Just a Woman

New Site, New Address

2005-12-12T00:04:00.000Z

Come check out the new Just A Woman website! And, remember to change the URL if you've either bookmarked it or linked it on your site! It is now http://justawoman.org

I'll see you there!

New Website (Update)

2005-11-30T08:26:00.000Z

As you know, this week I launched the new Just A Woman website. I'll still be working out some details. However, I'm posting there every day.

Please let me know if you're finding it okay. If you're having any problem at all, please let me know.

See you there!

New Website!

2005-11-29T00:25:00.000Z

I'm very happy to announce that Just A Woman, the website, is now live! There are a few minor graphics details that I'm working on. However, I hereby launch the new website.

justawoman.org will get you there. But, I will now only be posting on the new site!

See you there!

Lores
Just A Woman

Undermining the Commander-in-Chief...again

2005-11-16T08:01:00.000Z

Virtual treason.
Undermining the President.
Betrayal.

This is some of the language used to describe the events in the Senate yesterday. To keep it very simple, here's what happened. Senate Democrats began by proposing that the President unveil a timeline to get our troops out of Iraq. Here's what one Colorado talk show host had to say, "Today, Senate Democrats tried to force the US military to surrender to the terrorists next year..."

He may sound like an over-the-top talk show host. However, outlining a timetable for our troops to get out, for all to see, would have that very effect. All our new household names--from bin Laden to Zarqawi--would get to sit back, have a beer while watching their fans on Al Jazeera. Vacation would end the day that our men and women would leave Iraq. That simple.

Thankfully, that proposal was shot down by Senate Republicans (and a few Democrats, including 4 who are up for re-election in red states next year).

"Even so, the Senate's political statement was clear - and made even more stinging when the vote was held with Bush abroad, in Asia, an embarrassing step Congress often tries to avoid. With Democrats pressing their amendment calling for a calendar for withdrawal, Republicans worked to fend off a frontal attack by Democrats by calling on the White House to do more." (reports AP via My Way News)

The report goes on to say,
"The Senate then voted 79-19 in favor of a Republican alternative stating that 2006 'should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty,' with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security to create the conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces."

"It does not require the administration to do anything. Rather, it simply calls for the Bush administration to 'explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq' and to provide reports on U.S. foreign policy and military operations in Iraq every three months until all U.S. combat brigades have been withdrawn."

While I am glad that they did the right thing for the nation to not vote for the timeline, I am very disappointed in the Senate's obvious political motives. If they were serious and had real conviction about this matter, why did they do this while the President was out of the country?! If I had real issues with my boss, I would request a meeting with him in his office. I would not wait for him to go out of town and then make a public statement to the rest of the staff and all our clients/customers/etc. This is what the Senate just did.

I understand that Congress already receives periodic reports on Iraq. If adjustments needed to be made, they should have taken it up directly with the man with whom they have the issue.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., admitted to some potential political motives for the proposal and for the support it received. "I think it speaks to a bit of nervousness about the public perception of how the war is going with respect to 2006."

If Republicans think that their behavior is going to do anything to gain votes next year, they're missing it big time. You do not have to agree with the President to be respectful to him. You don't have to throw him under the bus in order to win an election. I suppose that if they don't figure it out now, they will get it in, oh, maybe in about a year or so.

Let your Senator know what you think about their shananigans: 202/225-3121

Tri-partisan Agreement?

2005-11-15T20:33:00.000Z

As pundits and analysts attempt to decipher the purpose of the Senate Republican request for the President to unveil his plan to pull our troops from Iraq, Scrappleface seems to have figured it out.

Jordanians Shocked

2005-11-15T08:01:00.000Z

Upon reading some initial reports to the terrorist activity in Jordan last week, I had the same reaction I have had about previous attacks. It's evil. It's wrong, vicious and far from "righteous" to commit such acts against humanity. I don't care what religious book the victims read or in what region of the world they live or what language they speak.

I also don't care how "holy" and "right" the murderers claim to be. It only pains me to see women and children dragged into the ranks of suicide bombers.

When I read that Jordanians were shocked, it didn't faze me. Of course, everyone is shocked. How devastating! This was their September 11! How could anyone, anywhere not be shocked anytime loved ones are ripped away, especially as innocent bystanders by such deceived, evil, wicked people.

However, the more I read, the more I'm seeing something my friend Wordsmith made reference to in his comments yesterday. As time has passed, what we're hearing is more about Jordanians being shocked that Al-Qaida would strike fellow Muslims. Dennis Prager deals very passionately with this issue today. What a shame.

What a terrible shame. Is human life not precious in every land, in every faith, in every language? Is the loss of human life not worthy of grief and compassion? Is it not the one connection, one hope for any understanding that transcends boundaries and cultures? It is obvious that the answer to my questions is "NO!." I guess I don't like to remember the pictures of Muslims cheering and rejoicing over our 9/11. I can hardly think about those scenes without getting choked up...as much for them as for us.

I wish I could say that I am shocked to hear people say that their expectation was that Muslims would be immune and that only Christians and Jews would be subject to Al-Qaida's wrath. I'm not. I am, however, grieved at the thought that anyone would celebrate death anywhere.

More on the Jordan bombings from Michelle Malkin.

Five Questions

2005-11-14T21:45:00.000Z

Listened to Dennis Prager this morning. He poses "Five Questions Non-Muslims Would Like Answered." A must read.

Medical Miracle?

2005-11-14T10:26:00.000Z

Did you know?

By the end of 2004, an estimated 39.4 million people had HIV
4.9 million people were infected with HIV in 2004
3.1 million people died from Aids-related illness

A report in the UK's Independent reveals that 25-year-old Andrew Stimson tested positive for HIV in 2002. The following year, with no treatment or medical intervention, Stimson tested negative for HIV.

Researchers are asking whether it might be beneficial to investigate to find the key to a cure for AIDS within Stimson's immune system.

I believe that if there is a possibility to find a cure for people with AIDS, then we must do the research. Too many people are dying of this devastating disease. And, they aren't just homosexual men. They are babies in Africa; they are men and women; they are homosexual and heterosexual alike.

I visited South Africa about 2 years ago. Some friends ran a Christian group on the University of Cape Town campus. At the time, they had about 500 students who were part of the group. They informed us that one of their challenges was the number of deaths that occur among the group. Praying for the sick and attending funerals of those who'd died of this wretched disease played a significant part of their ministry on the campus. One out of every five people in South Africa dies of AIDS. It's not just those doing drugs and having illicit sex. We must seek a cure.

I feel compelled, however, to raise a critical point. One that I rarely hear brought up with this issue. In every discussion on heart disease, there's a note on prevention. In every report on obesity--even in ones revealing genetic connections--there is a mention of exercise and diet. However, it seems to be politically incorrect to say, "do not participate in activities that will put you at risk." That is, if you are having anal sex, stop. If you are shooting up, quit. If you're living a promiscuous lifestyle, change it.

We do people a disservice by telling them that they cannot change their behavior. We are not afraid to say it when it comes to food and exercise; but, we stay silent on matters of sexuality. If it's a life and death situation, we must speak up. (In reality, there are spiritual and emotional issues which also get ignored.) We cannot remain silent on issues that could save lives.

I do hope that the Stimson story will provide an important link for modern medicine. However, that will never take the place of prevention. So, if you are having anal sex, stop. If you are shooting up, quit. If you're living a promiscuous lifestyle, change it. Your life is worth more than that.

Chronicles of Irony

2005-11-13T08:01:00.000Z

The much anticipated release of The Chronicles of Narnia is less than one month away. The movie will tell the story of the CS Lewis classic, Chronicles of Narnia. The story is an allegory of the message and life of Jesus Christ. Aslan, the lion, eventually gives his life to save the life of a child (Edmund) and is later resurrected.

Ironically, in Florida just one week after Banned Books Week, during which schools celebrate books that have been previously banned, there is a call to remove Chronicles from the reading list in public schools. See the entire World Magazine article here.

The director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Barry Lynn, said this: "This whole contest is just totally inappropriate because of the themes of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It is simply a retelling of the story of Christ." (italics mine)

We want to teach our kids to have open minds, to think critically, to make their own choices. To be be tolerant, appreciate other people's differences. But, we dare not expose them to "the story of Christ." No, not that! Hmmmm... Thank goodness we are so open-minded and tolerant.

Gene Edward Veith writes in the World Magazine article that if we try to eliminate all that is Christian from our culture, we will have nothing left.

Too often, Americans have forgotten that it was Christians who risked their lives and the lives of their family members in order to create an culture to allow people freedom of expression and of religious choice. The people made mistakes, because they were human. We know about Salem. We know about the shame of slavery whose mark continues to stain the pages of our history.

However, there is no denying that what we find today is a war against the Judeo-Christian worldview. We hear little about the book Heather Has Two Mommies being read to elementary school children. Lynn doesn't appear to have a problem with students being encouraged to read Harry Potter. But, an allegory about Christ. God forbid...uh, well, maybe not God...

The Lighter Side: Don't You Hate It...

2005-11-12T08:57:00.000Z

Many, many years ago, I was a fan of Saturday Night Live. Back in those days, Martin Short was one of my favorites on the show. He and another guy did a hilarious segment. In it, they would say and do stupid and unlikely things and end each story with, "I hate it when that happens. Don't you hate it when that happens?!"

(Update: Although Martin Short was one of my favorites, so was Bill Crystal. It turns out it was Billy Crystal, not Martin Short in the skit. Thanks to David for the heads up on that.)

Here's one of the transcripts. It's just as ridiculous and almost painful to read as it was to watch.

For example, one of them told the story of how he stuck his head in his oven, turned it up to 400 degrees and kept it in there until it felt like his head would explode. He ended the story by saying, "I hate it when that happens. Don't you hate it when that happens?" To which his partner would respond, with a nod and a sigh, "Yeah, I hate it when that happens."

Things that don't just happen. It's ridiculous. It's code for, "Why in the world would you ever do that? That never just happens. You did it to yourself!" Each week, the two would culminate their stories of almost masochistic proportions with, "Yeah, I hate it when that happens."

I saw a story in the headlines this week that is actually quite sad. But, it reminded me of SNL and Martin Short. The Washington Post ran a story entitled "NY Man Accused of Throwing Dog Out Window." My first thought, upon reading the headline was, "Don't you hate it when that happens?"

Sometimes I hear people talk about the choices they make. And, it feels like an "I hate it when that happens" moment. I'll just tell you one story. Some good friends of mine have several children. (I'll use different names in order to protect the accused.) Recently, two of them were playing together and got into a fight. Later when I asked the mom what happened, she said little Joey just ran right into his big brother's fist.

Don't you hate it when that happens!

Any other SNL favorites? Or, other "hate it when that happens" stories? (HT: David)

Making Women God

2005-11-11T20:01:00.000Z

I've heard it said that "We have made woman God" and this week's California embarrassment, called the Special Election, has validated this statement. The election doesn't prove this to be true. It only reflects what it is we have believed about women and about men in our culture.

God creates life and knows when and how life will end.

Woman carries life in her body and confuses that with the authority to decide when and how that life will end. A man may possibly never be notified of his wife's decision to abort his child.

God is the ultimate authority and does not need to consult with anyone for what He does.

Woman can have a hysterectomy and at any age get an abortion on demand without even notifying anyone else. A man is required to have his wife's consent for a vascetomy.

God does not need to explain Himself. Because He is all good and all loving, His actions always have our best in mind.

Woman is presumed to be all good and, therefore, does not need to consult or seek consent from anyone before having an abortion. In reality, very often the issue is simply about independence and convenience. Man (especially a white one) is perceived to be slow, selfish and stupid.

When God speaks, His word is settled and without dispute.

A woman's accusation against a man is worth gold. A man is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

A woman who has an affair is a victim. A man who does the same is a predator.

I believe that it was California State Senator Mountjoy who made the above statement. (I can't seem to find the reference, though.)

I don't mean to be hard on women or the intent of the women's movement. I know that things had to change and there are things that still require change. Women should never have been treated like second class citizens. Women should never have been treated like property and valued only for their bodies. However, that same movement calls a woman who gets paid to have sex that is not filmed a whore and one who gets paid to have sex for a movie a porn star.

I think it's very important that we are valued as important as are men yet cared for uniquely as women. It both saddens and frustrates me to see the consequences of the women's movement today. I believe that we have turned women into God. And, that's not good.

If women are treated as women, and not as God, we'll all be better off.

Lessons from Election 2005

2005-11-10T20:17:00.000Z

Here's my first blogcast commentary. Click here to listen :)

I’m still reeling over Tuesday’s election results. I’ve read both conservative and liberal analysis of the election. But, I have to admit that one of my favorite posts was Hugh Hewitt’s open letter to the Governor of California.

To quote Hugh, who quoted Nixon: you can’t win with just the conservatives but you cannot win without them.

If there’s a lesson to be learned from this election as well as this last political season esp. with regards to the from the Harriet Miers debacle, THIS is it. You can’t presume on the conservative base. It’s not merely about having that “R” tagged on to the end of your name; it is about standing and fighting for conservative core values; it’s about “living it” to quote Hugh again.

As much as it may hurt, I would much rather the pendulum swing in the other direction in order for conservatives to figure out what they stand for and then “live it.” We would never have gotten George Bush if we hadn’t lived through the Clinton Era…just like we would have never been blessed with Reagan if the nation hadn’t been fed up with Carter.

This reality, however, does not justify conservatives staying home for any election. We bear the responsibility to stand for our values as much as we expect our representatives to do likewise. While I don’t believe that Prop 73 (which proposed parental notification for a minor going in for an abortion) is a partisan issue, I am disappointed that conservatives and Christians did not show up en masse to make a statement: not about abortion but about parental rights. THAT is a shame on us.

As we head into next year’s fight, my hope and my prayer is that we take to heart what just happened this week. Conservative politicians can’t take their base for granted. But, the base had better wake up. Conservatives and liberals have let the family and minor girls down this week. I cannot help but think of Edmund Burke’s admonition: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” When good conservatives and liberals do nothing, we all suffer.

I pray that the lesson of the 2005 election is not wasted. We have one year to learn it. Let’s live it.

Only in California

2005-11-09T18:15:00.000Z

I have only a few minutes this morning to comment on the results of yesterday's election. So, I'll limit my remarks to what happened in California. (More on the national returns later.)

What I thought were a few "no-brainer" propositions apparently did require a brain. To NOTIFY parents of their minor's request for an abortion! I was talking with friends the other day and found out that a man who goes in for a vasectomy is REQUIRED to have his wife's approval and has a 7-day waiting period.

How is it that a 30+ year old man, who has four children needs his wife's APPROVAL and a waiting period for a procedure on his body while a teenager has unilateral authority?! She doesn't even need to tell, much less be required to have the consent from anyone, for a procedure that affects her body and takes the life of another's.

I will write more later. But, for now, I will leave you with a quote I heard from Dennis Prager this morning regarding teachers: "Why are teachers exempt from excellence?"

California Election Results

2005-11-09T05:37:00.000Z

The most up-to-date results from the California Secretary of State.

France in Flames

2005-11-08T08:03:00.000Z

"...almost every article I read about it talks about what horrible conditions these immigrants live in, having low employment. Well, has anyone bothered to ask what conditions they had while they lived in North Africa? Algeria is not exactly a worker's paradise. In fact, conditions were much worse where they came from and you do not see these kinds of riots against the government in the Muslims nations in general and North African Muslims nations in particular. Something else is going on beyond economic discontent." --Chris (aka Layman)

My friend, Chris, raises an interesting question. I've been reading the same type of reports. Hugh Hewitt has been one of the few sources who has addressed the Islamist element in the riots. I also came across a piece by Debra Saunders, of the San Francisco Chronicle, that proves very insightful.

P.S. It's election day. I will post on the election as soon as the results are in. If you didn't see my review of the ballot initiatives, go here.

Also, two of my friends have just started blogging. In their honor I have started the "Mama Blogger" Category on my blogroll. I'm happy to introduce you to: Mom of 4 and Sleep-deprived's Things My Kids Say.

California Special Election

2005-11-07T11:46:00.000Z

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

--Edmund Burke

It's time for the controversial California Special election. Governor Arnold has taken quite a bit of heat for the measures on this ballot. It's now time for the commentary you've been waiting for :)

I must confess that I'm writing this for more than one purpose. Sure, I think these are critical issues that are at the forefront of both state and national politics. However, I do have an ulterior motive. Every election day I get a ton of phone calls from friends who ask me to, in essence, tell them how to vote. So, this post is dedicated to these beloved last-minute voters as well.

