Driscoll TGC 2009 impressions

Just finished listening to Mark Driscoll's talk at the The Gospel Coalition 2009, and here are my thoughts:

1. He said some good things.
2. Wow. Dude really does think he's a martyr. I mean seriously.
   
3. If I were a young guy, hanging on every word and earnestly purposing to do everything Driscoll was saying... I'd be completely lost at sea. So many of the things he said just tangled back up on themselves. I'd have to have a transcript to illustate extensively. But I remember kind of chuckling when Driscoll was talking about "those people who say 'Thank you God that I'm not like those people!'" Yes, well, indeed; thank God we're not like those people who thank God they're not like those people! Because that would be bad!
4. I honestly wonder whether Driscoll knew how much he contradicted himself, just in the course of the talk. Or is that why he kept saying he did those bad things, too? Or was that a device to make it okay for him to say it? I really don't know.
5. I honestly think, in those young shoes, I'd have ended up with, "Well, I guess I just have to be Mark Driscoll. Because he's the only one who gets right what matters, what doesn't matter, when to 'throw down,' when to 'peace out'... and then say he repents, periodically. And do it some more. But everybody else is wrong! Everyone else is too doctrinal about the wrong things, too undoctrinal about the right things, too strident, too passive, too fixated, too limp...."
   
6. Does Driscoll listen to himself? Does he like what he hears?
7. Meaning no snark whatever, I think I would think, "Wow. Do I really want to sound just like those guys in Comedy Central?" I say "no snark," because maybe he does. I heard somewhere that he learned how to communicate from comedians. Maybe he thinks they're the ones who know how to connect with people, and that's his model. So, IOW, maybe he does want to sound exactly like them. Because he pretty much does.
   
8. Even worse, I really think I'd wonder if I really want to think like those guys on Comedy Central. Because a lot of the things Driscoll said were just cute. Period. Plus nothing. They were laugh-lines. Think about them for two seconds, ask one serious question, they collapse.
9. You can't not see the Driscoll/Johnson/MacArthur interchange in the background. Driscoll means us to, clearly. "Rapist." Yeah, that was subtle, Mark. And he means us to believe that he's really, really, really trying to be a good boy and suffer for Jesus. But I have to say: just not buying. It felt a more like venting, to make himself feel better. One Dan's opinion.
   

• Driscoll talks a lot about repenting and all. Phil Johnson asked him, "Of what, specifically?" Is it a good thing that Driscoll never answered Phil? Specifically?
  
• Driscoll and apologists seem to (try to) make a lot of the fact that John MacArthur didn't pick up the phone and ask Driscoll out to Starbucks or an Ultimate Fight game or something. Even granting that (which I don't) — then why didn't Driscoll do what he thought Phil or MacArthur shouldn't have done? Isn't that Matthew 7:12-y, and 1 Peter 3:9-ish? Piper's a significant voice, but MacArthur isn't? Johnson isn't? Why couldn't Driscoll have picked up the phone and asked MacArthur or Johnson out to... to whatever, if that's the way he thinks it has to be done? Is ignoring the specific pleas and concerns, and playing the martyr, a better way to "make the Gospel win," as he kept saying?
• Where would this discussion be today if Driscoll had just responded as promptly, directly, Christianly, and forthrightly as MacArthur and Johnson had reached out to him?
• ...or if those who "mentor" him had pressed him to do so, and followed through?

I'm left with a bad, sick feeling about the whole thing. I can't see his heart, and I truly, honestly won't guess. He sure gives every sign of a guy who just doesn't get it, who feels attacked and harrassed. Which he is, in all honestly. Driscoll is hated by the same people who would hate you and me, and for the same reason.

But this isn't about that. These are critics Driscoll needs to hear; but he thinks he needs to hunker down, endure, suffer, be a martyr, and fire back from under cover (as I think he did in this talk).

Since I don't know what's going on "backstage," I really wonder what his mentors are doing with him, saying to him. They are men who are mature and godly enough that they ought to be able to calm him down, translate, add any warmth they think is missing, but reaffirm the specifics.

If Driscoll doesn't deal honestly and frontally with good counsel he's gotten... I just don't see a happy future. Not for him, not for folks who look up to him... and I fear repercussions for the good men who've tried to help him.

