Hither and thither 3/31/10 (early pre-Easter edition)

Surprise!

I have lined up a Maunday Thursday post, and Friday is Good Friday. So here is a shorter Hither and Thither. Enjoy.

• Inhalable coffee? I... don't think so.
• Another government healthcare horror story. Our future? Every Dem voter says "Oh yes, please!" I say, "Please God, no."
• In a similar vein of "no": I hope Phil Johnson's right that this is an early April Fool's joke: Desiring God Conference to feature Rick Warren? The scariest thing, though, is that I don't think they have a sense of humor at DG. Yikes.
• UPDATE: one of my favorite pastors, Chris Anderson, offers some characteristically solid thoughts on DG/Piper/Warren.
• We fans received the bad news this week that "24" has been cancelled. In the wake of that announcement, American Thinker bids Farewell and Adieu, Jack Bauer; and Chris Yogerst argues that leftist politics is what killed the show.
• MSM Dreaming: there's this constant buzz of Obama and company scoffing at those who call him a socialist. Is there not one single reporter with the guts and integrity to ask one simple question? The question: "President Obama, would you please define socialism, and explain how your trajectory is a different trajectory?" Then (as long as I'm dreaming), rinse and repeat for fascism. Can't just one MSM reporter do that?
• Yeah yeah, I know: stupid question.
• You know, when you're just like going along, minding your own business, and you turn around, and there's a lion, right there? Yeah. I hate that.
• Nummy, heart-attack hamburgers. Dang, now I'm all hungry.

• Threats of violence and the right. The MSM has a long and bespattered history of blaming everything on the right, regardless of the facts. So no surprise when WaPo's Eugene Robinson delivers himself of the idiotic statement that "The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction -- the right, not the left." How about this counter? "The danger of statist totalitarianism in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction -- the left, not the right." What is the proper response to that? Voting, persuasion, protests, peaceful resistance. Prayer. But if the left continues its intrusive overreach into policing the thoughts and lives of Americans, more discussions will begin bringing up the topic of whether the Founding Fathers were right or wrong in what they did, and how their situation differs from ours.
• Note that the previous paragraph featured no advocacy of violence or illegal actions. John Miller offers a softer response to Robinson, but still a good one.
• In related news: hmm, a reason to consider "going Amish"?
• Breaking news: there's a Matt who is dumber than Damon.
• Is anyone surprised to learn that the Obama administration's politicization of the war on terror may be resulting in endangering the lives of undercover agents? Anyone? Bueller? Didn't think so.
• Reader Tobekiwi noted some good news and some bad news. The good news: scientists are saying that... well, they're saying that they're saying that there is a scientific basis for the plagues of Egypt. The bad news is that they get it all wrong. First, they place it in the thirteenth century BC, not the Biblical date of the fifteenth century. Second, they mess with the details. Third, they attribute it to climate change and global warming, rather than the eyewitness attribution to the mighty hand of Yahweh. 
• A Haitian man was rescued after being buried for 27 days. Pretty amazing story.
• Then, these.

Getty concert - while it lasts

Thanks to a tip from reader Jack Wickwire. This may only be available through Wednesday, though.

The uncommon candor of a famed evolutionist

Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's bulldog," wrote this:

The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before.

Now, I don't pose as a Huxley-scholar. Huxley did go on to argue somehow that ethics indeed needs to strive against evolution, in order to sacrifice and help and show self-restraint.

But why?

This is the point that drives atheistic evolutionists (a near-tautology, but not quite) nuts. They say that it is because it is such a dumb question. That isn't it. It drives them nuts for the same reason the slippery-slope progression drives "gay" "marriage" advocates nuts: because it is irrefutable and dead on-target.

If two guys or gals committing serial-perversion can be called "marriage" simply because they feel like it, then there literally is no limit to what might be illegitimately so labeled. It's a fatal flaw in the argument, and bringing it up simply undoes advocates.

