Steve Brown - 1

PREFACE: this isn't either an "expose" or an analysis of Steve Brown. It's (a) my impressions based on just a few lectures in a 37-lecture series, and (b) my invitation to anyone who does know more about him to tell what he or she knows.

Do any of you know anything firsthand about Steve Brown?

I know he's a little Presbyterian (PCA) pastor who's an author, pastor, seminary prof, and radio host. I know I wish I had his voice. Years ago I heard Key Life a few times. I know I saw a bit or two of a cable-type TV show he did in which he had friendly arguments with the execrable Tony Campolo. And that's about it.

I've been listening to courses from Reformed Theological Seminary. They put whole courses online for free through iTunes. Well, one of them is a course of like thirty-seven lectures on grace (!) by Steve Brown. I've listened to about three of them.

So far, they're winsome, a bit thought-provoking, and really irritating. I've wanted to slap him several times; he says things I think are just flat-out irresponsible. Because he's PCA and teaching at RTS, and because he disagrees with Tony Campolo, I'm giving him a conditional and temporary benefit-of-a-doubt until I feel like I've gotten his point.

Which I don't yet. It's been heavy on stories and anecdotes, and next to nothing on Scripture. So far he's setting off my warning-light of hyperconceptualizing. In other words, he's sounding like a guy who's latched on to a true and Biblical concept (grace), detached it from the Bible, loaded it with his own ideas and concepts and implications, and made a career of it.

He keeps talking about people who do and do not understand or get "grace." He says "grace," but so far the concept that makes the best sense of his uses is "license." But he insists that isn't what he's talking about. He also keeps insisting that he isn't antinomian, but he sure sounds like he is.
And he keeps talking blithely about things God says to him, and God laughing, and a bunch of dribble — and he's not talking about the Bible. Which, as you know...yikes. Fingernails on the chalkboard.

In fact, so far, the course has been very heavy on stories and anecdotes and wit, and very light on Bible.

So, HSAT (Having Said All That) — do any of you have firsthand knowledge of Steve Brown? Have you heard the course through, read his books, listened regularly to Key Life? What do you think, if so?

By the bye, you'll notice that the post is titled "Steve Brown - 1." You'd be right in taking that to signal my intention to revisit after I've heard more or (if I stick it out) all of the lectures, and either deny, confirm, or further stir these impressions.

Update: Part Two.

If The Obama were a conservative (—glad not to be on the Obamawagon)

...right now, the lamestream media would be fastening on this statement that The Obama just made to Fox's Major Garrett:

“None of these statements were ones I had heard myself personally in the pews,” Obama told FOX News. “Once I saw them I had to be very clear about the fact that these are not statements that I am comfortable with. I reject them completely they are not ones that reflect my values or my ideals.”

(He made further similar claims here.)

And here's what they'd do:

1. They would get a date of every despicable, racist, inane, insane, inciteful thing that The Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright Jr. had ever preached.
2. They would find out exactly where The Obama was on each and every one of those dates.
3. They would report the relationship of those dates; and
4. If he happened to be in church on any of those dates, they would demand that he explain his comments and stand.
5. And they'd never let rest the fact that The Obama somehow managed to remain silent about all this pain and discomfort he now professes to have had, until the story broke.
   

If they do this, I'll commend them...though I confess I'd wonder how many muddy Clinton fingerprints there would be on it.

Here are some more specifics and reflections on the issue of The Obama and his pastor:

From Ed Morrissey
From the Wall Street Journal
From NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez

Does Obama's association with this pastor, and his recent feeble attempts to distance himself (after twenty years' association) matter? Previously, The Obama had spoken in consistently admiring and affectionate terms of this man. He has been a member of that church for twenty years. He'd baptized the Obamas' kids, married the Obamas... do you think that a man gripped by such virulent, racist hatred never would have shared a bit of it with someone he views as in a position to do something about it?

Victor Davis Hanson points out that there isn't much distance between lunatic pastor Wright's positions and Mrs. Obama's breathtaking statement that she had no reason to be proud of America until her husband's presidential candidacy. And with his characteristic panache, Mark Steyn drives the point home still further.

And do you think verses such as these wouldn't apply to The Obama?

Proverbs 13:20 Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.
Proverbs 14:7 Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge.
1 Corinthians 15:33 Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals."

Believe me, I'm not looking forward to trying to make a case for John McCain. I'll be candid as ever, but... I doubt it will be fun, and I doubt John and his mouth will make it easy for me.

But I'm gladder still I don't have to try to be a Christian Obamapologist.

UPDATE: continuing the digging, The Obama's church has issued a statement about (and the current pastor has made references to) this controversy. Is it a statement of humbled repentance? Not at all: just another blast of defiant self-pity, and a circling of the wagons. It also includes the sort of reasoning I parody in teaching ethics to my kids: "Officer, you must put this bank robbery into context. On the way to the bank, I drove the speed limit, paid the correct amount at the toll booth, and came to a full stop at every red light and stop sign. I kept all those laws. Why focus on this one little boo-boo?"

UPDATE II: the Ace of Spades gives the church's statement a pretty good going-over.

"Deathly Hallows" to be split into two movies

Preface 1: I know some of my readers hate it when I talk about Harry Potter, either (A) at all, or (B) without damning it and everyone who reads it to, if not Hell, at least Heck.

But — oh well! Sorry. It's my blog. Can't please everyone, shouldn't really try. And it does say, right there, "Eclectic."

Preface 2: this post should be without significant spoilers. The article to which I link is not, however. And the comments may not be. Commenters, please mark spoilery comments with SPOILERS AHEAD.

Having said all that:

It's being reported that the seventh and final Harry Potter book (Deathly Hallows) will be filmed as two movies. Now, that's the Lost Angeles Times, so you might want to verify with a credible news agency.

I'm glad of the decision. I wish book 5 (Order of the Phoenix) had been done as two movies, or one 3.5 hour movie. I'm afraid for what they'll do to books 6 and 7. In my comments on movie 5, I agreed with Janet Batchler's on-target observation that it was like a really terrific trailer for the book. The fact that they have cut the Gaunts out of HBP worries me, as does the way cast and crew keep saying how funny the sixth movie is. Yikes, I never would have called the book funny. That worries me.

But here's been one of my biggest worries about the adaptation of the seventh book, Deathly Hallows: Molly Weasley.

Molly is one of my favorite Tier 2 characters. So is Minerva McGonagall. Hermione and Hagrid are probably my favorite Tier 1 characters. Both of the H's have done... okay, in the movies. But both M's have really gotten short shrift, which is a real shame.

