Skip to content

Monthly Archives for November 2005

Let’s be thankful!

Yeah, yeah, I know… how original. This is Thanksgiving, after all. But, I’m just aware of how thankful I am – or should be – considering my relative state of well-being.

It’s true that I’m not rich, I’m not all that good-looking, and I’ve got my share of health issues. I worry too much, and often don’t take advantage of the opportunities I have.

On the other hand, in spite of not being good-looking, I have an absolutely wonderful and gorgeous wife and I’m still in love after 22 years of marriage. I love and enjoy my kids, and am very proud of each of them. And, my kids like and enjoy each other.

In spite of not being wealthy, we have a very, very, very fine house (with only one cat) and at the moment, a very fine-looking turkey in the oven. Hunger is definitely not on my list of problems.

My in-laws are visiting us for Thanksgiving. I like them, and look forward to their visits. Soon, my mom and sister will come for Christmas, and we’ll give each other gifts we don’t really need, and eat too much.

I have a good job, which I usually like. At the moment, having just switched positions, I am really enjoying my job, and am more relaxed than I’ve been in several years.

My house hasn’t been destroyed by floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes. At the moment, anyway, my roof doesn’t leak.

Generally, we’re all fairly healthy.

There’s no war in Oregon (except for the occasional air-soft battles in our back yard or on the x-box).

Life is so good, I could start to feel guilty – but, that serves no purpose. Instead, I’ll just be thankful.

Written on 24 November 2005 by me under Random Thoughts with 1 Comment

Let’s not play politics with Iraq

Maybe the Democratic members of the House were right about the rather strange “immediate pullout” resolution that the Republicans called for a vote for on Friday. Maybe it was a political stunt; if so, they should be ashamed of themselves. If it was legitimate, someone had better explain it. I don’t trust the media’s reporting of it, so I can’t say for sure whether it was a stunt or not; it was certainly odd enough to deserve some explanation.

Iraq is a serious issue, deserving of serious consideration; it should not be used as a weapon in a political battle, like children are sometimes used in a nasty divorce. If Murtha’s contentions are true – that the commanders in Iraq only say what the administration want them to – we need to know that. It doesn’t sound likely, but of all of the Democrats, Murtha’s opinions carry more weight because he’s not been one of the “wackos.” We need to know – the truth is always good, whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat.

Again, I’m not necessarily buying the media’s take on things (surprise, surprise!), as they only filter through what they want, and it’s often imcomplete and out of context. But, whatever the case, it’s time we end this partisan crap and start talking and acting like adults. If you want to play politics, do it with your own careers – don’t do it with our soldiers’ lives.

Written on 19 November 2005 by me under Politics/Current Events with No Comments

Blue vs Red

I’m really getting tired of all of the political sniping and whining going on. I’ve been critical of the Republicans in the past when they’ve done it – but at the moment, most of the sniping and whining is coming from the left. If they were my kids, I’d send them to their room.

It might be different if the whining had some teeth to it, but it’s so wimpy, it’s pathetic. It’s so wimpy, in fact, even the media has a hard time getting behind it. Not all of the Democrats are guilty of this, but most of what I’m hearing sounds a lot like the typical schoolyard bully, who, when someone finally stands up to them, goes off crying for mommy.

Consider that for months, Democrats like Reid, Dean, and Kerry have done nothing but trash-talk the Republicans, spreading “untruths” (I’m being kind) about nearly everything, including their own positions on Iraq. Also consider that the Administration has been, in my opinion, way too silent for far too long. Finally, within the last week, President Bush and VP Cheney have finally spoken up and said that it’s okay to disagree, but don’t rewrite history.

The Democrats were offended.

Rep. John Murtha has recently come out and changed his view on our Iraq policy, and did a fine job of it (he’s not one of the whiners). He understandably took some criticism for his position, as I am sure he expected. However, I haven’t heard any criticism which was “over the top.” The worst thing I heard was a suggestion that he gave in to pressure from the way-left.