Same way with bringing up that the atheistic evolutionist is unable to argue for any transcendent ethics or morality.

Except that isn't strictly true, is it? Strictly, while an atheistic evolutionist could not argue that it is "good," he could argue that crushing the inferior is both imperative and advantageous. However, he cannot make an argument that either drive or advantage are "good."

Which exposes a fatal flaw in the system.

Which drives them nuts.

Think the ballet dancer in the back got fired, much?

Yeah, me too.

Monday music: two by Fredrik Larsson

YouTube features a number of videos by this talented young man named Fredrik Larsson. He uses "FreddeGredde" as his name, and is a 24 year old self-taught musician from Sweden. Larsson clearly plays (at minimum) guitar, keyboard, accordion, pipe, and drinking glasses.

The first video isn't the greatest technically, but I really enjoy the tune... even though it's apparently from a video game! It is called "Wind Waker - Unplugged."



The second is a medley of theme songs from 22 TV shows (of which I've ever seen even one full episode of... about six.



If you've time to kill, I'll give an "honorable mention" to an ambitious self-composed number titled "Beside Me," in which once again Larsson plays all the instruments, except drums.

Hither and thither 3/26/10

Nearing the completion of my proverbs manuscript, about to send it out for proof-reading and mercifully merciless critique. (I've got one great brother lined up; know any knuckle-draggingly conservative Hebrew profs?)  Very excited about this book.

Meanwhile, here's your buffet:

• Ooh! Legoland!

• Breaking news: men and woman are different! Actually, this is a very interesting read on the brain-differences between the sexes. There is some wisdom in the doctor's words.
• Speaking of guys... hey guys! Want to see some stuff get blowed up real good? In ultra-slow-mo? With visible shock waves and ever'thang? You got it.
• Many of us have noted with alarm how obsequious our president is with our sworn enemies (to no gain), and how rude and dismissive he is to our allies. Take Israel, for instance. Well, Rush Limbaugh had a suggestion as to how Israel could get better treatment: change its name to Iran. "It's the key to be treated well by the U.S.: No pressure, no impolite diplomatic language, no pushing it to give up land." Or, another suggested, Venezeula: 
• Roads in our area aren't always maintained just as we'd like. But sometimes it's good to remember that other places do much poorer maintenance.

• Want to lose weight? The future of dieting may lie in seaweed. (Of course, what lingers with me is... what is an "artificial gut"? Brr-r-r-r.)
• Still with food, this public health announcement: now we know that dark roast coffee is better for your tummy? Hey! It's Science!
• Now with health: one doctor is unwilling to become a government lackey, and so she plans to opt out. Good luck, doc.
• Democrats vote to provide Viagra to sex offenders. Nope; not a joke. Well, the Democrats are a joke. Christians who voted for them are, too. Just not a funny joke.
• Maybe I shouldn't be so negative about the healthcare takeover. I mean, there was one guy who loved it.
• On a happier note, Rep. Paul Ryan gets a good, positive profile which suggests that he is "Jack Kemp on steroids." (That would be Kemp before he became the decaffeinated, gelded tea-sipper who chatted with Al Gore in the 1996 election.) Money-quote: "this debate was never about policy but rather a paternalistic ideology at odds with our historic commitment to individual liberty, limited government, and entrepreneurial dynamism. The proponents of this legislation reject an opportunity society and instead assume you are stuck in your station in life and the role of government is to help you cope with it.” 
• Looka some pretty amazing stairs. In at least one case, I'd say more "scary" than amazing. No thanks.

 

• Canadian Mark Steyn writes wittily but clearly wincingly about how the champions of liberal wonderfulness in Canada forced the canceling of a talk by conservative firebrand Ann Coulter, in Bienvenu au Canada.
• My DAOD and BSIL have a friendly ongoing squabble about whether it's soda or pop. Turns out that, like them, it's pretty much regional.