Molly's big scene in book 7 is one of my favorites in the entire series: very moving. If you've read it, you'll know exactly what I mean. I think that, if they do it right, we'll see staid, jaded, above-it-all audiences on their feet cheering, laughing with delight, wiping tears.

But given how the screenwriters have shoved Molly 0ff to the side thus far, I've feared they'd just gloss over it or (worse) cut it out entirely. With two movies, I hope not.

Your thoughts?

(PS — if your thoughts are, "I haven't read them, and I think they're dumb"... I think that's been said. Spare us comments like that.)

California homeschooling updates

Time magazine reports that Jack O'Connell, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, stated reassuring that "Parents still have the right to home school in our state." (Here are his remarks at greater length.)

Michael Farris comments on his remarks, and lays out some of HSLDA's plans.

The Los Angeles Times reports further... though you might want to verify the information from a credible news agency before you take it to the bank.

UPDATE: read Al Mohler's comments.

Trivial iPod question

This will reveal either a flaw in iTunes, or myBrain.

Whenever I plug my iPod into my computer to charge and/or load new sermons or lectures, iTunes kicks up — and I lose my place. That is, it forces me off of whatever I was listening to, and to the root menu. So I have to write down where I was first, then do whatever I was going to do, then, when I'm done, go back and find my place again. Which is a bother and a waste of time.

But when I plug it in to my Belkin thingie to listen in my car, it keeps its place.

Is there some way to set it that it doesn't hose out my place and go to the root, when I plug it into my pc?

NO ONE is going to thank me for this

From the relatively sublime to the... the.... Oh. My. Gosh.

Well... at least there's a decent Wilhelm.

But on the other hand, Bea Arthur. Not only that, but Bea Arthur singing. < Click here >

And everything else — by which I do mean everything else.

(Please assign ultimate blame to... well, to Hollywood. But assign proximate blame to Craig.)

For (some of) your iPods

I try to redeem the time as best as I can. So if I'm shopping, waiting for my car, driving for more than ten minutes, waiting in a doctor's office, or what-have-you, I'll listen to sermons or lectures on my iPod.

I also like to read during waiting-times when possible, but I'm easily distracted. I am the sort who does not multi-task. Sometimes I can multi-thread, but seldom multi-task. (That's hardcore geekspeak; if you don't get it, it's really OK.)

The problem with so many of these places is they're full of distracting noise. They feel they must put in a television and have the dratted thing set on some mind-destroying daytime show, or play music like Barbara Streisand, Neil Diamond, or worse... if there is worse.

Not only am I unable to read with that kind of noise, but my happy is all gone, and I can hear the shrieks of thousands of brain cells as they die in agony.

So I also load instrumental music on my iPod. I can read, if certain sorts of instrumental music are being my "gray noise." Now, it can't be a soundtrack to a movie I know well (any Lord of the Rings movie, Star Wars, etc.), because then I'll visualize the scene.

So here are two I use to that end, for any of you who care. They are both largely high-energy, guitar-driven jazz/rock fusion style. There are mellower tracks and diverse styles as well. Both are helmed by Chicago's current lead guitarist, Keith Howland, a very talented young man. On the first, Chicago's current drummer (Tris Imboden) sets the beat. On the second, Howland is joined by lightning-fingered Chris Pinnick, who was one of the guitarists touring with Chicago after the death of the great Terry Kath. They are:

The Howland/Imboden Project

Howland, Laug, Morrison & Pinnick

The link takes you to CD Baby, a company which seems to specialize in more obscure titles. When I bought the CD's, the communications I got from CD Baby were absolutely hysterical, very clever. It made me want to buy more just for the fun of it. If you do, get back to me on how it is now.

21 accents

Fun listen, don't you think?

Sometime I'd enjoy studying British accents — first hand, of course. Because there isn't a British accent, but a variety of accents. I noticed similarly as my wife and I traveled through Scotland: there isn't a Scottish accent, but an array of variations, ranging from the very mild, British-sounding accent of our first hostess, to the more ba'-o'-th'-throa'y accent with which other Scots delighted us.

As I prepare to preach in Tennessee, I've been thinking of accents and cultures. Listening to a Southern professor teaching theology, I realized that Californian is an accent, though not much of a one. My wife and I have always said that we're Californians, we don't have accents, we just say words the way they're written. But that's not quite right.

For instance, take final "w's." We Californians pronounce raw as if it were spelled rah. A Southerner, though, will hit that w for all it's worth: raW. Ditto thaw (thah / thaW). In fact, Southerners love "w's" so much, they'll even say them if they're not there: where we say door as if it were dore, the Southerner sees and says that invisible "w" — hence, doe-wer.

Accents: we've all got 'em.

They even play a minorly pivotal role in a couple of Bible stories (Judges 12:6; Matthew 26:73).

(It's my blog, and I can make up adjectives if I want to. It's my blogial right.)

What I'd do with the MSM press, and why they'd hate me

So McCain allowed himself to be forced to repudiate the anti-Catholic remarks of John Hagee, who had endorsed him. (This is McCain's usual way of "thanking" anyone who tries to help him, if that person is disliked by the MSM.)

About Hagee I have no opinion worth voicing in public. About Roman Catholicism I do, and often have, and will again in the future.

But this is really about neither.

Were I a Presidential candidate, I think I simply wouldn't allow myself to be manipulated into doing one thing or another about a Hagee. When the MSM asked their stupid "gotcha" questions, I'd just reject the questions and replace them with germane, relevant, worthwhile questions.

First, I'd say something like, "I'm not really running as theologian-in-chief."

Then when they'd pester me — as they surely would — I'd say

So what are you asking? Do I advocate jailing men who peacefully speak out against a religious viewpoint? I do not. Do I advocate jailing Roman Catholics who peacefully respond to their critics? I do not. Do I oppose extending full protection of Constitutional rights to either? I do not. Do I support the First Amendment? I do. Will I accept the votes of law-abiding, peaceful Americans who exercise their Constitutional rights in ways I do and do not approve? I will.

And I simply would not allow the MSM to control the conversation.

And the MSM would hate me.

But I'd be able to look in the mirror every morning and say, "Look! It's still me!"

In California, parents only have the right to kill their children...

...not educate them.

To be more specific: if you're a woman, and if your child is unborn (or, according to Senator Obama, if he has survived an abortion), the state is uninterested as to whether or not you contract for his killing.

BUT, once the child is born, he belongs to the state.

What stands out in what I've read so far of this is that the judge does not particularly express concern about whether or not the children are learning to read, to write, nor other whether they are mastering other academic skills. No, it's all about social engineering, controlling and forming the beliefs and values of the child.

The 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles agreed with the trial court decision that had found, "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where they could interact with people outside the family".

"There are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting," the ruling said.

