Review of Nelson's Biblical Cyclopedic Index

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze.com <http://BookSneeze.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

When I got this Cyclopedic Index, I was surprised at its size. It’s pretty small, yet contains a lot of information.  It’s a great reference if you’re trying to find scripture references on a certain topic. It also has a short definition of some of the words and a nice Word study for selective words. However, with all that being said, you must be warned that this will not be your only reference book. While the book is good, it still needs other references. If you’re hoping on making a sermon with just your Bible and the Cyclopedic Index, you’ll be in for some trouble. You’ll need something else to use alongside it. One of the only issues I found with it is that you definitely see doctrinal beliefs brought into the references that aren’t actually Biblical (i.e. this word is translated to mean this, not this). That’s another reason why you’d need another resources. But other than that, it’s not a bad reference at all.    

Review of Transforming Church In Rural America by Shannon O'Dell

Note: The publisher has provided me with a complimentary copy of this book through Booksneeze for the purposes of review.

    I had high aspirations for this book, but sadly I was let down, as I usually am with this subject material. In this book, Pastor Shannon O’Dell lays basically how to make your church in rural America a success. Sure, you can apply the principles anywhere, but specifically in rural areas.
     The book started taking a downhill when Pastor O’Dell told how he and his wife “had thrown out one last fleece” to decide whether or not to take the pastorate at a church. I’ve heard similar stories of fleeces being thrown out, in the exact same scenario and the only thing that got fleeced, in another pastor’s words, were the congregation and the pastor. We live in the New Testament now, where we are led by the Holy Spirit, not by fleeces. Nowhere in the New Testament does anyone put out a fleece. They do however allow themselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit. From this, I could see the tone of the rest of the book.
    More issues that came up in the book were the church voting to do things. Maybe it’s just how it’s written, but a church that is led by votes, the congregation, fleeces, or anything other than the Holy Spirit is bound to end in a bad way.
    Another generalized statement made is that “Rural America is in the middle of a massive drought - a spiritual drought caused by a lack of vision, attitude, and leadership.” It’s generalized to the point that I don’t know how he knows, but plenty of rural churches I’ve seen, and I’m from a small, southern, farming community, are on the verge of a spiritual outpouring. And that doesn’t infer drought.
    Overall, I couldn’t recommend the book. This is why: Most of what is shared, I could get from a business book I’d pick up on Amazon. I could get a lot of it from leadership classes or somewhere else, even the internet. Now granted, he does have some good things to say. However, the book is one of those where you “eat the hay and spit the sticks.” However, with so many other good books out there on the issue, why bother with one that you have to spit so many sticks on.
       Psalm 127:1 states, “Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain.” Notice that the house did get built. I’m not saying Pastor O’Dell is not seeking God to run his church and ministry. I’m not saying he’s a bad person. Bless him. He’s doing a great work for the Lord. But I do think that the practices he uses miss the mark. I believe a lot of what he does is more natural and soulical, than spiritual and guided by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
     The book contains a few pictures and I followed some links to his churches website and found a church that looks more like a rock concert than a church. Churches where worship services (services in general) are more like concerts, catering to a person’s soul and natural desires, always tend to be farther away from meeting people’s spiritual needs. Can they meet their spiritual needs? yes, to a degree. But they mold and help develop people that are more soulical than spiritual, that are less than what the Word of God calls us to be.
    When I see a book (or anything) that has flags like being led by a fleece, or being more naturalistic than spiritual, I want to stop reading because it may be building up my soul, or my mind with knowledge, but it’s not helping my spirit much.
    The bottom line: the book has some good stuff in it, but if you want to know how to grow your church or ministry-get on your face. God leads his people by the Holy Spirit. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (Romans 8:14).” Will it take more time than reading this book? Most likely. Will you want to do it more than reading this book? No. Will the devil fight you more than applying some of things in this book? Most definitely. But in the end, you’ll have God’s specific plan for you.
    Note: Pastor O’Dell did comment about doing this, but I do believe he missed it in some areas. I’m not mad at him or think anything other than good thoughts for him. May he be blessed in all He does for God. I don’t intend to sound like I am attacking him, just simply reviewing a book.