• There's a new book out. I don't know one thing about it apart from the title and the cover... and I like them both. The title: Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation. The cover:

• And these lovely parting gifts:

In praise of RINOs

Oh, not really. You know I despise RINOs (Republican In Name Only), and think "moderate" is a nice way of saying "spineless, unprincipled, compromised culture-kissup."

However, HSAT....

Did you notice that every last Republican in the House opposed Obama's latest statist overreach?

Every. Last. One.

In fact, Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the statist bill, not the reverse. Thus, it is the opposition to the bill that is bipartisan.

Just sayin'. You see, much as I truly do hate to admit it, there is a point to voting party-line, even when the party-guy is a stinker. (The younger me gapes in horror at the older, wiser me.)

Yes, they're unreliable, and they'll make you crazy sometimes. But you can't get around it:

1. Individuals vote for Speaker of the House
2. Majority determines who chairs committees and what gets done
3. Sometimes voting the right way (RINO) is better than never voting the right way (most Dems)

Also think about this: we owe the current state of affairs, in part, to ideological purists who let the perfect become the enemy of the good, and handed the whole enchilada to the control of the worst.

Strategery. We need to get better at it.

"You might be a dispensationalist if...."

Shepherd's Conference 2010 featured a talk by Dr. Michael Vlach, titled "You Might Be a Dispensationalist If...."  Fred Butler gave me (and also everyone) a heads-up on it.

I listened, I basically enjoyed. You may recall the review of Vlach's book on dispensationalism here. My thoughts about the talk are similar to the book: it was helpful, but I would have liked an aggressive job of making the case for dispensationalism, rather than simply a "here is what they believe, and if you believe it, you're one of them." But since many still are unclear as to what dispensationalism is, except that, like Christianity in Rome, "everywhere it is spoken against" (Acts 28:22), there doubtless is a need for such a talk.

Vlach (pronounced Vlock) takes 15+ minutes actually to get into the substance of his talk, time I would have preferred to see devoted to more development of the topic. His reading of part of Gentry's mocking list was funnier; I would link, but his site is offline.)

Perhaps the best part is Vlach's conclusion, in which the good doctor gives his own serious...

You might be a dispensationalist if....

1. ...you believe that the primary meaning of Old Testament passages is found in the Old Testament passages themselves.
2. ...you believe that national Israel is not a type that finds its significance ended with the Church.
3. ...you reject replacement theology.
4. ...you believe that Jews and Gentiles can be unified in salvation and there is a future for the nation Israel.
5. ...you believe that the nation Israel will be saved and restored with a role of blessing to the nations after the second coming.
6. ...you believe that believing Gentiles can be the "seed of Abraham" without becoming spiritual Jews or part of  Israel.

Bart Stupak and the myth of the "pro-life Democrat"

I understand the mindset expressed in "I vote for the individual, not the party." But individuals caucus; individuals form majorities, individuals elect the leaders the House and Senate. And their party-identification (nearly always) predicts who they will vote for.

Take Rep. Bart Stupak, who got his 15 minutes of fame by posing as that contradiction in terms, a "pro-life Democrat." What that means is he's theoretically opposed to abortion, but fundamentally supports the Democratic party, which is rabidly pro-abortion.

Listen to him telling, straight-up, what he was going to do, long before Sunday's shameful sellout (h-t reader CR):

See? He said, right up-front, what he'd do. And he did it. Why the surprise?

This is why the much-maligned Phyllis Schlafly is right to write about the myth of the pro-life Democrat.

Now, I say that, in addition to the fact that apart from the abortion issue, the Democratic party is doggedly opposed to most distinctively Christian values.

Ironically, Stupak was poised to receive a "Defender of Life" award from the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. They had the integrity to deny it to him, after his sellout. But why did they imagine he'd hang tough? He's a Democrat, supporter of a rabidly anti-life party, and of the most doctrinnaire pro-abortion extremist every to run for (let alone hold) the Presidency.