He speaks as someone writing twenty-five years ago and utterly ignorant of homeschooling. Or longer ago than that, and in another country.

The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school" teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

Ah, life in The People's Republic of California.

More:

Judge orders homeschoolers into government education
Court's homeschool ban creating 'panic'
Al Mohler weighs in
A guy who says don't worry
Text of the decision

Update:
Governor Schwarzenegger weighs in — for parents

Not the man of her dreams...

...but....

Read Kim Shay's tribute to her ancient husband Neil on the occasion of his birthday. Here's a taste:

I will say right off that Buggy [her husband] is NOT the man of my dreams. Now, that may sound overly harsh, but it's true. And it's a good thing that he's not, because the man of my dreams is a big wimp, probably. The man of my dreams when I was girl would understand everything I said, agree with everything I said, tell me everything I wanted to hear and sacrifice everything just for little 'ole me. I'm glad I did not end up with that guy. Instead, God gave me the man of His dream for me, and that's a whole lot better.

I love posts where sane Christians admire and love on their sane Christian mates, right out there in front of God and everybody.

Absolute truth: one of my favorite post-titles EVER happened to have been written nearly two years ago, by the aformentioned Neil: My best wife now!

Back to Kim's remark, I offer this sage apothegm:

Women who marry what they want, find it is not what they really need
Women who marry what they need, find it is in fact what they really want

...though either realization may take some time.

Blast from the Christian Rock past: Sweet Comfort Band

The recent death of Christian rocker Larry Norman sent me to YouTube, looking for Christian rock (and other) artists I remember from my yoot.

One such group was The Sweet Comfort Band. Check out the musicianship (not the theology) in this clip — the song starts at about two minutes:

It does remind me of the story you've all heard, of the preacher who had a word with someone who was going to sing in the church service.

"I'll make you a deal," the preacher said. "I won't try to sing, and you don't try to preach."

Back in the '70's Christian rock was particularly new, and I think partly out of feeling apologetic for being rockers, many bands made an effort to preach and evangelize in-between songs. I don't mean to say that condescendingly. You kids won't know this, but Christian rock was a big thing, and it was rather suspect.

When I was first saved, my first regular pastor suggested that I shouldn't listen to rock anymore. So I didn't; threw out all my Chicago (snif!), stopped humming and whistling. Then I heard Bill Gothard go on about how melody appealed to the spirit, harmony to the soul — and rhythm to the flesh!

Next thing I remember is hearing the Second Chapter of Acts, when I was in (as I recall) a Logos bookstore in Westwood, SoCal. I literally gasped. The song was "The Devil's Lost Again" (from their With Footnotes album) — and, by jingo, it was rock and roll! I couldn't believe my ears.

Then later I attended a few concerts at the original Calvary Chapel, in Anaheim. They were still meeting in a tent. The concerts were wonderful. They had some amazing bands, including one called Aslan, another called Parable, and another called The Sweet Comfort Band.

Dude, those guys could rock. Well, check out the video. You'll see.

More reminiscences (or at least clips) to come, DV.

It's a miracle! Psychadelic drugs parted the Red Sea!

Another lame pick-and-chooser makes it up about the Bible.

So transparent:

As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics

So it isn't a legend, but he, 3400 years later, has figured it out.

At least this time when we say, "Dude, sounds like you're on drugs," he'll have to answer, "Well yes, actually, I am."

There y'go.

"Mr. Obama — step away from the Bible"

Samuel Johnson is quoted as saying:

"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

Much the same could be said about a Democratic politician using the Scripture in any way.

Case in point, Barack Obama.

Obama is trying hard to become the Presidential nominee of a party which has publicly scorned, and virulently opposes, every distinctively Biblical-Christian presence in public life. If Democratic leadership had its way, there would be no distinctively Christian presence in the public square.

So anyone who's trying to claim to be any kind of Christian AND in touch with the Dem party of today has a tall order.

Here's how B. Hussein Obama tried to do it:

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.... If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."

I... what?! Read the article's attempt to make any kind of sense out of Obama's burblings.

Perhaps "obscure" is a synonym for "uncongenial" or "inconvenient" in Obamaspeak.

Then Obama further delivered himself of this:

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

Let's tweak that just a little, with my changes in bold red and bracketed.

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about [killing two-year-olds who have become inconvenient or imperfect]. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

One more time:

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think [men], in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about [men beating the very life out of women who irritate them]. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

One wonders what would make him "less Christian," if being more pro-abort than Hillary Clinton doesn't do the job — if, in other words, being in favor of the "right" to butcher our most innocent and most helpless doesn't reflect on where Jesus Christ is, in his moral and intellectual universe.

Yikes. Well, let's let Mr. Obama say what it means to him to be a Christian:

I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years. Pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me.

Okay, ah... well, on that, two Biblical quotations. The first is from the Bible that this "Jesus" who Mr. Obama mentions affirmed as the inerrant Word of God:

If one turns away his ear from hearing the law [the torah, the Word of God],
even his prayer is an abomination
(Proverbs 29:8)

The next is from that same Jesus, Himself:

"Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46)

A claim is just a claim, until it's tested.

Again, read the article, which is well-documented.

Wait a minute -- who's that on cowbell?!

My favorite band, Chicago, doing "Scrapbook" on a TV show from September 19, 1976.

Video quality's not the best. But you see the original group, including the matchless late, great Terry Kath wailing on guitar.

But... who's that on cowbell?

Phil Keaggy — "The Wind and the Wheat"

Amazingly gifted guitarist:

More Clintonic ironies / payback

I recently mentioned the Proverbial spectacle of Hillary!® reaping just a tad of the baleful crop she and husband, The Nameless One (TNO), sowed in the all-too-fertile PoMo American soil.

It goes on.

It's just... exquisite, to see a Clinton (!) complain that a candidate is being treated with kid-gloves.

Yet there she was (and recently has been), whining that Obama gets softball questions, while she gets harrrrd questions.

This is the Clinton machine doing what it always does: treating Americans as if they are idiots with the memory-spans of butterflies. Which, normally, has worked distressingly well for them.

But I doubt I'm the only one who remembers the horrified frustration so many of us felt during TNO's campaigns and presidency. The press had lost all curiosity, and all capacity for independent thought, when it came to him. I remember vividly Charlie Gibson moving Candidate Clinton through a diner, to speak with real citizens — until one real citizen challenged him on his serial adulteries. Oops, too real. TNO started burbling out his patented Clintoning down of previous presidents (to make himself look better, by making them look worse) — but it really wasn't necessary: Gibson had already shoved the questioner aside and was moving the great man on to a more fitting question.

Nor can I be the only one to remember the softball after softball that were gentle tossed to TNO in the debates, while sneering, demeaning hectoring was reserved for his opponents.

