Back from St. Louis and returning to normal, daily life again. It's been a very busy few days.

I had the opportunity to have lunch yesterday with R.T. Kendall, who retired last year as the pastor of Westminster Chapel in London (the church that Dr. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones pastored for 30 years) after serving there for 25 years. He's a fascinating man with one foot in the Reformed community and the other foot in the charismatic world. Though his opinions are largely anathema to the "truly Reformed," they cannot be easily shrugged off--there is enough theological heft behind them that they must at least be dealt with.

He recently appeared on "Focus on the Family" for three days with Dr. Dobson, an appearance which occasioned a bit of disdain amongst my pals at A Better Country. I know that there are a number of things on which I disagree (currently) with Dr. Kendall. But I also know this: this is no inbred TBN goofball with a pompadour hairdo, as we so often caricature all the charismatics. His viewpoint comes with some real scholarship behind it, and deserves to be addressed as such.

He and his family are also incidentally very lovely people who were great company at the Indian (as in India, as opposed to Native American) restaurant they were dying to go to. Apparently after 30-something years of bland English food, a little curry really hits the spot.

Entertaining baseball game last night. The Cardinals won 8-5, and there was plenty of excitement, including back-to-back triples by Tino Martinez and Mike Matheny. I covered baseball for several years and have been to a lot of games, but I don't think I've ever seen back-to-back triples.

Here's why St. Louis fans are the best in baseball (which even players on most other teams acknowledge): Tino Martinez came to St. Louis as Mark McGwire's replacement last season from the American League, where he had been on several championship teams with the New York Yankees. Since coming here, he's struggled mightily. Last season, he hit around .250, and he's hitting about the same this year. And yet, he got a big round of applause from the Cardinal fans last night, because they know he's trying. Contrast that with Sammy Sosa (pre-cork) in Chicago, who has put together a Hall of Fame career with the Cubs, and yet gets booed after a few bad weeks.

On Sunday, we worshipped at Covenant Presbyterian Church in the neighborhood of Covenant Seminary. Among the church's former pastors was Francis Shaeffer, back in the 1940's, I believe.

The pastor is now George Robertson, who did an outstanding exposition of 2 Corithians 11:16-33. It was everything a great sermon should be: accessible, faithful to the text, absent both emotionalistic manipulation and dry scholasticism, and yet extraordinarily convicting and uplifting. He's a gifted preacher. They also happened to be serving the Lord's Supper the day we were there, which made our visit even more memorable.

Yesterday we went to the seminary bookstoore and dumped a breathtaking amount of money. It's not an enormous bookstore, but every single volume there is worth having.

It's odd to find so much great Reformed stuff here in St. Louis. When we left in 1995, I was not particularly interested in spiritual matters, so I wouldn't have even known what "Reformed" meant, let alone seek it out. But as I return, I find that Reformedom is alive and well in the Midwest. If you ever check out the Real Audio messages at Atlantic Coast Communications, you'll see that a substantial number of the ministries represented there are in St. Louis. Who knew?

Tommorrow night, we head down to Busch Stadium to see the Cardinals take on the Toronto Blue Jays. They're saying there should finally be some sun tommorrow (it's been cold and rainy so far), just in time for a nice evening at the ballpark.

Arrived in St. Louis this morning. First meal: that long awaited lunch at White Castles.

Oh, my, was it spectacular.

Next up on the agenda is a concrete shake at Ted Drewes and a trip to the Covenant Seminary bookstore. I love being back in St. Louis.

Here is an incredible story from Jay Nordlinger's "Impromptus" column at National Review Online:

At a press conference, (Tom Daschle) pointed to Linda Scott and said, "Yes, Evelyn?" So, who's Evelyn? That's Evelyn Thomas — another black female journalist who's covered Daschle for years. According to the New York Post, the assemblage "gasped." Linda Scott shot back at the Democratic leader in the Senate, "It's Linda, and I know we don't look alike."

Can you even begin to imagine the caterwauling that you'd hear if it were a Republican who made this mistake? Yet, have you heard this reported anywhere else? If, say, somebody like Newt Gingrich or Trent Lott had made this mistake, their careers would be over.

Today is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Bob Hope. It also happens to be the 60th anniversary of the last time he actually said anything funny....

This is an amazing world, technologically.

Yesterday, I had to make a one-day trip to Washington D.C. for some work stuff. I woke up in my own bed in South Florida, flew up north and stood in front of the Capitol, the Lincoln Memorial, and the Jefferson Memorial all day, and then flew home and put my head back down on my own pillow in South Florida that same night.

I know that millions of business travelers do this kind of thing all the time. But I found it profoundly disorienting to be able to travel 2000 miles round trip in the course of a semi-normal workday and even have significant time on the ground for work, with my family not experiencing me being gone for more than a few hours beyond what I would normally be gone on a work day. I can't quite get my mind around the fact that in this world, it is possible for someone to visit a city thousands of miles away in between brushing his teeth first thing in the morning and last thing at night.