The Washington Times calls Stupak a coward.

I don't know that Stupak was being a coward.

He was just being a Democrat.

If you're tempted, next November, to vote for any Democrat, because (s)he is pro-life or pro-guns or right on any other single issue, remember this moment of shame, when the Dems hung together in unraveling the Constitution, and the American ideal.

Rep. Paul Ryan's "Tear Down This Wall" speech

Congressman Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin) gets what happened, why it was bad, why it must be reversed.

Monday music: "Stand by Me," by a global assortment

I felt like I had posted this in the past, but couldn't find it. So, either (A) here you are!, or (B) here you are again!

Stand by Me from theRedPillRadio on Vimeo.

(h-t reader Gene Coldwell)

Hither and thither 3/19/10

Well, let's see how you all are at "subtle." Today marks the date, twenty-one years ago, on which this didn't happen:

• And relatedly, my dear and only, precious, irreplaceable gift-from God wife sent me a number of good cartoons. Here's one we chuckled at:

• Well well well. President The One says that he will not campaign for any Dem who doesn't vote for putting your healthcare under government control. Odd; he says that like it'd be a bad thing. Given the recent elections he's "helped," I would think this would make opposition well-nigh irresistible.
• President The One's approval ratings continue to sink gently.
• Will it surprise you to learn that he approves a plan to reward lawbreakers with citizenship? Of course not. Natural Dem constituency.
• But that is just part of The Obama Way: reward those who threaten and harm us, alienate our friends. I remarked on this long ago. Take the president's approach to Israel as an example.Obama flatters our enemies, gaining nothing; and harshly attacks, condemns and criticizes our ally, Israel. It is increasingly alarming.
• But then, Democrat administrations have often been "iffy" (at best) "friends" to Israel. Raising the bafflement of overwhelming American Jewish support for Democrats. I can seldom bear to listen long to Dennis Prager; too many first-person singular pronouns per second. But he shared once how, in his never-ending exploration of himself, he once "broke kosher," just to see if it was really his conviction. And he said that was far easier to do than was his first Republican vote — it's that ingrained among many Jewish voters, according to Prager.
• One last and sober Obamanote. In a hard-hitting essay for the Washington Times, Jeffrey T. Kuhner says:

Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. ...The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is ...the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda. ...Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia. The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy. It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office. It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.

• Mm. Says here that women prefer metrosexual Johnny Depp types to masculine Sean Connery types. Something tells me my readers on the distaff side of the equation will want to weigh in on that one.
• QED.

• Logos is having its March madness, in case you want to participate. I've voted!
• When political correctness goes absolutely nuts, you get things like this: official apology issued for offending a member of the Jedi religion, by asking him to lower his hood. No, I am not kidding. In fact, with some 390,000 members, it is the fourth-largest "belief" in Britain. What I don't understand is why he didn't just wave his hand and say, "The hood is no big deal, I can leave it up"?
• Hulk... er, that is, Invisible Hulk smash?

• Dang! Why can't Senator Tom "I Play Hardball" Coburn be my senator? I'm stuck with Boxer and Feinstein. Grr.
• ...aaand now comes a trailer for Terminator...from Pixar.
• DAOD points us to an article indicating (—by Science!) that faithful men tend to have a higher IQ (and vice-versa). Before you get too excited and put it in your church bulletin, you should note: (A) it's all about evolution; and both (B) conservatives and (C) religious people also test out with lower IQs.
• Do IQ tests factor in Proverbs 1:7? I'm thinking no.
• This week's Romans 1:22 Award goes to the very-deserving David Attenborough. Here we see Attenborough denying the nose on his own face. Count the "ifs" and "could haves," and note the teleological language. Can't stop the signal.
• Courtesy of reader Justin Durst, Jr. — Death Star Melons!

• Reader Pastor John sent me this. If I am hearing him right, Randy Alcorn believes in the resurrection of the body... of our pets.
• Maybe not this one, though.

