Tenrikyo Vs. Dutch Reformed

The other day I had to utilize a local radio station's website for a project at work. The registration form asks for the pertinent information- name, work address, phone number- and then asks a number of optional questions that can, presumably, help them cater the radio station to you. Here they are, in order: marital status, ethnicity, number of children in household under 18, income, primarily computer usage location, education, employment, religion, housing status, accessibility to internet.

I'm sure you've seen drop-down lists like this before, but I was absolutely shocked at the options available for selection under the "religion" category. Here is that list, in order:

Amish

Assemblies of God

Atheist

Baptist

Catholic

Jehovah's Witness

Lutheran

Methodist

Seventh Day Adventist

Other Christian

Islam

Hindu

Buddhist

Chinese traditional religion

Primal-indigenous

African traditional/Diaspora

Sikhism

Juche

Spiritism

Judaism

Baha'i

Jainism

Shinto

Cao Dai

Tenrikyo

Neo-paganism

Unitarian Universalist

Rastafarianism

Scientology

Zoroastrianism

Wiccan

Pastafarianism

Animism

Taoism

Notice how far down on the list Judaism is? Also, note that "atheist" is listed third, above Catholicism! Oh, they're in alphabetical order, you'll say. Really? Then why is "Animism" second to last, "Cao Dai" somewhere in the middle, and "Seventh Day Adventist" in the top ten?

Now I'd like to remind you that I live in southwest Michigan; how many Jains or "African Traditional/ Diaspora" member do you suppose live here? My guess is none, if not a severely low number.

And certainly, we have more "Reformed" Christians here than any other type of religion (four located within a half mile of this radio station alone!), yet you will not find it on the list at all. Yet "Pastafarianism" is listed; a joke, I assume, but more important than representing the largest religious denomination in the area?

Cheshire Cat to Kalamazoo radio: Very curious. Very curious indeed.

*Update: Just after I posted this, an ad for scientology appeared on the side of the blogger page. Is that enough proof that google is completely wacked in what ideas they support?? Ugh, google/gmail/blogger (the company) is a whole post of its own...

Reason Like a Man

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

1 Corinthians 13:8-12

I've been reading straight through the Bible for the past year. I'm now in 1 Corinthians, which is no great accomplishment because I should be further but for all my fits and starts. (I got stuck on the Psalms, not in the way other people might - because they don't want to leave them - but because I didn't like reading them. I wanted to get to Proverbs, to the meat of the wisdom, so-to-speak. Shows how much I know about wisdom.)

Nonetheless, here I am in 1 Corinthians, having imagined, or maybe hoped, that Paul would address them scathingly since they were fond of such obviously sinful activities. He should say, I thought, like Jonah wanted to say to the people of Ninevah, that they deserve to be destroyed. Because, well, don't they? Aren't they evil idolaters who do anything but what is proper in regards to sex and marriage? Don't they love their licentiousness more than God?

However, I'm always surprised to read how Paul addresses them from the outset ("To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours") and the gentle admonishment he gives them throughout the book. He seems to want to instruct more than rebuke, and that brings us to the passage above.

Paul had been addressing the "gift of the Spirit" and the qualities of love that make it eternal just before going into this oft-quoted string of verses, hence the introduction that love never ends (while all the other gifts, though they may be temporarily helpful - in the order he lists them - to the Church, will ultimately pass away with the harbingers of those gifts). That explains, albeit in my simple way, the first two verses.

The last two verses make sense in this context also, that now we only know partially (half-hidden, veiled, shadowed or whatever metaphor you'd like to employ) what will be revealed in our passing into God's presence after death. (*I'd like to recommend the book, "Til We Have Faces" by C.S. Lewis here, as it is an amazing allegorical novel about this veiling period.) This part of his teaching I understand, and reading that book actually helped flesh it out for me a lot more.

I can't make sense of the middle section. Superficially I get it, that Paul used to reason more simplistically and with less wisdom when he was both physically and spiritually a child. But besides that literal reading, I don't get the immediate connection to the wisdom he's imparting. What did he used to believe about knowing God, or seeing him face-to-face? What were the "childish ways" by which he reasoned about God?

It has always struck me when reading this that there is so much more about it I'm not understanding. And perhaps it is because I reason like a child. I suppose that's the reason I ask, too, since I want to "reason like a man" but feel perpetually stuck in a child's mind.

Work and Play

What is work, and what is play? Some say that when you enjoy your work, it isn't work at all. I would contend that these people have perhaps settled on an endeavor that doesn't require them to work very hard. Though Nic loves the endeavor he's chosen, it has worked him to the bone trying to learn about it.

There hasn't been much play in Nic's life over the past five years. I mean that in the best way, because it reflects on the mountainous amount of work he has been doing in that time.

Did you know that he went directly from a bachelor's degree to his master's program, pausing only long enough to bid his well-loved Chicago apartment adieu before trekking to the unknown territory of Kalamazoo, Michigan?

Did you know that, despite all apprehensions about the outcome of the program, and after unknown hundreds of hours of reading complicated and often confusingly technical analytic philosophical texts, he today completed his master's degree in philosophy?

Did you know that while he was earning that degree in his own classes and coursework, he also taught at least one section (sometimes more) of undergrad-level courses, earning him the distinction of being chosen as the outstanding excellence in teaching award winner for both his department and for the university-wide selection?

Did you know that this degree and awards comprise hundreds of hours of time spent reading, thinking, writing, reading, preparing, teaching, reading, questioning, lecturing and, yes, more reading? There is never a break, never time to read for fun, rarely even time to sleep enough.

Nic also managed to apply to PhD programs during the winter, while he was taking two classes and teaching two. And would you believe he was accepted to the first program he wanted, and several more?