The summaries below come from a Concerned Women for America voter guide. I will comment on just a few of the ballot initiatives.

Prop 73 Requires that a parent be notified 48 hours before a minor can undergo an abortion procedure. Measure provides for judicial bypass and has an emergency exception.

YES: In public schools today, a student may not receive an aspirin from the school nurse without permission from a parent. When I was a teacher, even I would not be allowed to request an aspirin on behalf of one of my students. And, believe me, I tried.

How is it that the state does not currently already notify parents when their minor daughter is going in for a procedure of such consequence?! This measure is not about parents giving permission; this is about parents simply being notified. This is not about abortion; it's all about parents' rights. I believe that a YES vote on 73 will begin to correct one of the ways the state has usurped the authority and responsibility of a parent.

Prop 74 Extends probationary period for teachers from two to five years and allows for more streamlined dismissal of poor performing teachers.

YES: Again, I cannot help but draw from my experience. The year I began teaching, there was a science teacher who had been transferred from another school in the area who spent all his time in the school library. I didn't get it. Well, there was a story. It turns out that our school worked out an exchange deal with another school. It was common practice. In this case, our school sent a math teacher who'd just been caught kissing a female student for this science teacher who was a rehabilitating drug addict. Why didn't they just fire these guys? They were tenured.

Our children deserve better!

Prop 75 Requires annual written consent from union employees before dues for political purposes can be deducted from their paychecks.

YES: Here I go again. I thoroughly resented being required to join a union that spent my money on causes I would never support. As a matter of fact, they were sometimes causes I completely opposed. What happens to pro-choice advocates when it comes to this? I am pro-choice when it comes to how other people spend my money. I want the choice to opt out.

Prop 76 Provides budgetary reforms, including placing limitations on state spending and allowing midyear budget corrections. Prop 76 is a constitutional amendment.

YES: Why does government get to play by a different set of rules? We would never teach our kids or run our businesses the way we have handled finances in this state. Let's get some order and accountability. Isn't this why we elected Arnold? No more double standards.

Prop 77 Changes the redistricting process to make legislative districts more compact and, in some cases, more competitive. The goal is better representation for Californians overall. Prop 77 is a constitutional amendment.

YES: Another one that intellectually honest liberals and conservatives should vote for. Smaller districts translates into better, more accurate representation.

An estimated 5% of registered Californians will get out and vote. If you ever doubted whether your vote would matter, doubt no more. With voter turn out being so low, each vote will carry that much more weight. People around the world are dying--literally--for the right to vote.

John Quincy Adams wrote, "Posterity, you will never know how much it cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."

Let's make good use of our right and our privilege as citizens of this great nation! Get out and vote!

On Church and State

2005-11-06T09:29:00.000Z

Billy Graham said that "bad politicians are elected by good people who don't vote." I think the same is true of "bad propositions" passing because good people decide to stay home on election day.

This Tuesday, California (among many other states) has a special election. Statistics say that an average of 5% of registered voters get out to vote in an off-year election. What's worse is the truth so beautifully, yet sadly, written by William Butler Yeats': "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Where is the passionate intensity in those who are called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world?

My pastor has asked me to take a few minutes to share with the congregation the importance of voting on the issues on the ballot for the upcoming election, in particular Proposition 73 (more election coverage this week). He often asks me to share before elections or on national holidays regarding political matters. This makes some people nervous. It shouldn't. The Internal Revenue Service has laid out clear guidelines for churches and non-profits in the 501 (c) 3 category regarding political matters.

Churches can discuss the issues. Churches can talk politics 10% of the time! There are 52 weeks a year. That means that a pastor taking five full Sundays every year to discuss political matters in the nation would not risk losing the church's tax-exempt status. Here are more guidelines.

Beyond the permission churches are given by the IRS, I believe that people of faith are obligated, in order to hold true to their convictions, to speak the truth in love in all matters, including political issues. If the truth we hear within the four walls of a church does not apply outside that building, then I have to question either that truth or the integrity of the believer.

If you are in a state with an election this week, vote. You have the right to complain about our government. But, it sure is wasted if you don't do anything with your right to bring about change. Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I urge you, do something!

P.S. For those who didn't see where Hugh Hewitt linked to yours truly, here's the link. It was quite an honor! :)

Security Blanket?

2005-11-05T09:25:00.000Z

My friend Chris (aka Layman) from Christian Cadre sent me this cartoon. I think you'll appreciate it as well!

Happy Saturday!

Gender-Neutral Blogosphere?

2005-11-04T18:10:00.000Z

My friend Mark Daniels raised an interesting question this week. He finds that most of those who comment on his site are women. I find that most of the commenters here are men. Incidentally, neither Mark nor I have any problem with the imbalance.

Before meeting Mark, my theory had been that the blogosphere, like talk radio, has a primarily male audience. What I realize is that like political talk radio, it is news and political blogs whose audience is primarily male. At least that's what I've assumed to explain the imbalanced ratio (at least in those who post comments). I could be wrong. That's happened before :)

Here's part of the comment I left for Mark in response to the question he posed about the disproportionate numbers of female readers to his blog.

1. Pre-packaged. Your content varies and is approachable regardless of one's previous knowledge about any given subject. If you've got women who are moms reading, their computer/research time is extremely limited and (if they have young children )relegated to approximately 10 minute segments. Your posts are user-friendly in that way. Perhaps it's the teacher in you :)

2. Content. You cover a broad range of content. I have found that I have more women responding on my "non-political" days now. Not that they can't comment on politics. Maybe the non-political strikes our relational capacity. I don't know. I do know that even I have loved the kind of discussion (like the Pet Peeve day) that has ensued on those days. Many more women were engaged on that topic.

What are your thoughts?

Reaping What We've Sown

2005-11-03T10:19:00.000Z

Imagine...

You have a child attending a fine public university. He is a popular guy around the campus. He's a bright kid, studying history. And, even gets good grades. You taught him well.

One day, while at school, absorbing every ounce of the open-minded, tolerant and non-discriminating values and teaching of higher education, he decides he is going to spread his wings in this open and safe environment and make a porn movie.

He does it. He gets such a kick out of it that he produces a second one. This one is more professional. He hires a professional porn star and puts himself in the starring role, of course. This one gets shown on the university television station.

He is proud of himself. He gets more publicity than he'd ever received. Unfortunately, much of the attention is encouragement and validation for what he's done.

I wish I could say that this story is "imaginary." Sadly, it is very true. And, it is the result of the anti-absolutes, anti-God, amoral and relativistic thinking that prevails among higher education professionals.

It gets worse. The very people who fed him the garbage are doing absolutely NOTHING to help him out of this mess. Here's a segment of an interview (found at Radio Blogger) Hugh Hewitt had with the student, Steve York.

HH: Has anyone stepped up to you and said Steve, you might not want to do this?
SY: You know, nobody personally has stepped up to me. No students, no administrators. They're very supportive of this, and that's the really odd thing.
HH: So, no one's come up to you and said Steve, what you're going to do is change your life, you're going to mark yourself forever as the guy who did the show at UCSD.
SY: Bill O'Reilly actually did, so...
HH: But I mean, I'm talking about on campus.
SY: Nobody on campus.
HH: I'm just stunned.

I think that many of us share Hugh's sentiment: stunned! But, in reality, this is the logical extreme of the ideas and the values schools are feeding this generation. If you didn't believe that ideas have consequences, believe it!

Breaking News: Partisan Politics

2005-11-02T08:07:00.000Z

In an unprecedented move, Senate Democrats played their hand at some partisan politics in the name of national security. It was a closed-door meeting. Republicans lingered in disbelief at the thought that elected officials would manipulate the American people with this public relations stunt. Simply unheard of.

The movie Wag the Dog hinted that such things might be done by public officials to distract from low poll numbers or personal and political messes. Senate Republicans interviewed on their way into the special session were dumbfounded, "We would never do such a thing." Even the President's announcement of Miers' withdrawal was purely coincidental with the timing aligning so perfectly with the news of Libby's indictment.

Senate Democrats persisted in their claim that their motivation was nothing but a concern for national security. This meeting had to happen today. The nation could not wait a day longer. This was the day we needed to discuss Iraq and the indictment behind closed doors. Yesterday's positive reports about the state of the economy, the new Supreme Court pick (who seems to be quite satisfactory to the Bush base) really have no bearing on the nature and timing of the meeting.

developing...

(Inspired by Andy Borowitz)

Remembering Rosa Parks

2005-11-01T08:00:00.000Z

"All I was doing was trying to get home from work." --Rosa Parks

Think about a long, hard day at your job, whatever it is (even for you stay-home moms). I don't know what the weather was like. But, I doubt there was either air conditioning or heating of any worth. Add to it being a minority in a pre-civil rights and pre-Politically Correct world. People had the same negative thoughts and feelings towards those they didn't understand. But, in her day, they expressed that prejudice in their words and actions.

It's so easy for us to talk about Rosa Parks as a hero, and she was. However, it is important to remember that this was a women who simply worked all day as a seamstress and had one thing on her mind: to get home. I would imagine that the conditions under which she worked were not the most comfortable or pleasant. Far from it.

She walked to the bus station, then dragged herself onto the bus. She went to the open seat in the front row of the colored section. Not the front of the bus, the front of the back!

Her refusal to let the white man take her seat was not planned. There was no strategy. She had no feminist movement or civil rights movement to join or to imitate. She was not trying to make a political, social or economic statement. No book deal to negotiate.

She was one woman, trying to make her way home.

So often, we associate heroes and celebrities with special status. They get to be super-human. They live in a world other than our own. They are somehow better than us. We can come to believe, perhaps subconsciously, that because they are inherently special, they are inherently courageous, articulate and virtuous.

Yet, what makes them special is that they are ordinary people just like you and me. They have the same struggles with insecurity and fear and the same love and concern for their loved ones. If they didn't have the same obstacles, then there would be nothing heroic about their actions. Rosa Parks was a normal, very human woman who could have done any number of things in the moment she was asked to give up her seat. She chose to stay. And, that decision changed the course of history.

As we take a moment to honor the "mother" of the civil rights movement, consider the opportunities facing us everyday. There is no way Rosa Parks, her family or friends could have predicted the weight and the consequence of that moment.

Every one of us possesses the same heroic potential. May we never forget the power of the choices we make. One man said, "When I consider the tremendous consequences of little things, I'm tempted to think that there's no such thing as a little thing."

Thank God for the "little thing" Rosa Parks did. We are forever grateful for and indebted to her.

God bless.

"Massive Hemorrhaging"?

2005-10-31T19:01:00.000Z

My initial thoughts on the nomination of Alito for the Supreme Court are quite positive. Just as Senator Harry Reid's endorsement of Harriet Miers made me a bit nervous, today's reaction to Judge Alito makes me very happy.

Here are just a couple of reassuring endorsements:

"Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not strength." --Senator Ted Kennedy

"The nomination of Judge Alito requires an especially long, hard look by the Senate because of what happened last week to Harriet Miers. Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them. Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people."--Senator Harry Reid

"Judge Alito's reputation has only grown over the span of his service...He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people." --President Bush

Time will tell. However, this is shaping up to be the fight we anticipated for the right person for the job. We went to the polls for this very moment. We elected this president in order to place men and women who would apply the constitution--not their views and not international law--to the cases before them. This is worth fighting for.

On Faith and Politics

2005-10-30T07:48:00.000Z

Earlier this week, I wrote about a former senator who spoke out against the "danger" of Christian influence on the Republican Party. In that post, I made the argument that faith-in-action is exactly what both parties need.

Today, I want to take a different approach today. Let's take an honest look at what Christians and religious people do that IS a problem.

One of my favorite authors, Elisabeth Elliott, wrote: "The fact that I am a woman does not make me a different kind of a Christian. But, the fact that I am a Christian does make me a different kind of a woman." This is a profound statement that, I believe, can be applied in many areas if we substitute for the word "woman."

How about this: the fact that I am a liberal/conservative does not make me a different kind of a Christian. But, the fact that I am a Christian does make me a different kind of a liberal/conservative. (For you who may not be Christian, please forgive me as I pick on--oh, I mean, talk to--my fellow Christians.)

1. Christianese. Every subculture has its unique language and ways. This is a term used for the language and "buzz words" used in Christian circles. The problem is attempting to use that language when you walk out of the church building. Talking to classmates, neighbors or co-workers in that foreign language can affect communication. However, when it's used in a nationally televised interview, a press conference or a debate, it's simply an example of Christians identifying themselves as irrelevant and out-of-touch.

2. Single-Issue Voters. I have to start this point by saying that I believe that abortion is our modern-day holocaust. I believe that the blood of the 40 + million babies is on our hands as a nation and that we must take every legal and moral action possible to bring transformation in the heart and mind, and in the law to allow for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in our land.

Having said that, before I decide on a candidate, I look at everything that candidate brings to the table (not just their stance on abortion). Too many people look only at one issue, namely abortion, and are discounted as closed-minded and even ignorant.

3. Apathy. This is just as important as the issues listed above. The same problem the rest of the nation faces. Some polls show that anywhere from 60% to 70% of evangelical Christians do not vote. I'm not sure how that compares to the rest of the nation and I don't care. The fact that I am an American does not make me a different kind of a Christian. But, the fact that I am a Christian better make me a different kind of American.

4. Voting by faith. This was one of the issues that bothered me a bit about the Harriet Miers nomination. I love it when a well-qualified candidate who has the goods and who is a person of character and integrity is also a person of faith. However, faith alone is NOT enough.

When we in California had our Governor's Election, the debate among Christians and conservatives was heated. I cannot tell you the number of intense discussions I participated in and condescending emails I received regarding "voting my conscience." It was code for "don't vote for Arnold."

I had to look at the whole candidate and the problems before our state. And, yes, I voted for Arnold. Does he believe as I do about abortion? NO. Is he a Christian? I don't think so. Did I think that we had a chance to move the ball down the field with a strong, winnable candidate who had the goods to take care of the emergency at hand? YES!

In reality, when I consider the issues that plague Christians, they resemble ones that have the potential to plague any group of people. They are human problems, regardless of the subculture. They are problems of exclusivity, irrelevance, ignorance and apathy.

The question remains, my fellow Christian, does the fact that you are a ______(fill in the blank) make you a different kind of a Christian? Or, does the fact that you're a Christian make you a different kind of everything else? It should.

On the Lighter Side: Pet Peeves

2005-10-29T08:13:00.000Z

Some of you may remember that I used to be a High School Social Studies teacher. I taught US History, Government, Economics, Anthropology and Sociology. All these classes required a fair amount of writing. And, for me, in addition to the content, the grammar and the flow of the writing mattered.

Because my students often received some very well marked papers back, they were convinced that I was really just an English teacher in disguise. I have never been an English teacher. However, I have a few peeves when it comes to communication :)

1. Using "I" when it should be "me." So many times I'll hear something like, "Do you have a minute for my wife and I to come by?" If it can't stand alone, it's not right. That is, you wouldn't say, "Do you have a minute for I to drop by?" Think about it.

2. At the end of a speech, someone approaches the podium and encourages the crowd to "stand to your feet." Wow, thanks for specifying. I wasn't sure whether I should stand on my head or my hands. It's always good to get that kind of clarification!

3. Someone is telling a story about a dramatic change in their life. With all the emotion they can muster, they exclaim: "I made a 360 degree turn!" So, you're right where you started? Hmmm... If you mean you're going the opposite direction, that would be 180 degrees. Just FYI.

4. People misusing words "big words," in an attempt to sound intelligent. What's worse is people who are intelligent who act like they can't think of any other word but the "big word." True intelligence, I believe, is marked by an ability to make simple the complex.

5. The term "redoubling our efforts." Is that redundant regarding the whole "doubling" thing? Or, would it be more accurate to say "quadrupling our efforts" so that the listener doesn't have to take the extra step in doing the math?

Bonus: Why are bathrooms on airplanes called "lavatories?" I don't understand.

Feel free to add your own! :)

Happy Saturday!

Update: In light of the enthusiastic response to this post, I feel compelled to recommend the book Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynn Truss for my fellow "sticklers." ;)

Harriet and Hillary: What Do Women Really Want?

2005-10-28T19:33:00.000Z

Ever read books, watch a documentary or a talk show about what men want (aside from physical urges) in life? There are a few good books. But, by and large, there's not much of a market for that type of material. Wanna know why? Because they are fairly easy creatures to figure out.

Women, on the other hand, have a slightly different reputation. There are plenty of books, talk shows, magazines, documentaries, investigative reports, songs and movies about the topic.

