The Sacred Cow

A Pleasant Car Buying Experience (A Non Sequitur)

2007-01-06T07:33:00.000-05:00

We recently bought a mini-van. It is actually not the first, since for the last several years we have owned a Nissan Quest that I bought with 62,000 miles and managed to get to ca. 180,000 before the automatic transmission was completely thrashed. I priced out what it would take for me to put a used or remanufactured transmission in it (as I have done with past vehicles), but this time around it was really a seating problem. The van only seated seven people, and we now need eight.

My first alternative was to run two separate vehicles, shuttling the children, my wife and myself evenly between the two. I tried it for a while, but it is an inconvenient and ultimately frustrating solution. It also rendered visiting relatives even four hours away unacceptable. Something had to be done.

So I began to research vehicles with an eight passenger seating capacity and quickly discovered that this is a fairly odd segment of the market. At first glance you have the option of going with a full-size 15 passenger van, whose lack of gas mileage is equaled only by their instability due to a high center of gravity. On the other hand, one can opt for full-size SUV stability at a ridiculous 8 miles to the gallon. I have to admit that the Escolade in white does look sharp though.

This narrowed it down to only two viable options. First, there is the Dodge Sprinter with its massive headroom, roomy interior/seating, and a five cylinder diesel for longevity of life and perky fuel economy. However, a quick price to benefits analysis of this model quickly reveals that industrial applications were the primary motivations in design; use for passengers was an afterthought. The other alternative is the Toyota Sienna, with optional eight passenger capacity.

I have bought both new and used vehicles in the past and I am kind of at that point in life where I had decided never to buy new again (the depreciation issue). However, after doing some preliminary research on this vehicle, I set an appointment with a local Toyota dealership to do a little Saturday afternoon reconnaissance. I would look, but not touch; touch, but not drive; drive, but not buy. Until I got it all figured out, it was that simple.

But I must admit had already fallen in love with the vehicle--at least on paper. Its safety report, reliability rating, and overall-Toyota build quality are without question very high. But the elements that had to fall into place in order for me to commit to a new purchase were several and I simply did not think that they would happen.

I am happy to report that I was wrong. Everything fell into place.

First, I focused on the four '06 models already in their lot, which I knew they would like to move prior to the imminent arrival of the '07 line, which is ready and waiting. This of course provides motivation for them to make concessions early on that are typically much more difficult to arrive at, if at all.

Second, since it was an end-of-year model, we were able to take advantage of Toyota's own incentive of 0% interest on any portion of the purchase that you wished to finance. A quick look at the numbers reveal that used vehicle interest rates would push the actual money spent back into the new vehicle category--minus the new vehicle.

Third, I did not wish to sell one of my vehicles outright, just trade it in. They surprisingly offered over market value in exchange (not immediately, but on quick rejoinder to my counter offer).

Fourth, since I had already researched the invoice price (which most salesmen will give you if you ask anyway), they finally offered it at $151 over invoice. Yes, I realize there are hidden incentives from manufacturers to dealers, and many other ways that profit is accounted for and measured in a dealership, but as a rule I do not spend above $200 over invoice.

Last, I have found that God often speaks words of warning through my wife (which I have ignored in the past to my discomfort). She was very comfortable and supportive of this purchase.

Hence, we have had this vehicle now a couple of weeks and I am still amazed at how beautifully it drives, the vast array of options, and the fuel-efficient six cylinder engine. It is truly a work of art. And now every time we decide to go to church, the store, or even to travel to a museum or see relatives two states away, we can all ride together once again in one vehicle as a family.

Actors and Politics

2006-12-19T12:47:00.000-05:00

Why is it that when many actors get over the age of 40, they often express their midlife angst by pretending to know something about law, government, public policy or foreign relations?

I have theories of my own, but I will let you decide afresh when you read Sean Penn's fresh anti-Bush tirade here.

Liberals beware: Penn inadvertently refers to the U.S. Constitution in a fashion which demonstrates (at least in this instance) that he subscribes to the original intent of the authors as the correct way of reading and interpreting a document.

An Atheist

2006-12-14T16:17:00.000-05:00

The following article is a true story (confirmed) of an atheist who was found by God.

John Powell a professor at Loyola University in Chicago writes about a student in his Theology of Faith class named Tommy:

Some twelve years ago, I stood watching my university students file into the classroom for our first session in the Theology of Faith. That was the first day I first saw Tommy. My eyes and my mind both blinked. He was combing his long flaxen hair, which hung six inches below his shoulders. It was the first time I had ever seen a boy with hair that long. I guess it was just coming into fashion then. I know in my mind that it isn’t what’s on your head but what’s in it that counts; but on that day I was unprepared and my emotions flipped. I immediately filed Tommy under "S" for strange . . . very strange.

Tommy turned out to be the "atheist in residence" in my Theology of Faith course. He constantly objected to, smirked at, or whined about the possibility of an unconditionally loving Father-God. We lived with each other in relative peace for one semester, although I admit he was for me at times a serious pain in the back pew.

When he came up at the end of the course to turn in his final exam, he asked in a slightly cynical tone: "Do you think I’ll ever find God?" I decided instantly on a little shock therapy. "No!" I said very emphatically. "Oh," he responded, "I thought that was the product you were pushing." I let him get five steps from the classroom door and then called out: "Tommy! I don’t think you’ll ever find him, but I am absolutely certain that He will find you!" He shrugged a little and left my class and my life.I felt slightly disappointed at the thought that he had missed my clever line: "He will find you!" At least I thought it was clever.

Later I heard that Tommy had graduated and I was duly grateful. Then a sad report, I heard that Tommy had terminal cancer. Before I could search him out, he came to see me. When he walked into my office, his body was very badly wasted, and the long hair had all fallen out as a result of chemotherapy. But his eyes were bright and his voice was firm, for the first time, I believe.

"Tommy, I’ve thought about you so often. I hear you are sick!" I blurted out. "Oh, yes, very sick. I have cancer in both lungs. It’s a matter of weeks." "Can you talk about it, Tom?" "Sure, what would you like to know?" "What’s it like to be only twenty-four and dying?" "Well, it could be worse." "Like what?" "Well, like being fifty and having no values or ideals, like being fifty and thinking that booze, seducing women, and making money are the real ‘biggies’ in life."

I began to look through my mental file cabinet under "S" where I had filed Tommy as strange. (It seems as though everybody I try to reject by classification God sends back into my life to educate me.) "But what I really came to see you about," Tom said, " is something you said to me on the last day of class." (He remembered!) He continued, "I asked you if you thought I would ever find God and you said, ‘No!’ which surprised me. Then you said, ‘But he will find you.’ I thought about that a lot, even though my search for God was hardly intense at that time. (My "clever" line. He thought about that a lot!) But when the doctors removed a lump from my groin and told me that it was malignant, then I got serious about locating God. And when the malignancy spread into my vital organs, I really began banging bloody fists against the bronze doors of heaven.

But God did not come out. In fact, nothing happened. Did you ever try anything for a long time with great effort and with no success? You get psychologically glutted, fed up with trying. And then you quit. Well, one day I woke up, and instead of throwing a few more futile appeals over that high brick wall to a God who may be or may not be there, I just quit. I decided that I didn’t really care . . . about God, about an afterlife, or anything like that. I decided to spend what time I had left doing something more profitable. I thought about you and your class and I remembered something else you had said: ‘The essential sadness is to go through life without loving. But it would be almost equally sad to go through life and leave this world without ever telling those you loved that you had loved them.’

"So I began with the hardest one: my Dad. He was reading the newspaper when I approached him." "Dad". . . "Yes, what?" he asked without lowering the newspaper. "Dad, I would like to talk with you." "Well, talk." "I mean . . . It’s really important." The newspaper came down three slow inches. "What is it?" "Dad, I love you. I just wanted you to know that." Tom smiled at me and said with obvious satisfaction, as though he felt a warm and secret joy flowing inside of him: "The newspaper fluttered to the floor. Then my father did two things I could never remember him ever doing before. He cried and he hugged me. And we talked all night, even though he had to go to work the next morning. It felt so good to be close to my father, to see his tears, to feel his hug, to hear him say that he loved me.

"It was easier with my mother and little brother. They cried with me, too, and we hugged each other, and started saying real nice things to each other. We shared the things we had been keeping secret for so many years. I was only sorry about one thing: that I had waited so long. Here I was just beginning to open up to all the people I had actually been close to.

"Then, one day I turned around and God was there. He didn’t come to me when I pleaded with him. I guess I was like an animal trainer holding out a hoop, ‘C’mon, jump through.’ ‘C’mon, I’ll give you three days . . . three weeks.’ Apparently God does things in his own way and at his own hour. "But the important thing is that he was there. He found me. You were right. He found me even after I stopped looking for him."

"Tommy," I practically gasped, "I think you are saying something very important and much more universal than you realize. To me, at least, you are saying that the surest way to find God is not to make him a private possession, a problem solver, or an instant consolation in time of need, but rather by opening to love. You know, the Apostle John said that. He said God is love, and anyone who lives in love is living with God and God is living in him.’

Tom, could I ask you a favor? You know, when I had you in class you were a real pain. But (laughingly) you can make it all up to me now. Would you come into my present Theology of Faith course and tell them what you have just told me? If I told them the same thing it wouldn’t be half as effective as if you were to tell them."

"Oooh . . . I was ready for you, but I don’t know if I’m ready for your class." "Tom, think about it. If and when you are ready, give me a call." In a few days Tommy called, said he was ready for the class, that he wanted to do that for God and for me. So we scheduled a date.

However, he never made it. He had another appointment, far more important than the one with me and my class. Of course, his life was not really ended by his death, only changed. He made the great step from faith into vision. He found a life far more beautiful than the eye of man has ever seen or the ear of man has ever heard or the mind of man has ever imagined.

Before he died, we talked one last time. "I’m not going to make it to your class," he said. "I know, Tom." "Will you tell them for me? Will you . . . tell the whole world for me?" "I will, Tom. I’ll tell them. I’ll do my best."

So, to all of you who have been kind enough to hear this simple statement about love, thank you for listening. And to you, Tommy, somewhere in the sunlit, verdant hills of heaven: "I told them, Tommy . . . as best I could."

I'm Sorry, But . . . .

2006-12-14T15:58:00.000-05:00

I have to apologize sometimes. Well, let me put it another way . . . I have to apologize alot. Not about big things mind you, but rather over the seemingly small irritants that arise from the hustle and bustle of life. As I get older, I notice I have to apologize less frequently; but right when I think I may have it licked, I have to apologize again.

Apologies can bring out the best in people. They can also bring out the worst. My wife likes when I apologize to her. Not once has she ever been mad at me for apologizing--at least not for the apology itself.

I bring this up because I had to apologize not to long ago. Yep, one of those old-fashion, humble-yourself-and-admit-that-you-were-wrong type. It was to a small group of six, but it was still hard. There is something inside the human heart that comes to the altar of apology kicking and screaming. I almost find this tendency in me to be funny. Almost.

Anyway, without going into unnecessary detail, I became angry and said some true statements at the wrong time, in the wrong place--and, given the proclivity for human anger and sin to cohabitate--probably in the wrong way. I was immediately sorry. But I also didn't want to communicate that I was sorry, and yet at the same time I did. Hmmm . . . .

Apologies are like spiritual Metamusal--they get things moving again. At least that is my experience. I entered into a new relationship with God by apologizing. In the act of apologizing you invariably leave something behind--usually something you can definitely live without: Bitterness, unforgivess, a distorted view of reality.

Apologies can be fun. No, just kidding. They are usually hard. But the process does get easier with practice.