Ah, but now Hillary!® finds herself on the opposite end of such treatment, and she doesn't much like it.

For what it's worth, I think her assessment is accurate.

But since she owes eight years in the White House, and a nice little Senatrixial gig, to such treatment, she's hardly the one to make the complaint.

Genuine repentance stories solicited

I was listening to an address by D. A. Carson in which he told, in passing, of a repentant pastor. The details are unimportant to my point, which is that the man was eventually brought (in conjunction, I believe, with church discipline and temporal consequences) genuinely and thoroughly to repent of his sin. As a consequence of this repentance, he was eager — himself, without having to be dragged by the collar like a balky donkey — to produce fruits of repentance.

Then by contrast, I saw the story of a murderer who apologized, in tears, for murdering his girlfriend and unborn child — and then pled with the jury not to visit just consequences on him for his actions.

This led me to reflect on how many stories I could tell of people who got involved in serious sin, were thoroughly and earnestly confronted and pled with, reaped consequences, were derailed, hurt many others — and never, ever (to my knowledge) genuinely repented as the Bible describes repentance.

So as usual my collection of stories would be... well, less heartwarming than your average Stephen King yarn.

So how about you? Sparing any uncharitable details, have you seen actual, genuine, God-breathed, root-to-branch repentance? (Email me, if that's better.)

Out-Clintoning (a) Clinton

One finds the theme of what I call "boomerang retribution" a number of times in Proverbs:

• Proverbs 1:31 ...therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices.
• Proverbs 14:14 The backslider in heart will be filled with the fruit of his ways, and a good man will be filled with the fruit of his ways.
• Proverbs 26:27 Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling.
• Proverbs 28:10 Whoever misleads the upright into an evil way will fall into his own pit, but the blameless will have a goodly inheritance.

This pattern was brought vividly to mind as I read of Hillary!® Clinton's recent debate with B. Hussein Obama.

Hillary!® pointed out that Obama has lifted words from others' speeches without attribution. Hillary!® said—

Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That’s, I think, a very simple proposition. (APPLAUSE) And, you know, lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox.

Then she went on to hammer him pretty well and at length on the fact that it will take a lot more than talk to bring about the change he promises.

But the line fell flat, it even got boo's. Why? Because Obama had just said, about this very issue, "...I’m happy to have a debate on the issues, but what we shouldn’t be spending time doing is tearing each other down. We should be spending time lifting the country up."

Oh, my. Old enough to know who that (dodge) sounds like?

How about this? Again, Hillary!® had been hitting at Obama's weakest point, his — to be charitable — light resume. Chris Matthews totally stumped an Obama supporter, State Sen. Kirk Watson (D-TX), by asking for a list of Senator Obama's accomplishments.

Watson could not name even one.

But no fear. Obama himself defanged this, too, with these words:

Senator Clinton of late has said: Let’s get real. The implication is that the people who’ve been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional.

Oh, ow.

I made an instant connection with the campaign Hillary!®'s husband, here known largely as The Nameless One (TNO), ran against George Bush Sr. Every specific was deflected with glossy, billowy rhetoric. Later on in the campaign, Sr. finally woke up and began trying to get a little aggressive in his approach. It didn't work. TNO had a slick, contentless, glitzy dodge for every charge.

Bush would finally nail TNO on specifics as to policy or ideology, and TNO would ramble on about how "sad" and "disappointing" and "desperate" the poor old man was being, how "divisive" such talk was, how "tired" people were of this sort of rhetoric. He'd always position himself and his supporters as somehow apart from and above the fray, and specifically the delusive, vicious rants of his opponents. It was hollow, slick, disingenuous, and very effective.

So it struck me: Obama is out-Clintoning a Clinton. He's beating her by doing what her husband did so effectively: running a campaign that is all style and show and rhetoric and platitudes, and very light on substance. Oh, doubtless, he's got plans. But like your friendly neighborhood Mormons, he's saving them for later.

So if the (sigh) McCain people have a brain among the whole lot of them, they'll be studying TNO's campaigns, and readying their responses. They'll be figuring out where Bush (and Dole) went wrong, and getting some sharp, pointed, red-hot responses. They should expect the same sorts of campaign, with the same props. Why, I bet a team of the best Ivy-league economists have already signed a document saying that Obama's plan for America is the best they've ever seen — before they even see it!

If the McCain team can rub two neurons together, they're already preparing responses for this.

But that's an awfully big "if." If they can't think of any, I can. They can call me.

Meanwhile, it's difficult not to see a touch of justice in seeing the slick Clinton approach used on the Clintons themselves — and so effectively.

On a lighter note, Saturday Night Live even parodied the media's love-affair with The Obamessiah. It isn't their best, but there's a chuckle or two:

UPDATE: the Battle of the Clintons is ON!

What shall I do? Update this same post periodically, or make it a series? I mean, here we are, the post hardly a day old, and I have yet another classic example.

So Hillary!®'s campaign reportedly releases this photo:



Lovely. I could say... many things. I shall refrain.

How does the Obama campaign respond? In classic TNO fashion, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said

On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world

Not to be out-Clintoned by a non-Clinton, Hillary!® herself retorted:

This is one more attempt by my opponent's campaign to change the subject.... From his health-care plan that won't cover everybody, from an economic plan that won't produce jobs, and from a record that is pretty thin when it comes to national security and standing up for our country around the world.

This may end up being a battle as to who does the better Clinton — The Obamessiah, or Hillary!® herself?

And if Obama out-Clintons Clinton, perhaps he will give TNO a phonecall, and cry, "Clinton, you magnificent bad-boy, I read your book!"

But we were happy in those days!

And now, on a similar theme, here's the ultimate "You think you had it hard?" competition:


And an earlier version of the same, but with John Cleese and Marty Feldman. Virtually the same, word-for-word:

Think your city's crowded?

Could be worse.

The Spiderwick Chronicles: spoiler-light impressions

On the strength of the intriguing trailers and some reviews I'd skimmed, I took my two youngest boys (8 and 12) to a matinee yesterday.

My biggest initial concern was that the movie would be another bait-and-switch like The Bridge to Terabithia — billed as an action/fantasy adventure, but really something totally different. From the reviews I scanned, I gathered this was not the case.

I'm glad I took them. It is a fun movie, keying off of the thought that there is a world we can't see, which is surely true (2 Kings 6). The kids are believable enough, and come off as real individuals; the mom is neither perfect nor contemptible. The absent dad is contemptible — but he's supposed to be.