• I don't know this is true; but I do suspect it.

• For you who feel this blog is too cat-friendly (from this site - but be warned of bad language):

• Then there's all this:

Trolololo — which is Russian for "You will not thank me for this"

No, actually the song is titled "Indeed, I am very glad that I finally am returning home."

As you know, when I have something solid up at Pyro, it gives me the sense (illusion?) that I can be sillier over here. Sometimes the line between "silly" and "scary" is a bit blurry, though. As it is today.

First, I will destroy your minds — as mine has been destroyed — by etching a horrible tune into your cerebral cortex. That is, I will inflict share the "straight" (lip-synced) version from decades ago, by the man I like to call "The Singing Mannequin":

Okay. Well, I'm sorry, but there it was. You probably already knew it. If not... well, again, sorry.

But wait, there's more.

Here's a "live" version of part of the song.

Oh dear. Well, there's still more. Faithful reader "Al Sends" alerted me to this "unplugged" version:

At least it's intentionally funny.

If you want the whole story and backstory, an update on the singer, and various other versions, go here (— but I can't vouch for language or taste).

The Gettys' St. Patrick's Day sale

Reader Jack W pointed out to me that the Gettys are holding a St. Patrick's Day sale. If the 0/Dem economy has left any paper in your pocket, check it out!

If you don't know the Gettys, they are among a few who are creating modern hymns — that is to say, music that is doctrinally rich, Cross-centered, and good music to boot.

It is just so sad for a church to fill its time with nothing but syrupy choruses and ditties, when we sit on a treasure-trove of timeless classic hymns, and artists such as the Gettys and Stuart Townend are crafting music that exalts God and nourishes the soul.

Afterthought: what if one bought Getty Music songbooks for "worship leaders"? Subtle? Like a sledge-hammer?

Update: reader Brad Williams correctly observes that I picked the wrong implement for the occasion. So here's the correction:

Book review: The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift The Fissuring of American Evangelical Theology from 1936 to 1944, by R. Todd Mangum

The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift 
The Fissuring of American Evangelical Theology from 1936 to 1944
by R. Todd Mangum
(2007: Wipf and Stock; 346 pages)

Did you know that, at one time, Dallas Theological Seminary had a huge Presbyterian presence, both on staff and among the student body? Did you know that Lewis Sperry Chafer and many other leading dispensationalists such as J. Oliver Buswell, S. Lewis Johnson, and A. A. Macrae, were Presbyterians?

Yet today, you can't serve as a Presbyterian elder or pastor if you are a dispensationalist. Many (not all) Presbyterians regard dispensationalism with suspicion and/or contempt, and treat it as either a heresy, or as heresy's dim-witted, bucktoothed cousin. Reformed sites and writers come up with "reasons" (including really lame ones) for not allowing dispensationalists a seat at the table.

What happened?

Todd Mangum's book takes a stab at part of the answer. He focuses on events leading up to the findings of Presbyterian study committees in the 1940s, which explain the rift that arose between two schools that were, and should have remained, mutual co-combatants in the struggle against unbelief and compromise.

This is Mangum's doctoral dissertation, so it is extremely detailed and closely-documented. It is readable, but it does read like a dissertation. Mangum gets into the original documents at length, and couples it with interviews with men then-living who had been involved in the actual events and known the principle actors (i.e. the late Drs. Walvoord, Macrae, and Johnson, among others).

Mangum argues that the split arose for a number of reasons, ranging from the regional to the political. A few critical errors in judgment and procedure created a rift which has yet to be fully healed. Chafer (of Dallas) drew some unnecessary lines in the sand very dogmatically; the Presbyterians of the board of inquisition would not allow him to address them in person, and narrowed their inquiry primarily to Chafer and a couple of other sources. Therefore, though not in fact representing all dispensational thought, Chafer was made to speak for all dispensationalists. When his positions were rejected, all dispensationalists were rejected.