Some apologies are unacceptable. I am not real fond of someone coming to me and apologizing for something that I had no idea about. For example, I remember in college a fellow dorm resident coming up to me and apologizing for having resented me during that academic year. I barely knew the guy, and never even interacted with him. Sure he felt better, but he sure left a pile at my doorstep. Perhaps after six months time I should have come back to him and apologized for his apology. Certain apologies belong to God alone since they are the equivalent of spitting on your neighbor.

I don't like false apologies. It is probably best not to even attempt an apology unless it is real. What do I mean by real? Your apologies should never go:

"I'm sorry, but you made me do this." I have actually had someone tell me that--the same person twice!

"I'm sorry that you feel that way." Your sorry for how I feel? Grrrrrr!

I feel kind of sorry for individuals who can't apologize. I have come to recognize that true apologies from the heart are a gift from God. The greatest gift I can give my children is the gift of an apology, for in it they see their Dad demonstrating to them how a person ultimately tells God he or she is sorry for sin. And God will one day speak to them and require a response.

The person incapable of apologizing has a tremendous load to carry--a load that only God himself is capable of maintaining--utter and complete righteousness in themselves. This load leads to incredible insecurity, self-righteousness, and ultimately despair. It is much easier to say you are sorry.

It is unhealthy to apologize for things that you are really not sorry for. I am not sure what to call that, but it is not an apology. Perhaps it is more posturing than apologizing. These make for good sound-bites, but they are not real.

Finally, you don't need to be to apologize for everything, because not everything is your fault. Sometimes the wounds of this world are too much for the human spirit and life begins to look like one big mistake. This is when the apology to God alone counts so much . . . .

The Will to Power

2006-12-14T12:49:00.000-05:00

As most are aware, Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota suffered bleeding in the brain requiring emergency surgery, and is in critical condition. This unexpected development naturally throws the question of Democratic power in the U.S. Senate into serious question since South Dakota Governor Michael Rounds, a Republican, would likely appoint a Republican to serve out the next two years if Sen. Johnson were deemed incapable of serving. This would produce a evenly-divided Senate, with Vice-President Cheney as the tie-breaking vote (so 2000).

If these events play out in this manner, the most likely scenario would be for Democrats to court Indepenent Joe Lieberman back into the Democratic fold, giving the party the needed majority. This was precisely the strategy employed by the Democrats to convert Republican Jim Jeffords to switch parties after the 2000 elections.

At first blush one would think Lieberman would reject these overtures from a party who has essentially turned its back on him. However, given sufficient promises of power, prestige, and preeminence available with such a move, I am certain Sen. Lieberman would be more than happy to smile in the face of his former detractors as a Democrat once again. But just as Sen. Jim Jeffords discovered, the will to power in politics must ultimately bow the knee to the law of unintended consequences.

Jeffords' name will long be remembered and associated with his short-lived grab for illegimate personal gain. I wonder if Lieberman's name will ultimately be right up there beside his?

"And It Came to Pass . . . ."

2006-12-11T11:57:00.000-05:00

Wow! I just realized that I have not touched this blog site in a good long time. Actually, I was fully aware that I was not posting, since any time I enter a particularly difficult time in life, I tend to drop the non-essentials in order to maintain my inner reserves just to get by.

I guess such times might be best described biblically as trials, difficulties or something of the such. Whatever they may be called, for those who belong to Christ they can have the effect of producing brokeneness and greater dependency on God. And that is always a good thing.

In an event, I look forward to resuming this blog once again. I, my wife, and our children are now located in the northeast where I am an Associate Professor in a College who's primary emphasis is on the Classics throughout the entirety of the liberal arts curriculum (which is far different from what is typically coined "liberal arts" today). The students in this college are incredibly bright and initially far better prepared than any I have encountered in years past. We are thankful to God for this opportunity.

It is also quite encouraging to look at the other side of difficulties with an altogether different perspective, recognizing how transient and fleeting such troubles may be that we may say with assurance "and it came to pass," not to stay.

Life's Silent Truths

2004-12-07T11:12:00.000-05:00

There are many silent truths in life that can easily pass us by if we do not pause from our rush and busyness and seek to understand what is happening all around us. One of the things that has been impressed on me of late is the silent truth of the law of reciprocity--or put another way, the principle that one ultimately receives back exactly what they themselves have given.

In this context, I am not merely talking about financial generosity or greed--although this larger principle of reciprocity certainly does apply to how one disposes of money earned. Rather, I am thinking more of the silent but irrevocable principle that is communicated throughout various cultures and in so many expressions like:

"You reap what you sow."

"If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword."

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"What goes around comes around."

"Give and it shall be given unto you."

"If you forgive others, you yourself will be forgiven."

Of course the list could go on and on . . . .

At the risk of appearing naive, at this point in life I am beginning to see this principle actually demonstrated in life. Sure, I have believed this principle was true at one level, but I was starting to become despondent as far too often arrogance, self-righteousness, and selfish ambition would win the day and be promoted to a place of greater influence.

But invariably, this silent truth is always at work--even when it appears the most absent. There is no more success escaping it than there is escaping death and taxes.

But that is not necessarily a bad thing--that is if you are honest with yourself about how you treat others. If you are merciful to those who do not deserve it, you will surely receive mercy in the day of your own reckoning. If you forgive others their shortcomings, you will likewise be forgiven. This point is not intended as an escape hatch for avoiding accountability and personal responsibility. But it should cause us to pause and consider how we treat people who bear God's very image and likeness on earth.

Academic Ghetto-Talk

2004-11-27T11:38:00.000-05:00

Good communication skills are a necessary and essential goal of higher education. I cannot think of a single profession where enhanced skills in writing, speaking, and a wide-range vocabulary will do anything but help you--alot. But don't mistake good communication skills with being pretentious. In fact, good communication involves knowing how best to deliver a message so that people understand you. That is after all the goal of communication, no?

I have been a part of higher education as either a student or a professor since 1984. Throughout these years I can honestly say that I have found myself at different levels of involvement in a pattern of what one could call "cultural slang" or "ghetto-talk" in the academic community. So I can poke fun at this rather odd behavior, since I have undoubtedly been guilty of the same.

Moreover, it is pretty rare that you will find people just being themselves. All too often insecurity and its close cousin pride cause people to posture themselves in order to showcase their strengths and play down their weaknesses. This is unfortunate.

In preparing for a course in Christian Thought & Culture this upcoming semester, I began to think of how funny it is to listen to the strained language of higher education. Of course, one "sacred cow" in higher education is to rarely state the obvious, which in this case is the fact that this academic ghetto-talk is just plain ridiculous.

For example, try sitting in a meeting with other academics who are talking about different ways of teaching. The problem is that instead of using the term "teaching" or "learning" you will hear the word "pedagogy" and "pedagogical" until you are ready to tear your hair out at it roots.

One colleague of mine shared a similar frustration with how the social sciences often us the term "explication" for "explanation." I guess it makes them feel better. Go figure.

Or one of my all-time favorites is when the term "utilize" is substituted for "use." Heh. I am "utilizing" the keyboard even as I type.

Just the other day in a meeting, a colleague used the words "false bifurcation" in the place of just saying "false distinction" or "division." Believe me, this is just the tip of the iceberg . . . .

But when the academic community really gets bored with their ghetto-talk, they can always turn to foreign words and expressions like "par excellence," or some catchy little French expressions peppered in here and there ("raison de etre") to let you know they are global thinkers. I must confess that I do like to use the expression "quid pro quo" in negotiations with my friends, but you can thank the movie Silence of the Lambs, not the academy, for this bad habit.

Of course, there are some technical terms that are essential and specific to a discipline and, therefore, do not really fall into the category of academic ghetto talk (viz., the use of Latin terms for say, medicine, biology, or theology). But the vast majority of this behavior is a far cry from anything authentic, and is more the result of a bunch of posers trying to come off as superior and in-the-know.

Murray Harris, a humble and brilliant scholar who taught me in my Ph.D. program, used to admonish his students to "wear their knowledge lightly, for it will make you of much greater use to others." He had obviously encountered both 1 Corinthans 8:1-3 and his own heart in the process.

Are You a Control "Freak?"

2004-11-16T13:14:00.000-05:00

Everyone has a God-given temperment. What's funny is how often we use our own natural giftings or strengths as a measure for how everybody else should approach life. Of couse, this is really just a clever guise for insecurity and arrogance on our part.

Take a detailed and organized personality for example. There is no question that God has gifted certain people with the ability to bring great organization and structure in life. I can't imagine individuals who become C.P.A.'s etc., as being anything other than being hard-wired by God to do this kind of work. Birds fly, fish swim, and people with organizational motivation . . . well, they organize. We can be thankful for such people.

Problems emerge, however, when these individuals take their natural strength and temperment and universalize it with a strong dose of spirituality. Or put another way, they expect everyone else to approach life in the same manner they do. If someone is fundamentally different, well, they conclude that person must not be as "spiritual."

Wrong conclusion.

This problem would actually be quite humorous if it did not produce so much damage. You see, these types of people are usually very conscientious. But they also have a way of trying to organize and bring order (control) outside of the realm of responsibility that is rightly theirs. If such a person persists in trying to control other people, they become what may be pejoratively described as a "control freak." Such a condition is nothing less than an obsessive-compulsive need to impose one's own sense of order on life and other people. Such a person can do a great amount of damage in a short amount of time.

We have all met the classic control freak. They can often be found telling others what they can or cannot say in a given context. They are also people who are most prone to trying to "police" others into doing what they perceive to be the right thing. One person I know who is afflicted with this disorder went so far as to ask a fellow co-worker to stop using the expression "man" and in its place use the term "person" because they felt that it was more inclusive. No matter how you look at it, meddling is just plain meddling.

This approach rarely ever works when relating to people, and this fact can perhaps be best seen in how children respond to this illegal imposition on the human will. Sadly, the children of control-obsessed individuals will typically go in one of two directions, either themselves becoming obsessed with the felt need to try to control things, or they rebel against nearly everything for which the controlling parent has stood. Neither outcome is healthy.

At bottom, the control-obsessed person is full of a fear that can only find healing and assurance through dependent faith in God. Such trust is not easy for a control obsessed individual, since the very nature of control is opposite that of trust. But there is release and peace in store for those who humble themselves and admit the obvious to themselves and God. Think about it--no one is really in control of life anyway.

As with any area of weakness in those who belong to Christ, we can offer ourselves to God willingly or wait for Him to bring everything crashing down. Either way, He will have the final word in the matter, and His control is absolute.

Pascal on Three Kinds of People

2004-11-11T11:05:00.000-05:00

I came across this quote from Pascal in his Pensees on how earthly dissatisfaction is the road to heavenly satisfaction:

"There are only three sorts of people: those who have found God and serve him; those who are busy seeking him and have not found him; those who live without either seeking or finding him. The first are reasonable and happy, the last are foolish and unhappy, those in the middle are unhappy and reasonable."

A Post-Election Psychological Disorder?

2004-11-09T19:21:00.000-05:00

As a result of Senator Kerry's defeat, some people have found themselves so distraught that they have had to seek professional help. Rob Gordon, an exectutive director for the American Health Association has coined it "post-election selection trauma" (hat tip to Drudge). Enough people have sought help with this problem that health officials are taking it seriously. Gordon notes, “It’s like post-traumatic stress syndrome, but it’s a short-term shock . . . ."

Sure, I was disappointed when Bush, Sr. and Dole took a paddling from Clinton in '92 and '96 respectively, but I don't believe I could ever pin my hopes to such a degree on any political leader. People will let you down and disappoint you without fail. No, the only Person in whom I will give this much trust and allegiance is the leader of a kingdom that is everlasting and He is not elected into office.

Unfortunately, those who ultimately stand opposed to His reign will need far more than counseling in the end . . . .