Verb those nouns!

When I started listening to Tim Keller's talk at TGC 2009 (on which more, here), I was chuckling within two minutes.

Keller said they're going to talk about "how to steward the Gospel." There it is: "to steward"; as in I steward, you steward, he or she stewards.... Is that going to be the new evangelical buzz-verbed-noun?

The process of verbing nouns is an old one. Many Hebrew verbs are just verbed nouns. You'd just take a noun, and put it in the Pi`el, and voila! (or, more appropriately, hinneh!) A verb is born!

We do it flat-out with a lot of words. How many times have you heard (or, worse, said) "he didn't really exegete that passage"? But "exegete" is properly a noun. So is exegesis. So you'd really have to use the clunky "he didn't really perform exegesis of that passage," or something like.

Now, I find to my horror that "exposit" (as in "I will now exposit 1 John 1:1") actually is a verb, and an old one. So I'll have to correct my instinct to recoil at its use.

The maddening thing about English is that if enough people say something stupid long enough, it makes it into a dictionary. But then again, as a man once wisely said (of made-up words), "If you go back far enough, they're all made up." True, that.

But sometimes it can be funny when it shouldn't be. When I was taking prayer requests during a class I taught at Talbot, a brother who was a pastor mentioned that they had had to funeralize several people recently. It made me think of a woman I'd heard on Oprah (no idea how I'd happened on Oprah, so don't even ask), who mentioned having been "sexualized [i.e. molested in some way] several times.)

So you can verb any noun by simply adding -ize.

But as I said, people aren't even doing that today. Keller (mercifully) didn't say that we should stewardize the Gospel, nor (worse) that we should stewardshipize it. Just steward it. Be thankful for small mercies.

I wish I had saved a letter to the editor I read in the Calendar section of the LA Times decades ago. The writer was wryly responding to some passing discussion back then (it was in the 70s or early 80s) about how it was no longer proper to say that you are filming a movie, but rather that you are videoing it, or lensing it.

He said something like "This prompted me to chair my body, lamp my room, paper my typewriter [kids, ask your parents what typewriters were], and commence letter-to-the-editoring." He had more, and it was very funny.

Of course, as I've said, my least-favorite very-popular verbed noun is impact, in the sense of have an impact on. My reaction is always the same. It's properly an intransitive, but it is used as if it were transitive. I dont care if it's in a dictionary; when someone says, "That (sermon, book, article) really impacted me," I always say (if alone) "Eww!" Or perhaps, "I'm so sorry."

Because a wisdom tooth can be impacted; stools, bowels, and colons can be impacted.

But, properly, people aren't.

Or — merciful heavens — shouldn't be.

Fishing: now why did I never think of this?

And here all this time I've been quietly sneaking up and delicately presenting my dry fly, or chucking my lure....

This could also be a "You provide the subtitles" candidate.

Is it the light, the time of the year, or are those fish hardcore rockers?

Maybe hardcore fundies could use this to prove that deemin rock causes suicide.

(Thanks to regular reader NoLongerBlind for the tip)

It's official: this is a 9/10 administration

Honestly. How can you be so brain-dead clueless?

Could you possibly ask for more eloquent proof that President Obama is a consummate 9/10 Democrat — or at least that he has a bunch of them working for him — than Air Force One's buzzing New Yorkers without even informing the mayor, let alone the panicked populace itself?

Those poor people.

The White House has since said "Sorry, we were trying for something iconic."

Yeah. Iconic. Dudes. About that. I really, really, really think you succeeded.

How did that planning session go?

"I want a picture."
"Sure, we can do a picture. What kind of picture?"
"Oh, I don't know... something... something iconic."
"Iconic is good. How about Air Force One? That's iconic."
"Oh yeah, yeah, that's a great idea. We'll fly Air Force one... and an escort...."
"Yes?"
"Really low — over New York City!"
"Um, New York City?"
"Yeah! Why not? They love me there!"
"Uh, well, well yeah! That's genius!"

Everybody's scrambling to distance Obama from the photo-op, and he may not have been directly connected to it. The ever-popular "unidentified source" has said that President Obama was actually furious about the flight. Maybe he had nothing to do with it, beyond hiring people of that mindset and not being serious about that whole War on Terror thingie. We'll never know.