The results were a far greater isolation and ossification. Presbyterian and Reformed presence at Dallas plummeted, and (of course) dispensational representation in Presbyterian circles fell to nil.

The result is as we see it today. Many dispensationalists resent and reject the doctrines of grace reflexively (having been rejected by their Presbyterian representatives in the 40s), and many Reformed folks view dispensationalists with suspicion at best, and hostility at worst. Two groups who should be battling unbelief side by side, and growing in their grasp of Biblical truths, remain isolated into warring camps.

At some points, one almost wishes one could be snapped back in time, to plead with one on this side or that to re-think, reconsider, re-examine, re-approach, modify... and sometimes just to chill out. But what's done is done, and that sometimes makes for sad reading.

My thoughts. As has been pointed out more than once, dispensationalists really should be Calvinists, and Calvinists really should be dispensationalists. The former believe at least in election and sovereign grace in the case of the yet-to-be-converted generation of Jews; the latter believe in God's sovereignty and faithfulness to His promises, and (at least formally) in the principle of grammatico-historical exegesis.

Yet, rather than admit and (hello?) reform this inconsistency, the latter re-define grammatico-historical exegesis to protect their un-reformed position, and the former ignorantly echo the shallower dodges of famous "Calminian" dispensationalists, past and present. The resulting stalemate is to no one's benefit.

Among his concluding observations, Mangum offers this:

We may wonder whether such dialogue [as has recently begun more in earnest] (and such modifications on both sides) might not have taken place sooner had the discussion not been marred from the beginning with such misunderstandings as we have explored in this study. Our wonder only grows when we consider that there might have been a latent form of "progressive dispensationalism" always present in the dispensationalist constituency from the beginning. (210)

[Update/aside: it occurred to me that news of dispensationalism's welcome back at the table apparently has not reached Minneapolis.]


In sum. Want to see how the rift started, in great and scholarly detail? I don't know a better source than Mangum.

(For a more learned review from a different perspective, see this from Dr. Kenneth J. Stewart)

Monday music: "Stairway to Heaven" — Stanley Jordan, plus a bonus duet with Chet Atkins

Oh, my... I'm not sure it's legal for so much talent to be concentrated in just one man.

Guitarists will note Jordan's unique technique. It is called two-handed tapping, or touch technique. As Jordan himself explains, it requires strings lying low near the guitar's neck, and is accomplished by hammering or tapping the notes with your fingers. One of the advantages, as you can see here, is that it enables chording your own leads. Also, you can split it up for two guitars (as Jordan does, 2:35).

A disadvantage is that most people who try it and aren't Stanley Jordan experience cerebral detonation.  (Their heads explode.)

And now, at absolutely no extra charge, a treat that is sheer pleasure. Jordan (around 31 years old, here) teams with the late, great Chet Atkins (about 66) to do Sweet Georgia Brown:

Ronnie (representative "evangelical" churchgoer)

You know it's true.

(h-t reader/friend Pastor John)

Hither and thither 3/12/10

If I do say so myself — and look! I am! — we are serving up a particularly tasty eclectic blend today. Enjoy.

• Behold, the Lego empire.
• Lego Vader, from Sir Aaron.

• From my dear wife comes this odd moment: do you have your tinfoil hat on?
• It's pleasant to have a certain number of unmarketable talents. This gent has at least one.

 

• Excellent hand-art.