"All good things must . . . be revisited!"

2004-11-07T19:22:00.000-05:00

I'll bet you thought that I was going to end this title with the oft-repeated phrase, "come to an end." I suppose that is true in one sense, but sometimes good things come to an end simply because we choose it to be that way.

For example, one of the very first things I ever loved to do was ride off-road motorcycles. I remember getting a little minibike from my uncle when I was nine years old. Despite lacking power (it had a three horse engine), the overall design and tires make the thing incredibly dangerous! That is not even mentioning how the throttle cable would stick wide open while shooting down our little dirt road. I guess in some ways I am lucky to have seen twelve years of age!

Well, my interests certainly peaked when my mom bought me a brand new 1979 RM80. It was perhaps one of the greatest earthly gifts I had ever received as a child. For those who don't recognize any of these numbers, etc., this was a Suzuki mini-motocross bike. As poor as we were, my mother surprised me (after seeing me sitting on this little motorcycle so much at the shop) by buying it and having it delivered without me knowing about it. That little motorcycle and me became best of friends. I would ride it after school until dark, and when it became too cold to ride in the snow, I would--with my mother's permission--bring it into my room (with no gas tank) and lovingly disassemble it and prepare it for its spring maiden voyage.

I later started riding trials motorcycles--a European sport that gained some inroads into the northeast portion of the United States. But it is kind of strange what happened to this early joy and delight in my life. When I was old enough to start college and then graduate school and then work on my Ph.D., there was no room for anything that remotely resembled a loss of time, money, or a visitation of the joys of one's youth. I had bigger and better fish to fry, so to speak.

But this was a mistake. I am now 39 years old and have five children of my own. They are at an age where I am able to do things with them that used to bring me great joy as a young boy. Strange, without even realizing it, through spending time with my children I was retracing the formative steps of my own youth and starting to rediscover things that I had thought were long forgotten. Off-road motorcycles were just one of those things.

Fast forward. It has now been a year since I have started riding off-road motorcycles again. Yep, I have a motocross motorcycle, and believe me it isn't an 80cc. The kids also have a 50cc fourstroke Honda--infinitely safer than the minibike that I managed to live through. I have been a part of several off-road motorcycle forums, and have even traveled all the way to Utah this spring just to ride on motocross tracks and watch the Salt Lake City Supercross with people who I had never met in person, but whose love of motorcycles made us feel like family (see www.allthingsmoto.com). This year the wife and kids are joining me in going to the Atlanta Supercross--and they (at least my kids) are really looking forward to it.

After so much time I am revisiting one of those early joys in life and discovering afresh that "all good things" do not ever really end, they just need to be revisited.

This is One Funny Guy

2004-11-05T15:19:00.000-05:00

I recently came across Frank J.'s IMAO blog. I don't know how to describe it except incredibly funny. He does everything from hand-drawn comic strips, home-made audios of the election debates, to live blogging of the election night returns. He is incredibly funny. You have got to check his blog out.

Being a Catholic, Frank J. is acquainted with the apocryphal books that Protestants do not use. In particular, Frank likes to embellish the book of Tobit. Here is the first one I ever read:

Frank Bible Quotes: Tobit 3:1-12
Now more Bible quotes for the Catholic exclusive Book of Tobit (if you want this book, you'll have to be Catholic too).
* * * *
1 Tobit was walking through town one morning when he encountered the devil. "You will not tempt me to evil!" Tobit declared, "I am a trustworthy servant of the Lord." 2 The devil, surprised, turned around and said, "What?" 3 "I know thou are evil and are here for evil purposes!" Tobit yelled.
4 "I'm buying a mango," the devil answered. 5 "For what foul schemes?" Tobit questioned the evil being. 6 "I like mangos," the devil declared, "Hey, dingus, I'm not working 24/7 to cause the fall of man, okay? Can't a fallen angel get himself a frick'n mango without getting yelled at?"
7 "You can't fool me, man-goat!" Tobit said firmly, "I know thou are here for nefarious purposes!" 8 The devil rolled his sinister eyes. "Fine," he said, "Hey, Tobit, why don't you do evil and kill people?" 9 "Never!" Tobit screamed, "I will never do the bidding of the devil!"
10 "Well, there, you beat me, Tobit," the devil said, waving his hands in the air, "You resisted my evil temptation. Whoopee! You happy?" 11 The devil then walked off with his mango with one final utterance, "Wanker." 12 And thus Tobit continued his service to the Lord, never giving into the temptation of the devil.

And Repubicans thought Ross Perot was nuts

2004-11-04T20:31:00.000-05:00

I have been reading some of the election night meltdown in the Democratic Underground. After the faulty exit polls early in the day, these liberal democrats were jubuliantly anticipating a Kerry landslide.

It goes downhill for them and their posts as night comes and the election results come in. You can view the meltdown here with the opening page of the meltdown aftermath organized here.

In this instance, I cannot help but call a spade a spade . . . these people are absolutely nuts! They are so filled with hatred for Bush and conservatives that they are absolutely blind to how crazy their conspiracy theories actually are.

For the entire day after elections, the DU forum was closed to all but members. They later posted a statement indicating that they had split the forum into two sections: One for people who needed a shoulder to cry on, and the second section for people who feel like kicking [butt]."

Take a quick look around on their site and you will certainly be thankful that there are not more people who have caught "Moore's" disease.

Update: I just came across this thread where the "tolerant" ones show their true attitude toward anyone who just happens to disagree with them. Believe me, its sweet.

Is America Really that Divided?

2004-11-04T18:43:00.000-05:00

It is pretty hard to spin an election. After all, votes are votes and they pretty much speak for themselves.

So what is one to do if their candidate didn't win and they are now depressed or angry? Well one way to deal with it is to universalize that disappointment and describe it as a national problem that needs fixing.

This is what many of the left are now doing. The war cry seems to be that as a result of George Bush's election, America is "deeply divided." And it is obviously Republicans' fault.

But is America really that divided? Are the foundation stones of this great Republic shifting and ready to split?

The answer is clearly no.

The very nature of philosophical and political differences are the very heart and soul of a democratic represenative Republic. In short, elections are the mechanisms used in free countries to decide what direction the nation is going to take amidst so many different ideas.

In this light, differences and our freedom to express them in the voting booth is the shining light of a free and independent nation like America. This is a liberty for which some people in other parts of the world have recently lost their lives.

The melancholy cry that America is divided would surely not be a present issue among the liberal media if Kerry had been elected. Instead, there would be rejoicing and admonishments for all Americans to take heart, for "help is on its way!"

No, these claims of American division are nothing more than liberal self-projection. Those who make these claims are disappointed, frustrated, and even angry right now. In short, they want others to feel and take notice that they are not happy about what took place in the election. In many liberals' eyes, regardless of the 3.5 million more people who voted for Bush over Kerry, somehow the Bush win is not a legitimate victory, but something that has brought about hurtful divisions in America and, therefore, needs healing. And implied in that word "healing" is the opposite of pursuing a Bush mandate, since that would simply exacerbate the "division" and bring more harm to the American people.

While I will not gloat and bring further discouragment to those with whom I disagree and whose ideas did not win the day in this election, I also will not be led to believe that Bush's victory is anything but a good thing for this country.

The only real and lasting divisions in this country are in the hearts and minds of those who hate America and the freedoms and values for which we stand. But this fringe group is a small minority, and anyway, if they keep their word, some will soon be moving to Canada and France. At least one can hope.

Bon voyage, Michael Moore and George Soros!

Zogby explains

2004-11-03T21:00:00.000-05:00

If you have been reading this blog, you will recall that I wondered a while back if Zogby was losing it or not. In all seriousness, I was actually just disappointed that he too had caught "Moore's disease" and decided to sacrifice his professional reputation for partisan purposes.

At least that is the way it appeared to me.

Well, I have been eagerly awaiting how Zogby was going to handle such a pronounced Bush victory. Would he face it like a man or spin it instead?

On his website today he writes:

Statement from John Zogby on 2004 Presidential Election Results:
“We feel strongly that our pre-election polls were accurate on virtually every state. Our predictions on many of the key battleground states like Ohio and Florida were within the margin of error. I thought we captured a trend, but apparently that result didn’t materialize.
“We always saw a close race, and a close race is what we’ve got. I’ve called this the Armageddon Election for some time—a closely-divided electorate with high partisan intensity on each side."
(more from Zogby coming soon…)

I'll let you decide which direction he decided to take.

I will second that

2004-11-03T18:50:00.000-05:00

Law professor, radio commentator and blogger Hugh Hewitt was and is instrumental in my own foray into the blogosphere. His blog is typically the very first that I check upon entering this cyber domain.

More inportantly, Hewitt was without question an inspirational and stabilizing force in the months leading up to the election--and that can be said for multitudes.

Power Line rightly exclaims:

No one has led conservatives into battle with such a clear conscience and such a lucid vision for the future as Hugh. When many of us, including me, doubted, Hugh was the ever-present voice of assurance. After the candidates themselves, and after the Swift Boat Vets, the wonderful returns we've seen tonight are a tribute to the vision of Hugh Hewitt. He is at the very top of the conservative punditocracy.

You can read the entire tribute here. Also take a moment to read BeldarBlog as he honors Hugh on the same basis.

Further Election Developments

2004-11-03T11:52:00.000-05:00

Kerry concedes . . . formal statement due at 1 pm eastern time.

Eleven out of eleven states reject gay marriage. As My Way puts it:

Gay rights activists received a rebuke from the Deep South to North Dakota as voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage in a clean sweep for proponents of traditional one-man, one-woman unions.

It should be noted that in looking at the percentages of support for this amendment, across the board we were looking at 60%-70% favoring the constitutional amendments.

Predictable or Uncanny Foresight?

2004-11-03T10:52:00.000-05:00

Go here and read PoliPundit's incredibly accurate prediction from 2002 of how the 2004 Presidential campaign would play out.

Incredible.

History in the Making

2004-11-03T09:58:00.000-05:00

For those who are awake already, last night was a long one for us. I didn't finally get to bed until around 5:30am and I did so then only because I simpy could not keep my eyes open.

In the four hours that have passed the following important events have transpired:

1. President Bush defeated Senator Kerry for the presidency. The numbers as of this morning are as follows:

NATIONAL with 99% of Precincts Reporting:

George W. Bush 51% with 58,301,150 votes
John Kerry 48% with 54,782,697 votes

Battleground State of Ohio
100% of Precincts Reporting:

George W. Bush 51 percent with 2,794,346 votes
John Kerry 48 percent with 2,658,125

Kerry and Edwards have not conceded yet, but with these obvious numbers, it will only be a matter of time. It is no contest, as a Drudge headline puts it, "BUSH BREAKS ALL-TIME POPULAR VOTE TOTAL, SURPASSING REAGAN . . . ."

2. Quoting straight from the DaschlevThune blog: "Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader of the Senate and a fixture of South Dakota politics for more than a quarter century, lost his seat Tuesday night in an historic political upset that stunned Democrats and gave Republicans around the country cause to celebrate." Do you remember that it was exactly ten years ago when the arrogance to sue his own constituency over term limits gave Democratic Speaker of the House the left foot of fellowship from his voters.

Again, Tom, in view of your hyprocrisy and arrogant obstructions of the president's judicial nominees, we bid you a very fond farewell!

3. Republicans not only retains control of both the House and the Senate, but added seats to each.

4. Liberal actor and make-believe public policy expert George Clooney had been really stumping for his father to be elected to U.S. Congress as a representative of Tennessee. In as much as Clooney, Jr. was part and parcel of the Michael Moore and Soros fever-swamp crowd, it appears to be a good thing indeed that Clooney Sr. was defeated.