I couldn't help but wonder how inconceivable such a thing would have been for the people honored by the monuments I visited.

This is the single best paragraph I've ever read on the "seeker-sensitive" church movement. It comes from the pen (or, rather, the keyboard) of Michael Spencer, otherwise known as The Internet Monk:

When the history of modern evangelicalism is written, I predict that the abandonment of the vocabulary of faith will loom large as an explanation for the demise of Christianity in American culture. Despite what the Willow Creek-ologists tell us, "seeker sensitive" Christianity is not a surging cultural force, but a movement leading masses of Christians into retreat and cultural surrender. Islam is surging in America, and you will not come across many "seeker-sensitive" mosques. Cultures and sub-cultures that retain their distinctive vocabularies retain their distinctive identities. Just ask rap musicians, who don't feel the need to talk like everyone else to sell their music. If you don't get it, you're going to have to ask. Meanwhile, the slogan of American evangelicalism might be "Prepare to be assimilated."

In one succinct paragraph, Spencer shows why the movement to make our churches more "relevant" by taking on the trappings of the culture is ultimately doomed to failure.

I've got news, folks. "The Matrix" is not a Christian movie. It doesn't even have Christian "underpinnings." I think this is finally sinking in on some after the apparently homoerotic sequel.

It borrows some symbolism and terminology from Christianity. Big deal. So does "Cool Hand Luke" and about 5000 other movies, but nobody from my church is running around telling me how I "just have to see 'Cool Hand Luke! It's like sooooo Christian!"

The first "Matrix" was highly entertaining. I haven't seen the second one. But c'mon, entertaining is good enough. If you enjoy it, great. So do I. But don't try to paint some super-spiritual gloss on your enjoyment of it. It's simply well-done, pagan entertainment, nothing more.

Congress has passed a tax cut bill, though it's only about half of what President Bush had actually asked for.

An amusing illustration is floating around via email and on the Internet, regarding the Democrats position on tax cuts. I would only ammend it to include many gutless Republicans (i.e. McCain-ites) as well:

If you don't understand the Democrats' version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), this will explain it for you:

50,000 people went to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due. The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness. After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be unconscionable.

The DNC plan says:

People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an "Earned" Income Ticket Credit. Persons "earn" it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.

People in the $15 seats will get back $15, because that's only fair.

People in the $25 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. If they can afford a $25 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.

People in the $50 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.

The people driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help.

Now do you understand?

If not, contact Representative Richard Gephardt or Senator Tom Daschle for assistance.

A lot of people will probably find this Associated Press story heartwarming; I find it sickening.

The story is headlined "Jobless man wins $13.8 million from quarter slot machine." Here's a snippet:

BILOXI, Miss. -- [A guy] lost his job at a sign manufacturing company after 33 years because of corporate downsizing, but you probably won't see him searching for another one.

The Mobile, Ala., resident hit the largest casino jackpot in Mississippi history Wednesday, nearly $13.8 million on a quarter slot machine at Isle of Capri Casino in Biloxi.

Something tells me we probably wouldn't have seen him searching for another one regardless of the slot outcome. Sounds like he was putting in a real tough day of pounding the pavement. There's more:

The money was more than welcomed because in January [the guy] was laid off from his job in the inventory department at Cummins Signs because of corporate reshuffling.

[The guy] and his family walked into the casino around 9:30 p.m. Wednesday.

He sat down at a Jeopardy! machine and started pumping in quarters. After about 90 minutes, [the guy] had lost nearly $200 in the machine -- then he hit the jackpot.

You see, the mean, evil corporation was at fault for trying to keep themselves in the black. The good guy is the unemployed guy sitting on a stool pumping $200 worth of quarters into the machine.

I'm not big anti-gambling crusader. Sometimes I think my fellow social conservatives make too big a deal out of it. I have yet to hear a cogent explanation of how it substantially differs from the stock market, except that the odds are a little worse. But this story makes me sick. We're supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy because this guy who got a raw deal from his company ended up with a huge payout. What the story doesn't mention, however, are the thousands of unemployed idiots just like him who are pumping money they don't have into machines that are keeping it.

You know who's supplying the quarters for guys like this to pump into the Lady Luck machine? You are. And I am. Because when the money stops coming in after the layoff, the first thing this guy and millions of others do is run down to the government office for a taxpayer-funded payout. So while you were working hard today, you were supplying quarters so that this guy could take his fat, unemployed butt down to the casino and pump your money into slot machines. You work, and when's the last time you dumped $200 in 90 minutes? Meanwhile, after I pay my taxes so that this lummox can head down to the riverboat, I've barely got enough money to afford a babysitter and a movie with my wife.

At least it will be satisfying to watch the guy scream after the millions of dollars in taxes get pulled out of his winnings so that other folks on the government dole can have their gambling outings subsidized.

There is a pastor of a large, fast-growing African-American church in Palm Beach County who tells an interesting anecdote.

