God's Provision

Since I wrote my last post, we have continued to see God's hand at work in taking care of our needs financially. He has provided several friends, colleagues and family members who have graciously contributed several thousand dollars in either gifts or loans that have enabled us to remain current on our mortgage as well as take care of several other outstanding bills.

Yesterday and today I received notification that the 20.5 days of leave that I had lost last year under similar circumstances had been recouped and sold - so we will receive several thousand dollars more by the end of next week. This is in addition to the 20.5 days of leave I have from this year that I am also in the process of selling back. Today I was also told that my DD-214 (discharge papers) would be finalized and send out next week as well, which will finally enable me to receive unemployment benefits. To top it off, today we unexpectedly received a check for $500 to use towards our expenses. Thank you, God!

All of this will see us through the month of December, and by early next year I will be receiving both Army Tuition Assistance money as well as the quarterly disbursement of my student loan funds, which should carry us on for a few more months. This will provide more time to look for a job without having the added burden of wondering how the bills will get paid now.

When I met this morning for coffee and prayer with some friends, we talked about how the Lord's Prayer reminds us to pray for "our daily bread." We don't ask for enough to last us through next week, or next year - but only enough for today. This requires us to continuously return to God (at least) on a daily basis to ask Him to graciously continue to meet our daily needs.

I am both awed and humbled to see that God is continuing to remain true to His promise to care for His children. Awed by the way in which He has used people to respond to our needs, and humbled by the fact that it is often so hard to trust Him - to truly put one's faith into action.

Although I've been in seminary for the last three years and will soon earn my Master of Divinity degree, I am convinced that the most important lessons will have been learned outside of the classroom.

I feel like I'm getting a Ph.D in faith-building, and it's all practical application.

Joy in the Midst of Suffering

Wow. It has seriously been a long time since I've posted anything. Not surprising, really - given all that's been going on these last several months. Allow me to elaborate:

Way back in January, when I had my accident, I was forced to withdraw from or extend most of my seminary classes - there was simply no way that I could keep up my studies while undergoing intensive physical therapy several times a week. Nevermind the fact that I was in a wheelchair and on some type of pain medication for much of the time. Thus, instead of graduating in June 2009, I would extend my schedule and complete my degree by the summer of 2010. So far, so good.

As for work (and income), I had been on Active Duty Special Work (ADSW) orders with the California National Guard since March 2008 doing officer recruiting for them. My history with them over the last year or so has been... well, interesting, to say the least. After an unexplained break in my orders from Nov 08 - Jan 09, I was given one more set of orders from 26 Jan - 28 Feb 09. As I was led to understand, the state would not be renewing my orders, but I would be able to continue doing my job, only I would be under the auspices of the National Guard Bureau, which oversees all the national recruiting programs.

However, a week into my new orders, I went and got myself hurt, which totally threw a wrench into the well-oiled machine that is the National Guard. *smirk*

As I lay recuperating in the hospital, my boss called my wife to see how I was doing. After chatting for a few minutes, Tamara shared with him her concern about how my orders were due to expire in a few weeks, and what would we do then? "Don't worry," he assured her, "we'll take care of him and keep him on orders for as long as he needs so he can continue to receive a paycheck and get medical care." And, true to his word, that's exactly what happened - until September rolled around.

I had been receiving 30-day orders at the end of every month that extended me for the following month (why they chose to do it this way, I have no idea). At the same time, they were working on enrolling me in the Active Duty Medical Extension (ADME) program - sort of a Wounded Warriors unit - that would keep me on orders until I was well and fully fit for duty again. Although the ADME process was only supposed to take 2 weeks to accomplish, they somehow managed to drag it out until sometime in early October. The completed packet wasn't sent to the medical board until October 8th, over 8 months from the date of my accident.

Anywho, around the last week of September, I start expecting to see a new set of orders show up in my inbox. When none appear, I start calling the folks up at HQ in Sacramento to see what's going on. Unsurprisingly, I am unable to reach anyone on the phone, nor do I get any response to my emails (this lack of communication had been endemic ever since I began working there). Finally, on October 8th I managed to get in touch with the new head recruiter at HQ who had taken over for my old boss. She informs me that my orders had ended on September 30th (duh) and that they wouldn't be renewed (what?!?). The reason I was given was that there had been budget cuts, and that I was just dead weight who was just sucking up their limited financial resources while not adding anything to their bottom line (Ok, maybe she didn't actually say it in those words, but that was the distinct impression I received).