Taken together, it was a good election night for Republicans.

Much more to follow as thing progress later in the day . . . .

Funny Quotes of the Day

2004-11-02T09:15:00.000-05:00

Well it is election day in the morning. Today I am going to run, among other things, funny quotes I come across.

I thought the best one to start the day would be a statement by Kerry on his last day of campaigning:

"When I turned my boat in Vietnam into an ambush and I went straight into the ambush and overran it, I didn't see George Bush or Dick Cheney at my side," Kerry said. "So I'm not going to take a second seat to anybody in my willingness to be tough to defend the United States of America. I did it when it mattered, and as president I will defend the United States of America with everything I have."

Didn't Bill Clinton tell this guy to "stop talking about Vietnam?" Heh.

* * * * * *

"The kind of political trick that Daschle's lawyers tried works only if it remains an unverified rumor through Election Day, and things don't remain rumors anymore. The new electronic world welcomes you, Senator Daschle--and it says goodbye to you, as well."
-Joseph Bottum

* * * * * *

The definition of non sequitur can be found below:

"Republicans wanted to put challengers in many polling places [in Ohio] because of concerns about fraud with hundreds of thousands of newly registered voters in a state President Bush and Sen. John Kerry both say they need to win. Democrats have accused the GOP of trying to suppress Democratic turnout."

* * * * * *

Interactive Electoral Maps

2004-11-01T22:28:00.000-05:00

If you want to crunch numbers on electoral maps yourself as election night unfolds, go here and here. I like the latter as it provides historical information back to Bush, Sr. in '88.

Daschle v. Thune

2004-11-01T21:52:00.000-05:00

Probably the most watched and anticipated Senate race is S. Dakota's incumbent and Democratic party boss Tom Daschle who is being challenged by John Thune.

Unfortunate for Daschle, polling has consistently shown Thune in the lead. What's a long-time incumbent to do then? File a lawsuit. You can read all about it here (hat tip to Power Line). I seem to recall the same arrogance of Foley (Democratic Speaker of the House) in 1994 when he sued his constituency over term-limits. They took care of him at the voting booth.

South Dakota definitely needs to clean house. Daschle is an arrogant obstructionist who obviously cares nothing about the will of his constituency.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out Tom.

And the winner is . . . .

2004-11-01T21:24:00.000-05:00

It is now election eve. Tomorrow votes are cast, precincts begin reporting and the endless coverage begins. Given the unabashed bias that the media has shown so far, I wouldn't be surprised to see premature calls for states being made in Kerry's favor, as they did Gore in 2000. As usual, the hope will be to influence people from voting and thereby tilting the election.

The polls have been all over the place, with some people just plain giving up on relying on them. Others like to split the differences in the polls by taking the mean averages (so RealClearPolitics). That particular methodology always seemed suspect to me--a point I share in common with PowerLine. Don't get me wrong though; RealClearPolitcs is incredibly helpful in that they are the only site that gives you a continuous update on all the major polls--not to mention the links to (some) excellent op. ed. pieces.

So what are the predictions out there? Professor Bainbridge supplies a nice red and blue U.S. map and suggests:

Bush: 48.9% - 296 EC votes
Kerry: 48.1% - 242 EC votes
Others: 3%

If that is too close for your liking, Power Line notes "frequent correspondent Dafydd ab Hugh has sent us his predictions for tomorrow night. Suffice it to say that he is optimistic; he has President Bush winning by 51% to 47% in the popular vote, and carrying 34 states with 328 electoral votes."

Les Jones's Blog has a huge list of predictions that is pretty impressive.

I could be proven wrong, but I am cautiously optimistic of a Bush victory in both the electoral college and the popular vote. I am going to go out on a limb and even suggest that Bush will carry Pennsylvania.

We'll see tomorrow (hopefully)!

Zogby--"Pulling" for Democrats

2004-10-31T21:20:00.000-05:00

Last May, I noted Zogby proclaimed that Kerry would win the presidential election.

Earlier this week, I read Robert Novak claiming that Zogby changed his mind and said Bush would win.

Wednesday, I read Sidney Zion claiming that Zogby told him Kerry would win. Interestingly, the very next day, Zogby's poll results appeared to be a self-fulling prophecy, as they skewed toward Kerry in a manner like no other polls.

Today, PoliPundit posted this on Zogby and it is surely worth reading.

Criticism Can Save You From Self-Deception

2004-10-30T20:57:00.000-04:00

When I was 20 years old, a much older and wiser man shared this piece of advice: "When your enemies criticize you, listen carefully. They will tell you things about yourself that are in need of change that those who love you most will never tell you simply because they do not want to hurt your feelings."

How true those words have proved to be over the years!

I relay this statement here because KerrySpot has a brief article I came across today titled, "It's Time For a Long Look in the Mirror." It is definitely worth reading--particularly if you are a Democrat.

Instapundit, commenting on this same article today had the following words: "When even Kerry supporters note the similarity between Osama videos and Democratic campaign propaganda, it's a problem." You can read his thoughts here.

Do you like to be lied to?

2004-10-29T16:34:00.000-04:00

Powerline points out what even one of my toddler children could detect--lies:

Before she died, John Kerry's mother reminded him that it's all about "integrity, integrity, integrity." For the Senator, though, intelligence (or its appearance) trumps integrity. Consider this exchange between Kerry and Tom Brokaw:

Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.

But, in the past, as Captain Ed reminds us, Kerry has insisted that his entire record is public. For example, he told Chris Matthews:

I released all my military records. Mr. Gillespie thought it was important enough to go travel to another state, make a big speech, demand that I release my records. I did. Everything. All of it. Including my officer fitness reports.

In sum, faced with the choice between admitting the meaningless but unthinkable proposition that his IQ might be slightly lower than President Bush's or effectively acknowledging that his prior statements about the availability of his records are untrue, Kerry selected the former option. Is anyone surprised?

Kerry Now Campaigning For Bush

2004-10-29T09:58:00.000-04:00

You can read it for yourself here.

Heh.

The only good poll is a . . . .

2004-10-29T09:13:00.000-04:00

The polls have been really strange this election cycle. The best source appears to be the summary of multiple polls at RealClearPolitics. Go check them out. The site also posts the latest polls in battleground states.

Quote of the Day

2004-10-29T09:10:00.000-04:00

"Given the reputation of senators as windbags with large egos and an argumentative manner, Mr Kerry, a senator himself, may be reluctant to have former senators at President, Vice-President (John Edwards, his running mate), Secretary of State, Secretary of Defence and Director of Central Intelligence."

-Times Online

Good Reads

2004-10-29T09:03:00.000-04:00

Wesley Pruden maintains there is no October "suprise" left.

Ever the political pragmatist (and opportunist), former Clinton handler Dick Morris actually gets it right, here.

Liberals Should Not Be So Quick to Reveal Stupidity

2004-10-28T22:55:00.001-04:00

Liberals who keep crying that "Bush lied" about WMD in Iraq need to pause for a moment and consider how stupid this claim makes them appear.

First, it demonstrates that they do not have a grasp on the most basic definition of the English term "lie."

For example, if you had evidence that there were intelligent posts on this blog (based on last month's inspections), would it be a lie for you to declare "there are intelligent posts on The Sacred Cow?" No.

But say you come in today only to discover that some of those "intelligent" posts have been deleted and replaced with inferior ones, or none at all. This new state of affairs in no way invalidates the legitimacy of your prior account.

In the same way, post Gulf War I intel. left EVERYBODY in the U.N. Security Council, the prior Clinton Administration, and even Senator Kerry (when he showed up for Senate duties) convinced that WMD were in Iraq. Kerry went on record affirming the same. And this recent ABC "story" (about missing munitions) demonstrates a very plausible way for how some of these confirmed weapons may have gone missing in Iraq.

So where exactly is the President's lie? And are the liberals who make this claim against the president actually stupid, or just pretending?

Never forget that in a world without moral absolutes, the ends can always justify the means, even if those means are as dubious as ignoring the excepted meanings of the English language. And the Democratic party seems well on their way to the inevitable meaningless that results.

Terror Tape Warns of Bush, Cheney Consequence

2004-10-28T19:23:00.000-04:00

The headline and contents are straight from Drudge.

This tape that ABCNEWS has been sitting on for obvious political purposes, is a direct threat, one purporting to be on a level greater than the loss of over 3,000 American lives on Sept. 11, 2001. Drudge reports excerpts as follows:

The CIA and FBI have authenticated a new al Qaeda videotape which warns of retribution for Americans electing Bush and Cheney.

"What took place on September 11 was but the opening salvo of the global war on America and that our Lord willing, the magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make you forget all about September 11," the man, whose face is covered by a headdress, warns in the video.

"After decades of American tyranny, now it's your turn to die."

The alarming tape which warns the next terror attack will dwarf 9/11.

The CIA and FBI late Wednesday authenticated the tape, federal sources tell DRUDGE.

ABCNEWS, which obtained the tape from a source in Pakistan, has been informed of the government's standing.

A top goverment source said from Washington that ABC withheld the final 15 minutes of the tape from the feds -- the portion of the tape where the man warns of retribution for Americans electing Bush and Cheney.

"The FBI did not see the last 15 mins," the source claims. ABC stongly denies the charge.

MORE

"You are guilty, guilty, guilty. You're as guilty as Bush and Cheney. You're as guilty as Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Powell...," the man states.

He goes on to warn of an upcoming horror: "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead.

"People of America, that was the verdict now for the sentencing: as participants and partners in the crimes of the regime, you too shall pay the price for the blood that has been spilled."

One ABC source, who demanded anonymity, said Thursday morning, the network was struggling to find a correct journalistic "balance" before airing any story on the video.

"This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting," the ABC source explained.

This tape would have obvious implications for the election and ABC knows it. With such a clear-and-present-danger staring the American people in the face, who do you think they are going to trust to take the fight to the terrorists instead of waiting for the terrorists to take it to us here?

George Bush, that's who. And ABC knows it.

And now so do you.

Update:

PoliPundit offers the following:

Threat of the Day

“No, my fellow countrymen you are guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty. You are as guilty as Bush and Cheney. You’re as guilty as Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Powell.”

Those words were spoken by:

a. A MoveOn.org-Michael-Moore-George-Soros-type liberal nutjob
b. An Al Qaeda terrorist

The correct answer is b. ABC News has the story. The video will air on ABC News tonight.

Democrats and Race-Baiting

2004-10-28T16:08:00.000-04:00

I have followed politics long enough to become firmly convinced that democrats simply use minorities. It is that simple. I see little evidence that they desire to do anything less than keep minority groups dependent on them as a party, and in turn throw them scraps from the table toward the end of each election cycle.

But that may well be changing.

No one likes to be taken for granted. And no one likes to feel used. Minorities are quickly waking up to the reality that the liberal stereotype of Republicans is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

RealClearPolitics addresses this issue with the following quotes from Harold Meyerson's column:

Time was when Republicans were at least embarrassed by their efforts to keep African Americans from the polls....

For George W. Bush, Karl Rove and their legion of genteel thugs, however, universal suffrage is just one more musty liberal ideal that threatens conservative rule. Today's Republicans have elevated vote suppression from a dirty secret to a public norm.

RCP comments:

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that Meyerson can pen these vicious untruths and then spend rest of his column whining about how George W. Bush is responsible for dividing America? Mr. Meyerson needs to spend a good long time staring in the mirror.
But let's talk about the substance of Meyerson's charges, because they are important. Meyerson asserts that having GOP election monitors in heavily African-American precincts in Ohio is a racist strategy aimed at intimidating and ultimately suppressing African-American turnout - despite the fact that these precincts (irrespective of racial composition) are where Democrats have signed up the most new voters and where the potential for vote fraud is greatest.