Whatever President Obama was, though, Mayor Bloomberg was furious.

There may have been plans to spread the word — but it clearly did not happen.

Ever looking for a bright side, one of the National Review Corner's readers asked a good question:

Several writers on NRO have mentioned that the Obama administration is returning to a Sept 10 mindset. I guess the flyover is proof of that. But if they’re going to go back in time, how about letting us wear our shoes through airport screening?

One of the Instapundit readers made this observation:

Scare the [stuffing] out of a known terrorist . . . . . it’s torture

Scare the [stuffing] out of thousands of New Yorkers . . . . . . . it’s a photo op.

The WSJ reports: "Updates with sources saying White House plans for a second photo shoot in Washington, D.C. being reconsidered."

Mm. Smaaart.

UPDATES:

Here's a good term for it. "Felony stupidity."

Am I being, er, Tweeted?

I see some referrals to this blog from Twitter.

Since I don't use (nor really understand) Twitter, that would be kind of ironic.

Brilliant freeware app for copying files from iPod

A baffling aspect of iTunes/iPod is the inability to copy mp3's back from the iPod to your pc. Data transfer is strictly one-way.

I spent a lot of time trying to find an app that would do this simple task, and finally bought one. It failed; I got "Error:The parameter is incorrect," and most files failed to copy. I contacted their technical help, and it didn't. (Help, that is.)

Then a coworker recently pointed me to Sharepod. It's a very simple bit of freeware, and I gave it a try.

Initially, it gave the same error. So I checked Sharepod's Help page, and it suggested a repair on my iPod, as if it were a disk drive. I did it, then all the files copied like a charm.

And now... you know that.

Hither and thither 4/24/09 — duty to die, Obama caving, Miss California, and more!

Wellnow, because of things I had spinning, I thought it might end up as a fairly slim H&T this week. AND YET!

• Here's a funny thing, though. H&D is a very popular feature... but traffic is always down on Friday. Why is that? Go figure.
  
• I think Will Ferrell is one of the luckiest men in Hollywood. I don't think he has much talent, I don't think he's (usually) funny, yet he keeps getting gigs in relatively major movies. If I were a serious, hardworking actor, he'd drive me nuts. But recently it could be argued that his luck ran out. It might be fun to watch.
• So. Anyone ever eaten a ramp? Sounds yummy, actually.
• Geek alert: David Pierce switched from Firefox to Chrome, and tells us why. He's sure right about it being faster than FF.
  
• Our Future Alert: in Britain, Baroness Warnock says senile old people are a complete waste of resources, and have a duty to die. Of course (someone should have told her) they will. But not fast enough for the Baroness. Ironically, the Baroness is 84, and clearly feels she is a fine investment of resources.
  
• The leaven of apostasy continues apace in the PCUSA, as the National Capital Presbytery voted to approve homosexual clergy. The move still may fail nationally, but leaven does have a tendency to spread. No word on whether they've also moved to approve clergy who are practicing thieves, rapists, atheists, or adulterers.
  
• In a turn fraught with irony, Sen. John Kerry (D-France) is moving to rescue newspapers. It is fitting, certainly, since the Dems have the MSM's concerted misinformation campaign to thank, in part, for their current spike of power.
• So these are supposedly 14 pizzas worth dying for. Me, I like mine better. Well, except maybe... these two:

• It appears that President Obama did the right thing in how he managed the pirate-hostage crisis: he gave general directives, approved what the military requested, and let them handle it. I'm glad to give credit when credit is due. Well done, Mr. President, and thank God it was successful.
• On the other hand, Obama caved to liberal extremists, reversing himself and signaling that he might legally go after Bush officials who obtained highly-valuable information from terrorists by methods he considers harsh. It's immoral to be harsh with mass murderers or their associates, Obama wants to says. If not corrected, this irresponsible lurch will chill any initiative in obtaining future intel by anything more extreme than "Care for a cigarette, Mr. Mahoobadood?" or "Another copy of Islam Today, Mr. Baksheesh?" Hugh Hewitt develops more of what's terribly wrong about a move that will hurt America, and please only the barking-mad, anti-American left... and our enemies. (See more on the "witch hunt" here, here, and here.)
• More on "torture": IBD notes today's Dems' hypocrisy. Meanwhile, a tape of real torture makes for horrid reading. The Obama administration doesn't want you to know the life-saving information obtained by the tactics. Voters may not be buying the Dems' tactics.
  
