conversation, turned his way and realized it was Dick Clark. He was used to this and was gracious, thanking me for appreciating his work while I was growing up.

My high school classmate, Renny Temple, a former member of the folk band The Highwaymen, sent me an email from Los Angeles informing me of Dick Clark’s passing. It said, “Dick Clark is dead. Long live rock and roll!” Chuck Berry, along with Danny and The Juniors — who also appeared on “American Bandstand” — would agree.

Lifetime’s Perky Prostitute

Ten years ago, perky actress Jennifer Love Hewitt tried to jump-start a music career with a song titled “Bare Naked.” Now she’s trying that attention-grabbing tactic again with a sleazy new Lifetime series called “The Client List.” She plays a massage therapist who turns tricks.

That network has adopted a new slogan: “This is not your mother’s Lifetime.” That’s appropriate for a new drama with a single-mother whore at its sympathetic center. We learn she was forced into being a sex worker when her husband mysteriously left her — you know, the way of the world for single moms.

Hewitt first made “The Client List” as a TV-movie in which the sex worker ultimately learned the error of her ways. Not any more. It’s now a weekly series with no storyline of error and redemption in sight.

After tremendous hype, its debut — on Easter Sunday, no less — scored 2.8 million viewers, second only to the 2007 launch of Lifetime’s show “Army Wives.”

Slate.com’s review of it is titled “Ultra-Soft Porn.” On the show’s Facebook page, it asks women to “rate the clients” to see which john is the most attractive. You can rate them “Dud or Stud” and enter to win a $5,000 prize. Somehow, all of Hewitt’s TV clients could double as models — another dose of nonreality.

Speaking of which, the group Licensed Massage Therapists is very upset at how their profession is being merged with prostitution weekly in the public mind. But Hewitt protests that her show only projects “reality.”

“At the end of the day, it’s a television series,” she argues. “I’m not saying every massage parlor in the world gives happy endings, nor do I know which ones do, but it is a part of our society. And even if it wasn’t, it’s just a part of our story. It’s entertainment.”

When that line of argument collapses, she claims her sex-worker character is just too lovable to protest.

“I tried to make a joke on Twitter that I wondered why people were not writing to ‘Dexter’ about killing people, or to ‘Nurse Jackie’ about taking drugs on the job. Those are big, big television characters audiences love and adore … so if there can be a serial killer we all like, I feel like a happy-endings specialist is the least of our worries.”

Doesn’t that quote sum up just about everything that’s wrong with our popular culture these days? Are viewers expected to adore serial killers, drug-abusing, adulterous nurses, and prostitutes disguised as massage therapists?

But Hewitt isn’t done whining. When she starred on “The Ghost Whisperer” on CBS, she said, “No medium ever complained that I was playing a medium who had too much cleavage. In fact, they were all like, ‘Thank you so much!’ I mean, I constantly had cleavage up to my chin, and not one medium had a problem with it. They were like, ‘People think we’re hot!’ Now if massage therapists could just feel the same.”

Like most people in Hollywood, Hewitt wants to push the envelope in what she calls a “provocative, unapologetic manner” to make her millions. Then she demands that no one ever protest that she’s making prostitution look glamorous and morally acceptable.

Hewitt wants to avoid being “judgmental” about prostitutes. “It’s an easy industry to have a judgment on, but I feel like that judgment comes from lack of knowledge and fear and maybe not knowing the whole story.”

So Dr. Hewitt is offering an educational “whole story” on her program? Even worse, Hewitt wants to declare that prostitution is OK with her. “I respect people doing what they have to do in order to try to live and be happy.” This woman has the brain of a text message. ‘K?

But what if the prostitute is helping wreck a marriage and a home? No problemo. Reviewer Brian Lowry at Variety explains how Hewitt’s character Riley gets softened around the edges. She “spends a lot of time counseling her clients — providing helpful, homespun marital advice to stroke them emotionally, not just physically.”

Cheat with the husband, and then tell him to buy the wife flowers. Love is never having to say you’re faithful.

None of this has anything to do with reality. Lifetime based its TV movie and subsequent series on an Odessa, Texas, massage parlor called “Healing Touch.” But the real story ended up with 68 arrested clients — including an assistant district attorney, a city planner, the owner of an insurance company, several teachers, and a well-known rancher. Two of the three sex workers there were strung out on cocaine.

It wasn’t the glamorous life you can fictionalize on TV. Ironically, that reality is too “edgy” for the envelope-pushers. It might cause someone to become — perish the thought — “judgmental.”

Brent Bozell

Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America. TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell’s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2012/04/20/lifetimes_perky_prostitute/page/full/

The “B” in ABC

By Lisa Van Houten

As we reported last week, ABC has added another show to its lineup referencing the word “b—ch” in the title, “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apt. 23.” See our analysis of last week’s premiere episode.