Most rational people understand that we have to strike a balance - albeit a delicate one - between making it as easy as possible for people to vote and also monitoring the process and enforcing election laws. The balance between ballot access and ballot integrity is always difficult, not only because of partisanship but also the varying election laws between (and even within) the different states.

But when people like Meyerson start hopping up and down screeching "racism" and "voter suppression" whenever ANY measure is proposed to protect the integrity of the system (whether that be monitors, showing ID or proof of residency, etc) it makes you wonder if they're concerned about anything other than winning at whatever cost.

See also Ann Coulter for an interesting article on this topic here.

Terrorists weigh in on who they want as the next U.S. President

2004-10-27T19:22:00.000-04:00

Just when I thought I had come close to hearing everything, terrorists are now stating who they prefer to be the next U.S. President. Terrorist Abu Jalal boasts:

"American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together. We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud" (hat tip to PoliPundit).

Given the seriousness of possible future terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies, do you suppose there is a message here to individuals still undecided about who to vote for in November?

Thanks Abu for your help in our efforts to bring Bush to victory next week, thereby keeping murderous fanatics like you in check for the next four years.

The Essential Philosophical Differences Between Bush & Kerry

2004-10-27T09:39:00.000-04:00

This article is worth reading--not necessarily because it predicts a Bush victory next week (which it does)--but because it lays out the basic philosophical differences between the two candidates in fine detail.

The differences could not be any more prominent this election cycle.

First a Secret Trip into Cambodia, Now the U.N. Security Council?

2004-10-26T11:00:00.000-04:00

It amazes me the lengths to which the mainstream media will go to prop up their favorite candidate. Can you imagine how these same investigative "journalists" would be informing the public if say, President Bush claimed outright to have met with all members of the U.N. Security Council before voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, and then it all turned out to be a lie.

That would be the end of the Bush candidacy for reelection, since the MSM would (rightly) cover this blatant lie to the American public right up to election day. Such an individual is unworthy of any kind of trust.

But say this same individual is not Bush, but Kerry. Do you think journalistic integrity and their principled ideals are sufficient to guide a partisan press on the straight and narrow?

Guess again.

A Good News-A-Gram

2004-10-25T20:40:00.000-04:00

Well, PoliPunit tells us the election is "over." Click here to see if you agree.

Some political scientists apparently agree.

We'll see next week, won't we?

"Stolen Honor" for free

2004-10-24T11:02:00.000-04:00

Just a quick note to let you know you can see the film "Stolen Honor" ahead of time and free right here.

I thought it was pretty funny how all the liberal "guardians" of the 1st Amendment tried to get this film suppressed. That strategy always backfires, since people are then incredibly curious to see what you didn't want them to see.

Heh.

A Disenfranchise With Coke, Hold the Ketchup Please

2004-10-23T13:13:00.000-04:00

Some words get used in politics and elsewhere to the point of becoming ridiculous. Sometimes these terms retain a vestige of their original meaning; most often they just become meaningless.
The latter is the case with the term "disenfranchise."

The term became particularly important in 2000. Remember the self-appointed civil rights "leaders" flying down to Florida as trained servants of the Democratic party? They were drawing the term "disenfranchise" like a six-shooter.

But "disenfranchise" is a powerful term when used in proper context to equal rights under the law. And it is foolish irresponsibility to throw it around and dilute it solely for the purpose of partisan political gain.

Common sense would dictate that bound up in the right to vote is an implicit responsiblity to know how to follow instructions. It in no way follows that because I may be too ignorant to know how to follow voting instructions that somehow I am being "disenfranchised." Jonah Goldberg properly captures this common sense ethic when he writes:

[D]isenfranchisement is something the government does to you. It's not something you do to yourself. If you can't figure out how to fill in the ovals or punch the chads — and some minority of voters will always botch it — that doesn't mean your right to vote was rescinded. It means that you didn't take your right to vote seriously enough to pay attention to the instructions. Democracy requires two things: an electorate that takes its responsibilities seriously and small-d democrats of all parties who take the process seriously.

So, the next time you hear some political operative or talking head spouting words like "disenfranchise" you can be pretty well assured that it is just another instance of civil rights being inserted where common sense belongs.

Every vote should count, except . . .

2004-10-22T13:53:00.000-04:00

For those who remember the Florida fiasco, one item stand out. The democrats' declared "every vote should count," except for the military absentee ballots, which they attempted to suppress. This led to three different recounts--all of which still produced Bush as the winner. If the democrats had their way, the recounts would have continued indefinitely until some way--any way--Gore emerged the winner. Of course, the Supreme Court, for good or ill, stepped in and said "Enough Florida, just follow your election rules."

In Pennsylvania it is reported that Democratic Governor Ed Rendell has ensured that military absentee ballots that were sent two weeks late would not be given a reasonable extension. The reason is obvious: just as in Florida in 2000, today the vast majority of military votes go to President Bush.

"Every vote should count" is nothing more than a one-way-street for the liberal ends-justify-the-means approach to politics. Don't ever be fooled into actually believing democrats care about you.

Best Defense is Good Offense

2004-10-22T11:54:00.000-04:00

PoliPundit rightly recognizes that the Bush campaign had better prepare the voting public for the "October surprise" that the democrats used with Bush, sr. as well as with W. in 2000. It is worth reading here.

Kill the Wabbit!

2004-10-22T11:39:00.000-04:00

I have never understood how Kerry's handlers could be so clueless as to allow this guy to run around engaging in all sorts of activities that make him look ridiculous for the sole purpose of photo-ops.

In this one, I challenge you to discover which Looney Tunes character Kerry resembles.

Apart from the fact that the guy has a liberal anti-gun ownership voting record, what are his handlers thinking sending him out like this?

Snippets

2004-10-21T11:52:00.000-04:00

PoliPundit actually itemizes the weirdness of John Kerry here.

Just plain "mean-spirited"

2004-10-20T17:27:00.000-04:00

You may be aware of some of the recent Bush/Cheney sign stealing that has been going on of late--and how some of the perps. are getting ambushed by individuals on the stackeout . . . .

Well, a pretty decent incident was relayed to me this week about a guy who lives in a predominatly liberal neck of the woods who put a Bush/Cheney sticker on the back bumper of his Humvee. He came out to a the parking lot one day to find that some moonbat had pasted over his sticker with another which read "No war for oil."

Of course, this served nothing but to inspire him with an idea. He calmly went down to Kinkos and had a custom sticker made, which he then put its place.

Can you imagine how the moonbats reacted when they saw this huge Humvee driving around the neighborhood with the slogan, "More war for oil" nicely displayed on it?

Heh.

So, now you want a piece of us?

2004-10-20T17:04:00.000-04:00

Well, it's official . . . the Secretary-General of the Egyptian Labor Party wants to "open up a can" on the United States. He declares: "Those Who Bomb Fallujah Cannot Prevent Me from Bombing Los Angeles" (hat tip to Drudge).

Well, okay. Bring it on. I am sure Egypt could use some new parking lots right about where the pyramids and the sphinx are located.

And to think that my mother was afraid I might start becoming a red-neck as a result of living down South . . . .

If we could be so lucky

2004-10-20T16:46:00.000-04:00

Do you remember prior to the last election when various Hollywood celebrities threatened that if their man Gore didn't get into the White House that they were going up and leave American and live in some far off land. And do you also remember that none of them actually followed up on their words? My only thought was, if only we could be so lucky.

Well, to my knowledge none of the Hollywood public policy experts have come forward in this election cycle with the same devestating threat to the voting public. Perhaps some of you know of instances of which I am unaware, in which case please email me at thegoodearth7@aol.com with a url or reference. I would like nothing more than to track the progress of their threat/promise fulfillment.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

2004-10-20T13:33:00.000-04:00

Okay, some of you may have seen the photos of all the different liberals gathering together behind placards to express their condolences to the Iraqi people for liberating them from Saddam Hussein.

What you haven't seen is some pretty good parodies on it (hat tip to VodkaPundit).

I grew up in an Ivy League town in the north east--these guys got it down about right.

Uh, yeah . . . .

2004-10-19T22:25:00.000-04:00

Do you really care what some Hollywood celebrity thinks about the upcoming election? I mean, their entire life's work centers on pretending to be someone they aren't.

Well, Matt Damon thinks you should care and states that he would give a $1 million dollars to see Kerry in the White House (hat tip to Drudge).

Uh huh. Come on Damon--if that's your real name--put your money where your mouth is. Or are you now just pretending to be someone who is enlightened and informed?

See the moonbat in flight . . . .

2004-10-19T20:56:00.000-04:00

I love to watch nature documentaries, and this year's election has some of the very same elements.

I would like to thank PowerLine for their skill in photographing a moonbat in actual flight.

This dude needs medication . . . seriously.

So this is why we fought the British

2004-10-19T20:30:00.000-04:00

I'm sorry, but this one had me laughing pretty good . . . .

Some of you may have been following the British newspaper, the Guardian, and their "cheeky" idea of having Brits write to people in Ohio (a major battleground state) and tell them to vote for John Kerry.

However, what you may not have seen or heard is some of the American responses to this idea. And the Guardian even had the "cheerio" idea to go ahead and publish them (hat tip to Powerline). Be forewarned! The British do not censor rough language in their newspapers.

And this is why they are called "moonbats"

2004-10-19T11:35:00.000-04:00

A moonbat flies by the light of the moon. They are lunar or just plain "looney" for short.

It has been my experience that most liberals are moonbats. At the risk of sounding "mean-spirited" allow me to explain . . . .

A bit of time has passed since Howard Dean let out his Jurassic Park styled "Eaayyaah!" (click here to hear). I personally found that one as funny as I did odd.

Recently I was reminded of just how strange Dean really was when I watched some footage of him addressing individuals at a rally in the primaries with the incessant chanting "You have the power! You have the power! You have the power!" The term "weird" is a very serious understatement.

Kerry, however, seems to have upted the ante a bit as a bone fide moonbat. Following a link to The Kerry Spot via Hugh Hewitt will bring you the following quote from Slate's Chris Suellentrop. He writes:

Let's see: Your opponent is characterizing you as an effete internationalist willing to "turn America's national security decisions over to international bodies or leaders of other countries." In particular, he suggests, in all seriousness, that you want to call up Jacques Chirac for permission before deploying the military. At the Republican National Convention, you were portrayed as a beret-wearing poodle named "Fifi Kerry." How should you defend yourself against these slanders?

By speaking French on the stump, of course. Click here to hear John Kerry's foray into the language of Paris during a Monday rally here. I wasn't watching Kerry on stage when he made his remarks, but from the context he appears to have seen someone from Haiti and decided to acknowledge the person in his or her native tongue.

What does Kerry say? My knowledge of French is limited to the lyrics to "Lady Marmalade," so I consulted my friend John Wilkerson, a Washington journalist and French speaker. He translates the first part as, "You're Haitain? OK," but says the rest sounded like gibberish. "I think at that point he was just a character on Saturday Night Live," Wilkerson says.

Yep. A moonbat indeed.

Update: Exhibit #3--Watch John Edwards exercise his moonbat wings here (courtesy Drudge).

Will the Real John Kerry Please Stand Up?

2004-10-18T19:18:00.000-04:00

As we head into the final days to the election there are individuals who still remain undecided. It is to you specifically that I address this post.

First, what do you actually know about each candidate? Americans have had four years to get to know George Bush. You may not agree with every one of his decisions, but there is one thing on which the President has made us certain—he will do what he says and stand steadfast in resolve. In a word, Bush is steady and consistent.