• Yikes. Or, to be exact, Yike bike. My mother-in-law pointed this one out. You can queue up to get one for yourself, for a mere $4500. Me, I see dead people.
• Goodness, but I wish Mitt Romney would forget about running for president. Now he's wriggling about whether he ever called himself "pro-choice." Dude...look you can see how emphatic Romney was in his support of protecting the abortion status quo, running for governor as recently as 2002. His brave mom, standing up for the right to butcher inconvenient or imperfect babies, what a proud legacy, blah blah bloody-blah. If Romney wants to say he was being wiggly to win in a pro-abort state then (i.e. really pro-life, but sounding pro-abortion to get elected), then what is he doing now, to be nominated by a pro-life party?
• Wellnow, I've found a page you should not go to if you are even one ounce overweight. Or hungry. Or human. This one. Three words...and you know what they are.
• No, Josiah, this would not be an acceptable answer.  (c;

• Elitists' favorite "conservative" (or one of them, at any rate), David Brooks, has given a game try at trashing the Tea Party Movement. Golly, what a surprise. Who could ever have guessed that a movement of Those People wouldn't be to Mr. Brooks' liking?
• So then Lee Harris took a second look at Brooks' case and, in looking, pretty well demolished it.
• Reader Pam Siegfried alerted me to some pretty neat garage covers with which you could amaze your neighbors. Here are a few (click to enlarge; more here).

• Buck Murdock Alert. Oh my gosh, the irony is just priceless. Just listen:  "US president Barack Obama has said the 'time for talk is over'...Speaking to a crowd in Missouri, Mr Obama said ... {snip} ...the president hoped to rally support for his plans, saying: 'The time to talk is over...'" — and then he went on, and on, and on.

• Translation: "Hey! No fair disagreeing and challenging and asking questions! Just do my will 'n' pass my bill!" (Look for that on a T-shirt... or an O-shirt: "Do my will 'n' pass my bill!")
• Of course, I do agree with President Oblahblah: the time for talk is over. Dude, you've flogged it for over a year. We hate it. Drop it. Give it a rest. Give us a rest. Move on!

• One last healthcare takeover note: the genius who Dem voters put in charge of Congress, Nancy Pelosi, actually said of the healthcare bill, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." I (A) am not making this up, and (B) feel so much better. Don't you?

• Independent thinking in Texas education? Not so much. Back in line, comrade!
• Ahh, lovely. Hobbit houses.

• Here's a sad graph, relating the number of abortions in a state to whether it votes Democrat or Republican. Sad, but no surprises. The most-Democrat states also have the most abortions. And the stand-out bloodiest state? My own. Horrible, horrible.
• For the most part, seems like the homosexual agenda is very similar to the pro-abortion movement, in that there is no actual "there" there, beyond emotions, clichés, and selfishness. Current exhibit: I gather a songwriter named Ray Boltz at one point thought he was a Christian, as Nebuchadnezzar at one point thought he was an ox. Then Ray decided indulging sexually perverse desires was worth everything, so now he's that. Instead of the Lordship of Christ, he wrote a little song in which he preaches the Lordship of Ray and Ray's feelings and perverted desires, and equates sexual perversion to skin-color. My. All the originality and newness of...of... of things that have no originality nor newness. (Reader Jonathan Vowell pointed this item out.)
• While doing background for that item, I stumbled across a thoughtful reflection by reader Fred Butler, on the sad occasion of Boltz' shaking his fist in God's face.
• This is very cool. Dude spends three years building Minas Tirith... out of matchsticks.

• I know I know I know. Raised-pinkie bloggers would never say this. There are two or three things wrong with my saying this. But sometimes you just have to say it. Here goes: don't you sometimes just thank God that you don't carry the burden of trying to explain or defend the Roman Catholic Church? Seriously?
• Do not press the red button.

• Title of the Week winner is: Homeless man under house arrest.
• We also have a runner-up, also from the law enforcement files. It is: Calif state senator says he's gay after DUI arrest. Well, at least now we know what causes it.
• I care for the health and wellbeing of all my readers. So, here is a public service reminder: physical exercise of any sort is hazarrous and should be avoided at all costs.

• Relatedly, with our lady readers who are increasingly "great with child" in mind, there is an onion cream that is supposed to help with stretch marks. Mm... wonder whether it makes a nice little chip-dip, too....
• Bringing us inexorably to all of this:

(or anybody, btw)