What I find interesting of late is the fascination with what women want in the political arena. Do women want a female justice to replace O'Connor? Do women want a woman president? Do women care more about gender than values? Do they care more about economics than morals?

What Do Women Really Want is the title of the latest book by Democrat Celinda Lake and Republican Kellyanne Conway. And, the above questions are just a few of the ones they ask real women about. Among the many insightful conclusions they reached, they report the following:

As for Hillary as president and Harriet on the Supreme Court, there is no consensus. Women want a female president -- if she's qualified. They want women on the Supreme Court -- if they are top-notch. They want to know more about both women.

I hate to break it to you, but women do not simply want a woman in office. They want a good one. If you ask this woman, she wants a woman who can do the job as well as if not better than her competitor and be a person of character and integrity. The same standard I would ask of any man.

Character matters. People matter. Values matter. I, for one, would much rather see a supreme court justice or a president who is a man of character, one who can compete with the best of them and one who has both the courage and the conviction to do the right thing, personally and professionally than a woman who is anything less.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter which restroom you visit on your break. It is, instead, about matters of the heart and mind. May the best person win!

Not as complicated as you thought, was it?

Miers Withdraws

2005-10-27T16:28:00.000Z

I normally keep it to one post a day. But, I was awakened by the voice of a trying-not-to-gloat Laura Ingraham, making reference to why the Miers nomination was withdrawn.

I tried to get onto Hugh Hewitt's site to see what he has to say. Everyone else must have the same idea because I can't get on. My guess is that today is his day to be "depressed and dismayed," as much as Hugh can ever really be depressed. He always has such a positive outlook. But, he did express his concern over the effect that the opposition could have on the process.

I did find the statement released by leading Democrat Senator Harry Reid:

“The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues.

“In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right wing base. He should reject the demands of a few extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.”

I wonder who he has in mind when he says the "radical right wing?" David Frum? Laura Ingraham? Charles Krauthammer? I can't help but note that the "Christian Right," in this case, was for Miers. Jay Sekulow and James Dobson both supported the nominee. I suppose the "radical right wing" is whoever expresses any kind of criticism of the president. Hmmm...

Then, I just love the condescension with which he ends his statement. "Don't reward the bad behavior..." Big brother knows better than those disobedient, rebellious Republicans. Is that right, Senator? And, as though the president and those "few extremists" need to be told, "choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans." Ahhhhhhh. Oh, is that how it works? Because we only want to protect the rights of those extremist. Thanks for telling us.

Enough about Reid. I, for one, am proud of the president for having done the right thing (no pun intended). The more we learned about Miers, the worse it looked. There's no getting around a fight for the right candidate this time around. While I don't envy the difficult predicament in which the president finds himself these days, I will continue to repeat my mantra: We went to the polls, Mr. President, for this very thing. We told other people to go to the polls as well. Appoint a solid, unswerving strict constructionist to the Court, please.

P.S. Don't forget to read my post on "The Danger of Christianity" below.

The "Danger" of Christianity

2005-10-27T07:58:00.000Z

Upon rolling out of bed this morning, I was awakened by the delightful aroma of Hazelnut Creme brewing in my coffee maker. After savoring every sip of the warm comfort-in-a-cup, praying and reading out of my Bible, I bounced out of bed to jump start my day.

While I confess I failed to pray for my president and other government leaders today, that is part of what I do as a Christian. Whether a conservative or a liberal is in office. While I have yet to look at my voter pamphlet for the upcoming state elections, I will and I will do so from a decidedly biblical perspective. Not conservative. Not liberal. Biblical.

Tonight, after dinner, I sat with some friends and watched a Tivo-ed episode of Commander-in-Chief. We all recognized the propaganda and discussed it as such. And, in tonight, all those in the group would call themselves "Christian" and would lean more "conservative" than "liberal."

This Saturday, a group of women at my church are getting together for breakfast. We'll hang out, have some mouth-watering french toast at our favorite cafe and talk about how to vote from a biblical worldview.

Some, well at least one former senator, might call me "dangerous."

What is it that makes me different from a typical "Republican?"

1. I believe that each sphere of government (from individual up to federal) has both its responsibilities and its limits..

2. Related to #1, I believe that the individual, the family and local community organizations (like churches) have a primary responsibility to care for their own.

3. I believe that a candidate's ability to demonstrate self-control, wisdom and success in their personal and family life is a measure of their ability to demonstrate self-control, wisdom and success in their public affairs.

4. I believe that character counts more than religious affiliation. I don't care that a candidate simply state that he/she is Christian or that he/she attends church every week. I do care that they have their priorities in order; that they treat their family with love and care; that they are people of integrity; and, that they work in excellence "as unto the Lord."

5. I believe that God places those who are in authority, regardless of religious or political affiliation. The same God who placed George W. Bush in authority as president did likewise with William Jefferson Clinton and Richard Nixon.

6. As such, the Bible makes it clear that we are to pray for "all those who are in authority." I believe it is my responsibility to pray for my leaders, regardless of party, religion, etc.

7. I believe that it is also my responsibility to be informed and to do my part to make a positive impact on my world. Psalm 116 says that "The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, But the earth He has given to the sons of men." That's us. We cannot forsake our responsibility to take care of this earth and its people. That covers everything from voting for good people, to caring for the environment, for the hurting, the impoverished and for those who don't have a voice of their own. It means getting the message out to those in my sphere of influence.

So, former US Senator John Danforth considers me and my faith part of what he calls "dangerous" and "divisive" in the Republican Party.

That's too bad. If you ask me, we need more people praying and taking responsibility for themselves and their nation. Could it be that the division has come as a result of flip-flopping and not as a result of faith? I believe that both the current Republican and Democratic parties could use a strong dose of conviction, fortitude and, yes, even faith.

But, that's just one woman's perspective on this particular issue of the day...

Just A Day

2005-10-26T07:00:00.000Z

Friends,

I seem to have caught a bad cold in the last few days. So, even though I would like to write on Rosa Parks and Blog Relief Day for the victims of the Pakistan quake, I will simply refer you to sites that are doing just those things.

A brief comment on Rosa Parks... Suffice it to say (for now) that she is a heroine in our national history and to the civil rights movement, in particular. One of my favorite things about her is that she was not on a mission to make a statement or head up a cause. was making no political point. She was just a woman who was very tired after a day of work and who just wanted to get back home to her family. That's it. Yet, in that moment, she helped to jump-start a historic movement in our nation. History will forever honor her memory.

Click for more on Rosa Parks.
Click for Blog Relief Day.

I plan to be back tomorrow, a little more rested and a lot healthier :)

Much love,
Lores
Just A Woman

On Bush and Miers

2005-10-25T07:00:00.000Z

I have held on as long as I could, waiting, hoping to let the hearings bear out the evidence needed to justify the president's pick.

But, now I'm being asked by various parties to state my view on Miers. And, if I had to make a decision based on what I know right now, I would have to say that I oppose the Miers nomination.

I hate to say it because I trust our president. But, this is not simply about trust or about him. At the end of the day, it is the president who has the authority to choose his candidate. That is his constitutional right. No debate about that. The debate in my mind has more to do with whether he followed wise counsel.

I do not agree with those who, like Coulter, Malkin and some over at National Review Online who are lambasting the president for his pick, with a virtual disregard for his record and his commitment to an originalist judicial philosophy, one that applies the constitution as it is rather than a "loose construction," which feels free to reinterpret and add to the constitution, even if it means elevating international law to the level of the US Constitution.

On the other side, Peggy Noonan and John Fund, among many others, are disappointed and believe that the President missed an opportunity. This is what I believe. I've said before that so many of us went to the polls, we even flew to battleground states to in order to elect the president who would select the strict constructionist judicial nominees.

It didn't have to be this complicated. We didn't go to the polls to ensure a female justice. We didn't go to the polls to ensure a born-again justice. We didn't go to the polls to ensure a friend of the president as justice. We went to the polls to ensure a justice who would uphold the constitution. That's it.

Early reports of her questionnaire and her interviews are not good. If the president and his advisors wanted to go with a no-name without a paper trail, they should have gone with a solid pick, one who would blow any very well qualified justice out of the water.

Time will tell. The hearings begin on November 7. We will not have to wait very long to find out exactly what she's made of. I promise to come out in full support of her Miers nomination if she proves us wrong. I also hope that if she does flop, that those who have been her greatest supporters--like Jay Sekulow and Hugh Hewitt--would retract their support.

This is all-or-nothing. There's much more at stake than the momentary "peace" of those in the conservative movement. Our nation's political and cultural future is at stake.

Here they go again

2005-10-24T08:39:00.000Z

The American Civil Liberties Union is at it once again. To use John Leo's words,

"This time around, the folks with the magnifying glasses are leaning on the village of Tijeras, N.M., whose seal contains a conquistador's helmet and sword, a scroll, a desert plant, a fairly large religious symbol (the Native American zia) and a quite small Christian cross. "Tiny cross" inspectors are not permitted to fret about large non-Christian religious symbols, only undersized Christian ones, so the ACLU filed suit to get the cross removed."

The ACLU hypocrisy is over the top. They have already put pressure on Los Angeles County to remove the tiny cross on its seal. The organization has ignored other larger non-Christian religious symbols. They also ignored the atheists, Buddhists, Hindu and Muslim residents in LA County who urged the County to keep the cross on the seal, as it represented a significant part of Los Angeles history.

The controversy rages around the nation. A boy was not allowed to read his Bible during recess. The New York school argued that "recess" is not really free time. It's still school time. So, it was their job to maintain that wall of separation between church and state.

In Torrance, California students were forbidden from attending the annual national "See You At The Pole" day to pray for their campus and for the nation before school starts.

Things have to change. I think the ACLU consistently overplays its hand. Unfortunately, not everyone else agrees. What I do know is that our founders would turn over in their graves at the thought that this is taking place in their land.

The freedoms granted to us in the First Amendment seem to be contingent on our faith. And, if the ACLU had its way, Christians might not even be allowed citizenship, for fear that the state would be condoning that faith. It sounds extreme. But, carrying the ACLU philosophy to its logical extreme leaves you wondering whether we'd truly live in a democratic society. Not if they had it their way.

Mark Your Calendar

2005-10-22T08:35:00.000Z

I received an e-mail from "Editor Bob" of e-greetings today. I thought I'd share the upcoming occasions with you. So, mark your calendar with these two important dates.

October 22
Eat A Pretzel Day
Used Car Day
Make A Difference Day

Perhaps the best way to celebrate all three is to buy two pretzels, go buy a used car and give the second pretzel to the car salesman? Just a thought.

October 24
International Forgiveness Day

Don't miss your chance. This is the day set aside to either offer or ask for forgiveness. Don't hold a grudge now. You wouldn't want to wait an entire year before you get that chance again. It's not as though you can forgive people as soon as you offend or hurt them. That would be crazy. That's why there's this very special holiday.

I wonder if Jesus was aware of this when he told Peter that he had to forgive those guys up to 490 times. Do you think Jesus thought we could live to be 490 years old? Or, maybe he meant that we get to do all that forgiving in that 24-hour period once/year.

Honestly, I laughed aloud when I read the "Editor Bob" e-mail. I have to admit that I have met people who would do well to ask for forgiveness once a year since they never think they've done any wrong. However, I'm thankful that forgiveness is readily available all year round!

Have a wonderful weekend!

New Format

2005-10-21T07:54:00.000Z

My friend Tony from Boulder inspired me to get a schedule for topics on a weekly basis on my site. So, here's the plan...

Monday through Thursday: Just the News
Friday: Gender Issues
Saturday: The Lighter Side
Sunday: On Matters of Faith

I hope you'll enjoy the format! And, since it's Friday, I hope you'll participate in what is sure to be very interesting discussion below :)

p.s. I reserve the right to change the order on any given day or week based on major news events.

"Sexy, Successful...and Single?"

2005-10-21T07:52:00.000Z

Is it possible that women can be insecure about being successful? That is the topic of an article I came across this week.

I have to admit that as a relatively successful single woman myself, I took special note of the headline, “Sexy, Successful…and Single?”

I enjoy articles like this. People trying to make sense of the social phenomenon we’re witnessing among older (30+), successful, good-looking single women. As a woman who has spoken to women’s groups and at churches throughout the nation, I have seen women in small towns and in major metropolitan cities, tall and short, of all backgrounds and careers facing the same issues.

Men are generally intimidated by successful women. I have sometimes joked that I don’t want to choose between either a gifted, successful man OR a man of character. I realize that I am definitely generalizing the situation. However, my little joke comes from my own experience and holds some truth in it. It often appears that men are either “gifted” and “successful” (and, therefore, not intimidated) but lack key character traits OR they are men of character, integrity and humility who don’t seem as “successful” and are, therefore, often intimidated.

No woman, regardless of her title, position or salary wants to be with a man who is intimidated by her. Neither does she want to settle for a man who is in love with his own success!

Every woman wants to be loved and to feel like there is a man who desires to make sacrifices in order to love and protect her. Some of you, I’m sure, have read John Eldredge. He does well for presenting the case for those desires in the heart and soul of every man in Wild At Heart. He and his wife, Staci, discuss the longing in the heart and soul of every woman in Captivating.

Most every woman, regardless of education, career path or family background longs for relationship and family. Perhaps guys need that as a reminder. Maybe women in that station and path in life ought to avoid titles and just be women.

These are just a few thoughts from Just A Woman. What do you think?

Thinking Globally...

2005-10-20T18:59:00.000Z

A 6.5 magnitude earthquake hit in Japan today. My guess is that most of us have not heard. Honestly, I only know because I did a search for information on the recent quake in Pakistan.

What is on the forefront of our minds, the front page of our newspapers and top of our newscasts is Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and the coming Hurricane Wilma in Florida. All absolutely newsworthy stories. All worthy of our time and attention. However, how many of us are aware that the death toll in the Pakistan quake has now reached 79,000!

That's 26 times the number of Americans we lost on September 11. Where is the public cry for help and relief in our nation. I was so proud of the way we responded to the victims of hurricane Katrina.

Thankfully, there are organizations, like Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse, without an ethnocentric bone in their organizational body, just as committed to helping the victims of this terrible quake as they were those who survived Katrina.

I challenge you, even as we prepare for yet another massive storm to hit the shores of our great nation, to take a moment to figure out what your role is to support the victims in the wake of the disaster in Pakistan.

Whether your role is to pray or to contribute financially, do it. God knows, we would want the same done for us.

Grandiose Delusions: Saddam Hussein's Pathetic State

2005-10-19T17:36:00.000Z

He pleaded Not Guilty.

Is it a concern for his image in the middle east? Or, is it mere deception?

It appears that it's going to be a very entertaining trial. The BBC correspondent claims that it was clearly a battle for control. Hussein states: "I preserve my constitutional rights as the president of Iraq. I do not recognise the body that has authorised you and I don't recognise this aggression."

He went on to say that he does not recognize the unjust authority of the court. And, as icing on the cake, he made a big deal of walking out alone during one of the breaks.

Wow, what a display of power! What a statement! How intimidating! Uh, NOT! This whole things is very silly. His drama and display of what he may think is power does not prevent him from sleeping in a jail cell every night. The fact that he walks out on his own during a break does not change the fact that he is the dethroned president of Iraq. The fact that he does not acknowledge the authority of the court does not nullify the process of the ratification of an Iraqi constitution!

His battle for 'control' in the courtroom means nothing to the men and women who went to the polls in Iraq. Whether it is a concern for public opinion or mere arrogance and grandiose delusions of himself, Iraqis no longer have to endure the hell of the torture, rape chambers and mass graves.

I don't care what authority he thinks he has, how rude he behaves or who he disrespects in court right now. We can all see very clearly that this 'emperor' is naked!

Illegal Immigration Genius

2005-10-18T18:01:00.000Z

"Today, a non-Mexican illegal immigrant caught trying to enter the United States across the southwest border has an 80 percent chance of being released immediately because we lack the holding facilities," Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff.

The Department of Homeland Security announced a comprehensive plan for border security: "Our goal at DHS (Homeland Security) is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions."

Okay, so, breathe in. Breathe out. Count to 10, if it helps you....

I must begin by saying that I am grateful for a plan, and for one that makes sense. However, it is now four years after that tragic Tuesday in September of 2001. We have found and, thankfully, stopped terrorists plots against us (and other nations). Chertoff explained that The problem is especially severe for non-Mexicans apprehended at the southwest border." Uh, right. THAT is precisely what so many have been desperately attempting to bring to your attention. Yes, THAT is the problem.