To put it bluntly, unless there was some regulation that required them to keep me on orders, they weren't gonna do it. Period.

We went 'round and 'round on that point, but it was a battle I couldn't win. The rules, such as they are, were worded in such a way as to allow various interpretations - depending on who's doing the reading. And the budget-conscious folks at HQ weren't going to be very liberal in interpreting them in any way that would be favorable to yours truly.

So there I am, just now learning that my last paycheck was over a week ago and that I'm on my own as far as finances are concerned.

"But wait," you say, "what about that ADME packet that was finally submitted?"

Ah yes, thanks for reminding me. My last hope - to be transitioned over to a medical unit that would be able to continue to pay my wages while helping me down the road to full recovery. Surely the good folks on the medical board will see all the evidence and clear the way for me to be admitted to this program, right?

Umm, no. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

On November 18th, over a month after submitting the packet (and 9 1/2 months after my accident, for those of you who're counting), I learned that my request had been denied. I still haven't received official notification of the fact, so I have no idea what they based their decision on.

So now I'm six weeks out from my last paycheck, I have no real job prospects, and I can't even file for unemployment since the Guard hasn't seen fit to send me my discharge papers. The bills are piling up, my family healthcare has been cut off, we're having to apply for food stamps, and to top it off I'm struggling to get through a Greek Exegesis class that I'm woefully unprepared for since I had to drop out of Intermediate Greek earlier in the year.

So how do I feel?

Joyful.

Yes, you heard it right - despite all that's occurred, fairly or unfairly, my response is one of joy.

How can this be? Well for starters, I still have a lot to be thankful for. I'm alive, when the accident could've easily have been fatal. I'm recovering, when I could be crippled or worse. I'm not in pain, when it could be chronic. I have a wonderful wife and two beautiful kids when I could be alone in all of this.

But more than that, I have joy because of who I am in Christ. I'm his child, deeply loved by Him, and nothing can take that away, according to Romans 8:38-39. I am where He has put me, doing the work He has given me to do, and my strength comes from Him. Because of this, I can join Paul in saying, "I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength." (Philippians 4:12-13)

A Late Post about Michael Moore

Awhile back, a friend of ours sent me an email containing a message that Michael Moore had posted on his website in support of his movie "Capitalism: A Love Story." Here's an excerpt:

"Friends,
I'd like to have a word with those of you who call yourselves Christians (Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Bill Maherists, etc. can read along, too, as much of what I have to say, I'm sure, can be applied to your own spiritual/ethical values).

I have come to believe that there is no getting around the fact that capitalism is opposite everything that Jesus (and Moses and Mohammed and Buddha) taught. All the great religions are clear about one thing: It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what's left for everyone to fight over. Jesus said that the rich man would have a very hard time getting into heaven. He told us that we had to be our brother's and sister's keepers and that the riches that did exist were to be divided fairly. He said that if you failed to house the homeless and feed the hungry, you'd have a hard time finding the pin code to the pearly gates.

At the same time, Wall Street bankers ("Blessed Are the Wealthy"?) are amassing more and more loot -- and they do their best to pay little or no income tax (last year Goldman Sachs' tax rate was a mere 1%!). Would Jesus approve of this? If not, why do we let such an evil system continue? It doesn't seem you can call yourself a Capitalist AND a Christian -- because you cannot love your money AND love your neighbor when you are denying your neighbor the ability to see a doctor just so you can have a better bottom line. That's called "immoral" -- and you are committing a sin when you benefit at the expense of others."

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

I wrote an email response to our friend, but then thought that if I really wanted to argue against Moore's film, I should probably go to see it first. But how could I justify paying $11.50 to Michael Moore when he clearly is against capitalism, and would certainly not want to take my hard-earned money? The solution was simple: I paid to see another movie, then snuck in later to watch his as well. Moral crisis averted. I also brought a small notebook so I could recall exactly what he was saying.