Nic would probably say he doesn't deserve all this praise. That might be because he is too modest, so I will say for him that I've seen the time, energy, emotional and mental effort that he has put into earning his credentials, and he has more than earned the accolades I'm giving him.

So, my hat is off to Nic in celebration of his earning this degree and I can't wait to congratulate his next academic achievement!

And, just because it's nice to see him happy, here are some recent photos of Nic at play.

Philosophy friends.

Happy Birthday, Nic!

World Scientists to U.S. on Global Warming: Chill Out!

*There are links in this post*


Nothing satisfies me more these days than seeing a foreign nation going public with its own declaration of right-on opinions.

Personally, I've long since stopped caring about the "global warming debate" because I am so convinced that mankind is not primarily responsible for the Earth's heating and cooling cycles, and no amount of Al Gore scare-tastic facts will dissuade me. I say phooey to wind power, biodiesel cars, those fancy (read: expensive) lightbulbs and, especially, a cap and trade bill! Way to take the gas (literally) out of our auto industry, Pres. O!

But I am thrilled to see that scientists in other countries are speaking up - maybe out of sheer frustration with the U.S.'s refusal to give creedence to scientific evidence that doesn't support their agenda - in opposition to the cap and trade bill being pushed by Congress (being voted on today, by the way). Some nations have even eliminated global-warming friendly laws and squelched any new legislation of its kind from popping up.

Check out this article on The Wall Street Journal online and be encouraged! If you've previously been considered a global warming "denier" (pretty scathing language if you think about other references to historical denials), you'll be happy to know the rest of the world is more with you than against you.


P.S.
Happy Friday! Let's celebrate the (hopefully) denial of the cap and trade bill by setting off all those fun non-eco-friendly fireworks you've been saving!

Update on Posting

Hello all,

Just wanted to write quickly that I do hope to be posting some original material soon. I have had a massive headache and have been too distracted to sit down and write lately, but I have a couple of things in the works and I hope to post them later this week, or early next week at the latest. Sorry for the long pause, content-wise, but I hope you have been enjoying all the links and clips. Please continue to check back soon, as I may even put up more photos- yeah!

Sincerely,

Victoria

Not So Friendly Press

President Obama seems to be getting a little frustrated with the questioning of his agenda, waffling on Iran and the unclear explanation of his government-run health care plan. Here, he takes it out on both the press and, only because his name was mentioned, John McCain.

It's not that I want him to fail. BUT, I am very pleased to see other people, especially in the press room, finally asking questions of The One that require him to defend his position. I'm encouraged that not everyone is asking the neat, pre-packaged questions like ABC or Huffington Post.

Via HotAir which, if you haven't checked out yet, you'll soon realize it's a goldmine for current news. I "borrow" from them all the time!

Two Scoops

*If you want to see updated video and text from Iranians, please visit Hot Air. com. They have the best, most recent coverage.


In the tumultuous political haze in Iran, protesters of the rigged vote run from the Basij (government police) and, when in large enough groups, steal their night sticks or pelt them with rocks. Occasionally they chant for the end of the dictatorship, or the death of the dictator, it's hard to make out which it is because of the general din being overheard, some of which is gunfire, some of which is hitting and killing those protesters. The Iranian people stand in fear of the outcome of the events, wondering whether the world, any nation, will come to their aid, even if simply in word and not deed. They fearfully, prayerfully await that answer.

But in another corner of the world, a man stands in front of many faces awaiting his most important answer, an answer that might just decide the rest of the night and, possibly, even the lives of those around him: Will it be one scoop or two, President Obama?

Yes, because while Iran quite literally burns, our current coward-in-chief decided that he'd rather go out for dessert with his two girls than think about that icky Iran situation. Ugh, foreign affairs are so... foreign. They are so far removed from the United States, a delightful land of plenty both materially (thanks to capitalism, which he'd like to forget) and politically (thanks to his own hubris, which he is quick to remind us).

I know what you gentle readers might say, "It's father's day weekend! Isn't even the President allowed a little r&r with his kids for that?"

Well, yes, of course he is. But perhaps it is not unfair either to request he take care of work matters before going out for two scoops with sprinkles?! I certainly think a coup in the making deserves more thought than his "I urge the Iranian government to stop the violence" rhetoric.

When I said a while ago that I didn't think Obama would institute any "real change" because he doesn't have any real opinions, I was wrong. He has opinions, but they are limited to domestic issues. Iran's controversy, of course, falls out of that sphere- unless you believe what's going on there is a matter of somewhat democratic issue, which Obama himself first stated, then sort of retracted in favor of the "why don't you guys just dialogue it out" shtick.

Obama's a man- Nic calls him the "un-man," which is so trenchant- who relies on ideology alone, so when a real, bloody battle is being fought out because of a difference in opinion over a piece of that ideology (in this case, the opinion of who gets to decide the leader of a nation, the people or the government in office), he has nothing real, nothing comforting or helpful to say.

So instead, he goes out for ice cream.

What flavor, you ask? The best and only choice for an un-man, the most un-flavor there is: vanilla.

Rigged Election in Iran

*There are links in this post*


Top U.S. officials are now saying that the election was obviously rigged. How else could the third party candidate only receive 1% of the vote? How could Mousavi lose by so wide a margin when last week the nation was in almost full support of him? The Ayatollah is requesting a recount be done, with little enthusiasm.

There are riots all over Tehran and other cities in Iran, with at least 50 dead. I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, already injured in attacks from the riot police and as bystanders. Please watch some videos on what's going on - hotair has good links - and keep them in your thoughts and, if possible, on your blogs and public accounts. Why should they be beaten senseless for merely trying to elect whom they want to elect?