Ok. Again. Breathe in. Breathe out. I really am thankful. However, I do hope this is not too late. And, I feel like I need to brace myself to expect the war cry from those who will, inevitably, chastise this government and those who support this action as "insensitive" and possibly even "racist."

Our nation is at risk. While I am relieved that the administration has finally addressed the issue of illegal immigration, I cannot help but feeling that they let the American people down by waiting so long to reveal a common sense plan.

However, I believe that as long as the administration is quick and efficient in administering this strategy, the American people will be very forgiving. I know I will.

That's just this woman's perspective on this issue of the day...

Update: Check out this compelling piece over a Watchman's Words. Read "Who would Jesus Hire?"

Question of the Week Answered

2005-10-17T21:37:00.000Z

by Kim (Just Another Woman)

In answering the “Question of the Week” regarding men’s and women’s roles in relationships, and the even more specific “should the woman initiate the defining of a relationship?” I will first respond by saying that if I hadn’t initiated the ever pivotal “DTR talk (Defining the Relationship) with my now husband, I’d still probably be single today. There were certain factors, namely a working relationship, that made his approaching me to initiate a dating relationship something that just wasn’t going to happen, at least not for a long while. Being his senior by 9 nine years, waiting that long, ambiguous “while” was not something I was willing to do. It wasn’t that my biological clock was ticking that loudly, per say. But, we all, to some degree, women probably more than men, need definition in relationship.

So, can a woman initiate that initial crossroads conversation? Certainly. Should she? Well…..

Consider this: traditionally men have been the ones to ask the woman out on a first date. They have been the ones who move the relationship in the direction they’ve wanted it to go. They have been the ones to propose. We now live in the 21st century when women are asking men out, both can have high paying successful careers, i.e. dual “breadwinners,” women are now the ones having to move the relationship along, and we even see on occasion a woman doing the proposing. In the name of modernity and various women’s movements we all accept these changes, or so we say.

Despite what we say we accept now socially and culturally, I believe we naturally tend toward specific roles for men and women to live out in this life with one another-- not in an unchanging “Leave it to Beaver” way, but rather in a framework that holds the complicated world of relationships together. We like definition. Look at homosexual relationships even: two people of the same sex inevitably fall into the roles of one being “the man” in the relationship and one being “the woman.” Or, even more extreme, look at a transgender person today: he or she does not want to be another kind of man or woman; he/she wants to be defined in all the ways and roles of the opposite gender.

Staci and John Eldredge, husband and wife and co-authors of Captivating contend that every woman is asking the question “Am I lovely?” and every man “Do I have what it takes?” The degree to which this is answered early on in childhood determines the security each person develops in themselves, and the “baggage,” as we like to call it today, that each person does or does not bring to a relationship. I think they are right. I know that unanswered question in my own life got me into big relational messes. Nobody likes messy relationships, broken hearts, and great friendships that become forever “weird.” Of course, those things are not totally avoidable. But, wouldn’t we try, if knew how to make this relationship stuff work the best that it could?

Well, then, I say, let men be brave, let them “have what it takes.” Women are hearing anyway on Oprah, and books like He’s Just Not That Into You (from a writer of “Sex and the City”), that they are supposed to be fought for. Men, when you find the woman worth fighting for, fight for her. If she’s not that one who is “most lovely” to you, stop taking her out, stop talking on the phone for hours (or e-mail, texting, etc..), stop the conversations where you are sharing your soul. Women, likewise. Don’t be so desperate to be lovely to anyone that you allow a crush to deceive you, and you to share your soul with one who will not eventually guard it “’til death do you part.”

Now, remember that I am the one who began this blog with the story of me, the woman, being the initiator in the relationship. A happy marriage, one wonderful son and another on the way later, I am VERY glad that someone got the ball rolling, even if it had to me. I think down deep, though, for the answered and unanswered questions we have in our soul about our self-worth, we all want and need the gender roles to be played out successfully in relationship.

Coming Later Today

2005-10-17T19:44:00.000Z

Just want you to know that I'll be posting my answer to the Question of the Week(from Friday's post) later today. And, for this particular post, I'm happy to introduced one of my dearest friends, Kim.

Kim is a regular reader of Just A Woman. She has posted comments as "KO" in the past. So, many of you have already met her. She and I talk about many of the issues I write about here. And, we talked--with many other friends--over the last few days about this issue. I have asked her to guest-blog before. But, it hasn't worked out. I'm happy to say, though, that now is the time! :)

Because of her experience related to the issue and because she and I are in agreement about the matter, I have asked her to write a response to the question.

We'll be posting before the end of the day.

Have a good day! God bless!
Just A Woman

What Would Jesus Blog?

2005-10-16T07:01:00.000Z

If Jesus were on earth today, what would He say? And, how would He say it?

I believe that because the Bible says that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, that the answer to the question of what He would say can be found in what He did say. The same thing!

Humanity's failings and need for divine love, grace and provision has not changed. We seem to keep finding ways to hurt ourselves, those we love and corrupt our businesses and our governments. At the same time, God's love and truth for individuals, families and nations remain the same.

The real question for us today has more to do with how He would deliver His message.

This weekend's first national "God Blog" conference seems to have intrigued some in the media. I admit, it sounds like a funny name. I have friends who laughed every time I made reference to the "God Blog Conference." Something about "Blog" immediately following "God" sounded like a joke.

So, back to the question: would He blog? I'm not sure He wouldn't. I think Jesus would give the blogosphere more serious thought than do most Christians...and than do the mainstream media. Because blogging has become the medium of the masses.

Jesus spoke the language of the people to whom He reached out. He used metaphors about trees and plants to an agricultural people. He gave bread and fish to the hungry. He spoke His message in ways that were understood by His audience.

Beyond the technology, however, is the importance of its delivery. In many ways, Christians in our nation act like we've forgotten that Jesus was a "friend of sinners." If you've read this blog for any length of time, you already know that one of my pet peeves is arrogance, pride, a critical spirit and anger justified in the name of the "truth." Jesus loved sinners. He loved people who disagreed with Him, even those who hated Him. He embodied the marriage of love and truth.

I wish the same could and would be said of thos who talk and blog about faith and politics. Unfortunately mean-spiritedness marks blogs on the right as much as the left and the Christian as well as the non-Christian.

Whether or not Jesus would blog, I wonder what He would comment on ours. We would do well to consider what Jesus would think of our blog before hitting "Publish" or "Send" every day, not just once a week on Sunday.

God Blog Conference Themes

2005-10-15T16:47:00.000Z

I've enjoyed attending the God Blog Conference at Biola University. I want to share some of the themes I've heard this weekend.

Excellence: Readers will keep coming if the quality and the content of the blog is excellent. Having something of worth to say is not enough. Grammar matters. By the same token, a well written post that lacks subtance is a waste of time and space.

Tone: "Don't let the sun go down on your 'Send' button!" Watch the tone of your post. Because those of us who write/blog tend to be a passionate bunch, it is easy to justify anger, self-righteousness or a critical attitude as "righteous indignation." If we really want to be part of the solution, then we must write in manner that will help to bring a positive impact on the culture.

The Bork/Miers Lesson: This is a theme I'd like to write more about later in discussing the Miers nomination. For now, in the context of the blogosphere, we cannot escape the reality that we can never take back what flies into cyberspace once we click "Publish." For most of us, this may not have any vital consequences. However, for those who aspire to any sort of public platform, our words will forever follow us. It's bad enough that our words will, most assuredly, be taken out of context. We can not afford to not to consider carefully before we hit "publish" or "send."

Beyond all the lessons, I have thoroughly enjoyed meeting a bunch of quality people. Honestly, that has been the greatest part of this conference. I'm blessed to have made some wonderful new friends!

"God Blog" Conference Makes News

2005-10-14T17:02:00.000Z

Fox News reports on the conference I'm attending this weekend :)

Click here to read more.

From Blog of the Week...to Question of the Week

2005-10-14T07:19:00.000Z

Thank you, again, to everyone who voted for Just A Woman for Blog of the Week. If you missed the news, I won :)

I may be in the running again this week. So, check at Radio Blogger later today...after 3pm Pacific Time.

On another note, I have a question for you.

A man and woman are good friends. They spend more time together than they do with their other friends of the opposite sex. They work and play together, have wonderful conversation and have many mutual friends. A typical weekend includes lunch and a movie with friends, with this guy and girl hanging out together even within the group.

Sometimes they'll have coffee together after work. Other times they'll talk on the phone about all the things they have in common. But, they're just friends. Really. Aside from spending all that time together, they maintain a truly platonic relationship.

The woman begins to realize that she has feelings for her friend. He seems to be sending mixed signals. She's not sure whether she's reading into it or it's real. At the same time, she begins to wonder what he must be thinking in order to be spend so much time with her.

These are adults. It's not high school. So, she doesn't have the option of sending a note to her best friend to pass along to his best friend to find out if he likes her.

What does she do?

I had a heated debate over this issue with a good friend just last night. We eventually came some understanding and even agreement once we cleared up the semantics of the discussion. But, what became very clear was that men and women view a lot of things--relationships, in particular--very differently.

What's your answer?

(P.S. For the record, this is based on a real scenario involving mutual friends. That's what started the "debate." However, the discussion became more broad than this one situation and turned into one about men and women's roles in general.)

Consider This

2005-10-13T21:39:00.000Z

Peggy Noonan gives insightful, challenging and controversial advice to the White House.

"The White House, after the Miers withdrawal/removal/disappearance, would be well advised to call in leaders of the fractious base--with heavy initial emphasis on the Washington conservative establishment--and have some long talks about the future. It's time for the administration to reach out to wise men and women, time for Roosevelt Room gatherings of the conservative clans. Much old affection remains, and respect lingers, but a lot of damage has been done.

The president has three years yet to serve. That, I think, is the subtext of recent battles: Conservatives want to modify and, frankly, correct certain administration policies now, while there's time. The White House can think of this--and should think of it--as an unanticipated gift. A good fight can clear the air; a great battle can result in resolution and recommitment.

No one wants George W. Bush turned into Jimmy Carter, or nobody should. The world is a dangerous place, and someone has to lead America."

"And next time perhaps the White House, in announcing and presenting the arguments for a new nominee to the high court, will remember a certain tradition with regard to how we do it in America. We don't say, "We've nominated Joe because he's a Catholic!" A better and more traditional approach is, "Nominee Joe is a longtime practitioner of the law with considerable experience, impressive credentials, and a lively and penetrating intellect. Any questions? Yes, he is a member of the Catholic church. Any other questions?"

What are your thoughts?

Click here for Noonan's entire column.

You Don't Speak For Me, Hillary

2005-10-12T15:27:00.000Z

"If Hillary loses, every woman loses."

--Susan Estrich on Hannity and Colmes, Tuesday October 11

If Susan Estrich weren't so sincere about her convictions about Hillary, this would be a hilarious joke or a bad political strategy. Instead, her claim that Hillary somehow embodies the hope of all women in America is pathetic.

I do believe that Estrich genuinely believes this. However, she is genuinely wrong. Does President Bush represent the hope of all evangelical Christians? If he had lost, would churches have started burning all over our country? If Condi hadn't been appointed Secretary of State, would the civil rights movement have been set back a half century?

The truth is that Hillary does not represent all women. She definitely does not represent me. But, that's because she has worked and fought against my core values. I do not believe that abortion is good for women. The women in the womb never get a choice. And, the women who feel like that's there only option suffer greatly throughout the process and beyond.

She, the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other women's advocates remained silent when it came to her womanizing husband. It appears politics and ambition outweighed the fight for women's rights and protection.

Hillary's character, her core values (which, appear to be "changing" in preparation for the '08 election...coincidentally) and her actions do not represent all women. She definitely does not represent this woman.

Intellectual Honesty

2005-10-11T07:01:00.000Z

As much as talk radio has a well earned reputation of broad brushing liberals and conservatives alike, alienating everyone but "the base" and using the party talking points as the outline and arguments for discussion, that was not what took place at the "Hannitize For Your Protection" speech Sean Hannity delivered at the Wadsworth Theater in Los Angeles last Friday night.

While Sean took a few shots at some of the most ridiculous statements made by liberals and Democrats (e.g. Dick Durbin comparing our troops to Nazis, Howard Dean claiming that Republicans have never made an honest living, etc.), he also gave an honest and critical assessment of today's Republican party.

He credited Republican and conservative leadership in the war on terror, on moral and social issues and on the economy. But, he also let 'em have it for their failure to stand firm on the core values of the party. Issues of overspending, limited government and border control were top on his list of serious problems in the current version of the GOP.

As I mentioned in yesterday's post, Mark Levin in his standard brilliant and comedic form barely needed to lift a finger to make Gloria Allred look like a child on the playground, pointing the finger, frustrated but having no logical reasoning for her disapproval of Miers. Her biggest argument seemed to center around Miers being an "Evangelical" who actually goes to church, serves as a part of her church and supports her missions board (which is "anti-abortion," by the way).

It was pathetic to see Gloria in such a state. I may not agree with her most of the time. But, that wasn't the point. If I didn't know it, I would never have believe that this woman is a lawyer. She knows the law and the constitution. You would never know it.

It's too bad that demonstrations of intellectual integrity are so rare that we take note, even take time to stop and recognize it. But, I must commend both Sean Hannity and Mark Levin for not bowing down at the altar of Partisanship in order to be intellectually honest. We need more of that.

P.S. Here's me and Sean before the show. Unfortunately, I was talking as we were taking the picture. :)

Attitude Check

2005-10-10T19:20:00.000Z

"If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country."

"Start an Impeach Bush Committee"

These statements didn't come from the "liberal mainstream media" or the "wacky left." They didn't come from Dick Durbin or Ted Kennedy. No, it wasn't Barbara Streisand or Sean Penn.

The above statements came from conservative icon, Ann Coulter.

Many conservatives, myself included, are hesitant about the president's recent Supreme Court pick. However, that concern does not have to translate into divisiveness and mudslinging.

The other night, at the Sean Hannity Event, Mark Levin shared his thoughts on Harriet Miers. His frustration had to do with what little we know about Miers. He had many of the same questions that Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer expressed last week. At the same time, however, he has a measure of trust in the president. Perhaps not quite as much as Hugh Hewitt embodies.

There was one thing he said that I hadn't heard before in this context: "The difference between me and Kristol and Krauthammer is that I'm not going to trash my president."

That struck me. What a great attitude. If you know anything about Mark Levin, then you know that he's not afraid to challenge anyone. And, he can easily make anyone look stupid, both by his style and his intellect. (You should have seen him taking on Gloria Allred that night. Absolutely hysterical. She came off like a bumbling idiot in their debate. )

Levin's tone in this matter is worth emulating. I'm not going to trash my president. I'm not going to disrespect my president. I'm not going to attack his character, his ability or his intellect. I will not strengthen the opposition by demeaning my president.

I believe it's possible to disagree, question and even criticize respectfully. I'd like to see more conservatives as well as liberals to do just that.

P.S. "Just A Woman" won Blog of the Week over at Radio Blogger! Thank you to all of you who voted for me! It's an honor :)

Vote for Just A Woman

2005-10-08T19:19:00.000Z

Just A Woman has been selected as one of the top 5 blogs of the week by talk radio host Hugh Hewitt. I encourage you to go vote at www.radioblogger.com this weekend.

P.S. I attended the Sean Hannity event at the Wadsworth Theater tonight. Sean was in his usual passionate and humorous form. He also invited "the great one" Mark Levin to debate Gloria Allred, who incidentally made NO sense whatsoever, regarding the Harriet Miers nomination.

More on the event--along with pictures--later. Have a good weekend!

Without A Vision

2005-10-07T08:48:00.000Z

"Without a vision, the people cast off restraint." (Proverb)

I have one question regarding the speech President Bush delivered yesterday: why did he wait so long to give it?

One of my greatest frustrations with this administration is communication and public relations, or lack thereof.

Here was a speech that communicated the larger purpose of the war on terror. It included highlights of the accomplishments of the war in Iraq. The speech instructed and inspired.

One part of the speech that piqued my interest the most was the president's claim that more than 10 terrorist threats have been foiled since September 11, 2001. That's not insignificant. Not a filler.

We may have felt that it has been miraculous for the United States to not get hit again since that tragic day. However, something about hearing the president speak with such passion and authority was encouraging and reassuring. They are on the job.

If I could offer one tiny piece of advice to the White House, I would say this: Please don't make this speech a one-time event. The American people, and the world, need to make sense of the war, of the 'new normal' in airports and subways. We need to be reminded of that terrible Tuesday in September as well as the new-found liberty of the Iraqi people.