But before I get to his film, I'd like to answer some of the questions he raises in his letter. First, his initial few questions strike me as a flawed premise. Is there something inherently “sinful” in creating something people want and then selling it to them at a profit? Did he and Joseph just give their stuff away? As for what form of economy & government Jesus would approve of, I think we’re trying to read too much into his purpose and goals. Jesus was apolitical – but he did tell the Pharisees to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's,” so he at least recommended supporting whatever government one found themselves under. As far as capitalism goes, I’m sure Jesus would be against many of the excesses, but probably not the system as a whole.

I think he’s less concerned about economic systems than he is about attitudes of the heart. If your sole aim is money and you’re consumed by greed and lust for wealth, I don’t think he’d be happy with you regardless of how fair your business practices were. In theory, communism was supposed to be an egalitarian society based on common ownership of property & production – and we’ve seen how that system eventually imploded after only 70 years of practice.

As for the Bible, Michael distorts different passages and takes them out of context. Why did Jesus say what he did to the rich young ruler? Was it simply because he was wealthy? Or did he know that great wealth creates a feeling of self-sufficiency that can cause one to rely one oneself to the exclusion of God? Was it about his physical possessions or the attitude of his heart? As the saying goes, “When a man becomes rich, God either receives a great deal of money or loses a man.”

Michael mentions that “It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what's left for everyone to fight over.” This sounds noble enough on the surface, but what pie is he talking about? Are resources so limited that if I make a million dollars I’m somehow “robbing” others of some of that money? And I’m sorry, but I’ve never read the passage where Jesus says that all riches are to be divided fairly – maybe someone could point that one out for me. Again with the homeless & hungry, Jesus is talking about compassion – an attitude of the heart – and not about a form of government and/or an individual’s ability to gain wealth.

He probably has some good points to make in examining corporate greed and the unethical practices that many investment firms followed which led to the economic quagmire that we are now swimming in. But he loses me when he tries to take that big picture and narrow it down to you and me. I’m not denying anyone their healthcare, nor am I benefiting at the expense of anyone else.

The part that gets me the most – the pill that I have a hard time swallowing – is where he declares that he intends “to do what I can to stop this evil.” Considering that his personal net worth is somewhere north of $50 million – what exactly is he going to do? Is he going to give his money away to those who need it more than he does? Is he going to move to France as a means of protest against “evil America?” He’s not exactly known for his philanthropy – according to Peter Schweizer’s book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," he found that "for a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and film."

As for the movie itself, it was another example of Moore's well-known pseudo-documentary style of film-making. That is, he claims he is making a documentary, but he takes clips out of context and edits them in such a way as to support his bias, instead of presenting the facts as they are and letting his audience draw their own conclusions. Basically, it fits the definition of propaganda.

This is not to say that he doesn't have any good points to make - he does - but they're buried in all the other rubbish. For instance, he points out the pitiful wages that airline pilots make these days and how some of them are on welfare or getting food stamps to make ends meet. Ok, I agree that it seems pretty absurd to pay people who are doing such an important job little more than what they could earn working at Wal-Mart, but nobody's forcing them to do it. Their career is their choice - if they don't like the pay, they can always leave and find another job.

Despite Moore's religious-sounding letter, there was actually very little in the movie about the immorality of capitalism. He "interviews" three liberal Catholic priests - Father Dick Preston, who married Michael and his wife; Father Peter Dougherty, who married his sister; and Thomas John Gumbleton, a retired bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit. The whole segment took maybe five minutes (out of two hours) and provided little in the way of enlightenment. Father Preston said that capitalism is evil, wrong and unjust - but provided nothing in the way of Biblical support for his opinions. Likewise, Dougherty said that capitalism was "radically evil" and Gumbleton quoted the "woe to the rich - blessed are the poor" passage, but neither gave any convincing argument from Scripture.

Of course, as expected he devoted a significant chunk of his film to bashing on Republicans. Reagan was portrayed as an actor endorsing various products, and Bush was presented as the master conspirator behind a national financial "coup d'etat" to undermine the economy and pass the bailout bill. No criticism was leveled at Obama, despite the fact that the bailout passed on his watch, and he was an ardent supporter of it, along with Pelosi, Reid, and others. In fact, a quick search will reveal that 60% of Democrats voted in support of the bill, while only 33% of Republicans did so.