• So did you get that Moral Compass Alert from the Obama White House? Inconvenient or imperfect babies may be torn limb from limb, alive, all the way from conception to delivery. But terrorists? Raised-pinkie time!
• Slouching towards Canada, etc. One of Americans' most cherished, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights is the right to free speech. Regular readers will be unsurprised to note that Democrats in Congress are hard at work to relieve us of that right.
  
• I'm sure Justin Taylor's readers think they've very smart. No doubt many of them are. But do you think they even know there is such a thing as a Hawaiian Happy Face Spider? No sir, no ma'am; no, they do not. But mine do. Now they do.

• How much of a bummer would this be? You look at yourself in the mirror, and you're forced to admit: "Yeah, I'm famous and everyone wants to talk to me. But the only reason that's true is because I had immoral sex with a famous woman's daughter and made her pregnant, and the only thing they want to talk about is that, and the only reason is because they want to ruin that famous woman and make immorality more acceptable. And, what's more... I'm okay with that!" Yeah, that'd be the stinks.
• Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand meanwhile, Bristol Palin is reportedly out there advocating abstinence. Late to the party, but... nice. Nice change of story, too. Whatever.
  
• 
• Mmmmm, Sasquatch Burger. Yep, I'd eat it.
• Here is an iPhone application I don't think I'd have gotten.
• Oh boy. Don't let my family see this. Or anyone in any church to which I'll ever preach.
• My dear daughter points me to this, about Miss California who may have lost the title because she didn't give Perez Hilton the answer he wanted. But where do you start, where do you stop on that one? For starters, I just don't have anything good to say about beauty pageants, period. I believe I've offered a few thoughts about women who dress selfishly and unmercifully. Further, Carrie Prejean's answer was really very sloppy, and she's kind of sent mixed signals since. Prejean, a student at San Diego Christian College, says it was about being "Biblically correct," and that God was testing her; yet her answer was that this was the way she was raised, and she says “I’m so proud of myself” (which isn't, very), and that she's glad she was true to herself. I do think it's remarkable and praiseworthy that she gave what she knew would be a controversial answer. But I think it's far more remarkable that it was a controversial answer, that it has caused such a stink, and that people Hilton said he was "floored" by her answer. News flash: history really does go back beyond yesterday! Biblical values are at the root of our nation! Reality doesn't change simply because you stomp your foot and throw a tantrum!
• Damn cancer, anyway. I won't miss it.
  
• Title of the Week goes to Mystery Spots: Places Where Bizarre Forces Obscure Reality. Do you think of the same places I do? In about this order: Washington, DC; Hollywood, CA; The Vatican, Rome; Salt Lake City, UT... but that isn't what they're talking about.
• "If do right, no can defense."

• You know... I could happily live (or at least vacation) in some of these treehouses.

• I'm not as interested in the name of Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg as I am in (A) what's in it and (B) are they hitting on dry flies?
  
• Dude... this is one confused palm tree.
  

• Uh, so... nice hat.

• And then there's all this:
  

Warfield: the Christian ever a debtor to God's grace in Christ

B. B. Warfield nails it:

IT belongs to the very essence of the type of Christianity propagated by the Reformation that the believer should feel himself continuously unworthy of the grace by which he lives. At the center of this type of Christianity lies the contrast of sin and grace; and about this center everything else revolves. This is in large part the meaning of the emphasis put in this type of Christianity on justification by faith. It is its conviction that there is nothing in us or done by us, at any stage of our earthly development, because of which we are acceptable to God. We must always be accepted for Christ’s sake, or we cannot ever be accepted at all. This is not true of us only “when we believe.” It is just as true after we have believed. It will continue to be true as long as we live. Our need of Christ does not cease with our believing; nor does the nature of our relation to Him or to God through Him ever alter, no matter what our attainments in Christian graces or our achievements in Christian behavior may be. It is always on His “blood and righteousness” alone that we can rest. There is never anything that we are or have or do that can take His place, or that can take a place along with Him. We are always unworthy, and all that we have or do of good is always of pure grace. Though blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ, we are still in ourselves just “miserable sinners”: “miserable sinners” saved by grace to be sure, but “miserable sinners” still, deserving in ourselves nothing but everlasting wrath. That is the attitude which the Reformers took, and that is the attitude which the Protestant world has learned from the Reformers to take, toward the relation of believers to Christ. There is emphasized in this attitude the believer’s continued sinfulness in fact and in act; and his continued sense of his sinfulness. And this carries with it recognition of the necessity of unbroken penitence throughout life. The Christian is conceived fundamentally in other words as a penitent sinner. (Benjamin B. Warfield, Perfectionism, Volume 1 , chapter 3)