The special effects are as great as we've come to expect, and the sounds nicely heighten the tension. Some of what I read suggested that the movie might be too intense for younger children. I'm sure this is true of some younger children, but I'm not sure why this is such a theme in some reviews. My youngest is pretty sensitive, but nothing in the movie seemed to make him particularly tense, nor proved upsetting. There is some relatively mild bloodshed, some biting and scratching of the human children. If that in itself rules it out for you, now you're forewarned.

No sexual references whatever that I caught; some misuses of God's name, and a character says "Oh, s--" and is cut off.

I'm a bit under the weather, and not as sharp as usual — which, yes, I realize is a very relative statement, thank you very much for pointing that out, you're always so helpful. But I plan to discuss with my boys themes of the world of the unseen, Elisha's servant (2 Kings 6), the spiritual battle (Ephesians 6:10ff.), and divorce.

On that last note, and I suppose you could say this approaches a mild spoiler: the father has left the mother, and the kids. I worried as to how this would be treated; now that I've seen it, I'm fine with it. It isn't dwelt on at great length, except to show what a miserable situation it creates for the mother and children. The father's desertion is in no way shown as noble or respectable, but selfish, self-indulgent, and irresponsible. Nor is this depicted in a specifically male-bashing way; the mother is no plaster saint. But no child will come from that movie thinking, "Divorce is cool," or "Divorce is no big deal," or "Men are jerks." They may think "Men who leave their wives and kids are jerks" — but I'm really okay with that.

In sum: I recommend it. Worth seeing in theaters for the sound and effects, but it would make a fine rental as well.

"Sometimes, irony can be pretty ironic" — Buck Murdock

Does it strike anyone else as particularly ironic that Hillary!® finds herself fighting for her political life against a candidate who is long on style, image and rhetoric, and (to be charitable) short on substance?

Yoda?

Which version of the Bible has "Yoda," and where?


(Note: my obsessive sense of fairness drives me to admit that this is a trick question, and it does reflect my high estimation of the perverse intelligence of my readers.)
UPDATE: well, you-all have labored hard and faithfully (and fun-ly). It's high time for me to deliver. Now, remember: I said it was "a trick question."

"Yoda" is found in the Greek text of Luke 3:26 — τοῦ Μάαθ τοῦ Ματταθίου τοῦ Σεμεῒν τοῦ Ἰωσὴχ τοῦ Ἰωδὰ

That last name is more often transliterated as "Joda" (NAS, ESV, CSB, etc.).

But any Greeky guy or gal could tell you it's really... "Yoda."

Have fun with you I did. Hard you tried.

But last laugh, I had.

Monopoly

In which English version is "monopoly" to be found, and where?

New appreciation: John Frame

For years I've seen the name "John Frame" off and on, associated with theology. I was intrigued by some of his titles (The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God; Salvation Belongs to the Lord, and so on). But I never read anything by him.

Then I stumbled on some of his courses via Reformed Theological Seminary via iTunes U. Among many valuable courses, RTS offers courses in Pastoral and Social Ethics, and Christian Apologetics, both by John Frame. I have audited both, and found both to be thoroughly enjoyable, stimulating, informative, and thought-provoking. Frame sounds like a wonderful teacher — and now his books are on my ever lengthening (never-shortening) list.

What I appreciate about Frame is that he obviously has thought long, seriously, and hard about these issues, and he opens them right up for thoughtful reflection. I didn't always agree with him, but always was the better for the listen.

Further, Frame doesn't come across with an axe to grind. He's able (for instance) to admire Cornelius van Til and Gordon Clark both immensely, and find them largely persuasive, yet is free to discuss weaknesses in their presentation and emphases. His is a very winsome and persuasive van Tilianism, all the more because one doesn't feel that he's out to badger anyone into becoming a van Tilian: he simply found it most compelling, and sets about to explain why. I don't know how to say it better than this: he comes across as deeply doctrinal without being doctrinaire.

Meanwhile, look at this website, which features works online by both Frame and Vern Poythress. In particular, since I've offered y'all a number of movie reviews, notice the subhead on this page titled "Theology at the Movies." Frame reviews and reflects on a number of movies from years past.

Any Frame fans in the audience?

Rebirthday

Thirty-five years ago today, the sovereign grace of God led me, smarting under the conviction of sin, to look to Jesus Christ for salvation, forgiveness, life, meaning, and all. All glory to the Father for His sovereign, eternal, electing love; to the Son for coming into the world to save sinners (—and doing it!); and to the Spirit, for His work of conviction and glorification of Christ.

If you like, you can read my testimony more fully here.

DD coffee update

I posted on how great Dunkin' Donuts coffee was, on the strength of one pot. Here's a quick follow-up.

After being unable to find the beans reasonably-priced in stores (Safegougeway has them, like >$9 for 12 ounces!), I subscribed to DD's delivery service. After I cycled through the coffee I had, I began grinding pure DD beans a few days ago.

It's holding up. In fact, I had tried several more gourmet-type coffees, and they were fine, but none knocked me over. In fact, virtually all of them, I have to grind extra beyond what should be normal for the amount with which I start the day — just to get a pot as strong as I like it. By contrast, if I do the same with DD, it's too strong. Just the should-be regular portion makes for a very aromatic, robust, satisfying drink.

I don't know how they do it.

And boy, do they ship it securely! I liked Bill's story about his still-unnamed online roaster's shipment making for a fragrant truck. Not DD. The box smells of nothing, even the bag itself (before opening) doesn't have the slightest coffee fragrance. That bag is tight.

Any of you try roasting and drinking some DD since that post?

Interview with Ed Blum about the CSB

Matt Gumm pointed me to this interview with Dr. Ed Blum, the General Editor for the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

I won't rehash the interview, which I commend to you. I was particularly interested in the information detailing the relatively fresh nature of the CSB, as opposed to other versions which are in the KJV-revision line. I also found the statistical and specific comparisons to the ESV and NIV enlightening, along with some facts dispelling common misconceptions about the version.

What I learned highlights both what I like, and what I find frustrating, about the CSB. Some of what he says, I could have said. (You'll particularly think this when Blum riffs on Yahweh, and on the marvelous yet occasionally infuriating Dr. Waltke.) He's absolutely right about μονογενὴς and δοῦλος ("only-begotten" [unique] and "bondservant" [slave]), and a number of other renderings.

I like the CSB's willingness to be independent. I've run into a number of passages that I'd studied pretty deeply, and come up with translations found in no other formal translation -- but now they're in the CSB!

But then there's the frustrating. For instance, sometimes the CSB renders Χριστός as "Christ," and sometimes as "Messiah." They state a rationale, but I find it utterly unconvincing. As a result, you'll have both words right by each other, as in Romans 15:5-8 --

Now may the God of endurance and encouragement grant you agreement with one another, according to Christ Jesus, 6 so that you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with a united mind and voice. 7 Therefore accept one another, just as the Messiah also accepted you, to the glory of God. 8 Now I say that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God, to confirm the promises to the fathers....