Mr. President, please keep talking. Be honest about the mistakes and be bold about the successes. You will fan the flames of faith, courage and passion with the vision you set forth today.

May God bless you...and may God bless America!

The President's Speech

2005-10-06T14:42:00.000Z

I'm listening to the president deliver an excellent speech on the war on terror. Presenting his case, reminding us of the nature of the enemy and highlighting the accomplishments of the war thus far.

I have only one question off the top of my head: why hasn't he been doing this all along?

I believe that if the President gave similar speeches periodically throughout this war, the national and international conversation would be very different than what it is today.

More later.

Feminist Hypocrisy

2005-10-06T08:12:00.000Z

Harriet Miers:

became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association

became the first woman president of the State Bar of Texas

served as the chair of the American Bar Association's Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice

was named the National Law Journal named her one of the nation's 100 most powerful attorneys and as one of the nation's top 50 women lawyers

...to name just a few of her accomplishments.

As I've stated before, I'm in a bit of a wait-and-see stance about this nomination. I just need to know that she shares the desperately needed strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution--to interpret and apply, not re-write, the Constitution.

However, that's not the purpose of this post. What I find interesting, yet again, is the reaction from women and those who are supposed "women's advocates." Maureen Dowd, who makes Michael Savage seem sane by comparison, wrote a piece in the New York Times entitled, "All the President's Women." In it Dowd claims that the president surrounds himself with yes-woman; strong women who live to serve him.

Dowd describes these women, including Condi Rice, Karen Hughes and Harriet Miers as women who "subordinate themselves to W..." My guess is that if Clinton, or any other Democrat, had as diverse a leadership team, that diversity--especially the presence of "strong" women--would have been celebrated. Not here.

Larry Elder read from an LA Times Letter to the Editor which suggested that because Harriet Miers has never had children, she fails to bring a woman's experience to the job. She's merely a man wearing a dress. That was written by a woman in the year 2005, not 1905.

It seems to me that for women's advocates, this would be a time to commend this woman. Shouldn't they be hailing this as a victory regardless of ideology? Aren't they all about encouraging, celebrating and making ways for women to have greater opportunities and greater achievements where men have traditionally dominated? It seems Miers may very well be a product of feminism, at least in her career path. She never married. Those who worship the concept of "choice" are now slamming her for the choice she made to pursue her career.

Once again, women on the left reveal their true colors: women's achievements only count if you are a non-Christian, non-conservative and preferably non-white, as this Fox News report reveals. In reality, a woman can and will be praised by supposed women's advocates as long as she serves as a mouthpiece (kinda like a "yes-woman") for a leftist, feminist agenda.

As I've already mentioned, I care most that Bush's appointees, male or female, hold an originalist judicial philosophy. This is yet to be determined. However, what has been clearly established is that this is a woman of upstanding character and outstanding achievement. And, for that, she is to be commended.

On Loyalty

2005-10-06T06:07:00.000Z

"Loyalty is great. Loyalty to principles is really great." --Laura Ingraham

If there's any agreement at all regarding President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers for supreme court justice, it is that no one knows much about her right now.

There's one more thing that is apparent: the President opted to not have a fight. That's not, in and of itself, a negative. However, it raises important issues on both sides of this issue.

Why avoid the fight? What happened to the promise of nominating justices in the likeness of Thomas and Scalia? The next justice appointed will be, in effect, the "swing vote" on the Court. This one would be worth the fight.

It's no secret that the president hasn't received the best PR lately, with the handling of Iraq and Katrina (regardless of how much of that PR was warranted). It hurt his numbers. While I'm sure that strategists, like Karl Rove, would take this into consideration, my hope is that it would not be the highest priority. Where does loyalty lie? Did popularity and the Democratic plea for "unity" and "bringing the country together" win out?

We're told that we need to "trust" and be loyal to our president. Yes, I believe that Bush can be trusted. He is a good man, a good president. However, he has not always acted like a conservative one. So, "trust" and loyalty are not enough right now. That is what struck me about Ingraham's quote. Conservatives are not being disloyal by questioning the president's choice. They're actually being loyal to the principles and the values that led us to voting him into office. THAT is true loyalty.

I understand the concern on behalf of conservatives like Bill Kristol, David Frum and Laura Ingraham that in the moment many of us would say was the very reason Bush was elected he balked. It does appear, whether or not it is, to be a cowardly choice.

That said, I think there is such a thing as going overboard and doing more harm than good in the type of criticism of the president and Miers. I heard Stephen Bainbridge on Hugh Hewitt's show yesterday. By the end of the interview, Hugh asked the professor about how productive it is that some have proposed that Barney would have made a better choice for the Court. Bainbridge missed the opportunity to rise above that kind of unproductive, insulting rhetoric. I believe that level of conversation is simply mudslinging and infighting cloaked under the guise of "loyalty" to principles.

Though I am bothered by Bush's opting to not fight, I am more concerned that this nominee will do the job and do it well. We have seen too many unelected, unaccountable judges dishonoring and re-writing the constitution. I don't really care whether she is a political conservative or not. All I care is that she would be loyal to the constitution of the United States.

Fired for Supporting Troops?

2005-10-04T07:00:00.000Z

San Francisco talk show host, Melanie Morgan, is said to have been fired last week. The disagreement between the ABC radio station (KSFO) and Melanie's agent is unknown. However, ABC recently fired another one of its hosts for controversial remarks he made about Islam.

This is mere speculation at this point. However, I cannot help but wonder whether ABC is succumbing to political pressure due to Melanie's involvement in Move America Forward's "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy" Tour. The 20-city tour was not given half the airtime as was Cindy Sheehan. Move America's tour brought together families of soldiers who support the war effort in Iraq and who believe in the cause and in the president.

There may be no politics involved at all. Maybe this is simply coincidental. Maybe there are boring, legal and contractual disputes that have nothing to do with the troops, the president or the tour.

This may not be over. The two parties may resolve their differences. However, if this has ANYTHING to do with Cindy's private, personal and voluntary effort to show support for the troops serving abroad, I fear for the state of the media even more than I'd already been concerned. Obviously, owners have the right to hire and fire whomever they please. But, muzzling is a different story.

Melanie Morgan may end up joining Howard Stern and Michael Graham as another casualty in the current trampling of the First Amendment.

Perplexed But Not Despairing

2005-10-03T18:52:00.000Z

I am admittedly concerned, hesitant about the President's pick for the Supreme Court today. But, it's early.

From what I read from Hugh Hewitt, the ACLJ and the Drudge Report, I was encouraged by Harriet Miers' apparent conservative judicial phiolosophy. And, I do trust the president's judgement on this matter.

However, I have also read from other conservatives William Kristol and David Frum that this was a missed opportunity for the president to select a solid conservative.

Lots of investigating to be done and discussion to be had.

All I know is that, for many of us, this is the reason we voted for the president: to choose men and women committed to upholding and not re-writing the constitution.

Moving Day

2005-10-01T15:15:00.000Z

Hey friends,
Too much on my mind to write much about anything serious. I've lived in the South Bay area, near the beautiful Redondo and Manhattan beaches, for this last period of time. Today, I'm off to the San Fernando Valley. Yes, where all the fires are :( But, it's also where some of my closest friends live :)

Just one thought on my mind: Bill Bennett. I listened to the entire call. I do believe that many are taking the quote out of context. I do not believe that Bennett is racist. I believe that there is a double-standard for conservatives and liberals. But, I also believe that both sides can be very defensive of their people in times when a simply apology and clarification is in order.

I would write more but my movers will be here soon!

Have a great weekend everyone!

Equal Rights?

2005-09-30T07:00:00.000Z

"When women decided they wanted to be equal to men, they lost their superiority over men." - Dennis Prager

One of my greatest frustrations with topic of women's rights is the confusion between the concept of equal value and sameness. The fact that men and women are equal in the sight of God and should be in the sight of all men and women does not mean that they need to act the same way and do the same things. I don't place a greater or lesser value on doctor who is a heart specialist and one who is a brain surgeon. I'm thankful that they each have their function; each of critical importance.

Women's activists assume that in order to be equal, we need to hold all the same positions and titles as do men. I think it's pretty clear that there are the obvious physiological and even emotional differences between men and women. There is a reason for the myriad of books on the differences in communication styles of each. There's a reason for the Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus craze. I haven't read the book. But it serves as a good example of the communication differences. One of my favorite newer books is He's Not That Into You. Yet another example of relational differences.

It's a sad thing that we don't appreciate the God-given differences we have. Everyone misses out. Men get mixed signals about how to treat women...and whether to be strong or sensitive with women. Women grow dissatisfied with their own identity and too often unfulfilled in the endeavor to do it all.

We will revisit this topic as the 2008 election approaches. However, for now, I wanted to highlight what I believe is an example of the logical and tragic conclusion to the confusion between having equal value and being the same. Muslim radicals are twisted enough for having young boys kill themselves for "the cause." Women get to be just as brainwashed.

God help us.

p.s. Thank you to Poison Pero for the Prager quote.

Politicizing Disaster

2005-09-29T07:01:00.000Z

"Planned Parenthood clinics in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are offering supplies and services at a reduced fee or for no charge for women with a valid Alabama, Louisiana, or Mississippi driver's license. In addition, Planned Parenthood affiliates in several other states are providing similar services to evacuees. " (Planned Parenthood)

I heard Hugh Hewitt make mention of this story today. And, I am disgusted.

Planned Parenthood, operating in its typical condescending and one-tracked fashion, is offering low cost and free abortion services to the victims of Katrina. Of ALL the possible ways that they could offer help! What a reflection of their sinister motives.

In the wake of Katrina, for whatever reason, everyone else (corporations, organizations and individuals) seemed to think that what people who'd just lost everything might need money, food and shelter. Strange how they all got the same idea, huh? Planned Parenthood was so much smarter. They saw what the rest of us failed to discern in this moment. Apparently, a woman in the midst of tragedy no longer wants to have the baby in her womb.

Why would PPH extend such an offer? Perhaps because they believe that children are dispensable; because they believe that children are a burden, not a blessing; because they believe it's only appropriate to have a child if you are rich and white (see Margaret Sanger's intention for abortion); because they believe Planned Parenthood knows better than a pregnant mother and her family.

What an insidious attempt to politicize and exploit victims of a disaster. That's shameful, even for Planned Parenthood.

LA Area Fires

2005-09-29T05:40:00.000Z

Breaking News
The LA Times is reporting that Santa Ana Winds Spark Brush Fires.

Word has it that the President is being asked exactly what he knew about the Santa Ana winds and exactly when he knew it.

developing...

Insightful Humor

2005-09-28T16:20:00.000Z

A friend emailed this to me recently...

21 Ways To Be A Good Democrat

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

The Woman of Abu Ghraib

2005-09-27T07:23:00.000Z

Lynndie England, the woman in the now infamous pictures of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse case, has been found guilty.

If you recall, she was the woman in the photos showing her holding a naked detainee on a leash and smiling as she pointed to prisoners in humiliating poses. Apparently, she had a relationship with the man who was the ringleader of the entire debacle. England's defense argued that she suffered from depression and that she has an overly compliant personality.

I can understand wanting to find favor with the man she cared for as well as with the other men. I can understand some sense of pressure to do what they were pushing her into. I can even understand the group-think phenomenon that might coerce her to agree with things that she would not even consider outside that facility.

However, I have to ask, what were the core values with which she started? Had she thought them through before the subculture of the Abu Ghraib prison had developed? What gave the guys the idea that she might agree to such degrading, demeaning (to everyone involved) abusive practices?

I believe that there's another story here because of the male/female dynamic. (I wrote on a similar topic recently, "Ladies and Gentlemen.") I wondered how things got started. How much did the guys push the conversation towards that which is unacceptable or uncomfortable among women? Did they watch to see her reaction to off-color jokes? Did she feel pressured to laugh or to simply smile quietly?

The Abu Ghraib abuse did not exist in a vacuum. And, while there were multiple factors that contributed to the flagrant display of inhumanity and debauchery, I cannot help but think of the insightful quote that "A lady is just a woman who makes a man behave like a gentleman." This is not to remove any blame from the parties involved. However, it is a sad commentary on what many segments and subcultures within our society consider to be appropriate and admirable female behavior.

The more women get the message that there are compromises that need to be made in a "man's world," the worse off we find everybody's world.

What did he know and when did he know it?

2005-09-26T07:35:00.000Z

Just wondering about how one particular segment of our population might tell the Hurricane Rita story...

It was doomed to make history. A Category 5 hurricane, they said. Local, state and federal government officials all said the same thing: get out. Get out now.

They followed orders. Some gathered family; others, friends. The goal: to get out before Hurricane Rita hit land. Sitting for hours in virtually stopped traffic, many ran out of gas. Some died. The chaos was tolerated because of the fear of being left behind, the fear of a repeat of the Katrina disaster.

Just as the government led the people of New Orleans astray, they did it again. This time along with Texas officials. What did they know about Rita and when did they know it? Was this really about making sure people were safe? Or, was it the federal government flexing its muscles, overcompensating in its attempt to save face? A photo op?

Did he not do his job as president by giving the people of Texas ALL the information he had available to him? Apparently, this is typical fare for the Bush Administration: self-absorption. Bush doesn't care about the people in Houston. It's Midland that he loves. If it were Midland, we would have seen whole new freeways built in time to ensure an easy and safe evacuation process and/or an immediate report that the hurricane would not be as devastating as predicted.

He was sleeping on the job, yet again...'08 can't get here fast enough.

I hope it's obvious that I'm being facetious and sarcastic about the tone that some in the mainstream media take when it comes to the president. I would like to think that the accusations I make above are over-the-top. However, if you read/heard the way some Bush-haters addressed the Katrina situation, this is the typical fare.

Women Impacting Nations

2005-09-23T23:48:00.000Z

I apologize for the delayed post today. I'm attending a women's conference this weekend. I had the opportunity to speak at the conference this morning. I spoke on the ways women can impact entire nations.

A woman named Deborah impacted the nation of Israel by serving as a judge. When the nation went to war, she was called upon to take on the role of a military advisor. Because of the part she played, there was peace in the land for a generation.

Esther was a young woman, from a dysfunctional family, who found favor with the king. It was said that she was born for "such a time as (that)." Because she put her life on the line, she saved her people from genocide.

Another woman, Elizabeth Everest, was a nanny in England. She was just a nanny, a woman who cared for other people's children. Often, these children were most unloved by their parents. One of those in her care was often referred to as "monster" by his own mother.

She loved the child, she instructed him in the ways of God, she believed in him and prayed for the nation-shaping destiny she saw in him. That child would grow up to become the greatest leader of the 20th century. That child was Winston Churchill.

And, on his deathbed, there was only one picture at his side. It was a picture of his beloved nanny, Elizabeth Anne Everest, who had died 70 years before.

Never doubt that an ordinary woman, living a seemingly ordinary life can impact entire nations. Our world is crying out for men and women who become salt and light to a desperate world.

May every one of us find purpose in the ordinary ways we can have extraordinary influence.

Public Service Announcements

2005-09-22T07:01:00.000Z

On Wednesday's program of the Hugh Hewitt Show, Hugh shared a few "Public Service Announcements." I can't remember all of them. However, here are a couple:

1. If someone weighs more than 300 lbs, they should get two seats for price of one on an airplane.
2. In anticipation of the coming Category 5 Rita Hurricane, everyone living in Houston needs to get out. Repeat: get out of Houston.

That got me thinking about some of my own ideas for "Public Service Announcements." Here are a few to start.

1. When having a conversation with another person, please respect personal space. If someone continues to back up slowly, stop taking steps forward. You have committed a personal moving violation.

2. When driving, please remember that your windows are glass, not plywood. So, maintain only manners that would be acceptable in public. The fact that people can't hear you does not keep them from seeing you.

3. Neither are your windows sound-proof. If I can hear your music more clearly than mine, you have committed a noise pollution violation.

4. Mass forwarded e-mails about the latest conspiracy against Christians should be banned...esp. since few of them are true. If you must forward, please check the facts first.

5. When speaking before a group of people (esp. at church) and asking to stand up, please refrain from using the phrase, "Stand to your feet." What are the other options? Hands? Head?

6. (Updated) I could not resist adding this one from my friend Mark: If you are stupid or incompetent, don't run for Mayor of New Orleans or Governor of Louisiana.

I'm sure I'll think of about 10 more after I post this. Maybe we'll revisit this topic periodically. What about you? Any ideas for Public Service Announcements that have yet to be made?