I don't know much about the situation, but it's bloody and brutal and the corrupt government under Ahmadinejad's rule is behind it. Oh, and he has said publicly that he "can't guarantee the safety of Mousavi." That alone should be enough to arouse suspicion that he's up to no good.

CLICK HERE for link on Hot Air about the election

Four Months in Photos

It's been a busy 1/3 of the year. Here to explain are some photos I've taken while we scrambled around three states. I do hope this explains a little why my posting has been so inconsistent!

P.S. This begins a week-long series of photo posts, since N suggested I should let someone else see them. Reluctantly, I agree. Please do your best to ignore how random the order is... Hope you enjoy!

****************************

We've seen many sunsets while on the road between MI, WI and IL.





Pousse-Pousse likes to stay home and watch for birds.







The birds I've seen have mostly been through the sun roof.

Visiting an old stomping ground while conferencing in Chicago.



When it finally thawed, I used these tools to cultivate...







this...

and these.

The garden has sprung back to life. I'm sorry to be leaving it.

In between Madison trips, we got to see this little cutie.

And I would've helped blow out the candles, but was told, "No ladies allowed!"








On a Chicago pass-through we saw hot pink hydrangeas and had sushi.


We also got to visit with this hot pink chica and her hospitable parents. Oh, and the newest addition to their family...



Pousse, once again left at home, snoozed and dreamed of running down long hallways in a new apartment.






I miss dearly spots like this little backyard barbeque when we leave.


But, home is where the scrabble is, and we can take it with to a new city.


As long as he has these shelves to climb, P is happy anywhere.















In a month or so, we leave Kzoo and head back out on the road...


More photos to come of the new city of residence...

Home Schooling Within the Church

* There are links in this post *


Crosstalk had a program on Tuesday talking about the importance of raising our children with a Christian education. And I don't mean having Christians in public schools, because a few small voices there- heck, even a couple hundred loud voices- won't change the pc-driven, secular humanist state of the government school system.

The guest stressed that starting a church-school is not difficult, does not require much funding, or even accredited teachers. There is a plethora of solid Christian curriculum available for low cost; one of those mentioned by the guest was found at Alpha and Omega Ministries, the online theological ministry of Dr. James White. I didn't even know he had elementary-level education sources, but I'm sure it is solid doctrinally. (Visit here for more information on Dr. White and his ministry.)

I can't stress enough the importance of raising up children within a Christian framework. And not just as an alternative to the "rational, scientific" secular worldview; we all know that view is BLATANTLY BIASED. The myth of neutrality is just that, a myth, and the secular humanist side is so rampant that children need to learn their presuppositions- such as their toting rationality and empiricism as if those were ONLY available within a secular view when, in fact, they ONLY make sense in light of God's truth!

Please, listen to this program. I hope you will also pass it along to any parents you know, or church members, or both, who have almost school-age children and are unsure what to do with them. I think a small group of parents who rotated responsibility of hosting school at their homes could accomplish this, too! Hopefully this program will give you some good ideas.

Click here to go to Crosstalk America's homeschooling show for June 9th

Promises, Promises

Is it lame of me to let videos- made by other people, no less- do the talking this week? Well, so be it. When you don't know what to say, bring out the visual aids!

This one comes from politicalmath.wordpress.com, by way of Hot Air (I really should start finding my own links and stop incessantly biting from them!). It demonstrates the promises made by Obama regarding how many jobs would be saved or created- promises made prior to the "stimulus" bill being hastily signed into law- in order to articulate the necessity of signing said bill.

You might say this disparity between Obama's promises and the reality of his policies has stimulated me. But, unfortunately, his plan has not stimulated the economy to the tune he hoped it would. There's that blasted mantra of his again- "hope"- so maddeningly overused and underappreciated by The One. You might say he is singlehandedly stripping the word of all its power. How can someone use a word so much without knowing its meaning? (Ah, but that's the same question I ask myself when I hear the phrase "that begs the question" being employed when someone clearly means "that prompts me to ask.")

He cannot possibly believe his:

1) expansion of government control over money, transportation and, soon, food;

2) his gay- and so-called human-rights agendas being promoted in public schools;

3) systematic closing down of the entepreneurial spirit of our small business owners;

4) upheaval of the Constitution to suit his own and his appointees' ideals

are making people more hopeful for the future of this country?

Europe is now finally seeing the error of its politically-correct, liberal ways and has just elected several conservative party members. And while they are moving in the direction we should be, we're trying out- as many other countries have tried and failed their citizens with- socialism. Long bread lines, ration cards, subsidized industry, government control of the media... this isn't 1984... it's 1917!

Enjoy the video... while you still can!!

TOTUS, in his first interview

Please enjoy this rare interview with our second-in-command, the Teleprompter of the United States!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It's As Easy As Me, Me, Me

Today's link of the day comes from the Daily Beast (which I don't read because they allow Mini McCain to submit for them), via Hot Air:

Write your own Obama speech in 13 easy steps!

If you have been paying attention to the most recent speeches from our dear Pres., you will notice his penchant for both/and language (meaning, he makes sure to legitimize each side of the debate, while retaining his annoying holier-than-thou attitude). I said it a while ago, that he doesn't have any real committments to most foreign issues. His agenda is clear- to sovietize our nation- and anything outside of that is, well, kinda boring.

****************************

Update: Parisienne Farmgirl's comment!

"Let me be clear. I understand where you are coming from. From my humble beginnings, my family, my many faiths. Mine is the American story. Yes I can.