Warfield does not have the reputation of being the most easily-accessible theologian ever to write. That's because he isn't. He's better than Edwards... but that isn't saying much.

(If this is dense to you, try reading it aloud slowly and thoughtfully. It's worth the effort.)

Warfield makes a rich, important, central, and richly Gospelly point: we never get beyond needing grace, needing Christ, needing all the rich benefits purchased for believers on the Cross. Any teaching that in any way implies that Christ is where we start, that grace is Square A and we get beyond it into the really good stuff, is sub-Christian and un-Biblical.

Paul didn't reminisce about the old days, when he was a sinner who needed grace. It was a present and rich reality to him, to the end of his course (1 Timothy 1:15).

Thank God for Christ! Thank God for the Gospel! Thank God for the Cross! Thank God for His rich and overflowing grace — today, no less than the day I believed, nor less than a million years from now!

O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.
(Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing, Robert Robinson 1758)

Cell phone decision

Just to close the loop begun here: I'm planning to get the new iPhone when it comes out (it is anticipated) in June.

The iPhone just stands head and shoulders above most, but has a few shortcomings. Buzz is that these will be worked out in the new iPhone.

I don't love waiting 2-3 months and lacking tools I could use now. But I just think if I bought the current version now, and in a few months it's replaced, I'd feel foolish.

So now you know that.

My beloved and only daughter thinks it's cool that I'm getting an iPhone. Being cool with my daughter is... well, cool!

UPDATE: although... Sharp is about to release this waterproof solar-powered cell phone "made from recycled plastic bottles and features a built-in pedometer that calculates savings on carbon emissions from walking versus driving in a car." It'd be so... so green of me! Maybe Jack Bauer needs it.

What didn't fit in the Pyro post on porn and paper pastors

In today's Pyro post, I edited out a line, because it just didn't fit with the post's serious goal and tone. It wasn't worth it to go for a laugh in that context (which is a lesson some pastors would do well to learn).

It was about the Dove commercial, showing a woman first made up, then digitally touched up.

Well, I discovered that — ugh — that can go both ways.

(So, you see, in a way this is like the "Deleted Scenes" feature on a DVD.)

Seven Pounds: impressions and reflections

Valerie and I recently watched Seven Pounds (Will Smith, Rosario Dawson). Here are my thoughts.

Spoiler-free

Smith's disciplined excellence as an actor won me from skepticism to admiration years ago. Since Valerie feels similarly, we both were interested in his recent movie, "Seven Pounds."

In that regard, Smith does not disappoint. This is a tour de force of Smith's focused, mature approach to his craft. Here is an actor who so inhabits his character that you can sense the misery in the character's soul, even when that character is smiling and charming. In other words, he's an actor portraying a man who is acting, and you see that the character is pretending — but it's done with a light, yet convincing, touch. It is a remarkable performance.

All the other actors are fine, particularly Rosario Dawson. The chemistry between the two is important, and it is palpable.

However, this is a very sad movie. Intelligent, layered, deliberate (the unkind word would be "plodding," but we were never bored), involving, dramatic — but very, tragically, sad.

In that regard, I'm forced to liken Seven Pounds to Million-Dollar Baby and Bridge to Terabithia. Trailers suggest that it will be a drama with overtones of mystery and perhaps some romance. It is all of that, but it also is a depressing and (I will argue) senseless tragedy.

I recommend it for the acting and drama; I warn you about the oppressive tragedy, and a touch of sexual immorality.

Totally Spoilery

Read no further if you don't want to know the whole thing.

This is the plot, unraveled. Ben Thomas is a decent (if driven) businessman who loves his wife. He has just given her a diamond ring. He is driving with her one night, laughing and enjoying her, and he glances at his BlackBerry.