Not long after the 2000 elections, he asked his congregation "Who here believes that abortion is wrong?" Almost every hand in the place went up.

"Okay, who here believes that marriage should be between one man, one woman, for life, and that homosexuality is wrong?" Again, nearly every hand in the congregation went up.

"Let me ask you this, then," the pastor said. "How many of you voted for Al Gore in this presidential election?"

Yet again, almost every hand in the congregation went up.

Surveys have shown the same thing in the vast majority of black churches in America. Godly people who believe in the biblical stance on moral issues still, for some reason, vote overwhelmingly for candidates and a party that are diametrically, unabashadly opposed to those views. Why? As best I can tell, it's because race-baiting charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have somehow convinced even the African-American Christian community to cast their votes on the basis of race rather than principle. They've been so succesful in fostering a spirit of government dependence that the underlying presupposition (i.e. the best candidate is the one who offers you personally the biggest cut of taxpayer money) is no longer even questionable. The statistically inarguable fact that government programs foster dependence and lessen the standard of living is not given a nanosecond of consideration.

No matter how often guys like Jackson and Sharpton are exposed, it never seems to lessen their influence on the African-American community. So what will it take to break that stranglehold? What will it take to make the black community start voting on issues rather than skin-color?

Mac and I disagree strongly on a number of political issues, and I seem to have a way of getting his hackles up. However, he posted a must-read column at his blog yesterday, which I'd urge you to read. I'm not able to link directly to the article, but if you just go to Mac's blog, it's under Monday, May 19th, and it's called "The Great Christian Baal-Out," by Tom Rose.

Excellent, excellent stuff.

I've been heartened to hear scattered reports of Roman Catholic priests and bishops finally growing some guts and confronting some of the legions of politicians who claim Catholicism and yet support any and all forms of abortion. One could wish that the entire church would summon up some cajones and excommunicate a few Ted Kennedys.

The latest report comes from the May 7 Roll Call magazine, by way of Pro-Life Infonet's daily email. Here are some snippets:

Virginia Congressman Feuds With His Priest on Abortion

Alexandria, VA -- Eyewitnesses say pro-abortion Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) got into a nasty battle with the Rev. Michael Dobbins, a Roman Catholic priest at the Congressman's parish of Blessed Sacrament in Alexandria, VA, earlier this month.

A red-faced Moran was spotted after the 9 a.m. Mass exchanging heated words with Dobbins. "Moran was screaming and pointing fingers at him," said one parishioner who was speaking on the condition of anonymity. "He went ballistic."

Reports of what exactly transpired are conflicting, but it would appear that the main bone of contention is that the priest dared say something about pro-life issues.

The controversy centered on the fact that Moran was attending Mass with City Councilman Bill Euille and Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine. The Congressman felt that the comments about issues such as abortion and stem cell research during the sermon were an unfair attempt to damage Euille, the Democratic candidate for mayor, just two days prior to the election.

That takes some guts. Not only do they want to further their infanticidal agenda, but they apparently want the church to simply ride along with them in quiet acquiescence.

According to Dobbins' friend, the priest responded to Moran's anger by responding "How can you reconcile yourself as a Catholic with your views on abortion?"

Moran's camp agreed this was not a good way to break the ice. "The Congressman responded in kind that he was not going to change his position", said Drummond.

But the Dobbins' friend insisted it did not end there. "Moran went off the wall," he said. "He started screaming at him. The nostrils were flaring. He said "You priests don't know anything about abortion!"

"Congressman, put away the talking points," Dobbins shot back. "Talk to me as your priest."

Moran allegedly responded that there was "not enough time" for the duo to discuss all the Congressman's problems with the church. But with Moran's woes over the years and all the speculation about how his career may be over apparently in mind, Dobbins offered a final word.

"Congressman, one day you will need me," said the priest. "And I will be here."

Moran fired back that "you priests are close-minded" before other parishioners stepped in and tried to calm everyone down.

Unless more priests are willing to put themselves on the line with specific, high-profile people, the Roman Catholic Church's official pro-life stance is next to meaningless.

There's one aspect of this Jayson Blair/New York Times scandal that I'm having trouble understanding.

I do a bit of traveling from time to time for a media organization. I'm not particularly interested in paying for plane tickets, hotel rooms, etc. out of my own pocket when I'm on assignment for my company. So when I travel, I either get an advance, or I put the stuff on my credit card. Then I turn in all of my receipts to the accounting folks here, for which they reimburse me. I think it pretty much works that way everywhere.

My question is, how in the world could this guy be telling his bosses that he's covering a story in, say, Washington D.C., while he's actually at home in Brooklyn? Doesn't anyone at the New York Times ever check a receipt? Did they think he was magnanimously paying for all of his own travel out of his salary? Or were they simply taking his word for it when he failed to turn in any receipts with his expense reports?

If I were one of their stockholders, I'd be very, very concerned. Not just because of the journalistic lapses that this story has uncovered, but because of the business lapses that have come to light. Even when you are required to document your expenses, abuses often surface. I cannot imagine the temptations that must come to these guys with no oversight whatsoever.