From Obama Beach to Paris I am everywhere, I have lived every story. After turning water to wine I will present to you 600,000 jobs this summer. Let me be clear.

Now is not the time to divide ourselves further by differences in religion. Mine is a story of diversity and thriving in a challenging environment. Even though 9/11 was a trauma to our country, Yes we can. Yes I can. Yes I can close Gitmo. For ours in not a country of torture even though some would say my constant use of certain pronouns could be determined as torture. Perhaps that is the fault of those listening to certain talk show hosts, who watch certain t.v. stations. You've got to turn off Fox New. Yes you can. Yes I can.

Just like I fulfilled my promise to Michelle by taking her to Paris post election I will fulfill my promise to the American people by parting the waters of the Mississippi and clearing the way for thousands of underpriveleged to March to the land of Milk and Honey. Yes we can.

With my nomination of Judge Sodomyor we can now rest assured that a Latina woman will make decisions in a way that will spread equality and the wealth around. Yes she can.

Now is not the time for fun but I have my jet waiting for yet another trip. So much hope to spread, so little time but mine is a story of diversity and conquest.

Yes I can."

Food for Thought from Mark Steyn

Featured yesterday, Charles Krauthammer helps ground me when I can't make sense of the policy going on within the President's head, and especially when I don't have the knowledge of the past politics needed to fully understand them.

Mark Steyn, similarly, offers a fresh perspective on foreign policy and a glimpse into the future of our nation's place in it. What do I mean? You'd have to read Steyn to know exactly; as your faithful scouter of all things truthful in a world of embellishments, half-truths and bald-faced lies, I've posted his article from today (found on National Review online.com).

I should mention, he's also devastatingly funny. Enjoy!

*****************

Mark Steyn, "The Muslim World"

As recently as last summer, General Motors filing for bankruptcy would have been the biggest news story of the week. But it’s not such a very great step from the unthinkable to the inevitable, and by the time it actually happened the market barely noticed and the media were focused on the president’s “address to the Muslim world.” As it happens, these two stories are the same story: snapshots, at home and abroad, of the hyperpower in eclipse. It’s a long time since anyone touted GM as the emblematic brand of America — What’s good for GM is good for America, etc. In fact, it’s more emblematic than ever: Like General Motors, the U.S. government spends more than it makes, and has airily committed itself to ever more unsustainable levels of benefits. GM has about 95,000 workers but provides health benefits to a million people: It’s not a business enterprise, but a vast welfare plan with a tiny loss-making commercial sector. As GM goes, so goes America?

But who cares? Overseas, the coolest president in history was giving a speech. Or, as the official press release headlined it on the State Department website, “President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World from Cairo.”

Let’s pause right there: It’s interesting how easily the words “the Muslim world” roll off the tongues of liberal secular progressives who’d choke on any equivalent reference to “the Christian world.” When such hyper-alert policemen of the perimeter between church and state endorse the former but not the latter, they’re implicitly acknowledging that Islam is not merely a faith but a political project, too. There is an “Organization of the Islamic Conference,” which is already the largest single voting bloc at the U.N. and is still adding new members. Imagine if someone proposed an “Organization of the Christian Conference” that would hold summits attended by prime ministers and presidents, and vote as a bloc in transnational bodies. But, of course, there is no “Christian world”: Europe is largely post-Christian and, as President Obama bizarrely asserted to a European interviewer last week, America is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Perhaps we’re eligible for membership in the OIC.

I suppose the benign interpretation is that, as head of state of the last superpower, Obama is indulging in a little harmless condescension. In his Cairo speech, he congratulated Muslims on inventing algebra and quoted approvingly one of the less bloodcurdling sections of the Koran. As socio-historical scholarship goes, I found myself recalling that moment in the long twilight of the Habsburg Empire when Crown Prince Rudolph and his mistress were found dead at the royal hunting lodge at Mayerling — either a double suicide, or something even more sinister. Happily, in the Broadway musical version, instead of being found dead, the star-crossed lovers emigrate to America and settle down on a farm in Pennsylvania. Recently, my old comrade Stephen Fry gave an amusing lecture at the Royal Geographical Society in London on the popular Americanism “When life hands you lemons, make lemonade” — or, if something’s bitter and hard to swallow, add sugar and sell it. That’s what the president did with Islam: He added sugar and sold it.

The speech nevertheless impressed many conservatives, including Rich Lowry, my esteemed editor at National Review, “esteemed editor” being the sort of thing one says before booting the boss in the crotch. Rich thought that the president succeeded in his principal task: “Fundamentally, Obama's goal was to tell the Muslim world, ‘We respect and value you, your religion and your civilization, and only ask that you don’t hate us and murder us in return.’” But those terms are too narrow. You don’t have to murder a guy if he preemptively surrenders. And you don’t even have to hate him if you’re too busy despising him. The savvier Muslim potentates have no desire to be sitting in a smelly cave in the Hindu Kush sharing a latrine with a dozen halfwitted goatherds while plotting how to blow up the Empire State Building. Nevertheless, they share key goals with the cave dwellers — including the wish to expand the boundaries of “the Muslim world” and (as in the anti-blasphemy push at the U.N.) to place Islam, globally, beyond criticism. The non-terrorist advance of Islam is a significant challenge to western notions of liberty and pluralism.

Once Obama moved on from the more generalized Islamoschmoozing to the details, the subtext — the absence of American will — became explicit. He used the cover of multilateralism and moral equivalence to communicate, consistently, American weakness: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.” Perhaps by “no single nation” he means the “global community” should pick and choose, which means the U.N. Security Council, which means the Big Five, which means that Russia and China will pursue their own murky interests and that, in the absence of American leadership, Britain and France will reach their accommodations with a nuclear Iran, a nuclear North Korea, and any other psycho-state minded to join them.