Today John Kerry came out with, “I won’t stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha.” John, no one is “swift-boating” anyone. It’s time for Kerry to grow up and get over it. It’s obvious that he still thinks of himself as a viable Presidential candidate, and may even think he’s still running. He hasn’t changed his rhetoric, anyway.

Harry Reid, true to form, claims the Administration is carrying out “an orchestrated attack campaign.” What? Who’s doing the attacking? Mr. Reid, perhaps a good look in the mirror is called for. The Democrats have no agenda at all, except to attack the Administration. They have no plan, no ideas, no “fix” for anything. So, they whine.

Murtha did whine – just a little – about Bush criticizing Democrats for criticizing the Administration, which is not really what he said. What Bush did say, however, was that criticism is okay – it’s telling lies and rewriting history that is over the top. It’s one of those “if the shoe fits” deals.

Again, the Democrats apparently were offended.

The media has been remarkably quiet since the Administration has been speaking up. I can only guess that they are afraid that at some point people might start talking about facts instead of rhetoric, and then they’ll have to report the truth.

I still find myself yearning for a statesman – someone to rise above the petty bickering and remind us all of what this country is about. We need someone with real sense, someone who can speak the facts and cut through all of the rhetoric – a great communicator. At the moment, we don’t seem to have any great communicators in either party.

Maybe Bush can do it – but he’s going to have to start making it a priority, reminding us on a daily basis of what he’s about. Otherwise, the silence just gets filled up with … well, you know.

Written on 18 November 2005 by me under Politics/Current Events with 1 Comment

I want it that way…

Okay, there’s apparently nothing going on in the world to rant about.

So, for something really, totally different, you’ve got to check out this video clip (recommended for all ages). It speaks – or lip synchs – for itself.

Written on 15 November 2005 by me under Random Thoughts with 1 Comment

The Eldredge Chronicles

For some reason unknown to even me, I started posting some of the thoughts I have had as I’ve been reading John Eldredge’s Waking the Dead. It started, I guess, because I had already been thinking about some of these things. Without restating everything, I felt that his rather dramatic presentation in Chapter 2 may just encourage those people who already have an overactive sense of “spiritual drama,” where everything is a spiritual battle, and their lives always “hang in the balance.”

Well, I finally made it into Part 3, and I have to say, Waking the Dead is finally the book I expected it to be, and already I am telling people, “everyone needs to read this book.”

First, he – in a different way, of course – made the same point I was making: “Reach for the stars; follow your dreams; find yourself. It’s not that the advice is bad; it is, however, woefully inadequate.” I would have really liked him to have made this point earlier when he was first discussing the messages of myth, but I’m glad he said it. It’s not enough to pump people up with expectation, even if there’s truth there. In Chapter 6, Eldredge finally gets around to finishing out the picture, discussing the necessity of adding wisdom and revelation and “developing a discerning heart.” He warns that “Many things are trying to play upon … the heart,” something that many Christians seem oblivious to. In just this chapter he speaks enough truth to set many people free from religion, manipulation, guilt and condemnation.

It’s good stuff, and I can feel life flowing back into places that I haven’t felt in a while. Now, nothing I have read is really new to me, but the cool thing about real truth is that it doesn’t get old. We get old, and we get cold – and we need to hear the Good News again and again, because everything in the world tells us something different.

Again, this is good stuff. I may have completely misunderstood his direction; at least, it didn’t seem like he was going where he seems to be going now. Regardless of who was off track, it seems Eldredge and I have turned a corner and I like the direction we’re heading.

Written on 13 November 2005 by me under Eldredge, Spiritual stuff with 3 Comments

Too many opinions, not enough time

Here’s some more bite-sized rants, for your consideration:

Bill O’Reilly interviewed Pat Buchanan last night. Why does anyone talk to – or worse yet, listen to – Pat Buchanan anymore? And as a political analyst, no less? Perhaps Fox has him under contract, and they’ve got to give him so much air time.

Pat Robertson is also one of those people who should really keep their mouths shut. That’s all I have to say about that. But, you’ve just got to check out the Swift Report.