They really should use one or the other. Not both.

Likewise "Yahweh." My thoughts on this are pretty well-known. To its credit, the CSB does use "Yahweh" 75 times. And Dr. Blum says that the 2009 revision will raise that to around 400 times.

Which is good... but still about 6400 short.

McCain is that repugnant, but... dude! (Ann Coulter will vote for Hillary)

If you can stand all the interruptions, this is both pretty funny, and sobering:

I won't say I agree. But I think she has a point. That backstabbing, unstable, spineless egomaniac John McCain is even still in the race is scary and sad.

You want to make the case that he'd be better than Hillary or Obama? Honestly, I think virtually any sane person would be better than Hillary or Obama.

But what a pathetic place to be in, as a country.

Crazy archaeological thought

We keep reading of find after find confirming this or that aspect of Biblical history. This has been the trend since the science of archaeology began, in the Middle East. Last Sunday, my pastor well quoted James Montgomery Boice as saying, "A good way to make yourself very popular in the short run, but be made a fool in the long run, is to charge the Bible with error." This has certainly been the overwhelming trend in archaeology.

Which is why, for instance, I've called "The Jesus Seminar" cutting-edge eighteenth-century radical liberal scholarship (cf. related thoughts in How to Make Your Very Own Jesus).

So anyway, my crazy archaeological thought is that it would be cool to move absolutely everybody out of the Middle East, and give it over to the best representatives of modern archaeology. For, oh, fifty years. Raze the modern structures, and dig down about 100 feet over the whole topography.

After that, the inhabitants can move back in.

Wouldn't that be cool?

Then, after I did that by fiat, I'd make ice cream, pizza, and crispy fried chicken — heck, everything fried — into health foods. And I'd get all my hair back. And I'd restore sanity to American politics. Heck, to America. To American professing evangelicalism! Not in that order.

Yeah, that'd be....

Um, what were we talking about?

Sorry.

Isn't evolution wonderful? — 4

We learn that this newly-discovered species of orchid "has evolved to resemble the body of a female wasp." Darned clever of it, eh? Particularly never having seen the body of a female wasp... or anything else?

But it isn't the only smart plant. "Other orchid species have evolved to use similar cunning to attract male wasps, such as emitting an airborne chemical that mimics a female's pheromone."

Isn't evolution wonderful?

< /s >

O LORD, how manifold are your works!
In wisdom have you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures
(Psalm 104:24)

(For explanation of the series title, see here.)

Isn't evolution wonderful? — 3

(I posted this vid earlier. Then I oopsed it into oblivion. What you have here is a recreation.)

What's remarkable is to listen to the narrative, and hear about the obvious design and intent and mind behind the layout of the tunnels and chambers. But no acknowledgment is made of the Designer of the designers.

My pastor is supposed to send me the citation for this, but John Owen's contemporary John Howe remarked that men will look at a painting of a man and acknowledge an artist, yet refuse to make the same connection regarding the man himself.

If you're just too darned happy today and need some serious depression, read some of the YouTube comments on this video. Experts at missing the point. Anyone who dares to say anything about God's design is shouted down, and his post hidden from immediate view. It certainly calls to mind —

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:19-23)

(For explanation of the series title, see here.)

rats

I just learned something about Blogger.

I just killed the "Isn't Evolution Wonderful — 3" post, making another post to save in draft form. Rats.

Sigh. I'll try to get it back... maybe later today.

Meanwhile, the good news is I've already learned my one new thing for the day. So I'm done. I can go back to bed.

Meanwhile... look at these!

I'm sorry, the week has had me too busy to make a contentful post. Bad timing, I know, and again, I'm sorry. Various immediate family needs, working overtime, plus I find I've a sermon to preach Sunday. Which, yay, but it does take the time.

So, for now... these, from the nutty artists at Worth1000!




See the rest HERE.

Forgiveness, abortion, and other sins

Craig said this in a recent post:

But what if you've had an abortion? You've done a terrible thing. But healing and restoration can be found in Christ. Don't justify your own actions, look to Christ for justification.

I agree, and think it merits a word of expansion.

God forgives the sins of repentant believers.

It was God who said this:

He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper,
But he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion
(Proverbs 28:13)

And this:

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
(Ephesians 1:7)

And this:

...and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem
(Luke 24:47)

God forgives sins, there is forgiveness for sins; it is sinners who are declared righteous in and because of Christ.

God doesn't forgive mistakes, errors in judgment, bad choices, regrettable decisions, regrets. Genuine confession of sin doesn't include a "but" or "if" or "because" — as in "I did this, but I had no choice," or "if that was wrong, I'm sorry," or "I did that because my lover / partner / parent...."

Confession of sin is specific and unqualified. If it was a sin, you didn't have to do it. If it was a sin, you shouldn't have done it. If it was a sin, there is no excuse for it. If it was a sin, you would not do it again, offered the opportunity, God helping you.

If you imagine that you had to do it, that there was an excuse for it, that it wasn't really all that bad, then you don't see it as God sees it yet.

If your sin leaves you with a wrong that you should right, but you are unwilling to right it, then you don't see it as God sees it yet.

In those cases, your action isn't really a sin, to you. It is, at worst, an "oops." But Christ died for sins, not "oopses," since "oopses" don't really require forgiveness.

And the truth is, you don't really think it was even an "oops," do you? You still think you had a good reason to do it. It wasn't really bad, like what bad people do. You just have this guilt-feeling, and you'd like it to go away. So you run to the "forgiveness" button.

Or worse still, some Christian is talking to you, and trying to bring you to see it God's way (which is really a very loving thing to do), and you want him to stop bugging you about it.

So you tell him you're forgiven and he should forgive you too. That should shut him up.

Yet you really aren't forgiven.

Because you don't think you've really sinned.

And God only forgives the sins of repentant believers.

Logos Scholars' edition Gold for sale

Some poor soul (Triablogue's Bernabe Belvedere) has fallen away to Apple, and thus can't use most of the software that's available.

One of which is Logos Gold, which I've reviewed for my beloved readers.

So his sad, sad defection can be your gain!

Lookie here.

(c;

Where I Am Right Now (presidential campaign)

Rush Limbaugh reportedly said, "it's gonna come down to which guy do we dislike the least." I've said virtually the exact same, and that's where I find myself now that Thompson has bailed.

In the primary, I can't conceive of voting for John McMeMeMe, him of countless backstabbings and lurches left, the man who actually looks at things through the perspective of the New York Times. Global warming, McCain-Feingold, senate "compromises" (i.e. cave-ins). No thank you.

