Perspectives

I received an email recently with links to videos showcasing Connie Talbot, the child singer who stole the show on Britain’s Got Talent in 2007.  At six years of age, the little girl displayed a great deal of natural talent, not only for singing, but for performing, standing all alone on that stage and belting out “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” with the confidence that most people don’t even have singing in the shower. It’s evident from watching her that she loves singing and performing. My first reaction was to be as fascinated as everyone else seems to be.  But then I saw all the videos spread all over the internet, the advertisements for her two albums, and the adoration that her fans express, and I started to feel a bit ill.

It’s no secret that child proteges rarely end well.  For a variety of reasons, such early careers seem to hit rock bottom just as early.  I’m not a psychologist, and I’m not going to dwell on why this is and what can be done to prevent it.  The more I think about Connie’s big career, the more I think about her parents.  What on earth can they possibly be thinking, exposing their innocent daughter to international fame? One article I read said that her mother said Connie loved to sing and so they bought her a karaoke machine since they couldn’t afford singing lessons.  Ah, such a sweet story of sacrifice and a love that finds satisfaction in providing for the desires of a beloved child.  And really, I have no problem with that.

Young children have dreams–it’s part of being young.  Ask any six year old what they want to be when they grow up and I can guarantee they will have an answer. Some of them may even be realistic dreams–truly attainable goals such as becoming a policeman or a firefighter, or a doctor, or a nurse, etc.  Some of them may not be quite as attainable, such as being a princess or an alien hunter.  Despite the level of realism that such dreams have, most of them are heavily influenced by the child’s environment and frequently change several times before that child reaches an age where such dreams will be acted upon.

Just because a child displays a talent for nurturing and healing and desires to be a nurse, shouldn’t mean you need to take that child to a hospital at the tender age of six and start them on their nursing career right then and there.  And I know that there would be cries of outrage if you allowed a six-year-old to start fighting criminals or fires. But that’s exactly what was done with little Connie Talbot.  She loves to sing, she dreams of being a professional singer … so what do they do, throw her onto a national stage that eventually gets her international attention.  She’s cute, she sings well, let’s get her out there and fulfill her dream…

So child proteges don’t get that very necessary time to grow into adult dreams.  Instead, they demonstrate a talent, even a desire or dream to do something with that talent, and suddenly that talent is all that represents them to an adoring public.  They are suddenly thrust into the reality of the expectations of fame and fortune.  For a child of six, or even eight, such desires are based purely on an innocent fantasy world, as it should be.  A child should be allowed to dream, not be thrust into the reality of big-time record dealers turning them down because of their age. (I respect you highly for that, Simon.  You may be the only one involved in this situation with good judgment).

I’m not ranting against little Connie Talbot and her desire to be a singer.  This rant is purely aimed at her parents, who have not displayed anything close to good parenting. Good parenting is not giving your child everything they desire, but giving them the things that are necessary for them to grow up to be well-rounded, well-adjusted, and happy adults.  Often times such a child needs discipline and restrictions far more than he or she needs the fulfillment of his or her childhood fantasies. I’m not talking about telling the poor child she can’t sing, but giving her the proper venues to sing for: a school’s talent show, a church kid’s choir, family get-togethers, etc.  Allow her to pursue her dream in ways that are proper for a child that young, shielding her from the reality of what the world can do to that dream.  Let her grow up and pursue it when all young people start pursuing careers, when she is old enough to understand some of the realities that are attached to that fantasy.

Frankly, parents who profit off of the beauty or talents of their children (whether or not that is their stated intent) make me sick, and that’s why I get ill when I hear little Connie Talbot performing for her adoring audience.  Her parents are quoted as saying that it would be cruel to stop her because she loves doing it.  I have to say that any parent who puts their child on an international stage is definitely being cruel, regardless of what the child wants.  Parents often have to do things contrary to the desires of their children.  It’s called parenting. I pray things turn out better for her than for other children like her in the past who were given adult careers before they were ever able to play with their childhood fantasies. I only wish more people were as appalled as I am.

Comments(0)

Another great little book from Sable Creek Press, Maggie’s Treasure is the first fiction book I’ve ever had the pleasure to design.  It’s a great milestone for me as a designer since it also represents my first opportunity to direct a photo shoot with a real model and design a fiction cover.  Not only was this a fun project to work on, but it is a entertaining and educational book to read.

A chapter book for younger readers, Maggie’s Treasure takes you back to western Kansas during the Great Depression. Maggie has lost her mother and now her father has remarried and moved her from their failing farm to live with his new wife and her two daughters in a boxcar. Maggie cherishes the few items left to her by her mother, but when her father leaves her in the care of her new stepmother to work in a mine, Maggie discovers a treasure that can never be taken from her.

