Rebuttal to my First Lady at the homeless shelter picture post

So, a few weeks back I post a link to a picture of a homeless person getting a free meal served by the First Lady. The point of the post was to show the presence of a cell phone that the homeless (?) person was using to take a photo of this historic moment in their life.

So, I get an anonymous (figures) response:

Anonymous said...
"I'm not sure what you find "priceless" about homelessness. What exactly do you find objectional about this photo? Is it that a person in line for a meal has a cell phone? Do you think that the homeless should not be allowed to have cell phones? Can you imagine trying to find a job without having a phone on which to receive call-backs for interviews? In this economy, how do you know this person wasn't recently homeless with a family to feed? How do you know this person was homeless at all and not a staff member at this shelter or simply someone who wanted a photo of the first lady? And by the way, this is not a governmental funded shelter. The first lady was volunteering at a privately funded organization called Miriam's Kitchen. It never ceases to amaze me that so-called Christians are always the first to find humor in the plight of others."


So, if I may, a rebuttal.

1) Cell phones are NOT life necessities, unless you have no home phone. If I'm homeless and jobless, who exactly is paying the phone bill? Friend or family member? Fine. But let's be real, there are MANY people with very screwed-up priorities. And there are things called Trac-Fones. You know...pay as you go, pay when you can. This shows exactly how many people think they "deserve" that which you are to work for. When I LOST MY JOB 20 months ago, the cell phone that came with it was gone, too. Thus, for awhile, UNTIL I COULD AFFORD ONE, I (gasp!) DID NOT have a cell phone.

2) There was nothing in the photo that even discussed whether the food was coming from the government or not, so you've brought into the conversation a point that's irrelevant to the post.

3) I apologize if I referenced finding "humor" in the picture. What I was trying to reference was an example of WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN LIFE AND WHAT IS NOT.

I could feed my family, if my cell phone was, say, 50 bucks a month, for several days without needing a handout. What's wrong with giving out a neighbor or family member's phone number to a prospective job contact? Or do we "deserve" to all have our own 21st Century technology?

When I was a kid, I had no cell phone, no answering machine, no microwave, no FM radio in the car, no cable, no computer, no Internet, no email. I got my first job. Then my second (using my Dad's car), then my third (borrowing a friend's car at college, I might add), and so on.

And we wonder why millions of people honestly believe they should be given everything. And don't tell me that's not a true statement. It's very, very real.

To me, after pondering this, I now think a new perspective should be placed on the picture.

What about the woman behind the man? What if she represents the truly needy people in this world who have their priorities straight and really need that hand up as well as temporary hand out?

Why don't we focus on her, and those she represents. In the meantime, I suggest Anonymous go find the guy with the cell phone and find out if he truly can live without it.

Priorities at the soup kitchen, featuring a cameo from the First Lady!

Click HERE to see my first blog love show and tell of a picture that is, indeed, priceless.

Caption This-------

Will these men speak at podiums Election Night in November?

What do you think? Wins that will fall into the "They won Iowa, but they didn't get their party's nomination"?

Or will we see them on the ballot when November comes?

I will say this---if change is really the impetus of 2008, Hillary's dream will not be realized. No one can present themselves as "change" with a former polarizing President standing on the podium with her.

Though, I must say, I never dreamed Clinton's replacement could be even more polarizing, but President Bush sure has done it.

If Clinton wins in November, you do realize that the United States would be led in the White House by either a Bush or a Clinton for 24 years.

That's change?

Unfortunately for her, it looks like this election may not allow a candidate to trumpet both experience and the ability to change. You're either in Washington, or you're not.

BUT WAIT! Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all close to the same experience-wise in the Senate! True, but I forget who said this on TV tonight, but the person recognized that tonight, two Senators with over 50 years experience on Capitol Hill combined, and a former Governor who also was Ambassador to the U.N. (loads of experience to tout) were all basically swept aside.

The "big three" don't have that much "gravitas". Remember how important that was when Bush 43 became the nominee in 2000?

Remember when being "just" Governor of Arkansas was not a stumbling block to becoming President, but people now are bringing up the point that a Governor of Arkansas "lacks the foreign policy experience" to be President? Huh?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.....

Which is why I see a true "torch change" (generation change) coming. Who is the least "Washington" of the three Democrats still viable?

Who can not only bring policy change, perspective change, and direction change, but HISTORIC change?

Look up top. Mike Huckabee looks like a great guy who I'd love to have as a neighbor, my pastor, my Sunday School teacher.

Barack Obama (AND his wife, Michelle, who I see as a huge asset).....that picture looks like it says "Future First Couple".

---------------------------------------

On a personal note, I am conservative (though less conservative than, say, eight to ten years ago), and there is nobody in the race for President that I am jazzed about in any way, shape or form.

The only "bias prism" I have looking at the 2008 campaign is that I pray Hillary Clinton doesn't come even close. I personally think it would be poetic justice that someone who has been proven to be not believable, who answers to the winds around her and not principles, and actually had the gall to run for Senate in New York after living in D.C. for eight years and Arkansas for God knows how long before that.....who has been planning her power rise for decades, ends up the historic symbol of "the end" of a political generation.

And there are so many people like me with Clinton fatigue STILL (and now there's certainly Bush fatigue....more like Bush disgust; why do you think Jeb never gave running a thought) that you would think long-time Democrats from officials and spinmeisters to the working class Joes and Janes in Sioux City, Iowa, will finally realize that this is THE most important Presidental election for the Democratic Party in decades, and that the cry for "change" is so loud from the electorate that another Clinton just won't do.

Barack Hussein Obama. Can't wait to hear Al Jazeera's take on this, and, moreso, if he wins in November, what Osama says on video. I know, I know....doesn't matter what Obama's name is, he's still American so he's still an infidel.

And, just wondering....if I'm an "infidel", what is a "fidel"?

Good night from Virginia (wondering why Iowa deserves all this power every four years....)