Just A Woman on the Sean Hannity Show

2005-09-21T15:26:00.000Z

Hey friends,

Here's a link to my call in to the Sean Hannity show the other day.

Thanks to Jamie Dawn for the idea. And, thanks to Wordsmith and Michael Whitt to actually help me do it.

Have a good day!

More Shocking News...Maybe Not

2005-09-21T14:07:00.000Z

I wish I could say that I was surprised to hear that a survey revealed that most people don't trust politicians was news. It's not news to any of us. I wish I could say that I was taken aback when Republicans immediately defended the president and Democrats immediately attacked the president in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Business as usual.

Well, today's "news" is that Democratic leader Harry Reid is opposing the nomination of Judge John Roberts. Massive development, right? Wrong. I can--but won't--list all the people (myself included) who predicted that this is exactly what the far left of the Democratic party would do. Who would pass the "mainstream" test? I appreciate what my friend over at The Right is Right commented somewhat sarcastically (okay, really sarcastically) recently about John Roberts:

Don't you know it is completely unacceptable for a man to be a heterosexual, husband, with children?!?!?!Come on now.....He must be a complete nut to be all three (hetero, husband, father). I just know he has to be a religious zealot, bent on taking away the rights of every non-normal person. So he must be filibustered, by the keepers of the "mainstream"......You know, the "mainstream" of pedophilia, rights for terrorists, the Prenatal Holocaust, Mengelian science, Illegal Aliens, Fidel Castro, etc.
While Pero may be exaggerating a bit to make his point, he's not far off. What exactly would be acceptable? Why is it that Democrats are the ones who define "mainstream?" Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Patrick Leahy all oppose the president's nominee? No kidding.

The fact that they disapprove is always a good sign as far as I'm concerned. My bigger problem is with whether Republicans will lead and stand strong against the opposition. I believe that Roberts will be confirmed and that Reid's opposition is nothing but empty, shallow rhetoric. Perhaps an attempt to flex what little political muscle he thinks he has.

But, if the majority party doesn't handle this right (no pun intended), we may as well crown Hillary dictator...oh, I mean president.

15 minutes...or, uh, 15 seconds

2005-09-20T19:01:00.000Z

As many of you know, I am a regular caller on the Sean Hannity radio talk show. I am "Lores from Los Angeles." As a matter of fact, I know that it is through the radio show that I have met (via the blogosphere) many of you! :)

Yesterday, I called into the show to comment about how Louis Farrrakhan, and other self-appointed "minority leaders," actually do more of a disservice to the people they say they represent than they do any good. Farrakhan's proposition that there was some conspiracy to wipe out African Americans in New Orleans is inane, unsubstantiated. The fact that the crater is actually beside a predominately white community seems irrelevant right now. His theory indicates one of two things: he either has WAY too much time on his hands or needs to get back on his meds.

Seriously, an arrogant, extremist "representative" of any people group who creates theories that do more to cripple and feed a victim-mentality than empower those people is no leader at all.

On the show yesterday, Sean gave me a shot at playing talk show host by taking a call from a "conspiracy kook," as Sean would say. I'm happy to say that he "graded" my performance an A-. Not to shabby ;0)

I have a question for my tech-friends reading this. Is there a way to copy my little couple of minutes from the stream/download (whatever it's called) and upload it onto my blog here?

P.S. Thank you for all those who heard and wrote in!! That was encouraging, especially after they edited out the blog URL :(

Ladies and Gentlemen

2005-09-19T19:32:00.000Z

It's been said that, "A lady is just a woman who makes a man behave like a gentleman." While this is not, by any means, an excuse to get men off the hook for their responsibilities, I cannot help but address the reality of that statement.

In a corporation or a classroom, in the halls of Congress or the set of a movie, women hold the potential to shape an environment of respect and even dignity. The conversation in any given group will often rise or sink to the level that a woman--or, the women--in the group will tolerate. Think about it. A guy starts to tell an off-color joke. What does he do? He glances over at a woman and says something like, "I hope this doesn't offend you" or, "I probably shouldn't say this around you. But..." That's often the tiny window of opportunity to direct, re-direct subtly or not so subtly the tone of the conversation.

So often women miss the moment to step in. What's worse is when women don't care...or enjoy the coarse conversation. Where are the ladies?

There are many ways that I see evidence of the missing "lady" in our culture. Honestly, she's not just missing; she seems to be brainwashed into thinking that she has to act more like a man. More like a man in the marketplace; more like a man in the political arena; more like a man in relationships; more like a man almost everywhere.

Studies are increasingly revealing that diseases that were traditionally predominately male diseases, stresses that were primarily male and complaints that were predominately male are increasing in women. I don't think that's what was intended by "women's liberation" and "equality" among the genders. What's worse is that those things that even the things that are base and even twisted in men are increasingly showing up in women, including sexual abuse.

It seems as though every week now, we're hearing about another case of female teachers abusing their students. One 28-year old physical education teacher was just arrested for sexually abusing three of her male students. It's wrong and disgusting no matter who does it, man or woman. But, it has become an indication of something very sick in our society as more and more women preying upon children. It goes against the very nature of a women to protect and nurture children.

I'm angered and horrified when I read about men abusing boys or girls in their care. But, I am disgusted and mystified by what turns a woman into a predator.

I believe that just as our culture is hungry for men to be the strong, responsible protectors and defenders they are designed to be, that same desperate culture longs for women to take their place as ladies.

Week in Review :)

2005-09-18T04:40:00.000Z

Here is a quick photo tour of this week's headlines...from a child's perspective. Enjoy!

Dad's big meetings start. How cool that I get to be here!

He's gonna be the strongest man in the world after this.

Great start, dad. They're scared of you now.

Those guys are mean and not very smart.

This is really boring. Is it time to go home yet?

Good job, dad.

News Flash

2005-09-16T19:01:00.000Z

Please be sure you're seated when you read this. I don't want anyone blaming me for heart attacks or injuries caused due to fainting or shock. Are you sitting down?

Ok.

Here it goes.

A global survey just revealed that most people around the world do not trust politicians.

What? Are you kidding? Politicians are not trusted around the world? So glad to be informed...Ok, enough sarcasm. You know it's a slow news day when that makes news.

I believe that at the end of the day, regardless of
political party or geography, the same things matter:

1. Integrity vs. campaigning. Sadly, politicians make promises for the purpose of turning out the vote and not necessarily actually fulfilling those promises.

2. Transparency vs. 'relating' to people. They often talk and dress differently based on the people they're with at any given time.

3. Sincerity vs. manipulation. A politician can master the art of making people feel special, even while his/her heart and mind couldn't be further away.

4. Service vs. Selfish Ambition. Too often, politicians fall prey to the lust of fame and power.

5. Commitment vs. Pride. Sometimes elected officials forget that they were elected to represent their constituents, not override their will.

I really do wish this were a shocking survey. Unfortunately, it's very old news. That's why only 13% of the people trust their politicians. Well, that and because some of the best people for the job are driven off by the harsh, demanding and mud-slinging culture of the political arena.

I pray for the day that the tide has turned and that it is
only 13% who don't trust politicians because of the quality
of the character of the men and women in office.

As I watched the confirmation hearings this week, I feel like I saw two generations. The older, partisan, disgruntled members of the political machine and a fresh-faced, honest, family man whose only agenda is to do a good job in serving his nation.

Let's pray that God blesses this nation with men and women of competence as well as character and integrity.

Have a great weekend!

My Thoughts on the Speech

2005-09-16T03:23:00.000Z

I don't pretend to know more about disasters or speeches or spending. But, I have just a few thoughts about the president's speech tonight.

What I wish were different:
Why was the camera set up so that he was looking down towards us as he spoke? Was that intentional or overlooked? Were they going for a "daddy is taking care of you" tone, setting him up as the leader we look up to? I didn't like that.

I don't ever think that having the president give out websites and 800 numbers during a national speech is the most presidential thing to do, especially since it has now been two weeks since the hurricane hit. If he was really concerned about missing persons, why the two week wait for the national announcement of the website? If it's just good information, it seems an unusual time to present it.

I wish that a limited government, private ownership, conservative president would stop breaking spending records.

What worked:
The president does well when he connects with the "common man" on the street. His attire was perfect. Top botton unbuttoned on a G W blue dress shirt. Sleeves rolled up. Looks like a working man. Good move. Good look.

He is also effective when he lets us see his heart. His compassion for the people, his concern for the region as well as his hope for the future. His sincerity and conviction win the hearts and minds of the American people every time.

His mention of the private relief efforts--individuals, corporations and churches. Honoring Americans for taking care of their own.

The commitment to improving emergency relief efforts and fighting racism appropriately addressed both legitimate and illegitimate attacks over the initial delayed response to the disaster.

I always wish he were a more natural speaker. But, I'll take sincerity over eloquence any day!

Modern-Day Pledge of Allegiance

2005-09-15T07:01:00.000Z

We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." --James Madison

We have come a long way from what the founders of the nation believed about God. And, we have one more example of that disconnect. I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that the story comes to us from a court in California.

California courts never cease to amaze me. They have, once again, rendered a foolish decision. Be aware that according to U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton, "under God" is unconstitutional. Funny that it didn't make very big headlines. I heard it on Hugh Hewitt.

Last time this happened, with the Newdow case in the 9th circuit, I was appalled. I have come to expect inane rulings from the courts. Sad, but true.

I wrote a Pledge of Allegiance in honor of the judge in San Francisco and many of his colleagues around the nation.

"Modern-Day Pledge of Allegiance"
I pledge ambivalence
to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic which is attacked
by a nation of Judges
divisible,
with liberty as a license for gall.

"Pledge of Allegiance"
I pledge allegiance
to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

God, help us!

"Who says politics is boring!"

2005-09-14T07:01:00.000Z

In case you missed the first day of the Roberts confirmation hearings, among the the critically important issues raised included this question from Chuck Schumer, the senator from New York:

"So my question is not the substance, but do you regret the tone of these memos, do you regret some of the inartful phrases you used in some of those memos, for instance, a reference to 'illegal amigos' in one memo?"

Are you kidding me?! Are there not questions of greater substance for the man nominated for the highest court of the land? And, this from the same people who challenged attacks on Bill Clinton's "inhaling" and, later, his extracurricular activities in the Oval Office. These are the same ones concerned about the use of "illegal amigos" in one memo?! That's hilarious.

Biden also showed off some of his brilliant oratorical skill. He drew on Roberts' baseball analogy. (Yesterday, Roberts compared judges to umpires in a baseball game: calling the plays as they see them. Not making rules.) He made reference to how everyone who understands baseball knows that "Rule #2" in baseball defines the strike zone. He then proceeded to misrepresent that zone. I don't know much about baseball and the strike zone. But, Hugh Hewitt and Radio Blogger make it clear that Biden's definition was really off. How pathetic!

All the analysts and pundits predicted that Roberts would hold his own and would fare very well in the confirmation process. What no one predicted was the entertainment value of the opposition. Who needs Comedy Central when you've got Schumer and Biden!

I don't have any poignant statement to make. I'm just writing to say what I often hear when I listen to Laura Ingraham: "Who says politics is boring!"

True Compassion

2005-09-13T08:01:00.000Z

He has become one of my favorite news commentators. He is passionate but not partisan. He is conservative but not condescending. He is fair and is not compelled to be balanced. He has experience on Capitol Hill but doesn't wear it as a medal. He deals with the facts and is quick to criticize or to commend Democrat and Republican alike. He is Joe Scarborough.

I watched his show, Scarborough Country, tonight. And, as often happens when listening to him, I was impressed by his passionate challenge to his viewers regarding Katrina relief. Joe told one story after another of government agents turning down, sending back and mishandling materials and supplies sent for victims in the affected region. These were first-hand accounts. One Katrina survivor who was interviewed echoed Joe's sentiment: "We got more help from our neighbor than we did from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)."

Joe's exhortation was similar to one Hugh Hewitt continues to encourage: give to local churches and organizations. Give to people who can physically get the goods into the hands of those who need it. It saddened me to hear about the sad state of our "emergency management agents" who would rather the people in their "care" suffer than give credit for the relief to someone else.

The other day I joked with a friend about her inability to be a good politician because of her overwhelming passion for truth and for people. While I'm encouraged to someone like Joe Scarborough, who is so committed to the truth and to the people, in the media, I wish there were people like him at every level of our government. I wish there were a man, like him, in the position of mayor. I wish a woman like him, moved by passion for the people and with a fortitude to lead, as governor. And, yes, how I wish that all those on the federal level--FEMA Director, Homeland Security Director and even the President--had been motivated likewise.

I don't say that to say that they all had selfish motives or any mal-intent. However, what went wrong (that could have been helped) was communication, coordination and some level of taking ownership for the people.

True compassion takes action.

I'm back

2005-09-13T07:59:00.000Z

I have finally returned from a great time in Nashville. Not that downtown Nashville is much to look at. It's just that I was with some dear friends for what was a wonderful and beautiful wedding. It was very busy and tiring but in all the best ways. With so many friends in town for the wedding, it felt like a reunion...and it was very difficult to say goodbye. But, alas, I am back. Just in time for the Al-Quaeda warning to Los Angeles. Ha!

Thank you all for your patience and for the well wishes. Have a great day!

September 12 LA Power Outage

2005-09-12T21:25:00.000Z

From Los Angeles: There has been a massive power outage affecting much of Los Angeles.

My prediction: It's Bush's fault.

developing...

Remembering 9/11

2005-09-11T15:01:00.000Z

It was a beautiful Tuesday morning in Washington DC. I'd arrived a few days earlier so I'd gotten adjusted to the time difference. There seemed to be nothing special about this day. I was sitting with friends having very interesting political conversation over breakfast.

When the phone rang and we got word about one of the World Trade Center towers getting hit by a plane, our conversation naturally shifted to the news we'd just received. But only for a few minutes. "What a terrible accident" was the essence and conclusion of the discussion.

The phone rang a second time. Everything changed. The tone, the level of concern, the conversation that soon turned to prayer.

In the ensuing minutes and hours, our hearts and minds watched the pictures on the television set with absolute disbelief. How could this happen in this country? This is the kind of thing we see in movies. This cannot be real. I was beside myself.

But at the very same time, I found myself replaying stories in my mind. Stories my parents told of what it was like to live in Egypt, as a Christian. The persecution they faced. The death and the torture they witnessed. As a child, I'd heard the "This is what the radical Muslims do to Christians" so much that, I have to admit, I had written it off as a generalization and exaggeration about things that used to take place in a third-world country.

On Tuesday, September 11, 2001 all those stories I'd heard about the "radical Muslims" in Egypt became more real to me than I could have imagined. Those are the people doing this to our country. They hate us. They are the ones who took the lives of my dad's friends. They're the ones who burned and continue to burn churches in Egypt. They're the ones who torture, rape and murder women and children in the Sudan. These are the people who flew those planes into the towers and the Pentagon.

They targeted the icons of American wealth and power in the name of righteousness. They took the lives of 3,000 of our fellow Americans. And, they rejoiced in their accomplishment.

Four years later, I dare say they haven't forgotten. They continue to lavish in their success, threaten further disaster and plot further evil. They have not forgotten.

We, on the other hand, act like we have. Our borders remain porous. Our political leaders are back to infighting and even our fellow citizens appear to have lost the passion and conviction to do whatever it takes to never let another 9/11 happen again.

On this fourth anniversary of that very sad historic day, I urge all of us to say a prayer for the family and friends who lost loved ones that day. Many of us may act like we've forgotten. But, they never will.

God bless you and may God bless and protect our land.

Another Wedding...

2005-09-08T03:59:00.000Z

Friends,

Believe it or not, I'm in my second wedding in one week. This time, I'm off to Nashville, Tennessee. I will do my best to post while I'm gone. However, I'm not bringing my laptop. So, it'll depend on whether the hotel I'm staying at in Nashville has caught up with 21st century technology. I heard that they recently got indoor plumbing out there. Ha ;)

I'm thrilled to be a part of yet another precious union. The bride and her family are like family to me. I find myself overjoyed even in the midst of the busyness of preparations.

I hope that this weekend, in the midst of all that's happening in your world and in our world, you would find joy and gratitude for the life we have and for what we are spared from every day.

God bless!

The Miracles

2005-09-07T07:01:00.000Z

As I've been listening to Hugh Hewitt, I've noticed that he's made such a point to highlight and honor the heroes and the rescue efforts as much as he's addressing the questions of culpability.

I so appreciate him doing that because, honestly, I am sick and tired of the politicizing of this catastrophe. We have plenty of time to figure out what happened--good and bad, as the president mentioned. But, we don't want to miss the opportunity to recognize the miracles in our midst.