John Kerry is different. Some people argue that he is misunderstood because he is too heavily “nuanced.” This is largely due to the many changing positions that the Senator has taken on political issues, ranging from the war in Iraq to same-sex marriage. In a word, Kerry is volatile and changing.

But is John Kerry really a misunderstood enigma? No. We have had twenty years to get to know him, and his voting record speaks much louder than any campaign rally speech. He is without question one of the most liberal lawmakers in the land.

If you share his political views, you may think he is fine. But consider that Kerry simply cannot be counted on to be straightforward and honest about who he is. This means that he does not respect his liberal record, but is rather ashamed of it and would rather hide it as the situation warrants. Is this the type of individual you want to be the leader of this nation?

Put another way, aside from his actual beliefs, what should trouble you deeply is his complete unwillingness to represent the truth about who he is and for what he stands. I can disagree with someone politically, but if they are consistent and honorable I will respect them. This is not the case with John Kerry. Our enemies and allies in the world undoubtedly think the same way.

At so dangerous a time in the world, I implore you to rise above party lines and hold up another standard by which we elect the next President of the United States.

Are Kerry and Edwards Acting Like Political Terrorists?

2004-10-16T19:34:00.000-04:00

Terrorists harm innocent people to accomplish their ideological and political objectives. Such cowardly actions are precisely why it is altogether improper to refer to terrorists as "soldiers," "militants," or any other title that might convey honor or a sense of legitimacy to their cause. You also cannot reason with them or even negotiate, because the ordinary rules of honor and character mean nothing in their universe. Any individual who harms innocent men, women and children--no matter how "noble" their cause may be--deserves contempt and vilification even from those who may agree with their end goals.

While one must use terms in a responsible fashion, I find it hard to escape the conclusion that with respect to the issue of Dick and Lynne Cheney's lesbian daughter, Senators Kerry and Edwards are acting a great deal like political terrorists.

No question, running for political office is a rough adventure--one not suited for the faint of heart or one who is incapable of withstanding harsh and often untrue statements and rumors. However, when a candidate runs for office they do so knowing the potential costs to their own privacy and peace of mind.

But are part of those costs having one's children hung out to dry and embarrassed by your competition? From the recent debate performances of Kerry and Edwards the answer is an obvious "yes" when they decided that they would bring up the lesbian lifestyle of Dick and Lynne Cheney's daughter.

First realize that nothing in the presidential and vice-presidential debates is left to chance. The candidates have talking-points; well-rehearsed answers prepared in advance in anticipation of a wide array of topics and issues. The purpose is to try to best your opponent and thereby earn votes for yourself and (hopefully) deprive your opponent of votes. In short, nothing of this nature is said once, let alone twice by accident or without this obvious goal in mind.

Accordingly, the Kerry/Edwards team essentially got a "pass" from the mainstream media in their first trial run of alluding to Mary Cheney's lesbianism in the vice-presidential debate. Vice-president Cheney's response to Edwards may have appeared gracious and approving, but take note that he did not make use of any of his response time to say anything else. Cheney should have never been put in a position to protest against Edwards for such a low and disgraceful blow. The media should have chastised the junior senator. Consequently, this "pass" paved the way for the even bolder restatement of the same by John Kerry in the third and final presidential debate.

However, the second time around Kerry was called on it. The first sign of indignation I witnessed was by Mort Kondracke, who was serving as a post-debate political commentator. He was visibly angry that Kerry would drag a candidate's child into public view for political gain. Others on the same panel concurred. It appears they all have children whom they love.

Of course some wonder what Kerry and Edwards could possibly hope to accomplish by mentioning the Cheneys' daughter by name, and the answer is as obvious as their premeditated choice to do so. The Kerry/Edwards ticket sought to deprive Bush of votes from any individuals (not just "fundamentalist Christians") who find the homosexual lifestyle to be unnatural and destructive behavior. Many of these individuals constitute Bush's core, and they believe that homosexuality should not be accepted nor encouraged by society and government any more than say, bestiality or any other deviations from normal, healthy human sexuality. In short, Kerry and Edwards sought to divide Bush's core constituency.

A great deal is being said from both sides of the political aisle on this despicable act of Kerry and Edwards, particularly because this move strikes to the heart of all decent people from all political persuasions--particularly those who have children. Mr. and Mrs. Cheney certainly may not agree with the lifestyle their daughter has chosen, but it in no way follows that they love her any less. Kerry and Edwards simply tried to embarrass the Cheneys for the actions of their daughter--something that no parent would enjoy. But they also undoubtedly brought harm to the Cheneys' daughter in the process--something that no parent can endure.

Some talking heads and pundits will try to defend Edwards and Kerry for their actions, arguing somehow that Mary Cheney is "fair game." But this defense simply reveals they are nothing more than ideological terrorists bent on hurting innocent people to accomplish their political ends.

I believe most people from both sides of the political aisle will see this for what it is--a cheap, crass attack on a political opponent by using their family member as the target. And Kerry/Edwards should surely pay the same price politically that you or I would deal them if this daughter were our own.

"For those who have ears to hear . . . ."

2004-10-12T14:58:00.000-04:00

"I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. [...] Well, the president has been preoccupied with Iraq where there wasn't a threat."
-John Kerry
2nd Presidential Debate

If you are unable to see it in these words folks, you probably won't be able to see it everywhere else . . . .

Bush Consults With Snoop Dogg

2004-10-12T03:49:00.000-04:00

I was shocked when I heard that Bush was silently meeting these last few weeks with rapper Snoop Dogg for political advice, but pictures don't lie.

Critics claim Bush is pandering to the urban hip-hop crowd, but only time will tell if his efforts are sincere . . . .

Are You the Sensitive Sort?

2004-10-08T15:16:00.000-04:00

Are you what some people call a "sensitive person?" It seems that I am. I think it is just a genetic thing--you know, the way one is wired prior to birth. I notice that at least one of my children bears an incredible likeness to me in this regard, and that certainly lends a great deal of evidence to my inclinations toward "nature" over "nurture."

Anyway, I have observed over the years that this sensitivity has a capacity to it--the capacity to experience tremendous joy and the motivation that springs from it. However, as one of the principle laws of physics states, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." I am not certain the extent to which this law of physics applies to emotions, but it sure seems to be true that if one is capable of experiencing great depths of joy, they are likewise capable of experiencing not-so-positive emotions in corresponding measure at other times as well. Perhaps it more a law of reciprocity than anything else.

I am not here writing about the actual experience of bipolar episodes or anything of the sort. I know individuals who suffer in this area and it appears that this medical condition has very little to do with inherent sensitivity, as it has more to do with the brain's biochemical fluctuations.

No, I am here describing the human spirit; more the opposite of the child who callously inflicts cruelty on cats or other animals and feels no remorse or regret. Personally, I have never understood such behavior. Such coldness was always absent from me as I seemed to be the lone voice to stand up among our little band of pre-adolescents boys. It seemed to come to me to defend the cause of the wounded possum, woodchuck, or neighorhood cat (and I hunt!). At times I even began to wonder if my little neighborhood friends did not have some serious issues they needed to work through--a process in which I had no desire to be a part.

I bring this issue up here because as an adult I realize that essentially nothing has changed within me. I am still the same person I was at birth--though developed in various areas and ways. But my sensitivity to things wonderful, pure, and hopeful is still just as strong--as well as a sensitivity to things ugly, wrong, and cruel. And I still live with the competing emotions.

There are periods of time when I feel wonder and joy like a child--magnified all the more as I sit and interact with my own children. It is as a foretaste of heaven. But there are also times when I feel the corresponding sorrow of isolation, futitility of significance, and contempt for human pride (my own included). These emotions are without question dark and often selfish.

It is an unwritten rule in communities for people to show strength (read my post on "time management" below). Human communities--indeed many Christian communities--reward strength and look with contempt on weakness. But not God.

I am reminded of how God in Christ exalted human weakness to a place of strength when he laid down the invitation, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matt 11:28-30).

The Lord who created us is pleased that we remain true to who and what we were created to be--with all its corresponding strengths and weaknesses. We should never allow the bleak darkness of this age to turn us into disinterested cynics who no longer see the wonder and joys that are before us. But likewise neither should we become discouraged and weary to the place of despondency, since God himself has promised a day when all things will be restored for those who have trusted in him.

This will be the beginning of true rest for which sensitive human spirits now groan (Rev 14:13; 21:3-5).

A little too heavily nuanced . . . .

2004-10-05T18:56:00.000-04:00

Kerry was defending his "global test" language from the first debate and came out with the following statement:

"But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere."

Elsewhere than the globe?!!

Something is definitely wrong when a candidate's explanations of his positions continually require explanations.

"Time Management" is An Illusion

2004-10-04T09:26:00.000-04:00

There are few popular books that I find helpful at this point in life's journey. There were many that were relevant to my life when I was single, or married with no children. But I guarantee that the people who trumpet the benefits of books like Steven Covey's, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People typically do not have young children in the nest. How do I know? Because I laugh when reading or listening to the so-called time-management experts. That is not proof in itself, but I can certainly tell you that people who worry and write about such things obviously do not have young children. These little souls refuse to be "managed" as one might complete the requirements for a doctoral degree or build up a small business. And that is what is so precious about children.

The type of books that I find helpful (read encouraging to my wife and me) are texts like Richard A. Swenson's, Margin: Restoring Emotional, Physical, Financial, and Time Reserves to Overloaded Lives.

Far from being your typical type-A overachiever, Swenson maintains that modern society has squeezed out of peoples' lives the things that are truly most important--family and friendships. Swenson reminds the reader that time is a gift from God and the intended harvest of that gift is found not in the amount or even the dazzling quality of one's accomplishments, but rather in one's relationship to family--the hub from which all other human relationships emerge. In order to foster those things which are truly important, we must create space--margin. I have reread this encouraging text several times. It is full of timeless truths for modern society.

This whole subject reminds me of a very close friend. He is by admission a "recovering perfectionist." In some peoples' minds this is akin to saying you are a "recovering saint." But by his own testimony my friend has found perfectionism to be just as detrimental to his walk with God and relationship with his wife and children as any other obsession or addiction.

Sadly, one of the main problems with perfectionistic tendencies is that the Christian community tends to reward the offender and thereby encourage the activity all the more. Sometimes we even "bless" this disorder with sayings like, "God deserves your absolute best." I agree that he does. But idolatry and self-worship are anything but our human best. They are distortions.

Anyway, my friend (who by the way, is in fact incredibly gifted in a number of areas) has concluded that the most God-honoring approach he can take in life is summarized by the words, "If something is worth doing, it is worth doing poorly." Can you believe someone would actually have the gall to hold to a statement of this nature? Yes, but only someone who has learned that the human need for self-justification is just as strong as our inherent laziness.

Time is not something we manage like a CEO, but is rather something over which we are entrusted as stewards. It is a gift from God to be sown in relationships that are of vital important to God. We also do not need to trumpet to others how well we are doing at any given time, since that is just one more form of obnoxious human self-righteousness. We need to be humble and grateful for the time we have and make the most of it quietly and in loving relationships.

Busted!

2004-10-03T20:31:00.000-04:00

Take your pick: The magic hat from the CIA, or "voila"--instant debate cheat notes. Either way you look at it, Kerry just keeps things that are otherwise strange and surreal from becoming . . . well, strange and surreal.

As to the actual nature of what Kerry illegally (as per debate rules) flipped from his coat, Drudge and INDC Journal have got him covered. I haven't seen it yet, but sources note that FOX has even better video of the act, though they are not running any commentary on it (they just need to hire Dan Rather . . . .).

Those Funny Bloggers . . . .