I just can't get over the Internet. I absolutely love it.

It took three whole days, but I just got my first Google hit for "Matt + Lauer's + haircut".

Why do I find the sudden "revelation" of John F. Kennedy's affair with an intern during his presidency to be not the least bit shocking or newsworthy? "Gosh, it turns out that JFK was predatory womanizer. Who knew?..."

I'm really just not getting it. What's next? Roosevelt was in a wheelchair? Truman liked to curse?

I'm thankful that Paul Harvey is still on the radio doing what he does. I catch him in the mornings for a five-minute news/commentary broadcast on my way into work, and I just love the fact that at 80-something years old, he's still perfectly sharp and sounds great.

When I listen to him, I imagine that this must be something like every radio broadcaster sounded like in the 1940's. Most of the old-time radio professionals are long gone, replaced by morning show neanderthals and raving talk-radio screamers. But Paul Harvey still beams out his own unique, when-radio-was-king style to hundreds of major stations around the country every day, showing almost no signs of pulling back.

Sure, he can be a little on the corny side--a bit of an anachronism, like Reader's Digest. But I like anachronisms. I like that there are still some things around to remind us of the way things once were. I hope he's on for another 20 years.

I don't watch television in the morning, so I only catch a glimpse of the Today Show about 3 times a year. They got a lot of coverage the other day because of Jay Leno's guest-hosting stint. Other than that, I hadn't seen the program in months.

So is it just me, or is anyone else disturbed by Matt Lauer's haircut? I look at that, and I find myself thinking, "Gosh, I didn't even know he was ill."

Another fruit-loop Texas mom has murdered her children and claims that God told her to do it. Soon to follow (if they're not out there already) will be scores of stories about how conservative Christianity "forces women into rigid gender roles" and how she was "forced by her husband" into some sort of lifestyle which boiled over and led to these murders. I haven't read any of these stories yet, so I don't even know if she has a husband, but I know the media well enough to know what their tone will be.

Why do these people do this stuff? What causes a mother to do something so reprehensible?

First, it's mainly caused by evil combined with a good dose of mental illness.

Second, I think that there's a lesson to be drawn here about the lessening influence of the Bible as our sole infallible source of divine revelation. The pundits will say that it was too much Bible that set these women on their hideous courses. I think it was not enough Bible.

In modern evangelicalism, Christians are now trained to believe that God "speaks to their hearts" apart from the Bible. Walk into any Christian bookstore and you will find myraid books, pamphlets, and lesson plans on "how to find the will of God," and "how to know when God is speaking to you." Rather than trusting the Scriptures as God's revelation of His will for us, Christians are now taught a complex divining process where they are to try to find the keys for sifting out the whispers in their ears that are from God from the whispers in their ears that are from the world or their own sinful natures. They spend their time trying to decipher the complex code that God is supposedly sending them, which can finally be cracked with just the right combination of prayer, reflection, and intuition.

The result is that some folks think the things they hear in their heads are direct communications from God. They feel no need to test these communications against the Bible, since these "promptings" are just as trustworthy. Teach that sort of theology to a schizophrenic, and watch what happens. Give her a reason to think that the voices in her head are to be obeyed because they are communications from God.

We need less Henry Blackabys and more pastors who are willing to say "I don't care what whisper you're hearing in your heart or what 'prompting' you think you're having. If it contradicts Scripture, it's not from God. You don't have to think about it, you don't have to consider it, you don't have to weigh it. It is absolutely not from God, period. Flee from it."

Half the people who normally visit here will be taking a cyber-break this week for some reason (was it something I said?), so it may just be me and you here.

After all that, I went and did a Mother's Day message at the church I was guest-preaching at anyway. The main idea of it was (from Hebrews 2) that Christ needed to come in a real flesh and blood body, with a real human nature, that He needed to be made like his brothers in every way (save sin) in order to do the work of atonement and redemption for us. And that body came from His mother. God could have chosen to create Jesus' human body from the dust as He did with Adam, but instead sent him "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (as Paul says), in the post-fall version of a body that can become exhausted, can get sick, and can die. Thus, He sent Christ to us through a human woman, who gave birth to him, nursed Him, taught Him, raised Him, protected him, and loved Him as her son.

It's really more of an anti-gnosticism message than it is a Mother's Day message. But I've found that it's good in Baptist churches to really hammer home the anti-gnostic stuff, since we can sometimes veer in that direction if we're not careful. Matter is good. God is going to redeem it, not do away with it.

I'm preaching the sermon in my own church this weekend, in place of our vacationing pastor. I've never done back-to-back before (though I know a real preacher has to do it every week), and I just don't know what to preach yet. When you're fill-in preaching, by definition it ends up being a topical sermon, because you only get one shot at it. I'll just keep reading the Bible, and trust that God will show me what he wants them to hear this Sunday

This cartoon by Michael Ramirez of the Los Angeles Times ran in March, and I just came across it. There's so much truth here, I don't even know where to start.