On the other hand, a “single nation” certainly has the right to tell another nation anything it wants if that nation happens to be the Zionist Entity: As Hillary Clinton just instructed Israel re its West Bank communities, there has to be “a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions.” No “natural growth”? You mean, if you and the missus have a kid, you’ve got to talk gran’ma into moving out? To Tel Aviv, or Brooklyn, or wherever? At a stroke, the administration has endorsed “the Muslim world”’s view of those non-Muslims who happen to find themselves within what it regards as lands belonging to Islam: The Jewish and Christian communities are free to stand still or shrink, but not to grow. Would Obama be comfortable mandating “no natural growth” to Israel’s million-and-a-half Muslims? No. But the administration has embraced the “the Muslim world”’s commitment to one-way multiculturalism, whereby Islam expands in the west but Christianity and Judaism shrivel remorselessly in the Middle East.

And so it goes. Like General Motors, America is “too big to fail.” So it won’t, not immediately. It will linger on in a twilight existence sclerotic and ineffectual, declining unto a kind of societal dementia, unable to keep pace with what’s happening and with an ever more tenuous grip on its own past, but able on occasion to throw out impressive words albeit strung together without much meaning: empower, peace, justice, prosperity — just to take one windy gust from the president’s Cairo speech.

There’s better phrase-making in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, in a coinage of Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Committee on Foreign Relations. The president emeritus is a sober, judicious paragon of torpidly conventional wisdom. Nevertheless, musing on American decline, he writes, “The country's economy, infrastructure, public schools, and political system have been allowed to deteriorate. The result has been diminished economic strength, a less vital democracy, and a mediocrity of spirit.” That last is the one to watch: A great power can survive a lot of things, but not “a mediocrity of spirit.” A wealthy nation living on the accumulated cultural capital of a glorious past can dodge its rendezvous with fate, but only for a while. That sound you heard in Cairo is the tingy ping of a hollow superpower.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2009 Mark Steyn

Friday's Opinions from Charles Krauthammer, "The Settlements Myth"

The man, the insight, the memory. He's got to be my favorite op ed writer of all time. If you haven't checked him out yet, here's a great jump-off article from today.

Have a firey Friday, and a nice weekend everyone.

********************

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 5, 2009

President Obama repeatedly insists that American foreign policy be conducted with modesty and humility. Above all, there will be no more "dictating" to other countries. We should "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told al-Arabiya, America will henceforth "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating."

An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone -- Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: "a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions."

What's the issue? No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them -- not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that. The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns -- even before negotiations.

To what end? Over the past decade, the U.S. government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements -- and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself.

That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why expel people from their homes and turn their towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians?

This idea is not only logical, not only accepted by both Democratic and Republican administrations for the past decade, but was agreed to in writing in the letters of understanding exchanged between Israel and the United States in 2004 -- and subsequently overwhelmingly endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress.

Yet the Obama State Department has repeatedly refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them. This from a president who piously insists that all parties to the conflict honor previous obligations. And who now expects Israel to accept new American assurances in return for concrete and irreversible Israeli concessions, when he himself has just cynically discarded past American assurances.

The entire "natural growth" issue is a concoction. Is the peace process moribund because a teacher in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is making an addition to her house to accommodate new grandchildren? It is perverse to make this the center point of the peace process at a time when Gaza is run by Hamas terrorists dedicated to permanent war with Israel and when Mahmoud Abbas, having turned down every one of Ehud Olmert's peace offers, brazenly declares that he is in a waiting mode -- waiting for Hamas to become moderate and for Israel to cave -- before he'll do anything to advance peace.

In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo yesterday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.

That's why Haj Amin al-Husseini chose war rather than a two-state solution in 1947. Why Yasser Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in 2000. And why Abbas rejected Olmert's even more generous December 2008 offer.

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements.

Blaming Israel and picking a fight over "natural growth" may curry favor with the Muslim "street." But it will only induce the Arab states to do like Abbas: sit and wait for America to deliver Israel on a platter. Which makes the Obama strategy not just dishonorable but self-defeating.

SBA List Pro-Life Video Contest for kids!

* There are links in this post *


The Susan B. Anthony List is hosting a contest for all young pro-lifers, with the winning videos receiving $1000 scholarships!

SBA List is a leading pro-life organization, helping spread the word early about Kathleen Sebelius and frequently updating us on abortion legislation being proposed, even in its infant stages. (Sorry for the unintentional pun.)

If you have a 12-18 year-old pro-life kid in your house, this is his/her chance to support the unborn in a unique way! SBA List will feature the winning videos in an upcoming online campaign for life.

* Click this link to see official contest rules *

May 22-June 2 Wrap-Up, now with PC disclaimers!

I'm skipping the obligatory "I haven't written for two weeks and I'm sorry" bit of this post. I imagine you are, as I am, still reeling from the several big news stories from this past week. In case you missed them, here's a brief summary and some related pondering:

1. President Obama (whom I still have a hard time believing is President) has elected Sonya Sotomayor, a "wise latina woman" and potential Roe v. Wade over turner, to fill the position that David Souter will soon vacate on the Supreme Court.

This could have a lot of consequences, but as usual it's too early to tell what they'll be. Is she truly "centrist" as she and others claim? Does that self-labeling matter when we live in a political environment in which McCain can be referred to as a Republican, though he supports amnesty for illegal aliens (threat to national sovereignty) and pro-choice legislation? Does she have the cajones (Is it cajonas since she is a woman?) to initiate an overturning of the worst abortion-supporting legislation we have on the books?

And, in a related story...