In that glance, he fails to notice an oncoming car. An accident ensues. Thomas' wife and six other people die.

Thomas is so consumed with misery and remorse that he involves his brother and best friend (unwittingly and wittingly, respectively) in a plan to do sacrificial good for seven people ("seven pounds" of flesh, an allusion to Shakespeare that is not explained in the film) to suit justice for the accident. He will donate bone marrow and other parts of himself while alive. Then he will commit miserable, painful, agonizing suicide-by-jellyfish to donate his heart and eyes to a blind man and a dying woman with whom he has come to share love.

The accident is the result of a momentary oversight. Not drunkenness, drug use, or recklessness. Thomas is not depicted as a bad person. Just eaten alive with relentless grief and misery and guilt for which he finds — and is offered — no relief.

Thomas is a man who badly needs Jesus Christ, and the hope and life and forgiveness that Christ alone provides. But he doesn't know it, and no one tells him, so he murders himself. A woman lives — heartbroken, ironically enough, because of Thomas' heart — and a man sees, but the "hero" is doubly-dead and blind.

So Seven Pounds leaves you sad, and at the same time angry, and feeling that perhaps the filmmakers made you sad just to make you sad.

And gee, what if his little one-time pre-suicide one-nighter left Dawson's character pregnant? Oops, we're not supposed to ask questions like that about Hollywood sex. Because, don't you know, immorality (straight or "gay") is casual, beautiful, and consequence-free.

The DVD promotional site includes a rave review calling this a "life-changing" picture that is "good for the soul." Really? If we take it as a "message" movie, and take the message seriously, then we should all be consumed by hopeless misery, designate ourselves organ donors, get someone to fall in love with us, and then commit suicide.

Real feel-good stuff, that.

Except for the not.

I think the Gospel is literally infinitely better. Christ lays down His life for His own, out of fullness of love for His Father and for us, and not out of a a howling abyss of unresolved (and inappropriate) personal guilt. Further, Christ did not single out people who were worthy of His sacrifice; instead, He targeted the least worth, the least deserving (Luke 5:32; 1 Timothy 1:15; thanks to Mike Leake for that observation). By His death, Christ redeems us, saves us, and gives us eternal life. He bodily rises from the dead, to sit at the Father's right hand, and will come one day to right all wrongs and reign forever.

Now, that is a life-changing message that is really good for the soul.

Like, forever.

Hither and thither 4/17/09

And now once again, the single most eclectic feature on a very eclectic blog, this week's Hither and Thither. And my, is it bursting! (There may be updates, particularly of images, so check back later.)

• So, you know that there are no scientists who are Christians, right? What, you don't? It goes like this: (A) if a science student, no matter how excellent, doesn't affirm materialistic evolution, (B) he is denied his doctorate. If he doesn't have a doctorate, (C) he's not a scientist. Therefore, (D) there are no scientists who are Christians! Is the same thing underway in counseling, so that one day it will be said there are no counselors who are Christians?
• Now we also know that Secretary Janet Napolitano, of the Department of Homeland Security, issued dire warnings against right-wingers and veterans despite internal objections from her the department's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. But she plowed ahead. Wrong and stubborn is a bad way to go through life, Secretary N (and President O).
• You know how pictures of fast food in menus and ads never look like what you end up getting? Well, here's photographic evidence. I will say this, though: my pizzas are exactly like the pictures!
• This, with thanks to Shinar Squirrel (via email), will only appeal to you if you're a hardcore Lego fan — which my son Josiah is. This is for you, 'Siah!

• There are some absolutely brilliant photographs here. A few favorites:

• I don't "do" Halloween. But even I must admit this is a pretty cool costume:

• This edition's Headline of the Week is more bizarre than most: Student hit by corpse thrown from speeding car. The details... well, does anyone really need more details? Nah.
• Goodness, there's a thematically-related runner-up. Now remember, in Headlines of the Week, the whole point is the title, not the story. Ready? Here it is: Obama Meets Privately With the Dead. Wow. Dude really will talk with anyone.

• There actually is a a second headline runner-up, as well: Tori Spelling: I'm Not Anorexic. Yeah, well, me neither. In case, you know, anyone's asking. "Which, I note, they're not." (Name that movie.)
  