Thank you, Lord.

The Republicans are finally toughening up and going to war over President Bush's judicial nominees. From the Washington Times:

Republicans plan to begin the process today of using their so-called "nuclear option" to end the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees by changing Senate rules governing how many votes are required to break such blockades...

...Today marks two years since Mr. Estrada and Judge Owen were nominated by Mr. Bush. The president plans to talk about the problem in a Rose Garden speech today, calling the judicial-nominating process "broken."

It's about time. As I've said before, this is the only issue that matters. The Democrats must be called out on this and made to pay. They had no problem with arcane procedural manuevers when they were scheming to block these nominees. We'll see how they like such manuevers now. The White House needs to scream loudly and longly about the obstructionism in the Senate that's thwarting the representative will of the people.

Man, I love Ann Coulter, too. If she and Walter Williams got married and had a kid, I'd want to be that kid...er...somthing like that. Here's her reaction to Sen. John Kerry's implication that no one is qualified to disagree with him on issues of war because of his Vietnam service:

As long as we're going to get self-righteous, why is John Kerry allowed to have an opinion about taxes? He has spent his entire life marrying a succession of heiresses and living off the fortunes amassed by other men. It must be the luck of the pseudo-Irish. How can Kerry claim to understand the anguish of people who pay high taxes? What does this pompous, whining, morally superior, mincing habitue of Boston drawing rooms know about confiscatory taxes on hard-earned money? (Not that his nuptial path to wealth is not also hard-earned.)

Ouch. And ditto.

Man, I love Walter Williams. Today's column is another beautiful, simple explanation of why redistribution of wealth through taxation is morally wrong. While I could disagree with him on who owns us (he says we own ourselves, I say God owns us), I don't think the disagreement changes his overall point.

Here's a snippet:

Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property.

Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!"

If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another?

What's left to say? And yet Williams is one of a miniscule number of people in this country who actually understand this simple concept.

The May 19th issue of National Review has about the best article I've seen yet on the war. The article is titled "The Men Who Won the War," by Jim Lacey, and no matter your feelings on whether or not this was a just war (or your feelings on the National Review, for that matter), it is hard not to be moved by the bravery and humanity exhibited by American soldiers in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

A friend sent the text to me via email, and Anne I. has since located the article online. Here is an excerpt, which describes the immediate aftermath of the grenade attack on the 101st Airborne by one of their own soldiers:

Just minutes after the explosions, a perimeter was established around the area of the attack, medics were treating the wounded, and calls for evacuation vehicles and helicopters were already being sent out. Remarkably, the very people who should have been organizing all of this were the ones lying on the stretchers, seriously wounded. It fell to junior officers and untested sergeants to take charge and lead. Without hesitation everyone stepped up and unfalteringly did just that. I stood in amazement as two captains (Townlee Hendrick and Tony Jones) directed the evacuation of the wounded, established a hasty defense, and helped to organize a search for the culprit. They did all this despite bleeding heavily from their wounds. For over six hours, these two men ran things while refusing to be evacuated until they were sure all of the men in their command were safe.

Two days later Capt. Jones left the hospital and hitchhiked back to the unit: He had heard a rumor that it was about to move into Iraq and he wanted to be there. As Jones -- dressed only in boots, a hospital gown, and a flak vest -- limped toward headquarters, Col. Hodges, the 1st Brigade's commander, announced, "I see that Captain Jones has returned to us in full martial splendor." The colonel later said that he was tempted to send Jones to the unit surgeon for further evaluation, but that he didn't feel he had the right to tell another man not to fight: Hodges himself had elected to leave two grenade fragments in his arm so that he could return to his command as quickly as possible.

I could live a hundred lifetimes and not have that kind of guts.

Senator Robert Byrd apparently didn't much care for President Bush's speech last week from the U.S.S. Lincoln. He says:

"I do question the motives of a desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech."

Well I question the motives of a hick senator who used to assume the garb of a pointy hat and sheet for purposes of cross-burning.

I mentioned a few days ago that I will be guest preaching on Mother's Day at a local church. Over the last two days, I've started getting Google hits for "Mother's Day sermons."

C'mon, pastors, your people need to be fed. Don't scrounge a sermon off the internet just so you can have a "Mother's Day" message. If you don't have something jumping out of the Scriptures at you to say about Mother's Day, then don't do a Mother's Day message! It's a made-up, greeting card holiday anyway.

Give your people something from God's Word that has been feeding you lately, something you can be passionate about. Don't shoehorn yourself into a tight spot just because you think you've got to do a mom message.

A great, twisted list I found last week in the Boar's Head Tavern that I forgot to post:

Children's books that didn't make it...