This is the first book in the Gatlin Fields series.  Book 2 (In the Shadow of the Enemy) should be coming out in January.  If you have a young reader in your family, Maggie’s Treasure would make a great Christmas gift.  Buy a few copies today!

I also want to give credit where credit is due and acknowledge a couple people whose credits were unfortunately left off the copyright page of the first printing.  Deb Minnard was the photographer and Amanda Sheppard was the model for the Maggie pose on the front cover.

Comments(0)

When the results of the elections came in last night, I became very depressed. Not only do I feel like my country has voted away the freedoms that men and women have given their blood, sweat, and tears to preserve for decades, but I see a very dismal future ahead.

Seeking comfort in my period of mourning for my country, I turned to the only place where true comfort can be found–God’s Holy Word.  I looked up the verse about God not giving us a spirit of fear (because I do admit to fear for the future) and after reading it proceeded on to read the rest of 2 Timothy.  The passage that stood out was chapter 3, in which Paul talks about the last days and perilous times to come.  Two of the verses continued to twist around in my mind as I went on to work this morning:

Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

It was then that God granted me the grace to understand an obvious truth.

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So follow my thinking on this.  In previous posts on this blog I have ranted politically, expressing my confusion with the liberal agenda and my disappointment in the “conservatives” of the USA.  Politics has been nonstop on my mind since the beginning of this year.  I’ve stressed about it, worried about it, even prayed about it, but in all of that I was focussing on the wrong doctrine, preaching the wrong gospel.  Yes, the USA has been a grand beacon for individual liberty and social freedom for many years, and yes, that freedom has now been put on the auction block in favor of spreading the wealth and government-granted rights–but that’s not what should be important to a true believer.  The only true liberty is the one God grants us from our sinful natures.  When granted that liberty, we can “continue in the things which we have learned and been assured of” even when those around us are being deceived by “evil men and impostors.”  This is true liberty!

Forgive me, my friends, for losing sight of my God in the political storm that has swept through my country this year.  God has taught me an important lesson.  The USA is not the rock of my salvation, the source of my freedom, or my hope of eternity.  Jesus Christ is all those things.  My faith is stronger in Him, because my trust in my country has been shattered.  Praise God for the refining fire that He sends to us to purify us to His perfect will.

Comments(2)

I was finally able to watch the Presidential Forum at the Saddleback Church, and some of Barack Obama’s responses and the comments that some “Christians” posted on the above blog prompted me to put some serious thought into the issues as he sees them.  Obama seemed to couch his responses in religious, even biblical, terms in an attempt, I guess, to gain a following from the Religious Right, and he was doing so out of context and using the passages incorrectly.  I found that I have to respond.

When asked to pinpoint America’s moral failing, Obama said

“I THINK AMERICA’S GREATEST MORAL FAILURE IN MY LIFETIME HAS BEEN THAT WE STILL DON’T ABIDE BY THAT BASIC PRECEPT IN MATTHEW THAT WHATEVER YOU DO FOR THE LEAST OF MY BROTHERS, YOU DO FOR ME.”

He continued:

“THAT BASIC PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO POVERTY.  IT APPLIES TO RACISM AND SEXISM.  IT APPLIES TO, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING — NOT THINKING ABOUT PROVIDING LADDERS OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO GET INTO THE MIDDLE CLASS.  I MEAN, THERE IS A PERVASIVE SENSE I THINK THAT THIS COUNTRY IS WEALTHY AND POWERFUL AS WE STILL DON’T SPEND ENOUGH TIME THINKING ABOUT THE LEAST OF THESE –

The first thing that needs to be considered before I can discuss how this concept is wrong is the context of the actual passage that Obama is referring to in the Bible. This passage in Matthew is talking about the final judgments that await all people (righteous and unrighteous).  The king will gather all “nations” and separate the “people one from another” for this judgment.  So, in context, this is a judgment of the moral failures of individuals, not nations.  But let me taking you a quick journey through the Bible on the topic of caring for the poor.

There are a few passages that best summarize caring for the poor as established in the Law for the Israelites.  In Leviticus, land owners were ordered to leave gleanings in their fields for the poor and needy.  In Deuteronomy, the people of Israel were supposed to give generously to those in need, expecting no return.  In Exodus, the courts were not supposed to show partiality in regards to poverty, and in a later passage, the atonement offering was the same regardless of whether a man was rich or poor. In all of these passages, it is very evident that the responsibility of the poor falls on each individual to do as they see fit and to be accountable to the Lord God for what they do.  There was no general tax or social system in place to care for the poor—it was on the conscience of those who had more to provide for those who had less.