Apparently Wal-Mart, according to John Gibson, is standing behind that letter one of their people wrote saying that Christmas “has its roots in Siberian shamanism” and that the colors of Christmas are the colors of an hallucinagenic mushroom (although apparently they did fire the guy). Okay, then. Oh, this was apparently to justify their switching from “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays.” So, apparently Wal-Mart is supporting Siberian Shamanism, psyched mushrooms and Baal worship.

Written on 11 November 2005 by me under Politics/Current Events, Random Thoughts with No Comments

Argumentum ad nauseam

Argumentum ad nauseam is a logical fallacy – an attempt to make someone believe something is true by merely stating it over, and over, and over … well, you get the idea. Unfortunately, instead of making you nauseous, it actually works. It is, therefore, a standard element of propaganda.

It has also been a standard – and almost exclusive – element of liberal rhetoric for the last 3-4 years, especially having to do with all things Iraq. Most people didn’t believe John Kerry when he used them in his campaign, but I still hear those same things said over and over. It doesn’t matter that some of these people contradict their own earlier opinions and statements. It doesn’t matter that the facts don’t support the allegations. It doesn’t even seem to matter that these “inaccuracies” were not believed in the past.

Why? Because more people are believing them now, simply because they’ve heard them so often. It’s also because conservatives have failed to be as agressive as they should be with the facts. They’ve misunderestimated the power of ad nauseam rhetoric, and the incredible tendency of the public to be manipulated.

Liberals are simply much better at manipulating the media and public opinion; it comes down to a fundamental difference in worldview. If you accept that truth is relative – if you start questioning the definition of “is” – then your worldview allows you to say that you believe in truth, while at the same time completely ignoring the facts. However, if your worldview is more conservative, holding to more absolute definitions of things like truth, they you have a much harder time. Even though you want to manipulate facts, your own worldview works against you; you become internally conflicted, and failure is inevitable.

Therefore, liberals are able to accuse and ridicule conservatives for deceit and manipulation of information – whether or not it is true – while at the same time being guity of the very same thing, and still be consistent with their worldview. This is why liberals and conservatives are so very rarely able to actually carry on a meaningful dialog. It’s a “Mars – Venus” issue. Conservatives and liberals have such disparate worldviews that they don’t really even speak the same language.

This is not to say that liberals always manipulate facts, or that conservatives don’t – there are good and bad on both sides. However it is important to recognize the difference in philosophy when interpreting their rhetoric. In the case of the war in Iraq, the facts – that is, what was believed and what was said prior to the invasion – are being buried by ad nauseam and other fallacious arguments by the left, and these core issues seemingly ignored by the right. Finally, however, the administration appears to be waking up.

Written on 11 November 2005 by me under Politics/Current Events with No Comments

The Curse of Clear Sight

I see things so clearly. To me, the truth is usually quite obvious. As a result, it’s extremely frustrating to read or listen to the news, or anyone else’s opinions on anything, because no one apparently sees things quite as clearly as I do. The world would be so much better if everyone had my sense of sight. The problem is, of course, that so many people think that they can see clearly – if they only knew.

If you could see me, you’d of course know that I am writing with tongue-in-cheek. (I find that writing tongue-in-cheek is so much easier than speaking tongue-in-cheek – I am not terribly coordinated, and end up biting my tongue more often than not.) However, I obviously think my opinions are more correct than any other; otherwise, I’d have different opinions.