2004-10-02T13:01:00.000-04:00

Quote of the week unquestionably goes to blog Ipse Dixit with this funny statement:

I realized today that the Left Wing Opposition is right. The Bush campaign has been exploiting my fears to keep my vote in Bush's column: They keep reminding me that John "Weeble" Kerry - the dovish, pompous, narcisstic, left-liberal who has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue (and most domestic ones) of the last 30 years - is the President's opponent.

Kerry's "Global Test"

2004-10-02T11:07:00.000-04:00

Do you really want Paris, Moscow, or Beijing deciding what military action America should or should not take in the future? Let me put it another way, do you really want to entrust your life and the safety of your family to the likes of the French, Russian, or Chinese governments?

Based on his words from the first debate, Senator Kerry maintains that American security and interests need to be decided in such a manner, rather than soley by Constitutionally elected representatives. In effect, your new "guardians" would be the will of the U.N. rather than the United States President and Congress (for more on this point see article by T. Jeffrey). Kerry outlines this position in his response to debate moderator Jim Lehrer:

"But if and when you do it [military action], Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Polls show that most Americans do not even trust Senator Kerry with that responsibility; why on earth would he think that same American public is going to want to run decisions of national security across this gobal desk?

The guy is no longer shooting himself in the foot, he is now working the way up his leg.

And you thought Carter was strong on defense?

2004-10-01T20:43:00.000-04:00

Today has had its fill of post-debate punditry and spin. Various reasons are of course offered for why each party's man prevailed--though some actually took the middle ground in declaring the debate a tie. Most Bush supporters charged Kerry with style over substance; form over content. One individual I ran into today summarized the debate as essentially the American public hearing from a lawyer and a businessman. That's not far from the mark. And it would also account for the style-over-substance charge as well.

One area where the substance of Kerry's message definitely came through loud and clear was on the issue of national defense. Kerry stated:

"Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.
You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, 'You can't have nuclear weapons,' but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.
Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."

So let me get this straight: According to Kerry's logic, since rogue and totalitarian states seek nuclear capability to blackmail and terrorize their neighbors, it necessarily follows that we must unilaterally disarm--or suffer the charge of being poor examples and lose all moral authority? Suddenly the list of weapon systems that Zell Miller itemized as being voted against by Kerry's 20 years in the Senate is no longer something in the distant past, but rather a clear-and-present-danger if this man were to be elected. Hugh Hewitt drew my attention to this point and notes, "[t]his may be the most astonishing part of Kerry's presentation last night, an authentic moment for the nuclear-freeze favoring, weapons-system hating Senator with 20 years of anti-military votes in the Congress."

If this is an example of one of Kerry's "moments of clarity," for the sake of my children and their children, I much prefer the fog and confusion that has otherwise marked his campaign.

"Shocking" the vote

2004-09-30T16:39:00.000-04:00

Do you think rape should remain illegal? Then don't be a slacker on election day. Hollywood actress and public policy expert Cameron Diaz sounds the alarm:

"We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo--if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote . . . ."

You heard it here folks! Either turn out on Nov. 2nd or lock up your women-folk.

For some reason I have the feeling that it is going to get a whole lot weirder than this before Nov. 2nd . . . .

Premeditated flip-flops in the 1st degree

2004-09-29T15:35:00.000-04:00

If you are one of those people who see Senator Kerry as a genius, whose constant change of position on an issues is a result of him being "nuanced," think again. David Limbaugh of WorldNet Daily removes Kerry's multiple policy changes from the realm of conviction and the principled change of mind, and squarely plants this vacillation within the realm of political expediency that would spell great danger to America. Self-obvious to some; a revelation to others, Limbaugh writes:

"While [Kerrry] certainly changes his positions almost as often as he takes a stance, I don't think his flips are a result of changes of heart, but the cold political calculations of a dangerously opportunistic customer. (If he truly changed his mind as often as he changes his positions, we'd have conclusive evidence of his mental instability.) Kerry knows exactly what he believes, but often can't afford to be honest about it. But it is his real beliefs more than his vintage vacillations that scare me the most."

Personal character and public service surely run hand-in-glove.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

2004-09-29T09:28:00.000-04:00

As mentioned in an earlier post, former president Carter appears to be doing some tag-team work with Michael Moore in trying to influence the outcome of the upcoming election--particularly in Florida. Unfortunately, the respect I have for Carter for his involvement in Habitat for Humanity is quickly eclipsed by his nonsensical endeavors in the present political scene. Sadder yet is the recent online paddling Carter receives from Jane Galt for the error of his ways. Hat tip to Instapundit for locating this excellent article.

The Undecided (Continued . . . .)

2004-09-28T14:03:00.000-04:00

My first real blog entry was on the topic of the "undecided." Thanks go out to my wife for pointing me to a blog where one of those undecided has had enough and simply given up on Kerry.

An interesting journey . . . .

"All Systems Go"

2004-09-28T13:36:00.000-04:00

Tower: "Botox"
Kerry: "Check"
Tower: "Incoherent foreign policy"
Kerry: "Check"
Tower: "Pessimism & defeatist attitude"
Kerry: "Check"
Tower: "Orange sun-tanned face"
Kerry: "Check"

It appears Kerry's getting amped up and ready to go for the first debate just two days off. Drudge, however, raises some interesting questions about the Senator's latest "colors." I guess all that election-year windsurfing, waterskiing, and boogie-boarding has finally paid off!

Go get 'em soldier!

Online Sources & Blogs

2004-09-28T04:12:00.000-04:00

Here are some of my information sources. They are nothing that you couldn't find yourself with a search engine and some patience. But I always appreciate it when someone offers the information sources that they find most helpful, with a brief explanation why. It tells you something about a person.

The homepage of my work and home office default to The Drudge Report. Call it yellow journalism or whatever, but Drudge jut flat-out beats everyone to the punch. The site has a good list of editorial writers from nearly every side of the political spectrum and links to major papers and UPI. Check it out.

Here are some of my favorites among the op-ed and columnists sites:

Ann Coulter: This woman suffers no fools. Period. A good researcher who makes extensive use of the Lexus-Nexus search engine. Sharp legal training and witty debate skills equaled only by her sly sense of humor and disdain for posers. Liberals enter her domain at their own risk.

Cal Thomas: A man whose foundational convictions always come clearly through in his writings. He is unapologetic about his Christian faith and its relevancy to his analysis of the social and political realities facing the United States, Israel, and the world. His writing reflects a strong social and political conscience.

George Will: Consistency of thought and clarity of writing mark his work. This writer typically enjoys wrapping his analysis around the latest book that he has finished reading. Very knowledgable in a wide array of topics and issues. Definitely an indendent thinker who, at times, marches to the beat of a different drummer. No one get a free-pass, as he is quick to let the sword fall equally on conservative and liberal duplicity alike. Strong, coherent arguments.

Jonah Goldberg: Straight up funny and intelligent. Goldberg doesn't waste any time though making his points.

Dick Morris: A former Clinton handler who now offers political analysis and commentary. Given his background and experience, he often brings a unique view and voice to political events. More of a pragmatic political strategist.

Michael Moore: Just kidding! Next . . . .

Here are the blogs which I find helpful:

Hugh Hewitt: The blogger who has influenced me the most. A sharp legal mind that is able relentlessly to pursue the facts and lay out a coherent and compelling case. His blog site not only has excellent analysis on timely events and issues, but his own recommended sources have proven to be very useful as well.

RealClear Politics: Excellent daily list of the leading political pieces. This site is truly helpful.

Election Projection ("The Blogging Caesar"): A very good site with regard to polling data and other data relevant to the 2004 presidential election.

Instapundit: Excellent site that provides terse snips of political discourse and links.

Pick & Choose: Just as it states, "This and that about this and that." Definitely worth looking at.

These are the sites that I typically probe on any given day.

"If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...."

2004-09-27T21:09:00.000-04:00

Hmmm. I was wondering when someone was going to call Jimmy C. on this obvious one . . . .

Non Sequitur

2004-09-27T19:20:00.000-04:00

Senator Kerry, feeling the heat from a series of political ads, responds:

"Americans need a real conversation over our future," Kerry said in a speech at a school in Spring Green, Wisconsin.
"What they don't need is all these trumped up advertisements, they just make people curl up and walk away," added the Massachusetts senator.

Curl up and walk away?!

For those of you who have been losing sleep over rumors of a Bush-mandated military draft and a collusion with the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, can now rest at ease:

September 24, 2004

Setting the Record Straight About a Military Draft

Dear HSLDA members and friends: There has been a great deal of concern from HSLDA members over two bills currently in Congress, S.89 and H.R. 163. Both of these bills would reinstate the draft as early as spring 2005. Some sources claim that President Bush and the Pentagon are planning to re-introduce the draft after the election and that HSLDA is linked to supporting the draft. HSLDA is NOT supporting a draft. We have posted S.89 and H.R. 163 on our website simply to inform our members of their existence. Furthermore, a spokesman for the Bush Administration has told HSLDA that they have no intention of supporting a draft.

Sincerely,

J. Michael Smith
President HSLDA

Who in their right mind would try to pin support for military draft legislation on--of all groups-- the Homeschool Legal Defense Association?

Election year politics are incredible. And funny.

Funny snippets

2004-09-26T15:27:00.000-04:00

Who says there is no humor in politics?

Zev Chafets of The Daily News writes that "Kerry is running as a Massachusetts metrosexual." I am still trying to figure out what this third gender is.

John Podhoretz, writing for The New York Post Online titles an article on Kerry, "The Wining Windsurfer." How can a candidate possibly be so out of touch with everyday Americans as to allow himself to be continuously photographed windsurfing, boogie boarding, skiing, snowboarding, powerboating, and a host of other recreations in a time of war and in the midst of an election?

Several weeks out now, GOP strategist Keith Appell likened Al Gore's latest fury/speech to "some kind of cheerleader on acid." You really have to read the speech and see the A.P. photo. I think Appell may be on to something . . . .

And just do a google search on any of Michael Moore's recent speeches. They are hilarious from start to finish. The only downside is that to really get into the spirit of the message, one would need to huff some household aerosols.

It Takes a Village

2004-09-25T15:58:00.000-04:00

The latest buzz in my neck of the woods is the word "community." Don't get me wrong--I believe we are social creatures and are meant to be in relationships with other people. Healthy relationships that is.

Where the notion of community starts to break down for me is when someone tries to coerce me into being close with them. That is just plain weird. Self-disclosure by its very nature must be voluntary, and it requires an atmosphere of trust. We are under divine obligation to love all people, but only a fool will unequivocally trust all people. Trust must be earned. It can be damaged and restored again to various degrees, but it is something that no one has the right to demand of others. In short, "community" cannot be coerced.

At 38, I am quickly approaching what our culture calls middle age. Like John Kerry and challenges to his Vietnam war record, I have only three words, "Bring it on!" (Actually, Kerry had six more words almost immediately following: "Call off your bring-it-on'ers!"). I like the mellowing effect that time and self-reflection has on me. No, actually I think it is probably more the thirteen years of marriage and five children . . . .

Anyway, time and experience can bring some realizations. I now see that if you have three people in your whole life that you can truly count as a close friend, you are probably doing well. In fact, I get a little nervous when I hear people describe how close they are with so many people. It just doesn't sound healthy. If true, that level of trust so easily given can likewise be easily destroyed.

We also only have so much time in a day. If I were to take the time necessary to develop and foster a plethora of close relationships, it would be a 24/7 operation. Also, I think it would probably start to erode my relationship with my wife.

I am what you call in the South, a "Yankee" transplant. In 1996 we moved to Georgia. However, I was born and raised in upstate New York. We have just as strong a sense of community up North as individuals do down here; its strengths and weaknesses are just a little bit different.

For example, in the North people are not quick to show alot of immediate warmth to total strangers. It's not because you are a "stranger" per se, it may have more to do with community shyness, if there is such a thing.