Child, Meet Adulthood

    A poll came out a few months ago in USA Today that said that nearly 6 in 10 moms said children were growing up too fast. Why did these parents believe this? There were a few reasons actually. One was because children were allowed to use the internet without being supervised. Of course, you give kids free range of endless information and they are bound to suck in that information like a sponge--good or bad.

Another reason was because parents over-schedule their children's lives. When your kids are running around so much and have little time to actually be a kid--to have fun, to....well, just be a kid--they tend to grow up faster. 

Another reason was because parents give their kids cellphones. I don't even understand this. What possible reason does little 9-year old Jenny need with a cellphone? "Well all of her friends have one." That's always a great argument, which is followed by "If all your friends jumped off of..."

I didn't even have a cellphone until I entered college. Yes, the times are different, but not so much to change the need for a cellphone. The reasons kids want cellphones are the same reasons raccoons go after trashcans outside your house--They're nice and shiny. For the most part, there is no need for a child to have a cellphone unless it comes from the dollar store.   

The final reason, which I wanted to look at, was because parents dressed their kids in age-inappropriate clothing. Of course, for the most part, you can understand this if you have kids. Go shopping for little girl’s clothes at Walmart and you’ll see that Walmart is a nice supporter of little girls dressing like prostitutes. Oh. Did I say that?

Yes, it's true. A large amount of the clothes you find out there for little girls look like they're for teenagers (which too is inappropriate). And that's not an opinion. That's a fact. Any clothing that is intended to sexually arouse a person is inappropriate-unless that clothing is for your spouse-and then it should not be worn in public.

But it doesn't matter if you agree with my statement or not, the rest is true. Go back 15 years or so and you can actually find little girls clothes that are somewhat appropriate for children. In today's culture, it's seen as a norm though for stores to sell children's clothes that makes them look like prostitutes. That doesn't make it right.

I ran across a post yesterday that really displays this kind of acceptance by our culture. Now remember, I said the culture, not everyone. People will always be on one both sides, but when it gets to places like Walmart, it's become a cultural thing, even if people disagree with it.

Hannah Montana's little sister is proving my point. Little 9-year old Noah Cyrus announced that she is coming out with a line of lingerie for kids. Yes, welcome to corrupted immorality or earth. The designers say that the line will be cute but edgy. And we wonder why our kids are pregnant at 12.

   But it's all okay. I myself can't wait until my little princess is pole dancing at the age of seven (sarcasm anyone). There's a bigger issue to this, and the USA Today pole that reaches into parents not doing their job as parents, but I won't cover that. 

   The little kiddie lingerie isn't necessarily surprising from the little Cyrus. Apparently Billye Ray has no problem with it or his daughter dressing like a dominatrix for Halloween. So it's not unexpected when he lets his little girl grow up to be so.....(whorish is what I would put here, but she's 9 years old. I have a dilemma about saying that about a 9 year old even if it's true).  

     Just wait until Billye Ray's achy breaky heart gets broken when he finds out his little girl isn't little anymore....at the age of 10. Thankfully though, this isn't how all of America is, but not too far off. I walk through Walmart and see the parents who let their little girls dress in miniskirts because they think it's cute.

   Hopefully though, most of us aren't like this. Hopefully we have since to know that a seven year old dressing like a teenager isn't right. Hopefully we know that just because everyone is doing it, doesn't mean our kids have to. And hopefully we realize that are kids are just that--kids. And that means they will act like kids, be emotionally-controlled just like kids, and be kids, no matter what they dress like, pretend to be like, or want to be like by having the shiny new toy they see everyone else have.

I Have To Wonder If Dewey Bartlett Is An Idiot

Dewey Bartlett is the mayor of Tulsa, Oklahoma. You probably have never heard of him unless you live in the area. The issue that Mr. Bartlett is facing is a budget issue. The mayor entered office just around two months ago and stepped into a budget crisis that was not properly explained to him, as he states. So now he is faced with the reality of having to layoff 150 police officers and make budget cuts that will effect other city workers, including firefighters.
    Mr. Bartlett and his mayoral staff have come up with an option that instead of laying off 150 police officers, and thus help crime rise even more in Tulsa, would cut the pay of all officers. It would also include reduction of hours and shifts on the part of the police officers. These two options, as Mayor Bartlett has said, are the only options. Mayor Dewey Bartlett is indeed an idiot.
     I don't mean to attack the man, but before he was even elected, I knew he was an idiot. Why? One day in the mail I found a flyer advertising the campaign of "Dewey Barttlet" or "Dewey Bartlett," whichever you'd prefer. At that point I knew a person that did not catch that mistake or at least have someone employed who could catch that mistake would be a person who lacked a spirit of excellence to have the job as mayor. However, I was not a fan of his opponent either. 
 