The end of the film has Moore showing FDR's proposal in 1944 of a "2nd Bill of Rights" that would guarantee every American:

• A job with a living wage
• Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
• A home
• Medical Care
• Education
• Recreation

While I agree that all of these things are good - and may in fact be necessary - they are in no way a "guaranteed right" for any of us. The key issue here is freedom of choice - if I choose to show up for work late or not finish my assignments, I may lose my job. If I do, that's my choice. Similarly, I may not want to go to college, buy a home or pay for health care - those are all choices that I make. It's not the government's job to provide any of those things for me (I for one would hate to see what government-sponsored "entertainment" looks like) - it's my job to decide for myself what I want to accomplish seek to meet my goals. The governments job should simply be to remove any unfair impediments - such as racism or sexism - that would stand in the way.

Ted Kennedy & King Manasseh: A Comparison

This is not a political blog; for one, I prefer to keep my political views largely to myself. For another, there are any number of bloggers who do that for a living, and whose insightsare most likely much more profound than mine would be. Having added that little disclaimer, I noticed on one of the sites I frequent a reference to the recent death of Sen. Ted Kennedy. To my surprise, several of the initial comments were so full of hatred and vitriol that I could scarcely believe what I was reading.

Now, I can't say that I approved of Sen. Kennedy's political leanings, nor many aspects of his personal life, but far be it from me to judge the contents of his heart and speculate on where he will be spending eternity.

It reminded me of the the life of Manasseh, King of Judah, told in 2 Kings 21:1-18 and later in 2 Chronicles 33:1-20.

King Manasseh “reigned in Jerusalem 55 years” (longer than Kennedy!), and “did evil in the eyes of the LORD,” even going so far as to sacrifice his own son in the fire, as an offering to the god Molech. 2 Kings 21:16 tells us that “moreover, Manasseh also shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end.” In addition to this, the king engaged in numerous forms of idolatry; worshiping the stars, practicing divination, sorcery and witchcraft, and even building altars to other gods in the temple of the Lord.

2 Chronicles 33 continues this unholy narrative by telling us that Manasseh “did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger,” and that “[he] led Judah and the people of Jerusalem astray so that they did more evil than the nations the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites.”

As a result of this, the Lord brought about his capture by the Assyrians, who “took [him] prisoner, put a hook in his nose, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon.” I suppose if the narrative stopped there, or ended with a story of his gruesome death at the hands of his captors, we might feel some sense of divine justice for the evil perpetrated by this wicked man, right?

But surprisingly, the account abruptly changes course. We read in vv. 12-13 that “In his distress he sought the favor of the LORD his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And when he prayed to him, the LORD was moved by his entreaty and listened to his plea; so He brought him back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD is God.”

I won’t claim to know all that was in Ted Kennedy’s heart. But I will say that it is indeed possible that in his waning days he “sought the favor of the LORD,” as many are wont to do in the hour of their distress. And if he did, then I believe that God heard his prayers and reassured him of His great love for him.

How grateful I am that God’s love is so limitless – that He loves me abundantly and without measure, and that He pours out this love to all His sons and daughters, whether they acknowledge Him or not. For if God were as petty and capricious as I am in extending love and offering grace and mercy, what a wretched world this would be, and with what fear and trepidation would I contemplate death and eternity!

Rachel's visit to Disneyland

We took our daughter to Disneyland this past weekend for her sixth birthday, and let me tell you, it was quite an experience. Even if you've been before (which I have), it's a whole different ballgame when you bring a young child on their first visit to this magical place.

First of all, I have to say that I think we made the right decision in waiting until now to take her there. Six seems about the right age for a child's first visit - they're tall enough to ride most of the rides, and old enough to not be scared of the full-size characters or the skeletons/pirates that some of the rides contain. Most importantly, they can walk - which means they don't have to be pushed or carried by mom or dad all day long.

Thanks to "Disney's Salute to the Military," we got quite a deal on our tickets and hotel room. Normally, the three-day passes would cost $179 each, but I was able to get a free ticket for myself and up to five others for only $93 apiece. We also received a 50% discount on our hotel room, which was quite nice. And being close to the monorail definitely was worth the extra bucks, as it saved us a ton of time and energy walking back and forth from the park to our hotel over two days.