However, once you earn an individual or community's trust and are taken into their hearts, it is usually a bond for life. It doesn't matter if you weren't born there or if a road wasn't named after your grandfather. I still have people that I know up North that if I call them on the phone or were to drop by tomorrow, we would pretty much pick right up where we left off. And if you end up in a scrape or otherwise fall on hard times--even of your own making-- you are still in their hearts and they will stick with you through thick and thin. It is just the way things are.

In the South I was immediately taken aback when the stranger coming out of the local diner would look me in the eye and say "Hello, how you doing today?" It was actually a little unnerving. But the more I was exposed to it, the more endearing it became. Strangers are just plain more friendly in the South. I know it sounds like a sterotype, but it is true. I also like the fact that I don't have to lock the doors to our car everywhere I go. I still lock them, but I really don't have to.

After about year three in the same community in the South, you begin to realize there is a price to pay for this initial sweetness. The price is a plateau. Folks down here are simply as human as the next person, and the signals of friendship they were giving off all along prove to be nothing more than cultural convention. Put it another way, folks down here are just more pleasant to total strangers, but that's it. Unlike the North where if you actually do earn a person's trust, you have a friendship for life, I would find that you were never really close to anybody to begin with--no matter how good you may have thought a particular friendship was.

Don't take my comments as complaints. They are simply observations that I wish I had know about a little earlier.

So back to this buzz word "community." A few years ago I had some colleagues who wanted to take the notion of "community" real seriously. Mandatory meetings and after-hour get-togethers were scheduled so that we could get to know one another better. My wife was obviously not that thrilled, since she and the children hadn't seen me all day (or week) and now I am off to another meeting. I really felt the same way she did. These guys are okay, but I just got through seeing them all day or all week. But the show must go on . . . .

I still resist someone trying to coerce me to get to know them. It's like requiring voluntary service. It doesn't wash. I guess the thought sometimes doesn't occur to people that perhaps you do in fact know them as well as you wish to and, consequently, do not want to get to know them any better.

I know that sounds harsh, but it is not intended to be. It doesn't mean you wish to treat an individual with disrespect or even that you cannot work smoothly with them. It just means that for whatever reason in this present fallen age, you really don't find them to be the type of person with whom you want to spend your limited free time. Individuals who insist on forcing this issue in the name of "community" typically have some other issues that are boiling below the surface, and I would just as soon not be a part of that either.

The term "community" can also be used for offensive purposes. People can do things they would never want done to them--all for the "greater good" of the community. Also, agendas can be more aggressively pursued if they are done in the name of the "community." People who draw words such as "community" like a six-shooter need to be calmed down and told by someone close to them that they are reckless and selfish . . . for the sake of the community of course.

I am a member of some online communities (forums) where we are drawn together by a shared interest. Any time these need to be over-moderated, it means that trust has been lost to some degree. But I enjoy being a part of the shared experience.

Probably the best community I have ever been a part of is that community where each individual is possessed and animated by the Spirit of God through trust in Jesus Christ. I may not want to get to know equally all of the individuals of that community, but that's okay since God knows he has only given me twenty four hours in a day.

"We Hold These Myths to Be Self-Evident . . . ."

2004-09-24T09:50:00.000-04:00

Although the early days of summer are leaving us, this election cycle still provides an excellent time to remember the words of the Declaration of Independence. Sometimes it is easy for the great-great-great-great grandchildren of the Founders to forget what it actually took to establish this nation. Heck, I sometimes have difficulty even remembering what it took for my own mother to raise three children. But then my own children serve as a daily reminder of the debt that I can never repay . . . .

Anyway, from time to time I like to reread the Laura Ingalls Wilder series. It is a reminder for me to be thankful for things cherished and important. On the early American frontier these people did not have the luxury of spin or other such nonsense. They had to live with reality no matter how harsh. And they were grateful for it.

One thing in particular that always comes through when you read this series is how Charles Ingalls so easily accepted the underlying premise of the Declaration. After the July 4th fireworks, horse races, and lemonade, the family would actually read the Declaration. It was brand new to them. Mr. Ingalls used to tell his children that he was "free and independent." Today many are tempted to treat those words with contempt--something that smacks of hedonism and a self-centered individualistic lifestyle. Not Mr. Ingalls. As he explained it to his children, this new American heritage simply stated that there was no king over America, ultimately God was her king. What this meant was that every American citizen was bound to govern themselves. This is the essence of inalienable rights. The pursuit of happiness was the pursuit of the will of the Creator--to fulfill the divine will for one's life. This approach is also called self-government.

Mr. Ingalls used to illustrate to his children what it meant for him to be free and independent. I paraphrase:

"Laura, no one is here to force me to get up and plow this land. No one is here to make sure that I plant the seed and harrow the weeds out of it until it comes up. Likewise, no one is standing over me to make sure that I harvest it on time. I have to govern myself to get out of bed before the sun rises and attend to these tasks. I am free and independent to do this or not do this, and to accept the consequences for my actions."

This man knew what the Declaration was about.

Note that the title of this post is in reference to self-evident myths. These are simply certain falsehoods that have been repeated enough times and with enough fervor that many people no longer even question their validity. Moreover, these myths often run under the guise of standing for what it means to be uniquely American. Let's take a quick look at just a few:

Myth #1--"You cannot legislate morality."

This statement at first glance seems to uphold the notion that civil government cannot do for individuals what only individuals can do for themselves--that is exercise self-control that comes from a clean conscience. But this phrase is rarely if ever used in such a context. Instead it often serves as a semantic trojan horse to attempt to separate public policy from the realm of universal moral truth.

But this statement trips over the obvious: Every good law is a "moral" law, and every bad law is an "immoral" law. Far from a case of special-pleading, this statement simply affirms that laws prohibiting murder or theft are in fact "moral" laws. These laws were never intended to change the human heart (in which case they would prohibit "hate" and "covetousness"), but rather the actions of individuals who are to govern themselves under God. Martin Luther King Jr. demonstated this principle best when he declared (I paraphrase), "I cannot expect the civil government to enact laws that compell you to love me, but I sure do expect civil government to enact laws that keep you from lynching me."

That's a good law; and it is also a "moral" law.

Myth #2--"The United States Constitutions Guarantees the Separation of Church & State"

Time prohits a lengthy discussion of what the United States Constitution does and does not explicitly state with respect to the separation of these realms of authority in this nation. The separation that does exist, however, was implemented to protect the Church from being hijacked by the State. Such was the historical reality from which many early American colonists had escaped.

Far from excluding God and the revelation of his will from the formation of civil government, the Founders presupposed and established it as a foundational principle from which all inalienable rights arise. Our nation's charter document, the Declaration of Independence, states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights . . . ." These words mark the first time in recorded history that a nation was ever established on the assumption that human rights are inalienably vested in an individual by our Creator. Interestingly, this very phrase would also be sufficient cause to deem the document "unconstitutional" by many of today's legal experts.

I trust the irony does not escape you.

Myth #3--"God Is Not A Republican or a Democrat"

I guess this third one is not so much a myth as it is a statement of the obvious--but an irrelevant statement nonetheless. Let me put it this way: Let's state the obvious point that God is not a mortal man. Does it then follow from this premise that God is not interested in what mortal men do and say to one another?

I usually answer this third myth by pointing out that God is also not a Communist or a Nazi. He is, however, deeply interested and concerned with what Communist and Nazi political parties stand for and therefore do based on their platform of beliefs. We should be also.

The Undecided

2004-09-23T19:03:00.000-04:00

People's political affiliations are interesting to me. It can say alot about one's true values--usually on an unconscious level. In fact, what someone does not stand for is often more revealing than what they do stand for.

One thing, however, that has never made sense to me in the present American political scene is the noble claim of being one of the "undecided." It is among these chosen few who get to pose questions to President Bush and Senator Kerry in the proposed town-hall debate forum. However, given the issues that face American society and their pressing importance for the civil life of our nation, I am not sure which is more astonishing--the fact that individuals can actually claim to be undecided, or the level of insight (and deference) that politicians and the media lavish upon them.

Ignorance, lack of a coherent political philosophy, and sheer apathy are a far cry from civil virtue and responsibility. Come on undecides--show a little spine and common sense!

Speaking of the undecided, it appears that Senator Kerry, with the aid of the Clinton "A-team," has finally found his voice. I was truly beginning to wonder what direction he was going to take to self-destruction as the clock ticks down in this election. The primaries were surely tough for him, with the Dean-inflicted need to morph his Senate record of support for military action in Iraq into something that would make Michael Moore and the fever swamp crowd pleased. But he got through it and seemed well on his way to trying to become--well, whatever it is he had to become to convince an electoral majority of Americans to vote for him.

I distinctly remember the first signs of transformation months ago while reading Rolling Stones magazine in an auto tire service center waiting room. In the middle of an interview (yes, Rolling Stones), Kerry ratcheted up his rhetoric with the words "Yes, I voted for Bush to use military action in Iraq, but how was I supposed to know that he would f-ck it up so badly!" Ahhhh, the young vote . . . .

Anyway, this new voice of Kerry's seems to go something like this: "Bush is bad, bad, bad . . . and I am good. The present difficulties in Iraq are proof." Hmmm.

Former Clinton-handler-turned-moderate Dick Morris believes that this final flip may be one flop too many for Kerry, as this move merely serves to inspire those who selected him over Howard Dean. Morris writes, "Liberals will cheer Kerry's new-found decisiveness, but it opens the way for Bush to deal him a counterstroke that can all but end this election and finish off Kerry for good."

One can surely hope.

Introductory Post

2004-09-22T22:12:00.000-04:00

Well, here we go . . . my first post!

I have really been looking forward to setting up my own weblog for some time now. We have been spending a good amount of time on other sites--reading, inquiring, checking facts--but now I have my own home. This is going to be fun!

My first real taste for blogging came from an excellent site by Hugh Hewitt. During the recent political conventions, I had an opportunity to read Hugh and others interview various people and do live blogs on the speeches from the conventions. At that point I was convinced that media had certainly come to a cross-roads and the potential for new media was boundless. Of course, by this time the CBS debacle and other real-time news-within-news issues had begun to cycle so quickly that even the Drudgereport began to look like it was reporting behind the curve. The "blogosphere" stepped up to offer an analysis and critique from a wide array of professions and backgrounds. Such is the power of the Internet. Such is the demise of old media.

The name of this blog is The Sacred Cow. The allusion is first and foremost to the golden calf that the children of Israel constructed in the wilderness. It was a god of their own making and was held in high regard in their sight. Nobody seemed concerned about problems with the obvious . . . it wasn't real.

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (3rd ed., 2002), may also help some:

sacred cow

"Figuratively, anything that is beyond criticism: 'That housing project is a real sacred cow: the city council won’t hear of abandoning it.' In India, followers of Hinduism consider cows sacred and do not eat them because they believe the animals contain the souls of dead persons."

For the purposes of this blog site, the allusion has multiple applications. Popularly understood, all of us have at some time constructed something in our lives that is false and held it up in high regard. If this cow--essentially a lie--is repeated enough times and with enough fervor, AND enough people sit back and allow it to continue, it can soon take on a life of its own.

The purpose of this blog site is to talk about those "cows" and much more. My formal background is in public policy and theology, so a great deal of my time will center on these two isues. On a more popular level, I will be blogging on issues pertaining to politics as well as Christian spirituality. In many instances, the two will actually meet!

I do have other interests and from time to time will probe them peripherally. This blog journey of "cow tipping" may not always be comfortable and you the reader may not always agree (bear in mind I have my own cows to feed), but I do promise to keep it real.

Please feel free to email me with any comments or suggestions.

Let the blogging begin!