    Now please understand that I realize that the new Tulsa mayor stepped into this problem and did not create it or have any hand in it, just in trying to fix the problem. However, when you're faced with the problem and you can only come up with two options, both that hurt the people that work so hard to help the city and the city itself, and say "these are the only two options," you are an idiot.
   It's a lack of options that I have a problem with. If Mayor Bartlett was faced with the issue of fixing a problem that would save his job--his only means of income, he would do everything in his power. But he is not, and I think because it is because either he doesn't care that much about it (which I really doubt) or hie and his mayoral staff are so closed-minded that this is the only option that he can think of or wants to allow in the discussion.
    Today on the news he was interviewed and the news anchor asked about a group on facebook that was petitioning to have $5 added to their electric bill to save police officers job. He was asked his thoughts and replied that he didn't want to look at that because he wanted to show the citizens of Tulsa that their government can run on it's own, be self-sufficient, and successfully get through this and operate (paraphrased of course). The only problem is it can't, it hasn't. It's going to lay off 150 police officers (I believe that is 1/8 or so of it's force). It can not operate on it's own. It has failed. And those who will pay will not just be city employees but citizens of Tulsa when they are robbed, murdered, killed in car accidents because there are not enough police officers (or firefighters or another needed city employee) because the city has managed it's money poorly and the guy brought in to fix it can only think inside a small box that constrains any thought of creativity in dealing with such a significant mater. 
    My question is this: How come politicians can have $500 plate dinners to raise money for their campaigns when running for office, but can't call those same friends back in to buy a $20 dollar steak at $250 to help save a police officer's job that has worked so hard to protect them and other citizens of the city. How come with all the information out there, all the different things at his disposal to find an answer to this question, he can only come up with one option? I do not know how the city budget is laid out, however I do know that to only come up with two options--both of which will surely lead to a rise in crime--is idiocy.
    Every year I pass firefighters on the streets holding boots filled with cash taking donations for charities. They ask for donations, they hold fundraisers, they reach out to the public to help those in need. Now when they are in need, the government are going to let them hang out to dry. Now the one person who has been elected to deal with the budget crisis is letting both firefighters and police officers get laid off (or reduce their paycheck) all because he refuses to look at options that would help save jobs, and more importantly lives.  
    On one hand I feel sorry for Mayor Bartlett. He walked into a problem and is expected to be the savior who can fix the budget problem, keep the streets safe, and keep police officers on the street and on the payroll. However, he is no savior. He really has no answers. He has an option that is almost no better than the first choice. I feel sorry for him because he "inherited" this problem, but at the same time, I feel upset because he's trying to give an easy answer. Instead of working hard to come up with options that would save officers jobs, such as fundraisers, donations, and so forth, it seems he's taken the easy way out. Is it really easy? No. But if his job was on the line and it meant either a job or all income was taken away with no bright out look, he'd find another way. But he hasn't. Am I against the man? No. Am I for him? Yes!!! But it seems that his outlook on the issue has been narrowed down to "this or this and nothing else will work." There are more options, even if he won't look at them.
   Again, I don't know the whole story, just what I hear, read, and see. However, I know this issue at hand is not just about a person's job, it's about people's lives. And that's something too important to be left up to a two option decision.    