• The Saudi judge who refused to annul an eight-year-old's forced marriage to pay a debt has stuck by his ruling. Ahh, the culture of the Religion of Peace makes yet another mark.
• Poor kids. The Obama administration extends false legitimacy to public embracers of perversion who've acquired children. (Thanks for the tip, Laura K)
• Well, I'll be. Apparently John McCain regrets that he didn't lose by triple digits. Hm. You know all those harsh things I said about him before the election? Wellsir... he's not making me sorry. (In case you're wondering, yes, I still think he'd be a better president than Obama, and I'm still sorry he lost. But then, I think anything you could buy in a pet show would be a better president than Obama... with a surer birth certificate!)
• The satirical (and, be warned, not reliably family-friendly) site The Onion has a deadly satire of how the MSM might respond if Obama murdered a couple of citizens in cold blood. It's just about one degree off of completely believable, and that's pretty sad. Note: it's a parody. I don't want any poor soul papering his mother's basement wall with rants about my accusing the president of a felony.
• I have mixed feelings about this. President Obama spoke at Georgetown University, his administration asked that they cover up the name of Jesus (represented by IHS) — and they did it. Why mixed? It's a Roman Catholic University, and it was absolutely craven of them to comply. But then again, Roman Catholicism isn't really about Jesus, anyway; so that's sort of a wash. And I'm really OK with Obama not associating himself with any form of Christianity in any way — except that he had the (trademark) gall and audacity to force a Sermon on the Mount allusion into his speech, rationalizing his march towards economic totalitarianism as building the economy on a rock. The ironies are innumerable. So I end up disgusted with the both of them. (Charles Krauthammer pulverizes The One's "new foundation.")
  
• Where We're Headed Alert: our dear Libbie pointed me to the report that 242 patients under the tender care of the government in Britain were starved to death.
  
• Next time a Roman Catholic tells you that, if you're not chained to Rome, everyone becomes his own Pope, ask him whether Tony Blair is still allowed to partake of the Mass.
  
• As a rule, I'm a bit leery of "Everything That Everyone Has Said about ___ Is Wrong" reporting, but newly-available information about the Columbine killings reportedly challenges most of what we know. The article includes this comforting fact about a government study of school murderers: "School shooters, they said, followed no set profile, but most were depressed and felt persecuted." Gee, how many teenagers does that describe? Psychologists want to help their self-esteem or deal with feelings of alienation. All human problems do stem from alienation, but it is alienation from God that is at the root, and psychology doesn't hold the solution to that.
• I did quite a bit of writing about the Terry Schiavo atrocity. Since then a number of "hopeless brain dead" patients have awoken. Now a new report says that 40% of patients said to be in a vegetative state may be misdiagnosed.
  
• Here are some pretty hysterical warning labels. Hysterical... until you realize that somebody must have needed these labels. And that somebody probably votes. And drives a white car.
• The good news: you don't have cancer. The bad news: you have a fir tree growing in your lung. Evidently he'd breathed in the seed. (More gruesome picture here.)
  

• Hm; I offered you my at-great-length Biblical-theological take on what happened last November 4. Now I think I've I've found a more pointed, graphic summary:
  

• And then, there are these:
  

...and, finally:

Pre-"Hithers": Obots keeping America safe from...Americans; Christianoid iPhone apps

It's actually true: this week's Hither and Thither^© is already so bursting that I'm giving a pre-game show. I don't want The Squirrel to accuse me again of copying his copying of me, so I'll keep it on Friday this week. But these are a couple of items I want to be sure don't get buried:

The Obama DHS: hard at work watching you

Do you sleep safer at night knowing that The 'The One' Administration is keeping a wary, watchful, and suspicious eye on people who oppose abortion and illegal immigration, who support the Second Amendment, who are leery of totalitarian government — and (da da DAAAAAAAA) served in the military?

It's true. In a recent, outrageous report, The New and Improved Department of Homeland Security reported on the mounting threat of... of what? Islamic extremists? Nah, they're just friends we haven't made yet! Pirates? Nahh; they're just disadvantaged seamen. Who, then? Domestic, left-wing terrorists like the president's ol' buddy Bill Ayers? Nahh; he's a respected professor!