So, here’s a few clear-sighted opinions to brighten up your day and make your world a better place:

  • Why is everyone so upset about this Joe Wilson / Valerie Plame thing? Remember, we’re dealing with the CIA here! No one likes, or trusts, the CIA. They are the bad guys in nearly every movie in which they are featured. We all know that they don’t follow anyone’s rules, except in public. Their job is to manipulate information, and they are on no one’s side but their own. We all think that, right? So, why, all of a sudden, are we feeling sorry for these people? They don’t need a Special Investigator, except to manipulate more information. And besides, Valerie Plame’s secret identity had already been revealed – and she wasn’t covert any longer, having been “outed” on at least 2 occasions by the CIA itself, and possibly even by old Joe Wilson.
  • Why do people think Scooter Libby has been indicted for outing Valerie Plame? Don’t people read or listen anymore?
  • Last week I watched Chris Matthews on Hardball talking with Deborah Orin from the NY Post. Matthews was, or at least pretended to be, shocked to hear that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. We’ve all known that for ages – where has Chris Matthews been? I used to think he was intelligent, but apparently he only reads his own stuff. Maybe if he’d watch Fox News once in a while, he’d know what was going on.
  • I love Boston Legal, in spite of it’s typically liberal slant. Of course, it’s set in Boston, so the liberal slant is probably fitting. In fact, I find it hard to believe that a law firm in Boston would actually have 2 conservative partners. The Halloween show (aired 11-1) was, in my opinion, great. I thought it’s treatment of Christians and Wiccans suing a school over a Halloween celebration was well done. I also (surprisingly) liked their treatment of a suit against the military for misrepresentation over its recuitment practices, although as you might expect, it was filled with false information and speeches borrowed from John Kerry’s failed campaign. William Shatner (“Denny Crane“), in spite of having “mad cow disease” and some other issues, does a good job of portraying someone with a sincerely conservative heart. Overall, the show came off as questioning Iraq, but generally supportive of the military.
  • As part of his court arguments (in the afore-mentioned Boston Legal episode), Alan Shore asks why the media is not showing any of the war in Iraq, commenting that the casulaties there are for the most part being ignored. That is a great point, and it got me thinking. Why, indeed, is there so little coverage from the liberal media about what’s actually happening in Iraq? I can draw two conclusions:
    1. They don’t think people are interested. But, since the media tends to create its own demand, and they tend to be driven more these days by philosophy than by money (can you believe that?), this is probably not the reason.
    2. To actually show what is happening in Iraq does not fit with their agenda. I think this is probably the case – they would rather rehash old John Kerry lines and media-created myths than actually show what’s happening. People might actually see that the soldiers are proud of what they are doing, and feel like they are accomplishing something. People might see that the Iraqis are generally excited about freedom, and actually want our troops there while they pull the government together. People might have seen a greater voter turnout – in spite of threatened violence – than we have over here! No, that wouldn’t fit with the liberal media’s agenda – which is essentially to get conservatives out of power – at all.

See, what did I tell you? Clear, concise thinking. ;-)

Written on 10 November 2005 by me under Politics/Current Events with No Comments

The Great John Eldredge Debate

Well, my comments about John Eldredge’s “Waking the Dead” sparked some debate (beyond the comments that were posted). I think I was a bit misunderstood, at least on some points. I re-read my post, and have read a bit more of Eldredge in the meantime. So far, my opinions haven’t changed. But, to perhaps qualify and clarify my thoughts, let me bullet-point a few things:

  • I am a strong believer in the power of myth, and always have been. Myth, fantasy, allegory, or whatever you want to call it, has a way of conveying ideas that “reality” sometimes cannot. Jesus told parables for that reason. God speaks in apocalyptic language. Myth unlocks and speaks to what Eldredge refers to as the “heart.” Throughout the years I have – sometimes to a fault – used myth to make a spiritual point. So, I am definitely not discounting the value of myth.
  • However, we cannot assume that what speaks to us in these myths – or what we interpret or read into them – is necessarily truth. I would tend to agree with Eldredge’s point that our hearts – as transformed by the Holy Spirit – are good. However, not all of our desires are necessarily good. There are foundational desires, like the desire to be loved and the desire to be significant, that are good. However, these desires can easily be twisted and misdirected, and myths often play to these misdirected desires. (Eldredge discusses this as motives, however to me the word implies a rational intent; either way, I think we need to examine them.)

    A good example of this is the Sondheim musical, Into the Woods. If you haven’t seen it, I suggest tracking down a DVD. The play takes a number of classic fairy tales and combines them in a very humorous way – for the first half. The second half of the play shows what happens as the moral implications of the character’s actions play themselves out and the characters learn the hard way that their desires were misdirected.