Here's Rachel during the "Celebrate!" street party where she got to dance with the Disney characters. I think the look on her face says it all.

During our two-day visit, there were of course a number of memorable moments. But two stand out in my mind that pretty well summarize my daughter's character. The first occurred as we were walking around Sleeping Beauty's castle in the center of the park. I spied a character dressed as the evil queen from Snow White and asked Rachel if she wanted get her picture taken with her. She said yes so we got in line to wait our turn. When she got up there and got her picture, she turned to the queen and asked, "Is the reason you're so mean because no one gives you hugs?" The queen replied, "That could be part of it." Without hesitation, Rachel then stepped up and gave her a big hug before waving goodbye and skipping off. How cute is that?

The second memory that stands out in my mind was when we went to ride Space Mountain, Disneyland's fastest, scariest roller coaster which zips and zooms in complete darkness, save for some scattered points of light that are meant to represent stars. Ever the cautious mother, Tamara wasn't at all sure that it was a good idea, but I thought it would be okay. We loaded into our "rocket ships" with Rachel sitting next to me and Tamara behind us. As we crept up the first big hill with all the flashing lights preparing us for takeoff, Rachel could barely contain her excitement. The next moment we were plunged into darkness, spinning round and round, up and down with no clue as to what was coming next. I felt her hand squeezing mine tightly, but because of the darkness I couldn't see the expression on her face. At that point, I became a bit worried. Maybe this was too much for her. Maybe she was getting scared, or worse - nauseous. What had I done to my little girl? All my fears evaporated as we slowed down and came back into the station. With a look of pure joy, Rachel beamed up at me and exclaimed, "THAT WAS AWESOME!" So it appears that I'm not the only adrenaline junkie in the family...

Of course, one can't visit a place like Disneyland with a small child and not spend a small fortune on candy, snacks, drinks, etc. And we were no exception. Normally, like most responsible parents, we try to limit our kids' sugar intake and provide healthy alternatives - like fruit (especially strawberries & blueberries, which she loves) to satisfy the ever-present sweet tooth. Well, we made an exception this time, and I think me must've tried most of the sweet stuff they had to offer - from cotton candy to Mickey Mouse-shaped ice cream bars. Here's Rachel inside the giant sweet shop on Main St. looking like, well, a kid in a candy store. I can't remember what we bought in there, but obviously it made her very, very happy!

So that's about it. Obviously, there's much, much more to tell - princesses and fairies and Mickey and Goofy and pirates and castles... but suffice it to say that it was without a doubt her best birthday yet and Disneyland still lives up to its name as "The Happiest Place on Earth" - at least in the mind of one particular six-year-old!

Happy 6th Birthday, Rachel!

We love you!

Sex in the Bible

I don't think I've ever done "book review" before, but in this case I'll make an exception. You see, I'm doing a paper for a seminary class on sex and marriage in the Old Testament and as part of my research I've been reading a book titled Sex in the Bible: A New Consideration by J. Harold Ellens. According to his biography, Dr. Ellens is "a retired Presbyterian theologian, an ordained minister, a retired U.S. Army colonel (chaplain), and a retired professor of philosophy, theology, and psychology." One would think that a person with such an impressive resume would have some worthwhile things to say on a number of theological issues, right? At least, that's what I thought - until I read his book.

Ellens' main purpose in writing this book is to point out that many Christian assumptions regarding sexuality are misguided, misunderstood or misinterpreted. He attempts to "set the record straight" on such topics as polygamy, homosexuality, adultery, and morality. So far, so good. In fact, such a work would be a welcome addition as an attempt to integrate one's faith in daily living. But Ellens goes far beyond that noble goal by injecting his own brand of morality, making assumptions that lack biblical support or evidence, and by sexualizing biblical passages that strain the credulity of any astute reader. Allow me to quote some passages from the book:

"The most interesting thing about sex in the Bible is the fact that the Bible does not moralize sex. It simply takes a matter-of-fact view of sex as a central human reality, like eating, sleeping, hunting, gathering, building, and worshipping. That is, the Bible thinks of sexuality as a common form of human creative expression. You could even say that the Bible simply thinks of sex as a valuable form of human communication and connection, and that is all there is to it."