I read a story about seven children who got separated from their families. Actually, they didn't just "get separated." Their parents had to choose who got rescued. And, they chose their children. Nothing like the love of a parent. One of the children was 5 months old. Can you imagine how difficult that must have been?!

The helicopter that promised to come back for the parents didn't. The parents ended up in San Antonio. Through www.missingchildren.com, the children were reunited with their family. Thank God!

This heart-wrenching story is just one of many. I'm sure we'll hear much more in the days ahead. Unfortunately, they won't all have the same happy ending.

I'm impressed by the way Americans are responding so generously. Keep giving. I found out that if you donate clothes to the Salvation Army, they will sell the clothes and send 100% of the revenue to Katrina victims. Give. Then, give more. They need us. We can be their miracle.

I believe the time will come that in addition to requests for funds, clothes and labor, we may very well be challenged to adopt these storm-orphaned children. What an awesome responsibility. What an awesome possibility.

Lord, I pray for every child and parent who have survived to be reunited, and quickly. For parents who have lost children, comfort and heal them. And, for children who have lost parents, bring comfort, healing and good people to care for them. I pray that every one of us would have eyes to see a miracle and a heart to be a miracle.

Never Again

2005-09-06T19:52:00.000Z

A teenager I know was watching television at a friend's house the other day. They had it turned onto a cable news channel. The teen was shocked at what he saw (apparently, he wasn't watching the news at home) and asked, "Is that a third-world country? Where is that?"

Third world? I could see why. People starving, without food or water. People stranded on the roof of their demolished home. Women and children being raped while seeking shelter and safety. Men, women and children wading in waters infested with bacteria and disease. People committing suicide out of fear of armed looters. Children wandering about searching for their parents. And, in one village about 20 bodies were found tied together . Sounds third-world to me...

However, I also saw a report about a ministry that put on a Tea Party for some of the women and girls. One woman said it was the first time she was able to get her mind of what happened to her and found herself grateful to God for her life. It was simply taking a step back from the emotions and circumstances that she gained perspective.

I hope that in the days to come, as we continue to assess the entire tragedy, that we would not miss the fullness of the moment. That we would not miss the frailty of life--in first and third world countries. That we would not miss the opportunity to pray for those finding themselves in such a horrific predicament. That we would not miss the value of life--in first and third world countries. That we would not take for granted every breath, even on "bad days."

I also hope that we would never again look at a tragedy in the third world the same way.

Katrina Quotes

2005-09-05T07:09:00.000Z

I thought I'd share some quotes I found this weekend related to the hurricane Katrina disaster.

I found these on Michael Whitt's blog. They came from a BBC report.

"Katrina has wrecked not only the physical corporality of civilization. Now there are unmistakable signs in the hurricane's aftermath of the collapse of ordered society. Communication has become virtually impossible. There is no power, no fuel, no food. And looters are at work. This in the United States, the most powerful nation that has ever been." - Australia's The Daily Telegraph

" Every natural disaster comes in two waves. First the wind and rain arrives, then the political storm." - Denmark's Kristeligt Dagblad

"Not even the monstrous Katrina will drag the USA into recession." - Prague's Hospodarske Noviny

"There must be truth to the adage that when the United States of America sneezes, the whole world will catch its cold." - South Africa's Mercury

And, on a more practical note... This is from Laura Ingraham's website.

From listener Jim M., Yuba City, CA: "American businesses should immediately start posting job opportunities to Katrina victims. Forget putting Katrina victims in camps where they will be idle? Not a good idea! Instead, put out a nationwide call for employers to offer a job (or jobs) where refugees could seek housing and be employed. Set up an internet list of skills so prospective employers can receive a resume and interview by phone. There could be a government tax credit to employers willing to hire those displaced by Katrina. Let's get these folks settled in decent housing and employment relative to their skills that might be permanent and free of subsidy."

Just some things to think about.

God bless and happy Labor Day.

p.s. My brother's wedding was WONDERFUL. It would have been a special time regardless of the circumstances. But, all the bad news lately, made it all the more joyous.

Blaming God?

2005-09-04T07:22:00.000Z

I remember on 9/11...That sense of righteous indignation about what happened on our soil drove the president to declare unilateral action, essentially in Iraq. When he tours the Gulf region today, I hope he will stand on a pile of rubble. And he will look up to the heavens and say to God, "You're responsible for this. And soon you will hear from us."

What we're looking at is an extraordinarily slow response, from someone who prides themselves in their overwhelming Christian response...We're not looking for al Qaeda. God is responsible for this. And in His own time, He will reveal why. But we are under an obligation as Americans, as people who care about Americans, to help rebuild their lives. And the president of the United States can set the tone for that rebuilding effort. Thank you, and...thank you.

(Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., Congressional Black Caucus Friday, September 2)

I'm curious who Representative Jackson believes he's representing on his exhortation to the president. How does the son of "Reverend" Jesse Jackson essentially tell the President of the United States to curse God and not get challenged by anyone in the mainstream media?! Is it because everyone agrees? Do his Democratic colleagues concur?

I checked on a few websites today to see if anyone else was repeating the "curse God" mantra. Here's what I found:

The Democratic National Committee features a letter from Howard Dean urged all to give towards the relief efforts for the victims of hurricane Katrina.
The Move On.Org contained NO criticism of the handling of the relief efforts--or of God, for that matter, only a challenge to its members to donate. It has also set up a sister site to organize housing for the victims.

Clearly, these very left-leaning organizations are not chanting the Jackson mantra. At least not now. I have to say that though I disagree vehemently with the political views and actions of Move On.Org, I was very impressed by their organization and commitment to the victims above politics on their site today.

Congressman Jackson's inane remarks echoed nowhere. They were simply a desperate attempt to mock a political opponent who is unabashed in his statements of faith. He follows the comment on the president's "righteous indignation with a reference to Iraq. He follows his challenge to Bush's "Christian response" with a reference to Al Quaeda. Translation: "You used God to justify your actions after 9/11. You can't use Him now. He did this. I knew He wasn't on your side then. But, we all know He's not on your side now. He's the one who caused this. You're on your own."

Jackson's foolishness is actually not a reflection of some anti-God campaign. It's an anti-Bush campaign. Just politics. It's a case of the ends justifying the means. And, because Bush has re-introduced faith in the political arena, his critics are slinging mud at God now.

Self-interest is a powerful motivator. Better men have done likewise. I can't help but think of one man who swore to Jesus personally that he would NEVER deny or abandon Him. Before long, he had done it not just once but three times. Not because he no longer believed but because he feared for his very life. That man was Peter, of course. If happened to him, it could happen to anyone, including the Congressman from Illinois.

Congressman Jackson represents a radical segment of very scared, desperate politicians who are willing to do and say ANYTHING, however foolish or even blasphemous in their passionate endeavor to tear the president down.

Honestly, as I hear the news of Justice Rehnquist's death, I am saddened and concerned for yet another event of historic proportions to land in the midst of the rest of this mess. I can't help but think of one more biblical figure. One who suffered great tragedy, accusations and loss. He, too, was instructed to curse God. Job wasn't the smartest or best looking guy in town. He made mistakes. But, he did trust his God and did what was in his hands to do. [Hear me now. I don't want to turn this into a discussion about Bush's imperfections as a man or a president. I have been disappointed by this administration more times than I'd prefer to recount. That is not the point.] The point is that there are similarities between the men and their circumstances.

Perhaps the day will come, years after all this, when everyone will look back and see multiplied blessings far surpassing the death and calamity we see today, when we consider the life and presidency of George W Bush.

Proud to be An American

2005-09-02T17:50:00.000Z

"The liberal blogosphere is focusing its energy on relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina."

--Sean Hannity Show caller, September 1

While the caller quoted above had a bit of a competitive spirit, I'm happy to support my fellow bloggers wherever they fall on the political spectrum. Yesterday, liberal and conservative bloggers alike made the same proposition to the American people: give. Give till it hurts. Because it won't hurt us as much as the victims are suffering in the midst of this tragedy.

It saddens me that it often requires such grave circumstances to bring the two sides of the aisle together. We saw it after 9/11. We saw it after the Southeast Asian Tsunami. We see it now. Unfortunately, it doesn't last. And, in this case, it seemed to last as long as a New York minute.

I've been amazed at how political a natural disaster has become. I didn't realize that a president whose intelligence and leadership has been eternally questioned by his opponents is now credited by those same opponents with responsibility for this disaster. Huh.

There is plenty of time to investigate and to place blame, if and where appropriate. Now is not that time. It's not the time to point the finger, to criticize.

We may not be able to do much about the politicians and pundits who are behaving in such a manner. But, I charge everyone of us--liberal, conservative, Christian and Hindu--to stand firm as Americans on behalf of our fellow Americans.

People are hurting and in trouble right now. THAT is all that matters.

God bless you. And, God bless America!

p.s. on a personal note, my brother is getting married this weekend. i'm so happy for a wonderful celebration after a very sad week. (that's also the reason for this short and very quickly written post. thanks for understanding.)

Blog Relief Day

2005-09-01T09:11:00.000Z

I am participating in Blog Relief Day today. So, I will leave my "No Other America" post up for one more day. I also encourage you to check out a round up of the efforts at Instapundit as well as Technorati's results on Flood Aid.

If you haven't already given, give. If you have, give more. God forbid any of us have such calamity befall us. Do what you'd want others to do for us if we were victims of a disaster of such devastating proportions.

Read more below.

No Other America

2005-08-31T07:02:00.000Z

"There's no America out there except America to respond to it. We've got to do it ourselves."

--Col. Austen Bay (on the Hugh Hewitt Show, Tuesday, August 30)

I was struck as I listened to Hugh Hewitt's interview with Col. Austen Bay. The words he ended the interview with reminded me of the strength of our nation, even in times like these.

When other nations are hit with calamity, whether it be terrorism or a natural disaster, it is the United States that comes to the rescue.

The United States gave more than all other nations combined to the Tsunami relief efforts in Southeast Asia last December. As my friend, Layman, wrote recently, we sent 20,000 soldiers and sailors, over 24 million pounds of relief supplies, thousands of tons of food, thousands of gallons of drinking water. That is what we do.

It's who we are. It's what we do. It's part of our history. Think back to the Marshall Plan. We helped our enemies after the war. How many other nations can be counted in the same category?!

After the September 11 attacks, the Red Cross alone received over one billion dollars worth of contributions. The vast majority of funds came from individual Americans committed to helping our own. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that "America is great because America is good." This generosity is a reflection of that goodness.

That time has come yet again. It's time for us to rise to the strength and the goodness of America. There's no other nation or people waiting in the wings to help us the way we do others.

There are many good organizations and churches who are organizing relief efforts. My recommendations are Feed the Children and Samaritan's Purse.

It's time to be our own America.

Katrina

2005-08-30T07:01:00.000Z

"We're going to need some serious help to start over. Everything is ruined."

While I thank God that the fury of hurricane Katrina was overestimated by forecasters, it, nevertheless, left devastation in its path. Homes were washed off their foundations, highways flooded and people killed. I don't quite understand the people who, despite mandatory evacuation, hung out at home on the roof. Not too smart when you know that a level 5 hurricane is coming your way!

In any case, it is time to lend a hand to our fellow Americans who now need, to quote one Gulfport's Forest Heights resident, "to start over" because "everything is ruined."

Samaritan's Purse is bringing immediate relief to residents in the area. I encourage you to do something, whether through Samaritan's Purse or another organization that's helping the victims of Katrina.

The other thing I encourage you to do is to pray for all those affected, either by loss of property or of a loved one.

People With Tie to Iraq War Back It

2005-08-29T08:23:00.000Z

A recent poll shows the story that the majority of the mainstream media is not telling. People who know someone fighting the war in Iraq are more likely to support the war. Hmmmm. You mean Cindy Sheehan doesn't really speak for military families? She's actually does not represent a majority of families? Wow. The way she's become the darling of the mainstream media, you would never know.

"He talked about all the good things that are going on," said Chittum, a school superintendent and a political independent who supports the war effort. "Schools are opening up. The people are friendly, wanting our help. You get a whole different spin from what you get on television."

The poll reveals that those who know someone serving in Iraq were more likely to approve of the Bush administration's conduct of the war -- 44 percent, compared to 37 percent overall. That is, more people believe what their husbands, brothers and sons tell them than believe the "quagmire" spin on the evening news. More people are also reading alternative sources, like Michael Yon's excellent reporting of the play-by-play of the war we get nowhere else.

With re-enlistment rates higher than they've been, it appears to me that those most closely entrenched in this war continue to stand behind the president and believe in the cause. I wish we would trust their judgment in the way we count on them to fight for and defend our right to speak freely for or against the war, or any other issue.

It's been said that there are two sides (at least) to every story. If those who give Cindy Sheehan the media attention she has received in the last few weeks gave even a fraction of that time to families who've lost loved ones and remain steadfast in their support of the war and the president, I believe that the general population might not be as agitated.

I don't really expect everyone to chant the "fair and balanced" mantra. I just would love a telling of both sides, simply and truthfully.

Monkeying Around

2005-08-27T13:00:00.000Z

"As a man thinks, so he is." (Proverb)

It may funny and amusing but it is a sad reflection of what we think about ourselves. What is "it?" It's a display of human beings at the London Zoo. No joke. It's real!

It's too pathetic to say very much about it. Read the article and weep.

For those of you who say it's an appropriate placement, since we are just animals, I'll tell you what I learned long ago from a teacher. The one capability that sets humans apart from animals scientifically is what is called "metacognition." That is, the ability to think about what we're thinking about. That one area of cognitive development is the very thing that allows us to have self-control and make moral and ethical judgments on our own behavior. We are not simply animals without any ability to control our desires, emotions and actions.

In a strange way, this story makes for an interesting wrap up for the week. Think about it. Our selfish motives would naturally lead us to creating our own little kingdoms, feeding our egos whatever the cost ("Celebrity vs. Integrity"). Our "animalistic" nature means we can't and shouldn't control our sexual appetite whenever and however we deem appropriate, even as high school students ("How did it happen?!). And finally, our lack of self-control and personal responsibility open the door to blame our doctor when he tells us the very thing we need to hear ("Political Correctness Can Kill You").

That "animal mentality" feeds our desire to be unaccountable and irresponsible. It also robs us of the joy and prosperity we're designed to enjoy as human beings.

Perhaps we ought to think a bit more highly of ourselves.

Political Correctness Can Kill You

2005-08-26T19:25:00.000Z

We've often heard it said that "the truth hurts." It doesn't take a whole lotta living to experience that reality.

Growing up, if our parents did a decent job, we learned about boundaries and felt consequences if we disrespected or disregarded those boundaries. Going to school we learned that if we didn't do our homework, our grades suffered. In the workplace, it is unacceptable to show up whenever we please or fail to meet deadlines. While there may be some exceptions for the homeschooled or the self-employed, the same principles apply. If we fail to meet the expectations, there is some consequence. Not merely for punishment sake but in the hope for future change, for everyone's good...if it's done right.

You might think that I'm merely stating the obvious. One woman in New Hampshire, however, does not agree. You see, this woman's doctor told her that she needed to lose weight. Dr. Terry Bennett said it this way: “I told a fat woman she was obese...I tried to get her attention. I told her, 'You need to get on a program, join a group of like-minded people and peel off the weight that is going to kill you.'"

The woman filed a complaint with the state claiming that his advice proved more hurtful than helpful. Now, I can completely understand how horrible it is to see an insensitive doctor. I've seen one or two in my day. It's terrible. However, at the end of the day, if I had to choose between a doctor sugar-coating health issues and one with no sensitivity, no "bedside manner," I want the truth whatever form it comes in. My health is my responsibility, not any doctor's. His job is to diagnose, prescribe and/or treat medical issues.

As much as we hear "the truth hurts," we also hear "the truth will set you free." What we don't hear very often is that the truth can't set you free until it first hurts you. We creatures of habit and lovers of comfort often need to feel truth's pain to move us to change. Perhaps that's something Dr. Bennett understands.

If there were ever a story about missing the point, this is it. And, as such, it's a sad story, for everyone involved. I hope the doctor doesn't stop telling the truth. I hope that the patient begins to take action to improve her health, including forgiving the doctor for his choice of words and thanking him for relaying a painful truth.