1) You're Different -- And That's Bad
2) The Boy Who Died from Eating All His Vegetables
3) Robert: Dad's New Wife
4) Fun Four-Letter Words to Know and Share
5) The Kids' Guide to Hitchhiking
6) Kathy Was So Bad That her Mom Stopped Loving Her
7) Curious George and the High-Voltage Fence
8) All Cats Go to Hell
9) The Little Sissy That Snitched
10) Why Can't Mr. Fork and Mrs. Electrical Outlet be Friends?
11) That's It, I'm Putting You Up for Adoption.
12) Grandpa Gets a Casket
13) 101 Things You Can Do at the Bottom of the Pool
14) The Magic World Inside the Abandoned Refrigerator
15) Controlling the Playground: Respect Through Fear
16) The Pop-Up Book of Human Anatomy
17) Strangers Have the Best Candy
18) Whining, Kicking and Crying to Get Your Way
19) You Were an Accident
20) Things Rich Kids Have, But You Never Will
21) Daddy Drinks Because You Cry
22) Your Nightmares Are Real
23) Where Would You Like to be Buried?
24) You've Got Hepatitis B, Charlie Brown
25) Valuable Protein and Other Nutritional Benefits of Things from Your Nose

I have a friend who writes books. One or two of them have had cover endorsement blurbs from William Bennett. My friend has just completed a new book on very similar themes to the previous books which Bennett had endorsed. However, when this new book was sent to Bennett, he declined to endorse it, and did not provide any sort of explanation. My friend was somewhat confused, wondering why he was suddenly on the outs with Bennett.

It would appear that he got his explanation the other day, however. The new book contains a particular chapter which unambiguously delineates the devastating effect that legalized gambling has had on the nation. It's no longer any suprise that Bennett would decline to endorse such a book. It's always possible that he declined for some other reason--perhaps he simply didn't think the book was any good. But it seemed a little odd, since normally this type of book would be right up his alley.

Still, I have to give him credit for not being a hypocrite. A lot of guys would have simply given the blurb anyway, or taken some hokey public stand against a behavior which they were practicing in private. Bennett did neither, for which I respect him.

However, while I'm no flaming liberal (as any regular visitor here knows), I have always wondered how people can look around them and then be able to sleep with themselves while gambling away more money in a few days than most people will make in a lifetime. Having lived in Las Vegas for a few years, I saw this happen more than a few times.

Now I think that when someone earns money, he ought to be able to do whatever legal with it that he wants to, and Bennett broke no laws. But man, wouldn't walking down the street just handing $1000 bills to strangers be more satisfying than forking it over to the Bellagio?

Someone at Blogger must be playing a joke on me. I have always been impressed with the fact that they somehow have tailored the ads that appear at the top of my page to the general flavor of the blog. There have been ads for Christian-this and Christian-that, and a few other generic things. I don't know how they do it, but I'm sure folks who are more computer-savvy than I am know how it works. They must have a program that picks up different words or phrases or something.

Today, I have found ads for "Al Sharpton for President," and "Democratic Campaign Buttons." Good luck making sales on that stuff here, guys...

Sorry, the comment system seems to be down again. If the last time it happened is any guide, it'll probably be down all weekend...

Update, Saturday:

Well, I see the comment system is back up quicker than I thought. They must have been frightened into action by my tough talk...

Though it's undeniable that there is a huge liberal bias in the media, I do not believe that most reporters are purposely biased. They simply never question the foundations of their own worldview, and everything that they think and report springs from that unquestioned worldview. They think that they're being objective, because they don't realize the color of the glasses they are wearing.

The reason I mention this is because I saw a story reported in our two South Florida newspapers today that demonstrates this beautifully.

A headline in today's South Florida Sun-Sentinel reads: "Phone bills to soar as Legislature approves huge rate hikes" Well goodness. That's terrible. Why would the state government go and gouge us like that? They didn't just go and approve a rate hike, they approved a "huge" one! The text of the story was even more ominous. It began:

Florida telephone customers should prepare to open their wallets.

Legislators on Thursday gave final approval to the biggest local phone rate increase in the state's history and sent the measure to Gov. Jeb Bush, who's expected to sign it.

The story goes on to say that the Florida House approved the measure 90-20, and the Senate approved the plan 27-12. "My heavens," I thought, "why would these guys vote so overwhelmingly to raise my phone rates?!?!?"

Then I remembered that I am generally skeptical of the media, particularly here in South Florida. "Maybe there's more to the story," I thought. "Come to think of it, I don't think that the state even has the power to raise my base phone rates. That's the business of the phone company." The state can add taxes, but the story was indicating that this was not a matter of taxation.

So I turned to the Miami Herald to see if I could get some further info. Their headline was: "A higher calling: Phone rate hike passes." The lead (or "lede," to be journalistically correct), read:

Get ready for sticker shock.

The phone bill passed by the Florida Legislature on Thursday could more than double basic local phone rates in about four years if state regulators approve every increase requested by the state's major local phone companies, such as BellSouth, Verizon and Sprint.

The story went on to note:

The bill won overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, with a 93-20 vote Thursday. A day earlier, it had cleared the Senate with a 27-12 vote.