       

All The Promises Of God Are Yes And Amen

  
    Every now and then my son gets promised that if he's good for a certain length of time or while we're doing something, he'll get a prize of some sorts. Some times it's candy, sometimes it's a cheap little toy that you wouldn't spend a nickel on (but someone else would). Either way, he behaves for that time for 2 reasons: 1.) He knows if he is good, he'll get a toy. 2.) He knows if he isn't good, he'll get in trouble. Probably more so though, it's that promise of a surprise at the end of the excursion. That's the thing that's in front of him more so than than the thought of being disciplined.But he believes that whoever said he could have whatever it is when they're done will give them whatever it is. He believes in them. He counts them trustworthy. He's four. That's what they do. They have a child-like faith and assurance that what you say is true and you wouldn't lie.  
        2 Corinthians 1: 30 states, "For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us." The Apostle Paul wrote this not so you would have faith in the promise. In fact, the promise itself is really nothing in itself. Promises are not judged by the promises, but by the Character and what is known about the one who has promised. The character of the person determines the weight of what is said. 
     Hebrews 11:11 says, "Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised." Sara judged God as being faithful and trustworthy that what He had promised, He would do. Why? Because she knew Him, His character. Many people don't believe what God's Word says because they don't know Him. They don't know His character.
    Just like our authority in Jesus Christ, a promise is not valid unless the one backing it is valid. We have authority over certain things in Jesus Christ because of Jesus Christ and what He did--the one backing it. We can believe the Word of God (the promises of God) because of the one backing it--God Himself.
    We do this all the time and don't even realize it. We sit in a chair and put all of our weight on it believing it will keep us up because we believe in the person who made the chair, the materials it is made out of, and our ability not to break it with our weight. We have judged those things faithful to do what they need to do so we can sit safely in that chair.
    We use a piece of paper that has pictures of dead presidents on it to pay for stuff at stores across this nation. We do the same with metal coins. Why? Is this special paper? Kind of. It's special because of the one backing it-the United States Treasury and the United States of America (not a certain political figure but the nation itself). We have counted it trustworthy because we know it's character. It has a long track record of being faithful. It has proven that it will take that paper with a a number five on it, and it will actually be worth five dollars.
    How more should we trust in God, who was faith that when we were enemies, He still dies for us and our sins. The character of God is without question. The problem people have is their point-of-view, their opinion, or their past experiences with others have already judged God one things that do not pertain to God or His character.
    People don't believe God's Word, even when they speak it out of their own mouth because they themselves are liars and they can't believe anything that comes out of their mouth already--even if it's the Word of God. Some people can't trust God as their Heavenly Father because their won earthly father was so terrible, or they didn't even have one. Neither of those things are valid excuses and neither would hold up in a court of law if applied to any case. You can not judge the character of a man (or God) by someone else's actions. Some people want to do this on every level, but you can't. The truth is that God is faithful. His character has been proven over and over throughout ALL TIME and no one and no thing can prove Him otherwise. With the character at rest, it is only a matter of ability. God is the one who create the universe, Heavens and Earth, raised Christ from the dead, owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and silver and gold are His. God is able, He is will, His promises are yes and amen because they are true. We just have to put trust in Him to do so, and He will.      