In the New Testament, the teachings of Christ and his disciples to the church always included admonitions to take care of the needy.   Once again, such teachings refer to the personal responsibility of the individual and the general body of believers to care for the poor.

This is just a light study, there is more that could be said from a scriptural standpoint, but the point I wish to make in all this is that caring for the “least of these,” as Obama puts it, has nothing to do with a nation or a government.  It is the responsibility of righteous people and the church in general.  It’s an indication of “pure and undefiled religion.”  This is where the separation of church and state comes in.  The sentiment of this separation in its original context was to protect the church from the intrusion of government. This has been blown way out of proportion in today’s government in an attempt to protect government from the intrusion of Christian principles (notice I specify Christian, since the religion of atheism is heavily promoted by the government).  Today, not only is the government making laws that tell a church what they can and can’t do (a blatant and horrible abuse of separation of church and state), but it is intruding on the very responsibilities of the church (the caring for the poor and the widows), even though the church does a much better job with voluntary funds and labor.

Obama implied in his answer about the moral failing of America that programs like welfare and social security are a requirement under Christian principle and that the failure of such programs to solve the problems of racism, sexism, and poverty are a moral failing of the country, but instead these programs actually violate and intrude on the church’s responsibility.  People feel that if they are taxed to take care of the poor that they cannot give to take care of the poor—and yet the funds given freely to responsible charities would be far more effectively used than the funds gathered through taxes.  In other words, it is not the government’s job to redistribute wealth—it is the responsibility of those who have wealth to give responsibly to take care of those who don’t have wealth.  This is the Christian principle that Obama is taking so far out of context.

For those Christians who consider Obama to be right in wanting to establish the government as the hand that feeds the needy and levels the playing field, let me remind you that when a government redistributes wealth, it actually creates more poverty.  Such has been proven by the historical examples of every socialist government in the last century.  Take heart, once the government gets its nose out of the business of social services, the church in all of its many forms will take over and do a much better job.  Americans have always proven themselves over and over to be generous givers to the needy both home and abroad.

Comments(0)

I just wanted to quickly post my appreciation for all US veterans and currently serving troops. This country could not exist without your sacrifices. Thank you for my freedoms and my safety.

I’ve also been playing around with my WordPress theme. I finally have come up with something that at least somewhat compliments my website. Let me know if you like it.

Have a blessed Memorial Day.

Comments(1)

Tomorrow, I’ll be showing up at the Kentucky Primary to cast my vote for, among other things, who I want to have the Republican nomination for President in the national elections this coming fall.  I’ve been watching primary election results since very early this year, itching to have my say, but now, when it finally comes time for me to vote, my vote no longer counts.  Why?  Because the states who had their primaries early in the year decided the Republican nominee long before it came up for vote in Kentucky.  Now I am left asking why my vote doesn’t count?  How many votes have been swung in favor of the wrong candidate (forgive me, McCain) simply because the right candidate was forced to drop out early because more liberal states got to vote first?

This seems to me to be a grossly unfair system.  Why do the first two or three states to hold primaries get to decide for the rest of us?  Public opinion is demonstrably easy to sway, so it makes sense that the winners of the first few states are going to be the ones that the next states to hold primaries will vote for.  And on an on.  But this seems to me to sway the election in favor of the bigger names and budgets–those with the staying power to keep their campaigns going for months.

I don’t need a candidate to come stand on a platform somewhere in my state and tell me what he’s going to do for me personally to know who I want to vote for.  I don’t need the candidates to have to spend thousands of dollars trying to buy the votes for each state as it comes up on the docket.  I want to know what candidates plan to do on a national scale.  How they stand on the issues that matter to everyone, not some labor union in Michigan.  After all, that’s what congressmen are for, not the President.  Presidential candidates should be concentrating on the big issues that matter to all Americans, and they should be able to state these stands through national televised debates and by communicating with the non-profit voter information associations.  So with all that in mind, why can’t all the states hold their primaries at the same time, just like the national election, so that a handful of states do not have the power to sway the nominee elections?

Yes, I’m a little bitter.  I know that when I go in and make my selection for Presidential nominee tomorrow, my vote doesn’t matter in the least.  But don’t worry, I’ll vote tomorrow, and since my vote is completely useless, I’ll use it to vote for the person I really wanted to see win the nomination but knew never had the chance–Alan Keyes–according to sample ballots, his name is still on the the Kentucky ballot.  Too bad I can’t switch parties and vote against the person I least want in the national elections on the Democrat side, but I guess that’s only fair since this keeps avowed party supporters from swaying the other party’s nomination.