No, the evil threat is: rightwing groups! And the evidence for this threat is....

Well, it's pathetic. Once again, the MSM seems to be showing that same maddening lack of curiosity, suspicion, and integrity that characterized it during the Clinton years. And once again, it takes a non-MSMer even to ask questions and try to get at the truth.

Read Powerline's John "Rocket Man" Hinderaker's investigation of the report: Watch Out for Those Crazy Right Wingers! I warn you, though, it's infuriating. Turns out our government is basing its report on a misreading of a baseless press-release from a left-wing group.

All of which causes me to ask: for what government actions are these rumblings the predicate?

Bloggers: doing what the MSM is supposed to do. (See also the reflections from American Thinker here and here.)

As a postscript, the DHS has weakly replied that it had issued a mirror-report earlier, focusing on left-wing groups. FOX news reviewed that report, and its verdict is: not so much.

UPDATE: characteristically for this administration (which, when it errs badly, simply doubles-down), Napolitano stands by this report.

50 iPhone Apps for "Christians"

I received (and appreciate) a tip for an article titled "50 Excellent iPhone Apps for Christian Living." The tip came from one of the contributors (no title) to the site, which is itself called Christian Colleges.

Unfortunately, I have to start with a warning. In this case, the use of "Christian" apparently ranges from the genuine, to the sociological, to the not even remotely.

The site itself links to Christian and Roman Catholic institutions equally (first two senses). But the specific page includes links to iPhone apps such as the ESV Study Bible and various other Bible versions... but also apps that are pagan, Buddhist, and the Science of Mind. That last is the anti-Christian cult from which the Lord saved me.

So read with great discernment, but you might find a useful link or two there.

This is some funny tennis

Tennis players are amazing athletes. Here Maria Sharapova faces some folks who, well, maybe aren't so much.

I can't bring myself to reach for any Deep Point here. It's just funny.

What really cracks me up is the announcer. When I indulge in faux Japanese, I often throw in a good, hearty "Waaaaaa!"

But I thought I was making it up.

The end of Chr... er, Newsweek?

So Newsweak's way of saying "Happy Resurrection Day!" to Christians was dolorously "reporting" on "the end of Christian America" (see last week's H&T).

Now, fiery Roman Catholic writer Brent Bozell responds with The End of Newsweek?

It's a bare-knuckled essay full of quotables (all emphases will be mine). Bozell wastes no time. Asking why Newsweek was ready to hold a funeral for Christianity in America, Bozell observes that it was:

[b]ecause they found that the percentage of self-identified Christians had fallen 10 points since 1990. OK, then let's compare. How much has Newsweek's circulation fallen since 1990? Just since 2007, their announced circulation has dropped by 52 percent. It would be more plausible to state "The End of Newsweek."

Ouch. That's going to leave a mark.

After rehearsing more figures and trends, Bozell muses:

Newsweek's strategy in the midst of all its financial decline is to double and triple the amount of editorializing, cast aside all semblance of "news" in favor of long, liberal essays by self-impressed Newsweek editor Jon Meacham and his international editor Fareed Zakaria. Is that really a business solution, or is it the captains performing violin solos on the deck of the Titanic?

One has to wonder whether Newsweek's financial gurus really think it's a smart business strategy to greet the Easter season with funerals for "Christian America," and greet the Christmas season by making the "religious case for gay marriage"? (That's not to mention all the reverent Obama worship in between.)

Bozell goes on to observe that the intent seems to be to dishearten Christians into shutting up and hiding in church (as I also observed, in this blog's second post). We should stop contending for Christian values in public, yield to Islam, get in step with the world.

Bozell finishes with his own direct-hit:

All this leads back to the sneaking suspicion that the top minds at Newsweek think they are the wisest of men, the definers of trends and the shepherds of public opinion. So why is everyone abandoning their advice? Why are the captains of a magazine that's lost half its circulation telling the rest of us where the mainstream lies?

The Biblically-faithful Christian, of course, will chuckle at Newsweek's (and the MSM's) ongoing attempts to shame us into joining what they define as "the mainstream." One day, we will be the mainstream.

But this is not that day.

Eagle and cat: "Hey, come back here, ya lightweight!"

Cat's got guts.

...still. Mercifully.