2. George Tiller, late-term abortion doctor, was murdered in his church foyer on Sunday morning. The suspect in custody, presumed the perpetrator of this horrendous crime, is a pro-life extremist (categorized by me as one who believes the way to institute political/social change on a certain issue is to actually murder his opponents to it) with a history of making ominous suggestions as to how the pro-life movement can more effectively defeat its opposition.

'How will this crime effect the view of the pro-life movement negatively?' is a question being asked. But beyond that superficial query, which is important but too narrow, lies the question of how this crime may effect the Roe v. Wade case. Will we hear over and over again now that the issue of abortion legality is so fiercely debated that public figures are now being made targets for violence because of the strain and, for that reason, would it be in the public interest to revisit Roe v. Wade to relieve some of the pressure? Do you see, this could potentially spark a renewed interest in keeping the peace between the two sides (pro-choice and -life) by reexamining just what a "viable fetus" means. There is a fairly new member of Congress, a doctor, who is working hard to prove that unique DNA structure is formed as early as ten weeks in an unborn baby; unique life could trump 'viable fetus' in the debate, and could lead to reversed law.

*Note: My exploratory statements about the potential outcomes from Tiller's murder in no way seek to rationalize or justify this brutal, heinous crime. No doubt should be cast that I, along with all true pro-lifers, would never endorse the physical elimination of a political opponent! It is absurdly broad-brushing the pro-life movement to imply that, because the suspect in Tiller's murder identified himself as "pro-life," pro-lifers share his sense of fatalistic urgency.

3. GM has officially filed for bankruptcy, Obama is taking it over and, thus, we are steadily approaching a Soviet-like state of the U.S.

Is there more to say than that line packs in? Perhaps. On CrossTalk today, Tom DeWeese ("one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, property rights and back-to-basics education") commented candidly on the state of our union. The president and founder of the American Policy Center, and Editor-in-Chief of The DeWeese Report, delivered a stern warning that socialism IS afoot. It's not coming, it's here. And the best way to stem the tide is to keep fighting it with every capitalist bone in your body.

DeWeese ended the second portion of the program by going into detail about what might be next on Obama's Socialist Neo-Anarchist Protocol (O-SNAP! I just made that up.) : natural supplements and organic food. When Pelosi said that "green" cars are what people should want to buy, you can bet she and her deceptive cohorts have it in mind to limit products to only what you should want. What did I say last month- we're headed toward Sovietism.
Click this link to go to CrossTalk for Tuesday with Tom DeWeese.

In the media...

1. Playboy magazine's blog published a top ten list of conservative women they "love to hate." This wording is censored, as the actual title of their "article" is far too offensive to publish here. The content basically named ten "outspoken" (the term used for conservative women who are simply "spoken") women that the editors of this trash magazine would be happy to violate sexually. And sadly, no, I'm not exaggerating the story.

Playboy is no way considered a beacon of sophisticated literature. In fact, just typing that phrase almost made me snicker. But they are a presence in the media world, a legacy supported by a lecherous man that - despite some people's hope - seems to keep limping along into an overripe old age.

The outrageous fact is that Playboy, and Hefner himself, have always touted the magazine as a supporter of "women's rights" and a forum where women are "empowered." As the rag ages like its founder, the content becomes more exemplary of his own twisted version of "women's rights," also known as the right to be naked. This, of course, isn't a right extended to women only, nor is it comprehensive of what a woman might desire to find herself entitled to. Finally, it is contrary to the founding principle of the women's rights movement in America, that women have a right to be judged by qualities ancillary to their physical appearance and/or sexual appeal.

If you care to write a letter to Playboy's publisher, Lou Mohn, here's his address: lmohn@playboy.com . Then again, you could just wait for Hef to finally kick it, and hope the magazine gets buried with him.

*Again, I'm not compelling anyone to encourage Hefner's death in any way. Let nature take its course, folks...

2. Eminem is terribly embarrassed by Sascha Baron Cohen (aka Ali G, Borat) at the Mtv movie awards.

"Embarrass" is the most acute term for the incident, particularly because of the latter portion of the word. But this is a story about more than just a latter portion. Eminem, so fond of mocking others- including Sarah Palin in his most recent "song"- showed his true colors in his response; but you'll just have to read Platonic's color commentary to get the full story, to be continued...

A Lil' Story

Overheard in the car this morning...

Nic, on seeing an advertisement that "Lil' Scrappy" is going to be doing a concert in Kalamazoo:

"I'm going to get them all together for a lil' concert. I'll make a lil' money. Then, I'll start a lil' fire. When the police ask what happened, I'll say it was a lil' accident, but doesn't the world seem a lil' better now?"

Badges, Cookies and... Labyrinths?

Long before I became a raging environmentalist turned conservative self-appointed semi-journalist, I was a proud member of Girl Scout troop #438. In recollection, I even remember our creed (or at least part of it): "On my honor I will try to... serve God and my country and to live by the Girl Scout Law." The 'law' being to do our best to live respectfully, upholding the morals our leaders - all Christian women- sought to instill or enrich in each of us.

Besides surviving thunderstormed-out camping trips, making puppets for charity, bowling and completing super cool science experiments (I was a science-minded kid), we appropriately served our community by singing Christmas carols at old folks' homes and serving meals to homeless people. But this wasn't a mandate by our national organizers; it was the choice of each leader team what to do with their girls, the activities chosen intended to both compel fun and educate in right and wrong (in a myriad of situations), providing intentional guidance for sometimes confused, always questioning elementary school children that we were. And you know what? I think our Girl Scout leaders did a pretty darn good job, and without the aid of meditation trances or "girl positivity" indoctrination curriculum.