Anyone want to state their support for holding a national primary?  I’d like to know what you think the pros and cons to such a suggestion are.

Comments(1)

I’m still delving into the new features of Adobe InDesign CS3, but I’m happy to say that there were some great advances for book designers in this version. Some of them are just time savers and some of them are streamlining of workflows. Here are a few of my new favorites:

After many requests since ID version 1 (at least from me), Adobe has finally added a master page synchronizer for book documents. Now, if you make a change to a master page in one document of a book, and you want the rest to be identical, you can sync them from the book pallet. Caution on this though, make sure you aren’t manually typing chapter titles and other “per document” info on the master pages that you are syncing. The master page will be exactly the same on all the documents as your source document, so if you have details on the master page that change on every document, beware that you may lose them when you sync the masters. There is a wonderful new way to automate these kinds of details, though–see my next favorite feature.

Previous versions of InDesign had the section marker. This marvelous little marker allowed you to title sections from the Numbering and Sections dialog box, and then use a section marker on your master page to display section sensitive information on your master page without having to create a master page for every section. The section feature, by itself, is great for simple books, but what if you have units, and chapters, and sections in a hierarchal order that all need to be indicated on the master page and you want to sync your master pages across a book without losing the various pieces of “per document” info? Sections just aren’t that powerful, but CS3 added a wonderful feature called “Text Variables.” It took me a while and some help from users on the Adobe User to User forum to figure this feature out, but this is a marvelous solution to just such a problem. You can create as many text variables as you need for each and every document in the book. Then as long as the names of the variables are the same from document to document, and you have text variable syncing turned off in the book, a master page sync will update the master pages without damaging the per document variables indicated on the masters. This by itself is a huge time saver for book designers.

Just a quick note to help out anyone who had the same confusions I had on this feature: Text variables have their own menu item on the Type menu, and the markers for them are set from the same place (or from the contextual mouse menu once variables are set). You can’t access them from the Numbering and Section box (though you assign chapter numbers there), nor can you insert the markers from “Insert special characters.” I would have found this a logical place to go for such markers, but maybe they will add that in future versions. If you’re looking for the chapter number marker, the information for which is set in the Numbering and Section box, it also has to be created as a Text Variable and inserted from the Text Variables menu. It’s an interesting paradox to my way of thinking, but I at least understand how to use it now. Text Variables have numerous uses that I haven’t even begun to plum. I hope to learn more about this feature as time and projects allow me to play with it.

I thought the auto numbering and bullet lists in CS2 were pretty lame and didn’t use them much, but ID CS3 has added levels to the auto numbering feature and has included both list options in paragraph styles which make them wonderfully flexible. I find them very useful now and use them constantly.

I was also very excited about being able to place InDesign documents inside InDesign documents, but this feature especially may have a few bugs yet. I’ve had problems with books that contained these links. I’m not sure whether there is something in my workflow that has caused the problem, but I get multiple crashes with ID CS3 when working with books with linked InDesign documents. There may be other variables that cause these crashes for me, but I urge you to use this feature with extreme caution.

One last feature that I really like is the built-in ability to package for InCopy editors. This feature has really helped my editorial workflow and while this kind of functionality was available through third party plugins before CS3, it’s nice to have it built into the application now. One caution on this feature as well, I have had some documents that inexplicably crash IC on the editor’s computer. I haven’t yet been able to resolve this issue (though it may be related to anchored textframes within textframes) and have had to have the editors manually return the stories rather than package them. But the feature is still a nice one.

I’m no master at InDesign, but I’m happy to help anyone wanting to learn more about using any of my favorite new features. Just post a comment or use my contact form.

Comments(0)

I’ve decided to start spotlighting some of the projects that I have worked on as they become available for purchase. So here is the first of my product spotlights.

My first project for Sable Creek Press is now available for purchase. The wonderful little devotional/journal entitled Think on these Things is great for young Christian girls. Based on Philippians 4:8, the book covers such topics as honesty, modesty, beauty, and attitude. Each of the 31 brief lessons gives space for the reader to write down their reflections or things they have learned. This nice little book makes an attractive gift for any young girl in your life, so order more than one.

Comments(0)

My brother has a style all his own.  After playing around in the playground of his new artistic endeavor, I have to give him a wave and a nod from my own more staid and much more traditional (ahem, boring) front office.  Maybe I need some of his artwork to liven things up.  Have a look!

Comments(0)