Why I'm Note Renewing My Subscription to Relevant Magazine

    I got an email in my inbox today asking me to renew my subscription to Relevant magazine. I've had the subscription for nearly 2 years now, and originally only described because graphically, they are a pretty good magazine. However, over those two years, and the years I look back at them since they started, they're not what I want in a Christian magazine. They're nowhere near what I'd want in a Christian magazine that seeks to be...well, relevant.
     In their email, they stated that the goal of Relevant magazine has been to "provide you with a magazine that pushes boundaries, asks questions, spots trends and challenges worldviews—all while helping you pursue God in everyday life." However, for what I want in a magazine that helps me pursue God in everyday life, the magazine is no closer in doing this, than watching Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino.
    In fact, in a recent issue, they reviewed Gran Torino and had a lot to say about it. Okay, not really. The review stated that the movie "embodiment of the Eastwood mythos." As for the character Eastwood played, it states that you won't like him, but as he opens up, you'll respect him. For a magazine that desires to help you draw closer to God, the characteristic of being able to know the truth and tell, as seen from God's point of view would be helpful, but is sadly absent.
    I watched Gran Torino, much to my regret. I remember that I had wanted to see it in the theaters so much, but never got the chance. Then it came out to the local video store, or for me and most of America now, the Redbox, I had to walked by it for weeks before I could rent it. And during all this time I had not read a single review to prepare me for what was in store. Of course if I had read this review, I would have been even more excited than I was.
   This was not the case as I sat down with my wife, pushed the play button, and exposed myself to F-word after F-word, after....well, another F-word followed by a dozen other four-letter words, offensive language, and other words and phrases not socially attractive. In the 119 minutes of the film, we can find around 82 F-words, and over 100 profanities all together.
    Though the story contains many good points about redemption, friendship, etc, etc, the question still remain: Do you want to subject yourself to all of the baggage contained in the film just for a few glimmers of "life lessons" or whatever you want to call it? Sadly many would have no problem with it. That "many" though, should not include a magazine that desires to help you get closer to God. This is especially true in light of what God has said about words: Life and death are in the power of the tongue; But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man; You are snared by the words of your mouth.
    What is the price you pay for subjecting yourself to this, or anything else that is not spiritually healthy. The Bible tells us that "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." If faith comes by hearing God's Word, what comes in hearing other things, such as a tidal wave of profanity?
   My point is not to attack Gran Torino, or Relevant magazine, but a for a publication that says their goal is to help me get closer to God, their recommendation of such a movie does exactly the opposite.
  In the same issue, the cover story was titled, "The Inspired Life of Zooey Deschanel." However, in my reading it, there was not much inspiring about it. In fact, I've found that many of their cover stories, and stories in general talk a lot about spirituality, religion, but not so much about Jesus, Christ, the Holy Spirit, or things that would actually pull you closer to God. The only boundaries that I've seen pushed are the ones that ask the readers to follow their example in a life that may fight injustice around the world or talk about it at least, stand up for the environment, and tell you about "really cool music," but leaves you lack a deep, personal relationship with Christ that is guided by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus intended. 
   The latest issue I have in my hands has a cover story titles, "The Winding Spiritual Road of Jeff Tweedy & Wilco." While the article does look at Jeff Tweedy's "spiritual" life (like we all does not have on), not once does it look at his Christian life. That is  because he doesn't have one. While you can always catch a glimmer of spiritual nuggets from anything, a magazine that desires to get you closer with God uses something that does little of that.
     The Bible focuses on the righteous, the Godly to point out characteristics, traits, and examples of how to live our lives in a Godly, righteous manner that is pleasing to the Lord. However, this is not hoe Relevant does it, as most of their articles tries to "bridge" the gap between the Christian and non-Christian through focusing on culture, Hollywood stars, and those who have had spiritual experiences in life, or stood up for causes that they agree with. However the only thing that can bridge the gap between teh non-Christian and the Christian is Jesus Christ, yet he is absent from most pages on Relevant magazine that do not contain an advertisement.
    The way to get closer to God is not by showcasing those who have "tried" several religions or who have fought for causes you may agree with, or trying to put a new spin on faith, but by the tried and true methods Jesus demonstrated and talked about. Getting closer to God is as easy as studying your Bible-His message to you, His love letters to you, by fellowshipping with Him in prayer, and by praying and being led by the Holy Spirit--a doctrine that has become too taboo even in Christianity today.
   These are the things that need to be spoken on, not a sixteen point plan of how this worked for so and so, but how to listen to the voice of God so He can lead you. I'm not against Relevant, I'm for them so much, but I will not spend the money God has entrusted in me on a publication that goes against what I know to be correct from God's Word.   