So, imagine my surprise when I read about the new programming for the Girl Scouts of America, replete with a slant on new ageism and women's empowerment (which is guaranteed to instill in girls that the world is unfairly imbalanced and that, despite their hopes and dreams, they actually can't be whatever they want to be!).

* Click here to read the World Net Daily story on the NEW Girl Scouts *

It appears they had to do some digging, not just into the new mysticism of "post-Christian" America, but deep into our nation's lower ranks of historical figures for their "Your Voice Your World" unit (for high school girls), citing several "influential" women such as Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Luisa Moreno, Rigoberta Menchu, Emily Greene Balch, Ethel Mary Smyth, Jeanette Rankin, Pauli Murray and Shirley Chisholm.

I know a few names on the list because they're politicians. The others are a mystery to me; do you recognize Rigoberta Menchu, Ethel Mary Smyth, Pauli Murray? How about what they have done or whose views they represent? Turns out- and this comes as to surprise given the ideology of the "Your World" program- they have one thing in common: they're all avid and adament feminists. And, most of them are lesbians.

You may be asking whether or not any non-feminist women are utilized as examples in the program? Yes, Mother Teresa and Sojourner Truth are also mentioned. That is, without mentioning their faith in God virtually at all.

Are militant feminists and open lesbians the types of women that the GSA (Girl Scouts of America) wants to lead our fragile young women into the arms of? Not only is that idea disgusting, it's also emotionally damaging, anti-family and, ultimately, anti-Christian. So much for serving God and our country and living by the Girl Scout Law; apparently you can only choose one or the other now.

Saturday's Dish: Pajamas Media on Elizabeth Edwards's new book

If the sincere honesty found in her analysis of wives on the left (and the men they're married to) doesn't grab you, surely her trenchant comment, "If you need to ask a man for fidelity as a wedding present, you already know something's wrong!" will.

This is Sonja Schmidt's take on Elizabeth Edwards's new book, "Resilience."

The Deafening Silence

I'm not referring to the lack of posts on my own blog. After all, it's nice to have a break from all the insanity, isn't it?

I'm speaking about the boon of quiet from every so-called conservative talk show host this week regarding Michael Savage's English ban and his subsequent lawsuit and letter to Hilary Clinton asking for a pardon.

If you don't know the story...

Britain's Home Office secretary Jacqui Smith called for the banning of 22 people (6 remain unknown to the public) "who have been engaged in spreading hate." Michael Savage, syndicated talk show host - who says over and over again in response to callers' wishes for his presence in American government that he is not and will be nothing but an author and talk show host -found himself on the list alongside Islamic terrorists, known murderers and a violent white supremacist. Jacqui Smith said Savage is on the list for "seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence."

Savage has since filed a defamation suit against the British Home Office asking for the removal of his name for a number of reasons: 1) there are two laws on the English books that allow free speech of both the generally accepted variety and speech that is potentially disgusting and/or shocking; 2) the banning of Savage is absurd, as it claims his words are just as dangerous as the actual crimes of everyone else on the list; 3) England has clearly, in its pc-overrun era- gone insane and shamed itself horribly by "balancing out" the list by adding Savage to it.

The last of these reasons being the least concern for Savage.

My favorite (in fact, the only one I listen to) radio host has also had the Thomas More Law Center draw up a letter of appeal to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking her to pardon him from the ban. This is a great opportunity for Clinton to show real nonpartisanship, and could potentially write her into history for upholding the Constitution in this most awesome way.

This is all big news, right? So why haven't Limbaugh or Hannity or Beck or O'Reilly mentioned it at all? I'm sure Laura Ingraham has, only because she, as a former lawyer, realizes the impact of such a lawsuit. But where are all the other so-called champions of free speech? Do they only care about it when it affects themselves? That is, in a word, lame. Two-faced, and lame. Even CNN covered the story. Granted, they overtly cited Savage's vitriolic response to Smith, but isn't his outrage justified?

Savage's letter to Clinton is on his website (http://www.michaelsavage.com/). There is also a petition on World Net Daily (http://www.wnd.com/) that everyone interested in should sign. So far it has over 120,000 signatures (as of this publishing).

I said long ago, when I first really heard him, that I didn't like Rush Limbaugh. I don't buy the excuse that "all women hate him for being arrogant," which is his commonly-used retort to why his female listenership is so low. I find him extremely arrogant, but I believe this is objectively true. Who cares if he's right about some things? Does that mean I have to hang on his every self-aggrandizing word?

Hannity also annoys me. Is every caller, upon opening the conversation, really a "great American?" This is what he tells them, all of them, before they say anything. I guess the idea is that since they called him, they must be. And I can't stand the way he fawns over his female callers and is always sending them flowers. I'd be embarrassed to be his wife.

Give me Savage any day, every day. Just when you think he can't take it anymore, he launches into a story from his childhood (now recorded forever in his book, "Psychological Nudity"), a recipe (see "MSMS" post on homeward bound) or a far-reaching truth about the world that knocks you off your chair. He quips, he is insightful, he's devilishly funny, he's a voice of reason in the wilderness of self-interested media - both left and right-leaning.

Please stand up for this brilliant mind. He wouldn't call himself that, because unlike most, he still has an ounce of humility. We are privileged to hear this man's thoughts about the world. Listen to him once and you'll agree. Also, consider donating to the Thomas More Law Center to divert costs of the lawsuit and trial. He can afford to pay for it all, but wouldn't you like to say you had a hand in freeing Michael Savage?

Recipe Roundup

Yes, I do have interests other than politics!