  • I suspect that many of our desires to “be someone” – to be Neo, or Sleeping Beauty, or whoever – may be as much an expression of our inability to accept that “ordinary” is okay as it may be a genuine truth that we are called for something better. One of my favorite CDs is Switchfoot’s “Beautiful Letdown.” I don’t think I have found lyrics any more inspiring than when they sing, “This is your life, are you who you want to be?” or “We were meant to live for so much more …” (Music, by the way, has the same power as myth – it speaks beyond our mind to something deeper, and can impact us in similar ways, good and bad.)

    We are all probably – I don’t know if I could say this about Mother Theresa – called to live for “so much more.” The question is, however, what does that mean? Does this mean we hang to a desire to be someone else, or just come to accept who we are?

  • A problem, then, is in discerning our heart as well as discerning the truth in myth. I still have a problem with Eldredge’s emphasis on urgency. All great adventure movies and mythic tales take place at that time when the world is in crisis and everything hangs in the balance. This, however, does not represent the whole story.

    This is not to say that one cannot apply principles from the Lord of the Rings in dealing with the minor crises of daily life. I have heard that on average, people experience three crises a year. Most of these are not the “big one,” but are crises nonetheless. But, I know many, many people for whom each day is a crisis, and many of them are either self-created, or just reinterpreted as one. Now, here’s an appropriate myth: The Boy Who Cried Wolf. If we constantly have to live on this high-adrenaline pseudo-spirituality, what will we do when a real crisis comes along?

  • It is important that we learn that we are accepted just being ourselves. It is important that we know our own significance. We don’t have to be “the One,” we are “the one” that God created. Our significance does not come from doing anything, or achieving anything. Our significance comes simply from being created and loved by God. That should be enough. People need to be set free from the lies that they are not significant, that they are somehow marginalized and without purpose or value. For this, I applaud Eldredge, as undoubtedly his book is facilitating that in many people.

Eldredge does make some of these points that I have mentioned, in different ways. However, I am finding his thoughts kind of muddled and inconsistent at times, and I am still trying to figure out what he is really saying. He seems to be more of a “feeler” than a “thinker,” so he processes differently than I do. And, he’s not a great theologian.

I am still concerned that Eldredge’s points could be interpreted to create an unrealistic dissatisfaction with our lives and who we are created to be. If we cannot realize that we are significant, just by being who we are, then our desires will be twisted as a result. We have to start by knowing that we are significant; then, I believe, we won’t need to go on a great quest. We may certainly be called to one, but it will be because of who we are, not because of who we need to be.

I’ll continue reading the book (I’m not even 1/2-way through, yet) and write at least once more, so stay tuned…

Written on 06 November 2005 by me under Eldredge, Spiritual stuff with 3 Comments

Tell me something new…

I had no intent on writing anything political today, but I just have to say something…

MSNBC quotes Harry Reid as saying on Tuesday, “They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.” I’m not sure who “they” are, specifically, but it doesn’t really matter.

Okay Harry, let’s get to the bottom. Let’s start with the Clinton administration. Let’s look at consistent intelligence that led Bill and everyone else to conclude that Saddam had WMDs. Let’s look into “Able Danger” and the stifled report that the 9-11 guys were plotting something. Let’s look at Joe Wilson’s report that the Iraqis had indeed been to Niger, at least looking at buying uranium. And let’s look at how many times Joe Wilson has lied about what he did or did not say.

Then let’s look at the UN resolutions, and the fact that to not act would have completely discredited everything we said. This was no pre-emptive strike – this was doing what any SWAT team in the country does when criminals won’t surrender.

Then maybe we should look at all of the positive things the Democrats have done over the past 5-6 years – that would take about 10 seconds. They have no agenda, nothing helpful to contribute, just old red herrings. Old, dead red herrings.

It’s tiring. Tell me something new…

Written on 03 November 2005 by me under Politics/Current Events with No Comments