I also hope you all have a fantastic weekend! Don't eat too much! :)

The Honor of a Woman

2005-08-25T08:35:00.000Z

The legislators of the United States, who have mitigated almost all the penalties of criminal law, still make rape a capital offense, and no crime is visited with more inexorable severity by public opinion. This may be accounted for; as the Americans can conceive nothing more precious than a woman's honor and nothing which ought so much to be respected as her independence, they hold that no punishment is too severe for the man who deprives her of them against her will. In France, where the same offense is visited with far milder penalties, it is frequently difficult to get a verdict from a jury against the prisoner. Is this a consequence of contempt of decency or contempt of women? I cannot but believe that it is a contempt of both.

--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

In writing about the Timken High School pregnancy epidemic yesterday, I got to thinking about issues related specifically to what we teach and impart to young women in our society.

When Alexis de Tocqueville examined our democracy in the 1880s, he paid special attention to the way women were treated and the way they behaved as an indicator of the success of our democracy.

Conflicting Messages
Here's what women hear from people in authority, from the media and in the schools:

There is no difference between you and men.
Men are dogs.
Don't repress your sexuality. Be free to experiment. (Planned Parenthood)
Do whatever feels good now.
Whatever you do, make sure that you are independent. That way, in case your man leaves you, you don't need him.
It doesn't matter what you look like; it's what's inside that matters.
If you want to be popular and successful, this is what you need to look like: an airbrushed model.
Your role models: anyone besides women who choose to stay home with their children.
Songs that empower you: "Independent Woman," "Payback," "Since You've
Been Gone" and "Complicated."

I could go on. But, I'll spare you...for now. One thing is clear about the message preached to women today: it's mixed and not clear at all. Add to that the crisis in the modern day family, and it's actually a miracle that more teenage girls are not addicted to drugs, attempting suicide and getting pregnant. The concept of honor, noted by de Tocqueville, has vanished.

I believe that as women are valued and taught to appreciate their own worth in the eyes of God, teen pregnancy wouldn't be an issue because teen sexuality wouldn't be one. Regardless of how boys behaved, girls would have the final say. As 'bad' as boys may be, there would be no epidemic of teen pregnancy if girls simply told the boys that their bodies were reserved for their husbands. There would be no need for teaching parenting to teens if girls had such a sense of purpose for their lives that they didn't give the little hormonal boys the time of day.

Honor would be restored to women, to men and to the nation.

De Tocqueville was the same man who said that "America is great because America is good. And, if America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." I wonder what he'd say today, both about our 'goodness' and about our women.

How did it happen?!

2005-08-24T07:20:00.000Z

Listening to one of my favorite talk show hosts, Hugh Hewitt, yesterday, I was fascinated by a story he covered.

The story is about Timken High School in a little town in Canton, Ohio. The school made the headlines because of its number of pregnant students. Out of the 490 female students, sixty-five (65) are pregnant. School officials say that they don't know how it happened. Hmmm. If you're doing the math, that means about one in every seven girls and just under 15%! For perspective, a recent Washington Times report noted that the teen pregnancy rate in DC was the highest in the nation. That rate: 12%! What the heck is going on at Timken?!

I taught at an LA Unified high school for seven years. I taught at two different schools. Each school had a very different culture and set of expectations and, consequently, a difference in overall student behavior. If there's one thing I know, it is this: students will rise or sink to the level of expectation presented to them.

We cannot pretend that a sex-crazed media doesn't affect all students (and adults). In addition, there is no replacing the responsibility of the family. But, these factors play a part in every other high school.

The mystery in the Timken epidemic is the unique culture that is fostered on campus. School officials are required to act "en loco parentis" (in place of the parent) when those students are under school care. What kind of sex education program exists? How involved is Planned Parenthood? Is there any abstinence teaching?

I think the answer to the Timken High may very well be found in the following questions.
- How do school officials communicate about the pregnant students?

- What roles to they allow the pregnant teens to take? That is, has there been a pregnant student body president? Or cheerleader? Maybe Homecoming Queen?
- Could it be that in their attempts to praise a student for keeping a child have turned into a way for students to gain attention?

Whether it was an inadvertent glorification of pregnancy or a complete abdication of responsibilities, school officials must be held accountable.

Celebrity vs. Integrity

2005-08-23T20:28:00.000Z

Just thinking today...

I have often been very disturbed by what I see as a mix of human nature and a culture of celebrity that has become so pervasive in our world. It's usually discussed in the context of athletics and sometimes in the context of Hollywood. But, it's everywhere.

While we may mentally acknowledge that a man or woman's gifting is no measure of their character, we--as a culture--don't act like we believe that. We esteem charisma, talent, gifting far above integrity in almost every arena of our society. Think about it: what kind of people are the ones who 'get away with' things like immorality, financial corruption and abuse for years before confronted, if they're ever confronted? It's the charismatic, gifted and successful. Not that it isn't possible to be those things and walk in integrity and be a person of character. However, the ones who are consistently given a pass are the ones by whom we are enamored.

Why does a murderer like Scott Peterson continue to be flooded with letters from women who want to be with him? On the one hand, it is quite a sad statement about the women writing to him. On the other, human nature is easily deceived and enamored by charm.

OJ Simpson
Kenneth Lay
Ted Kennedy
Michael Jackson
Newt Gingrich
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Swaggart
Kofi Anan

I don't mean to pick on men. I'm just writing off the top of my head and can't think of women right now. But, these men are a testimony to the pathetic love affair we have with celebrity from the halls of Congress to the film screen to the church pulpit. I believe every one of those men was destined to shape our world in a positive way. I believe that every one of them may have truly been motivated to do good and make a difference. But there were other motives mixed in. And, I believe that they were done a disservice by being left alone and being, in some cases, idolized in their spheres of influence and in the culture at large.

It sad and sobering at the same time because the very people who set them on a pedestal end up being destroyed by their influence and deception.

I guess the moral of the story today is found in getting back to the basics. Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are: 1) love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and 2) love your neighbor as yourself. If we love God with the entirety of our being, perhaps we will be less prone to deifying any human being because "all fall short of the glory of God." And, if we love our neighbors as ourselves, then we will both comfort and treasure them as well as confront, challenge and pray for them regardless of their personality, their career, their socio-economic status or their charisma.

We can't make anyone do anything they aren't willing to. However, if we love them as ourselves, we will do what we can to protect them from themselves when necessary. Something I think we all need at some point in our lives.

Chemicals, Dirty Bombs and Sarin Gas

2005-08-22T16:07:00.000Z

I found an interesting piece of news tucked away, probably for its lack of sensationalism. It's a report that the police in the UK thwarted an Al-Qaeda attack (about a year ago). The plan was directed at ministers and MPs in Parliament. And, they would be using chemicals, a "dirty bomb" and sarin gas.

I'm writing about this today because in the midst of Cindy Sheehan, peace vigil and protest-mania, we could lose sight of the real enemy. As much as perhaps well-meaning protesters, like Sheehan, have deemed the President the "biggest terrorist in the world," we would be foolish to forget our very real enemy. An enemy that plotted well before our troops showed up in Afghanistan or Iraq, an enemy that has for decades called the United States the "great Satan" and an enemy that must be loving the infighting in our country today.

My father will sometimes watch Al-Jazeera and tell me about how that relish in "reporting" about the protests against the president as well as the statements from leaders and politicians who question and criticize our nation in any way. My dad often shakes his head in disgust as he observes, "Al-Jazeera doesn't have to come up with news that makes this country look bad. The American people are doing it on their own." We are dishing it out.

We cannot forget that the enemy cannot plan to use chemicals, dirty bombs and sarin gas unless they have this stuff. And, while I thank God for all our First Amendment liberties, I pray that we don't use them to do more harm than good. If the terrorists have their way, our way of life, our freedom of speech and the entire constitution will be non-existent.

Peter Marshall once said, "Liberty is not the freedom to do as we please, but the opportunity to do what is right." I wish more people would keep that definition of liberty in mind before speaking up in this critical hour in our nation.

p.s. thanks for the kind words, everyone. i'm feeling better. my computer still isn't back. but, it should be ready to go in a couple of days. :)

Back in a few days

2005-08-18T21:03:00.000Z

Hello friends,
I wanted to let you know that as addicted as I am to the blogosphere, in the last week my computer has been down. I've been posting from various locations such as friends' computers and even Kinkos. In addition, I have also been under the weather. That's what accounts for the shorter posts. I didn't want to break the daily momentum. However, I have resolved to take just a few days off...unless some huge story breaks between now and the weekend.

Thanks for understanding.

God bless.

A Kinder, Gentler NCAA

2005-08-17T19:07:00.000Z

Political Correctness strikes again. The New NCAA policy has now forbidden the use of Native American mascots.

I believe important and necessary to respect all ethnicities and people groups in every arena, whether it be the office, the stage or the playing field. However, the NCAA is presuming a few things in its broad sweeping policy.

1. Pride. There is a great amount of pride surrounding these Native American/Warrior mascots. Those wearing the symbols and making the gestures are not making a statement about the people of the tribe; they are cheering on their teams...with pride. That's a good thing.

2. Local identity. There are schools, like the University of Utah, who have received permission from the tribe to use its name for the school. In this case, the NCAA overrules the Utes in the name of respecting the Utes!

3. Hypocrisy. If the policy is designed to respect all people groups, then let's take another look at the list of mascots. What about Notre Dame? Does the NCAA not care about the Irish reputation? Or, do the Irish simply not have enough special interest groups working on their behalf? If they aim to be consistent, we'll not have any safe names. I suppose even a name like "Patriots" could be problematic.

What are the kinder, gentler mascots for a game which involves a couple dozen men chasing a piece of leather and tackling each other, shedding blood and breaking bones, in order to get their hands on it?

Border Politics

2005-08-16T18:04:00.000Z

Democrats and Republicans, Californians and New Yorkers, men and women and Caucasians as well as Latinos all agree that our wide open border and its accompanying illegal immigration is one of our greatest, if not the greatest, area of weakness in the war on terror.

I am, very honestly, mystified by the silence on the issue--from both sides of the aisle. It's one of my biggest frustrations with the Bush administration. I've heard both Bush and Cheney asked point blank about the border and watched as they spun and dodged the question altogether. Democrats aren't much better.

Apparently, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico has begun taking a proactive stance. This Washington Times editorial ties the issue to the coming 2008 election. It angers me that national politics would be a greater motivator than national security.

I understand that there is no simple answer to the border question. We never want to fence ourselves off from the world. Our Statue of Liberty expresses our heart to welcome men and women from all nations. Furthermore, the sheer vastness of the border makes the challenge a seeming impossibility. But, we are the United States, with the access to the greatest minds and technology available. And, we are at war. How is it possible that four years after 9/11 there is no plan to secure our borders?

I know that there are many frustrated conservatives who are waiting for an answer whether it comes from a Republican from Texas or a Democrat from New Mexico.

Why He Can't Meet Her

2005-08-15T18:41:00.000Z

Kathleen Parker wrote a piece regarding the Cindy Sheehan situation. I appreciate her global perspective on this issue. All eyes are on the President. Americans, Europeans, Al-Jazeera and the terrorists. Please forgive my brief analysis today. But, I trust you will find her take on this very insightful.

Click here for Parker's analysis.

Dear Mrs. Sheehan

2005-08-13T07:29:00.000Z

Dear Mrs. Sheehan,

I’d like to offer my condolences for the loss of your son, Casey. I cannot imagine the pain you must feel. A heart attack took my mother's life several years ago and it was the most difficult time of my life. How much more heart-wrenching for a parent to lose a child for any reason, much less in a war. I thank you for raising a young man with the courage, the compassion and the conviction to fight for his nation.

I understand that you had disagreements with President Bush long before your son left for the battlefield. I have also read the statement released by your family recently, denouncing your behavior as you call for another meeting with the president. I hear that you simply want to ask the president why he killed your son. I understand that while grieving, sometimes time only introduces more questions and frustration. But, is that really why you want to see the president? To ask him why he killed your son? Is that really your question? Your one question?

Maybe it might be more helpful to talk with other mothers and fathers who lost their sons in the same field. I am sure you are aware of the many others who have lost sons to the same cause and who continue to support the war effort.

I don’t mean to paint an idealistic picture of this situation. Nobody wants war. Nobody. War is ugly. When nations war, men and women die. That’s just the way it works. However, I have to wonder what these other parents might say.

Perhaps they would have different questions. One mother might want to ask the president, “How many women were saved from torture and rape at the hands of the Saddam Hussein regime because my son gave his life?” Another may want to know, “How many people participated in the first democratic election in Iraq’s history because of my son?” Yet another may say, “I’ve never seen children look as happy and grateful as the pictures my son e-mailed me before he was shot. Those children have hope for a better future because of my son.”

Why do I think they may say such things? Because I have heard them express these exact sentiments. This is not about one set of parents being right. This is about the honor of the men and women who have fallen as well as those who continue to stand in the battle.

Again, I am so sorry for the loss of your son. May you and your family be strengthened and comforted during this time.

Sometimes what we feel like doing most would not be the thing that our loved ones would want us to do. I remember how unnatural it felt to move forward in my life after my mother's death. Yet, as abnormal as it felt, it was what she would have wanted and what was right. With that in mind, Mrs. Sheehan, I have question. Would the patriotic young man who volunteered for this fight be honored to know that his mother is demanding--in such a manner--to interrogate and criticize his Commander-in-Chief? That is my question for you.

Sincerely,
Just an American

(PS: Check out this interesting account of one of Cindy Sheehan's interviews.)

Beware of the Jerk-O-Meter

2005-08-12T16:04:00.000Z

I thought we'd kick off the weekend on a lighter note. It turns out that some researchers at MIT are developing a tool to help make cell phone users more socially aware. The Jerk-O-Meter would rate how engaged a caller is in the conversation.

It's funny and sad at the same time. I love technology. I can't leave my house without my cell phone. I use it as much for calls as for text messages. But, do we really need a device to let us know if people are engaged. I know when it's happening and I know when I'm doing it.

No technological device can replace the understanding that comes from basic human interaction.

Have a great weekend!

Hillary's Battle, And Ours

2005-08-12T00:02:00.000Z

She is a strong, independent woman. Though her husband has held a prominent position, she has managed to establish herself very successfully on her own. Her husband, as a matter of fact, would actually more of a liability than an asset in her bid for office. She's a feminist and she strongly pro-abortion. And, she is running for Senate in New York. "She" is not Hillary Clinton; she's Jeanine Pirro.

Don't get me wrong. Hillary Clinton is absolutely running for re-election in New York. But, she has some competition. Pirro has a 30-year career in law enforcement in New York. She appears to be genuinely motivated to continue in her service to her state in the capacity of a senator of New York.

Pirro is not as popular as Clinton right now. And, it's too early to say whether she'll be able to give Hillary a run for her money. Some of that will depend on how much money she'll be able to raise very quickly.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm thrilled to see a strong woman candidate who will challenge Clinton on her real motivation for re-election. Does she intend to finish out her term? Or, is this a mere stepping stone to the White House? As long as Pirro gains enough popularity to make it even a slight challenge, she will have served both New York and the nation. For that reason alone, I can see reason for some hope in the conservative camp.

However, Pirro is really very similar to Rudy Giuliani in her conservatism. She is a strong advocate of law enforcement, defense and a conservative fiscal policy but is more moderate on social issues.

Sometimes the goal is to simply move the ball down the field. And, that means that there are times and places for this type of "conservative." I live in California. I am not ashamed of having cast my vote for Arnold. But, I did so because I realized that he had little to no authority over the issues with which I differ with him the most. We elected him to clean up our fiscal mess. Perhaps this is another one of those times.

I hope her role is just that. To move the ball down the field in our direction. Let's just be a little more cautious about how excited we get about someone who simply has an "(R)" behind their name on a screen.

By Any Means Necessary?

2005-08-10T07:05:00.000Z

I'd like to believe that people who are impassioned by what they believe is a right and true cause, would use every legal, honest, legitimate means to advocate their cause. Not because they are such righteous people but because they wouldn't want their cause unduly smeared by their own actions. Right? Wrong.

I never cease to be amazed by the audacity of extremist abortion rights advocates in this manner. This time NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) has paid to run an add on the air on some cable news channels. (There are unconfirmed reports that Fox News will run the ads. I will not address that report now. If they are, that will be a completely separate post. )

CNN is airing an add that claims that Judge John Roberts defended a man who bombed an abortion clinic. Check out the facts, everyone. He did no such thing. What he did was make an argument about the laws regarding blocking the clinic. That neither women nor men should be blocked from getting into a clinic. THAT was the role he played in the case.

I hope that NARAL has just overplayed its hand. May this outrageous and reprehensible ad discredit them (as they ought to be) for discrediting Judge Roberts and for misrepresenting their own.