I've been busy over at my cooking blog, publishing lots of new recipes. Do you have a celiac or gluten-intolerant friend on blogger? Please refer them to Homeward Bound. Are you looking for a new recipe for a fun challenge? Check it out.

In short, please go see the other thing that takes up a lot of time! :) And have a delightful, delicious Friday afternoon.

The future of the conservative movement?

Honestly, I don't know what to think of this kid. Hot Air (hotair.com) seems confused, too. Anyone else have an opinion?

My instinct is to say, "Whether it's asking Meghan McCain or looking to children for answers on reviving conservatism, we're definitely in trouble," but maybe that's unfair. Your thoughts? Leave 'em in the comment box.

The Small Matter of Hope

Thank goodness last week is over with.

Kathleen Sebelius eked her way through to Director of Health and Human Services, the swine flu has attacked over 1,000 people in the United States and the Carrie Prejean story just keeps going and going...

I'm tired of, I'm afraid of some of it. But more so, I'm uninspired by it all. And I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way.

What was the Obama slogan? Ah, yes: "hope and change." We were led to believe he would bring "change we can believe in." There has been plenty of change, to be sure; pro-life, free speech and marriage rights have been undermined in an unprecedented way and, now that Congress and the White House are solely controlled by liberal Democrats, we're sure to see plenty more "change" implemented before Obama's term* is up. It would be foolish to assert that these things haven't happened, but, as policies go, I certainly do not believe in them. The question of whether "change has come" does not interest me much presently.

There is, however, the small matter of "hope" to be addressed.

Now, I know how we right-wing extremists view the current administration: oppressive, out of touch with American principles, divisive, overrun, autocratic. It's the same- albeit, for them, misinformed- view that liberals had of the G.W. Bush presidency. They thought he was a dictator, bent on invading innocent foreign countries for personal political reasons, and devoid of concern for U.S. citizen opinion. This view would rewrite policy and agenda to exclude the matters of protecting us post-911 and attempting to dismantle a real dictatorship in Iraq/Afghanistan and replace it with an Iraqi -supported democratic system, real change that had the best interest of free people in mind.

In short, we do not put our hope in this administration. But we were not the ones the slogans were aimed at. The racially-charged Obama campaign targeted undereducated youth, poor or disabled people reliant on government funding, white people who feel guilty about a) not being a minority or b) earning a high income, black people who vote for perceived similarity to a candidate and not on principle, and other such groups like-minded in shortsighted policy making and superficial solutions to very deep, complicated problems. (Sorry, this is my honest opinion.)

How are these people finding the new policies? Are they hopeful for what they will bring?

We were told by way of testimonial (the least logical form of justification there is!) that having "a black man" in the most powerful office of the world would cause other "black people" to aspire to great heights- to finish high school, to go to college, to become a part of the business class, etc. I find this simplification very insulting, and also inaccurate. Once again the idea is that the mere presence of a man who "looks like me" in the Oval Office will be enough to spur on a generation plagued by apathy, yet simultaneously rendered impotent by abundance and the lack of preparedness to make good choices.

Nic's introductory philosophy students reveal this truth time after time; they do not read the book, they do not come to class yet, if asked to do so, they are confident to provide an answer to any philosophical quandary. And the answers they give are so perfunctory that they become incoherently inconsistent when placed back-to-back. How are Obama's policies, which appear to disregard their prospective consequences, encourage hope for core beliefs, values that will stand the test of time and outlast present circumstances?

And what of the other groups targeted for Obama support- will they be hopeful about the blatant attribution of money to groups that tow the party line, while quietly subverting any opposition to the practice? Can they be hopeful about living in a nation where the government controls where they can live, how much they can earn and own, how many children they can have (that one is far away), who can teach their children and what kind of jobs are available when they graduate?

For now, they say everything is ok because, as far as they know (and they don't pay much attention anymore), they agree with Obama's socialist agenda. What happens when their nerve is finally touched- perhaps when it affects grandchildren, or an elderly, ill spouse- and they, too, want to object? Will there be hope that they can do so? Why does this poem by Martin Niemoller come to mind so often lately:

"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.

And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.

Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church -- and there was nobody left to be concerned."

Countless others have rewritten this poem to suit their own incongruent interpretations of it. Most people seem to miss the point entirely and commit embarrassing equivocation by interchanging any group that might be "oppressed" for the groups mentioned. I read one that began, "First they came for the terrorists..." as though terrorists could, in some sense, cease to be terrorists and be seen instead as innocent bystanders at the mercy of a fascist leader imprisoning them for no reason. But then we wouldn't call them 'terrorists,' would we?

The idea in the poem is that the groups listed actually were Jews, Catholics, industrialists and Protestants, but that their capture was unjust because they had committed no crime. They were simply, either by birth or choice, members of groups unfairly targeted. The gross misinterpretations make terrorists and illegal aliens into innocents-come-detainees.

Will there be hope for the survivors of the Fairness Doctrine, the new hate crimes laws, greater taxes on smaller businesses, the loss of free enterprise, school choice eradication, forced social concern?

Tell me, will Obama's supporters be hopeful about their nation when, operating in accordance to socialist orders, someone comes for them?

(Almost) Free Monday!

FREE "Don't Tread on Me" Mini Bumper Sticker!

Help us (GOPusa) spread the word. Get your FREE mini "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker (4"x5"). Pay only $0.97 for shipping.

If the communists and socialists can fly their Che Guevera flags, why shouldn't we fly this one?

I got one for my bike, since I don't have a car. I hope people don't think the message has something to do with bike treads, as that would be quite confusing.

Anyway... use this link to order a sticker. They're small, but they do have other sizes (with a larger price tag, of course). And later today I'll be posting something of substance, and not just another ad hawk. :)