The creator of “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apt. 23” is Nahnatchka Khan, a proclaimed lesbian, who previously worked as a writer of the extremely lewd and vulgar show “American Dad,” airing on Fox TV.  Khan has said about her new show, “I hope that America loves it despite the fact that it can (be) … raunchy…” Even the show’s creator proudly describes the show as raunchy!  That’s one thing we can agree on.

Click here to urge the sponsors to pull their support from this blatantly raunchy show.

 

Of the 14 advertisers from last week’s premiere episode, only 2 returned to advertise on last night’s second episode.  The two returned were Warner Brothers (a Hollywood movie company) and a local ad – Meijer’s supermarket.

 

Last night’s advertisers included Tropicana, Olive Garden, TJ Maxx, Volkswagen, Claritin, and Samsung.

 

The show centers on two New York roommates – June, the “good girl,” and Chloe, the proclaimed psychopathic “bad girl.”  Although, ABC uses a different “B” word to describe her, other than “bad.

One reviewer stated about the two characters:  “…viewers might like the June/Chloe pairing so much, they might want to see the two together romantically.” In reply, Khan, the show’s creator, reportedly said while she doesn’t have immediate plans to do so, she could see that happening.

In last night’s episode the character Chloe makes crude references to sexual exploits with women, as well as with men.  Khan described the character’s bisexuality as: “Whatever is sexy and awesome and fun.”

 

While roommate June seems to have no interest in “batting for the other side,” this episode showed her in bed with Chloe’s married father.

Express your concern to the advertisers of this show who are empowering the increasing lewdness on network television.

 

Click here to urge these advertisers not to support such degrading shows.

http://www.americandecency.org/archives/the-b-in-abc/#more-6602

The “B” in ABC

Silly me.  All these years, I’ve been under the impression that the “B” in ABC stood for “Broadcasting.”  You know, “American Broadcasting Company.”  It sounds quite venerable and dignified, doesn’t it?  Well, it seems as if ABC has a different “B” word on their minds (and in their shows) lately – and there’s nothing venerable about it.  Vulgar would be a more appropriate adjective.

Yes, ABC has added another show to their lineup referencing the word “b—ch” in the title.  First, ABC trotted out the show “GCB,” which, as you mostly likely know by now, stands for “Good Christian B–ches.”  Now a new sitcom premiered last night on ABC entitled “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apt. 23.”

 

Express your concern to the advertisers of this show who are empowering the increasing obscenity-filled lewdness on network television.

 

Click here to send a message to the sponsors of “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apt. 23.”

 

The Left indignantly accuses conservatives of engaging in a “War on Women.”  Yet where is their indignation when one of their own, the liberal entertainment industry, uses the public airwaves to denigrate women?

Yet the offensive content of the show doesn’t stop at the title.  In the opening minute of the premiere episode, Chloe, the titled “B” of the show, is engaged in an explicitly vulgar sex act with her new roommate’s fiancé.   This is followed by Chloe walking around the apartment completely naked.  And, pushing the envelope yet again, the nudity is not just implied or “hidden” by furniture or some other object as is often done on TV these days.  Instead, ABC merely pixilated the nudity leaving very little to the imagination.

Other crudities packed into this 30 minute sitcom include an implied group sex scene where Chloe asks June (Chloe’s roommate) to join her and two guys on the couch for a “four-way.”  Masturbation is engaged in or discussed multiple times.  In one repulsive scene, a neighbor is obviously masturbating as he carries on a conversation with June.  Chloe gives alcohol to a 13 year old, getting him drunk, and she also is involved in selling drugs.

It all adds up to what now passes for humor and entertainment.

And while the word “b—ch” may not be explicitly stated in the title, it is certainly used very frequently within the show.  Just five years ago that obscenity would have been rarely heard on network television. Now, as we’ve sat back and watched it happen, such language is becoming regular fare.

As one commentator stated:  “People are raised mimicking media — TV is the other parent — and kids are growing up without common decency and respect for each other.   They’re fed that women are second-class citizens; women are bitches …”

 

And Erin M. Fuller, president of the Alliance for Women in Media, stated:  “Obviously, they’re using it to be polarizing and controversial and attention-getting. Why else would you use that word?  I don’t think … that word is a celebration of women.”

Yet, as indicative of how far we’ve fallen, this new show has garnered little criticism, but loads of acclaim for its “edginess” and “humor.”

We need to let our voices be heard!  Express your concern to the advertisers of this show who are empowering the increasing obscenity-filled lewdness on network television.

 

Advertisers include:  Discover Card, Jergens, Domino’s Pizza, Volkswagen, Turbo Tax, AT&T, and Nokia.

 

Click here to send a message to the sponsors of “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apt. 23.”

http://www.americandecency.org/archives/the-%e2%80%9cb%e2%80%9d-in-abc/#more-6554