Vince McMahon Is An Idiot

    If you don't know who Vince McMahon is, then I don't blame you. He is the head of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). He is credited as being one of the smartest men in the wrestling industry. He took a small territorial company and turned into a world-wide business that has offices in a few different countries. Not too shabby, don't you say? However, In all my years of watching wrestling, which for the last almost ten years it has been off and on, I've noticed that wrestling has gone from wrestling entertainment to entertainment wrestling.
    Though McMahon has taken a company and made it one of the best small businesses in the country (ranked in Forbes' top 200), the product he delivers to people is lacking in....well....creativity. In the past 10-12 years the one thing I've noticed that wrestling has emphasized more vulgarity, sexuality, violence, and de-emphasized wrestling. Now I know you're thinking the violence part is an oxymoron, but instead of focusing on wrestling, they have gone to fighting. And it's not just fighting, but well, theatrical assault and battery.
    Wrestling has come from the sideshows and carnivals to returning to the sideshows on the television set. You have midgets wrestling normal people....wait. No, they're not wrestling. They're just running around trying to be caught like a leprechaun. You have the vixens showing off everything they possibly can without getting pulled from network TV, and then showing a little more on cable TV, and of course showing almost everything on pay-per-view. All this while marketing to kids as well. On Friday nights if you're not going out like normal people, you might sitting in front of TV watching soap operas that happen to mix a little bit of wrestling in with it.
    And all this is to do two things---make money and get ratings, which in turn, makes money. Anything that the simpleton mind can think of, the WWE will throw up on the TV. If it doesn't work (like killing of the boss), we'll just pretend it didn't happen. If people don't tune in to watch it, get rid of it. And that includes your own wrestlers. Who cares if it's not the wrestlers fault. After all, they're just following what the uncreative writers told them to do. And what would they do? Go against the writers and get fired for sure, or do what they say and flip a coin on whether or not they'll be there in a few weeks. Not like a contract means anything. You may have a contract, but that can always be torn up...just not by the wrestlers.    
    Who cares if you've been casts as a Muslim American (even if you're Italian) and told to go out and re-enact a beheading that is quite similar to those terrorists are doing on the next website over. Although, it will not be the writers fault, or the boss' fault, who even though he's a "genius" didn't see the crap about to hit the fan. And when it does, is it the writers fault? The bosses fault? Of course not. They're all geniuses. However, it is the wrestler's fault because he went out and did what he was told to do. And why? He likes to put food on the table.   
     But it's okay if a certain storyline doesn't work. Why? They'll just push a few half naked women out to "strut their stuff." And afterwards, before hand, or during, they can market to your kids and mine so they can watch the great programming on TV...or the half-naked women. Whatever you call it. This is the formula--half-naked women, silly story lines with oddities and other off the wall ideas, flashy and not so flashy wrestlers and other personalities who get on the microphone and talk a lot, oh, and some wrestling.
    I'm not against wrestling. I love wrestling. I loved wrestling. When I was a kid I used to sneak out of bed and watch it. I used to get up Saturday morning and watch WWF Superstars. But what I watched then was wrestling. And it was entertainment. What's on now is entertainment, along the lines of Jerry Springer, and some wrestling. Its ideas that are thrown together that people hope work. It's half-naked women that "creative writers" feel the show can't do without (and apparently are kid friendly). As Zell Miller said about the democratic party, "I didn't leave the democratic party. The democratic party left me." Real wrestling has left me. It's anything except well thought through, creative, imaginative ideas, put together rolled into a ball with wrestlers knowing what they do best and allowed to do it, to form a product that is creative and suitable for what it is being marketed as. It is not people with great ideas being shot down because you don't like that person or because there's some sort of "political motivation" behind it.
    It's not ideas like spending as much time developing and thinking on the "mid-card" segments as you do on the headliners, because God knows you can't have people that are popular on the mid-card. It's not ideas that actually make sense. It's not having to step so far out of reality you think that you have to disconnect from logic and reason to watch and believe.
    However, in a world of bulky "entertainers" and "superstars," not wrestlers; a place where we're asked to disconnect from reality for a little bit, one of the biggest things we're asked to believe is that Vince McMahon is a genius. A man who cannot sell some of the greatest wrestlers in the world to the world without having to throw in some sideshow attractions and some busty brunette busting out of her clothes, is not a genius. A man who does not realize that to make a great product you must concentrate on all the product, not just the most important parts, is not a genius. A man who markets near pornography to kids, who sells sex and violence and labels it "kid friendly" is not a genius. No, he is an idiot, in all sense of the word. And no matter how nice he may be, how many people kiss up to him, or hate him, or love him, or think he's great, or evil. Truth is truth, not mixed with politics or opinions, or the invitation to disconnect from reality. Vince McMahon is an idiot.  
    Note: There are great wrestlers out there. There are great writers out there. Most of them more than likely work for Vince McMahon. However, that still does not changethe fact that Vince McMahon is an idiot.