"The Bible... assumes that sexual communion between consenting adults who have a meaningful friendship is a natural, normal, and desirable form of communication and sharing."

"The Bible... is aggressively against... promiscuous sex, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, adultery, homosexual behavior by heterosexual persons, and rape. It almost never mentions all other kinds of sexual behavior and assumes they are being practiced by humankind, universally, and are essential to life of God's Shalom: peace and prosperity. These would include sexual union within marriage, sexual communion between unmarried consenting adults within a meaningful friendship, and premarital sexuality between persons exploring the possibility of, or engaged in a potential marriage contract."

"The Bible says nothing about sexual relationship between two unmarried adults who have a meaningful friendship but do not intend engagement or marriage. The Bible assumes it is taking place in that it is normal; as natural a thing for humans to do as are any other forms of intimate communication."

The problem with these statements is that Ellens never qualifies them. That is, he never gives any biblical (or other) rationale for why he believes these things to be true - he just puts them out there and I guess we're all supposed to be persuaded by the weight of his many degrees and life experience. I will concede that the Bible does appear to be silent on the issue of premarital sex - at least in the New Testament, since the definition of "fornication" can be debated - but this hardly means that one can just "assume" that God is in favor of it. In the OT, premarital sex was analogous to marriage; that is, if you had sex with a virgin, you were obligated to marry her (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29). There was an implied commitment with sleeping together that assumes that lifelong marriage is intended. Indeed, for a woman to be found not to be a virgin at the time of her wedding was grounds for her stoning (Deut. 22:1321), since such promiscuity was seen to be a disgraceful thing.

By contrast, Ellens seems to adopt the "silence is consent" method of morality - that is, unless something is expressly forbidden, it must be okay. He seems to conveniently overlook the fact that many of the modern moral dilemmas faced by us today have no mention in Scripture simply because such things as in-vitro fertilization, cloning, euthanasia, etc. were not envisioned by biblical writers. Other issues such as masturbation and abortion are not expressly mentioned either. This doesn't mean we can't uncover moral guidelines that pertain to these issues, but we don't necessarily look to the Bible to address them specifically. Ellens neatly sidesteps the moral quandary he may find himself in by simply referring to a lack of explicit biblical criticism, then shrugging his shoulders as if to say, "It must not matter then." As to where he gets this whole "meaningful relationship" thing - and what that means exactly - I have no idea.

One of the most preposterous statements made by Ellens is his claim that "obviously...heaven is a setting of holy promiscuity, where we shall enjoy total union with everyone who really delights us." He reaches this conclusion by recounting the story in Mark 12:18-27 where the Sadducees came to Jesus with the story about the widow and her seven husbands, asking whose wife she would be at the resurrection. Jesus replied, "when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Call me unenlightened, but this doesn't seem to be an "obvious" conclusion to make in this case.

I won't go into his whole chapter on homosexuality, but one claim he makes at the outset is quite telling. He says that "Recent brain tissue studies persuade us that sexual orientation is inborn and preset at conception." Since one of the key arguments in favor of legitimizing homosexuality has long been that they were merely "born that way," it is obviously in their favor to find some evidence to support this assertion. But in Ellens' case, of course, he cites no particular study to buttress this argument - he just throws it out there and hopes (again) that no one will notice his lack of scholarly support.

In case it isn't immediately obvious by now, I found this whole book to be an exercise in frustration. No doubt there are some good and healthy views to be gleaned from its pages, but they are overshadowed (in my view) by the specious claims of the author whose effort, if not his intent, is to make Christian sexuality no different from the ambiguous morality of the surrounding culture.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Margaritaville

I realize that I haven't posted anything on here for quite a while, and am aware that the two people who actually read this blog must be wondering what's happened to me. Well, I'll get to that, but before I do I thought I would share with you all my personal recipe for my favorite summer drink - margaritas!



Ingredients:
2 oz. good tequila ( I prefer Sauza Hornitos)
1 oz. triple sec (or Cointreau, if you have the $)
1 oz. Midori melon liqueur
fresh lime juice (key limes are great if you can find them)
4 oz. margarita mix

Directions:
Fill a shaker with ice and add all ingredients. Shake vigorously and strain into a margarita glass (or whatever you can find). Enjoy!