Gov. Jeb Bush said after the House vote that he would happily sign the bill.

Now I was outraged. Not only are my elected representatives going to raise my rates, they are apparently going to do it happily! The scoundrels!

But I was still having trouble understanding how the state could raise my phone rates. There's nothing here about a tax--they're telling me that the state is going to double my rates.

In search of more information, I went to the Tallahassee Democrat, since Tallahassee is the state capitol of Florida, to see if they could give me more insight. Their story helped clear up a lot of the confusion for me. The headline read: "Deregulation bill heads to Bush's desk."

Wait a minute--deregulation? That's not the government doing something; that's the government stopping something they were doing. This sounds different from what my local papers were telling me. The Democrat's lede also told a different story than my local paper:

An industry-backed bill that opponents say will create the biggest telephone rate hikes in state history is on its way to Gov. Jeb Bush, following its passage Thursday in the House.

SB 654 will deregulate local telephone service; a move proponents say will increase competition and keep prices low.

Wait a second. "Opponents say"? "Proponents say"? You mean, there are actually two sides to this story? The South Florida papers had led me to believe that it was a matter of fact that the state government had instituted a telephone rate hike. This story says that opponents merely claim that the states deregulation of the industry will lead to higher rates. There's more. The story quotes Stan Mayfield, who sponsored the legislation in the house:

"The best regulator for this industry is going to be competition," said Rep. Stan Mayfield, R-Vero Beach, who sponsored the House version (HB 1903).

Mayfield, in answer to opponents' claims, said the bill "does not contain any mandatory language that contains rate increases," "does not lower service quality standards," "does not provide for a 20-percent increase in rates."

Neither South Florida paper even mentioned Mayfield, let alone quoted him.

Now I'm no more interested than you are in the intricacies of telecommunications law. But I am interested in getting the straight story from my local media outlets. Both local newspapers here hysterically informed me this morning, without equivocation, that the state government was raising my phone rates. The fact of the matter is, however, that the state government has done no such thing. They've simply voted to allow the phone companies more freedom to set their own rates. In other words, they voted to let market forces to increase and government to decrease in the issue of telephone rates. But the average journalist's worldview is so strongly calibrated to see government regulations as good and free market forces as bad that it never even occurs to him that such a measure could eventually have the effect of lowering phone rates and improving service. To them, it's simply axiomatic that the government is good and business is bad.

If you even for a moment doubt media bias and the influence one's worldview can have on the perception of "facts," I would strongly urge you to read the first two stories and then contrast them with the third. Just try to find the words "deregulate," "regulate," or anything that gives even a hint of the fact that the legislators voted to do less of something rather than more of something.

The Democrats in the Senate are now filibustering two of President Bush's judicial nominees simultaneously, and the Republicans have proven powerless to end it. And even the Republicans are getting wobbly-kneed on Leon Holmes, another strong pro-life nominee who's floating in limbo right now.

The bottom line is this: judicial nominations are the only thing that matter any more in American politics. Just as "location, location, and location" are the three keys of real estate, "nominations, nominations, nominations" are the three keys to a president's long-term legacy.

The left has recognized this for eons (William Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, said that his organization was formed to use the courts to accomplish what the American electorate would never vote for), which is why they've dug their heels in now on Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada.

The president needs to go nuclear against the jackass Senate Democrats, and he needs to do it now. He needs to take his 70% popularity rating and jam it right down their throats. The only thing...repeat: the only thing that will matter 10 years from now about George W. Bush's presidency (which is true of any presidency) is who he got appointed to the bench.

He needs to knock Pat Leahy's and Chuck Schumer's legs out from under them and stop playing by their one-sided "gentlemen's rules." He needs to attack them publicly, loudly and often. Question their patriotism. Question their morals. Question their ethics. Leave no earth unscorched.

If you can't get nominees confirmed (or even voted on!) with a 70% approval rating and a Congress controlled by your own party, it's time to hang it up and find something you can do competently. There are no other issues. It begins and ends with the judiciary, and the Bushies had better wake up, smell the coffee, and go to battle on the homefront.

Found a nice blog in my referral log this morning: This Classical Life

Michael, the proprietor, is clearly a lot smarter than I am, and there's good stuff there. Come to think of it, looking through my blog links, everybody I've linked to is smarter than I am. Which was true even before Gnu showed up...

On Mother's Day, I'll be filling in ("pulpit supply," they call it, though something about that term really turns me off) for a pastor here who's reserve unit was called to active duty for the Iraq war.

It's still about 10 days off, but I'm a little nervous about what to preach on. I always feel for congregations who are getting fill-ins from all over the place, none of whom has heard the other, or even been to the church before in many cases. I imagine the lack of continuity must become quite tiresome after the first month or so, when the novelty wears off.

Anyway, I guess the obvious thing to do is to preach a Mother's Day sermon, though being a "guest" it probably wouldn't be absolutely expected of me. But I just haven't been able to settle on anything yet. It seems like there are about three Mother's Day sermons, and they've all been preached ad nauseum.