Rudy Giuliani? No way. There are reasons I "used to be" a Democrat (rather than "am"). He rolls too many of them together. Besides, I cannot for the life of me understand why character counted when Clinton was the nominee (and it did), but it doesn't anymore.

Ron Paul? Duh. No. I read where Norma McCorvey endorsed Paul as the best pro-life candidate. I've never viewed her as a particularly perceptive political thinker, but that aside: if electability is a quality of "best," then Paul's disqualified. And thank God. In other words, to be the "best" candidate on an issue, one must stand a snowball's chance in Hades of actually having the power to do something for the issue, in which case he must actually have that same frosty globe's odds of winning the office. Which Paul doesn't — and, again, I say "Thank God."

Otherwise, I am actually the better candidate. Or Justin Taylor. Or John Piper.

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

Mike Huckabee. Well, if I voted the same way many women and blacks (reportedly) are, he'd be my man, wouldn't he? He's a pastor, I'm a pastor. He's an evangelical, I'm an evangelical. He's a Baptist, I'm a Baptist member of a Presbyterian church, but that's another story.

So why can't I vote for him?

Because I don't trust him, because there are too many substantial and creditable reports of his liberal record and big-government positions, and because the Clinton machine would slaughter him like a paschal lamb. They would find every sermon he ever preached, every bulletin or newsletter note he ever wrote, every disgruntled person who even so much as drove by his church or knew someone who had — and those would dominate every news cycle until the election.

One day it would be "Huckabee said non-Christians would go to Hell." Two days later: "Huckabee said sex outside of marriage is a 'sin.'" Two days after that: "Huckabee said money 'belongs to the Lord.'" Two days after that: "Huckabee said 'women cannot be pastors.'"

Every day of the campaign would have him on the defensive.

And then he'd lose.

So, even if I thought I could trust him, no.

And now, with sinking heart....

Mitt Romney. Oh, crud. So, what's his main qualification, at this point? That he's not one of the others. Sure sure, he's supposed to be smart, and he is a successful businessman, and like most in his cult he's a family-man, and blah blah blah.

Whatever.

Don't try to make me like it. I just will have to do it, for the reasons stated above and elsewhere. As a Christian, I cannot for the life of me see the rational/Biblical excuse for voting for a doctrinaire and extreme representative of a party that works hard and dedicatedly against almost everything I value as a Christian. Nor will I sit out the primary.

But here's where I find myself now: in the same place as four years ago, yet opposite.

Four years ago, one candidate was an opportunistic pandering flip-flopper, and the other had a fairly consistent record of pursuing a set of convictions. I voted for the latter and, thank God, he won.

Now I'm in the same place, but flipped on its head: one candidate sure looks like an opportunistic flip-flopper, and the other had a very consistent record of pursuing a set of convictions (albeit convictions that I, as a Christian, deplore and oppose).

But this time I have to vote for the opportunistic pandering flip-flopper and, at least, comfort myself that he panders unconvincingly for many of my convictions instead of against them.

Not a ringing endorsement, is it? Well, so much "No" that I won't even call this an endorsement, and I'd thank you for not characterizing it as such. It's more of a "what I probably will have to do because I don't see the sense of doing anything else."

Whee. Isn't politics fun?

Yep. Not so much.

Cloverfield, in brief and largely unspoilt

Yes, that's right: two posts in one day!

SPOILER-FREE

I liked Cloverfield a lot. Just saw it for the second time, and it held up well.

I thought the premise creative and fresh, and developed very nicely. It isn't a deep movie, I discern no message or subtext. It's just a straight-up whopping good monster movie, as from my childhood except with a unique approach and killer special effects.

Hang with it, it takes a little bit to set the stage, but that portion matters. Then, when it gets going, it goes.

Not too many laughs, quite a few legitimate gasps and yells and some honest tension.

I'd give it ~3.75 stars out of 5.

LIGHTLY SPOILT

When the movie ended, the lady behind us loudly said, "That was the worst movie I ever saw!" Several times. Whereupon I remarked, "Clearly she never saw The Hired Hand."

I'd like to respond to a few common complaints:

"The photography was terrible! I got so dizzy!" Um, yeah, hello, that's kind of the premise? Doofy guy pressed into filming a party, when all heck breaks loose? And so you're expecting him to, what — carefully frame each shot, and carry a tripod with him as he runs for his life? That would be a different movie.

To me, this complaint is on a level with faulting "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" because some of the characters looked cartoonish.

I wonder how many people who mouth this complaint are the same exact people who complain that Hollywood can never come up with anything new.

"They never explain what the thing was, or where it came from!" Uh, again, hello? The premise? Maybe you'd have liked it better if the guy holding the camera were Pat Robertson, so God could just whisper things into his ear just for him, then he could tell you? Or if he were a xenobiologist / marine biologist / astrophysicist / psychic? Or if they "just happened" to run into one as they ran through the streets, screaming? (But then the criticism would be that this was an unrealistic plot development.)

But then, that would be a different movie, wouldn't it?

Is it fair to criticize an apple because it doesn't taste much like a strawberry? I've never thought so.

"I think the 9-11 visual references were just in poor taste!" Oh, my. Now we're going have to go back over every movie and TV show since 1948 that makes any reference to Nazi's, "holocaust," racial purity, racial superiority, "Final Solution" — or anything that seems analogous or metaphorically referential — and censor them. Right?

If Thompson drops out now

He will have entered the race too late...

...and left it too early.

Pretty sad legacy.

And I'd just be left with who I dislike voting for least.

Though, of course, from this Christian's perspective, any one of them is better than any of the Democrats. (Remembering that 0.001% better is still better.)

I say something positive about Huckabee

It doesn't happen often, so mark your calendars.

In this thoughtful (but over-parenthetical) article, John Mark Reynolds discusses something Huckabee said about the Constitution. In the course of it, he quotes Huckabee on the idea of reversing Rowe and returning the abortion issue to the states:

...if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we haven’t won the battle. All we’ve done is now we’ve created the logic of the Civil War, which says that the right to the human life is geographical, not moral. I think that’s very problematic. That’s why I think that people like Fred Thompson are dead wrong when he says just leave that up to the states. Well, that’s again the logic of the Civil War – that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, “Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period.” It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else. Same with abortion.

Good point and well-put; and I hadn't thought of it that way.

No "but" follows.

Do "real men" cry?

PREFATORY UPDATE: it looks as if the site referenced below may have shut down direct access to the pictures. In case they are not showing on your browser, simply view the whole gallery starting here. The ones I linked to were images 18 and 16.

If one can look at this picture and not at least tear up — it isn't my idea of masculinity.


Here's the caption:

The night before the burial of her husband's body, Katherine Cathey refused to leave the casket, asking to sleep next to his body for the last time. The Marines made a bed for her, tucking in the sheets below the flag. Before she fell asleep, she opened her laptop computer and played songs that reminded her of "Cat," and one of the Marines asked if she wanted them to continue standing watch as she slept. "I think it would be kind of nice if you kept doing it," she said. "I think that's what he would have wanted."

A man who can read that dry-eyed and unmoved.... Well, not the sort of man I want to be.

UPDATE: Maritus Imperfectus pointed me to another:


View the whole gallery of very moving photos in sequence, starting here, thank God for your freedom and the warriors who purchased and protect it, and pray for our troops.

End the suspense

Find out who you should vote for here.

(For ABC, the questions are actually decent. I'd have included a few others, though.)

Ending frivolous lawsuits: my proposal

Which isn't actually mine:

If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
(Deuteronomy 19:16-21)

Interesting, isn't it, that here the lex talionis is applied — not to actual harm, but — to intended harm?

Contrast this with the state of affairs in America, where literally anyone can sue literally anyone for literally anything. Win or not, those thousands of dollars, and hundreds of hours, are gone, gone, gone.

So my proposal is that failed lawsuits result in penalties for the false suit-bringer. Bring back the concept of frivolous lawsuits. At the very least the loser must pay attorney's fees plus some sort of compensatory damages. A little in-kind restitution wouldn't hurt.

Unethical lawyers, living as they do on human misery — on the exacerbation and exploitation of which they make their tidy little living — wouldn't much like it. Anyone who's ever lost part of his life to some itchy suer and his vicious attack-dog lawyer would think it was pretty cool... and pretty just.

Family DVD recommendation: "Meet the Robinsons"

When this movie came out last year, reviews were mixed. I saw some that were negative, at the time. The very-critical IMDB reviewers, though, have given it a favorable 7/10; Rotten Tomatoes' critic survey gave it 65%.

I shrugged off the initial negative responses I'd read, and went to a theater with my younger boys, then 7 and 11. We all enjoyed it. In fact, I was surprised it wasn't a bigger deal. We found it funny, fast-moving, and had a couple of nice little "messages" (keep trying, family matters).

Last Saturday, the family watched it for Burger Night; this audience included my wife and daughter, who are much tougher critics. They both liked it, too. We all laughed, and both the ladies stayed for the whole thing. (If they don't like it, they don't stay; or they get something to read.)

It's a movie that works hard, in the best sense of the phrase, to be engaging and funny. It doesn't assume the viewer will be happy just because of the CGI animation, the eye-candy, and the occasion sight-gag. The voice actors are nuanced, the expressions and gestures of the characters sometimes very complex; there are some deftly subtle jokes adults will appreciate more than the kids will, yet plenty to have the kids roaring. A lot to like... unless you're a sourpuss. (You know who you are.)

Knowing that my readers include folks who are always looking for things they can watch with their kids, and that this movie was more under the radar than the (to me) disappointing "Cars" and "Ratatouille," I thought I'd pass along the recommendation.

And now... I have!

On the passing of Ann Coulter's father

Ann Coulter has written a eulogy in praise of her father, who just passed away.

Coulter clearly adored her father, which is always nice to see; and she has my genuine sympathy. My father passed away 1/1/1993, leaving a hole in the way things should be, and I miss him all the time. Like Coulter's father, Dad was a representative of a different generation and a different culture, and a remarkable man.

I'm sure some of you will part with me in this, but I like Ann Coulter quite a lot, in general and most of the time. At least in writing and in person, she demonstrates an unapologetic, convicted fierceness of which I wish "our" "leaders" would show even 25%. (Some of you will assume I mean "our" = GOP; others perhaps "our" = "evangelical," and to both groups I return a predictable "Yes!")

Coulter has said some things I think have needed to be said, and said them effectively and well. And she doesn't back down.

At the same time, I also have thought the opposite of other of her sayings. (And there's the disturbing possibility that, as with Rush Limbaugh and others, it could all or partly be an act.)

Having said that, some of her remarks troubled me. For instance, she lauds her father thus:

John Vincent Coulter was of the old school, a man of few words, the un-Oprah, no crying or wearing your heart on your sleeve, and reacting to moments of great sentiment with a joke. Or as we used to call them: men.

Hm. Well, Ann's often called herself a Christian, and I won't dispute that. But she isn't getting her definition of masculinity from Scripture here. Not if Ezra, Jeremiah, David, Paul, and the Lord Jesus are illustrative of godly men. They "cried." They openly revealed deep feelings about matters of great depth. I daresay many of the best men ever to live "cried." And personally, I don't think much of anyone who characteristically reacts to moments of great sentiment with a joke. Cheapening or trivializations never impress me favorably.

Family jokes often cannot survive being ripped from their context, and I'm sure my own children will have a too-rich store of (apparently or really) horrid things I've said. But Coulter speaks fondly of her mother quoting something her father said on every wedding anniversary: "54 years, married to the wrong woman." Hm. Not exactly Proverbs 31:28-31, is it? But then her father was a lifelong Romanist, so he literally may never have opened a Bible.

In spite of that, Ann pronounces him to be in Heaven "with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan" — and she hopes that they will "stop laughing about the Reds long enough to talk to God about smiting some liberals for me."

"Smiting" — not convicting and converting, nor opening their eyes or softening their hearts.

This is the saddest Coulter column I've read, and not merely because it's about her father's passing. It sheds some light on a fair bit about her. It tells me I should pray for her.

And certainly not that God would "smite" her.

Number(s) of the Beast

Not at all what I was expecting.

(h-t m'mate CraigS)

Who knew? I'm a sci-fi geek

	I received 93 credits on The Sci Fi Sounds Quiz How much of a Sci-Fi geek are you?
Take the Sci-Fi Movie Quiz cheapest digital camera

If this doesn't give you a chuckle...

... seek help.

You're kidding me (coffee)

Some bonus money went to a fancy coffeemaker that grinds its own beans. Since then, I've tried a lot of fancy beans to get just the right taste. I'm a coffee-lover, but I have to admit: there hasn't been a huge difference to me from bean to bean.

But I just finished about the best cup I've had so far. Maybe it's my palate, mood, whatever. It's hard to believe it's the bean. Yet... it really is the best, yummiest, most robustly-flavorful I've had. But I never would have bought it for myself. I wouldn't even have considered it. Someone gave it to me. Frankly, I used it mainly because, well, it was next. But it was great.

Brand?

Don't laugh.

Dunkin' Donuts.

LATER: Update.