I'm not a snob who believes that "expository" preaching (working verse-by-verse, chapter-by-chapter through a book of the Bible) is the only way to do things. Most of the sermons in the Bible appear to be topical, and guys like Spurgeon did fairly well with that approach. But I have also realized that if I ever have my own pulpit (which I suspect I am called to, though I frequently waver), I will have to do the expository method, because I simply am not creative enough to come up with good ideas on my own every week.

There are few things in life more supremely satisfying than that tiny little nirvana of a hamburger from White Castle, otherwise known as the Slyder, or the Bellybomber. If you did not grow up eating White Castles, you either have never heard of them, or find them repugnant. In either case, you are a philistine. But if you grew up with them, the chances are that at least a few times a year you wake up out of a deep sleep craving them like a junkie craves crack.

The White Castles people play a little trick on you, though, by only putting franchises in a precious few cities, so that in many cases (or at least my case), one will grow up with them and then have access terminated by moving away. Sure, many grocery stores now stock the microwaveable version of them, but it's just not the same--it's akin to the difference between a Lamborghini and a Hyundai.

I'm heading back to St. Louis in about a month for a visit, and already I can think of little else. I drool and sometimes quiver. I plan to eat nothing else for breakfast, lunch, and dinner (White Castles are 24 hours) for the first three days I'm there.

What the Celebrity Anti-War Movement Was All About:

There were many good people opposing the war in Iraq, including good conservatives. However, whatever your feelings were about the war, it's good for you to know what the motivation was for a certain high-profile group of war protesters: semi-celebrities. Be honest--how many of you had ever heard of Janeane Garofalo before she started popping up on all the news programs?

Well, a lot more folks have heard of her since, which has been of no small benefit to Ms. Garofalo. From a story last week in the Washington Post:

Janeane Garofalo sounds energized about her whole antiwar thing: "I knew when I started speaking out that it was going to be unpleasant," says the actress-comedian, "and I've taken my punches. But the positives have far outweighed the negatives."

Such as? Such as all the unsolicited offers Garofalo has received -- speaking engagements, stand-up gigs, stage roles -- in the weeks since she proffered her antiwar opinions on news programs. Such as the bundles of attagirl letters and the hearty congratulations of strangers in the street. Such as the sitcom pilot she's making for ABC. The other day, after a decade and a half of doing comedy, she made America Online's "Comedians to Watch" list.

"Before this I was a moderately well-known character actress," she says. "Now I'm almost famous."

Nothing like principled opposition.

An actual quote from an actual teenager, starring in MTV's new "reality" movie The Real Cancun, wherein she and her twin sister, according to TIME Magazine "remove their tops and grind against each other during the wet-T-shirt contest." The twin, named Roxanne, is quoted thusly:

"I'd rather be known for this instead of being smart or something," she says. "There's a million people who are smart. There's only 16 of us who were in Cancun together."

Some odd search engine referrals lately. Here are a few recent searches that have brought people to my blog:

laci + peterson + corpse + condition

George + W. + Bush + caracature

child + molesters + in + joliet (nice, huh?)

And my personal favorite:

who + invented + thumb + tacks

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

This is a great, funny, perceptive line (or two) from Ann Coulter's column this week:

Liberals learned to live with Iraqi citizens being fed into plastic shredders, summary executions, maimings and unanesthetized ear-loppings. Only now have they found something truly fiendish going on in Iraq: Christian missionaries are proselytizing!

Big news from the music world today: Sinead O'Connor has announced that she's retiring from show business.

Does this mean she hadn't already retired? It's been about 10 years since the last time I saw her anywhere, as best I can calculate. What's next? Is Peter Frampton gonna dramatically quit the business too?

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

This apocryphal political quote is variously (and suspectly) attributed to Alexander Fraser Woodhouslee, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Alexis de Tocqueville, and scores of others. Though we don't know who actually said it, there's a great deal of truth in it.

The particular manner by which the electorate likes to accomplish the task of voting itself rich here in Florida is through ammending the state constitution. Now, the U.S. Constitution has a very difficult ammending process, designed to lend stability to it and protect it from the momentary whims of the zeitgeist. However, the state of Florida has no such encumbrances, so numerous ammendments to the state constitution are passed in every election.

In the 2002 elections, Florida voters ammended their constitution to give pregnant pigs special legal protections (leading to a state that paradoxically now has more legal protections for sow fetuses than human fetuses), to ban smoking in indoor workplaces (a crucial constitutional issue if ever there was one), and to constitutionally require the state to build a high-speed "bullet train" between "the five largest urban areas of the State."

In my own survey of those who voted for the pig ammendment, I found the thought process to be thus: "Well, uh, I like animals and stuff. So I voted for it."

Perhaps the most publicized ammendment that Florida voters passed in 2002 was the ammendment to limit class sizes in public schools. As written, the ammendment had no provisions for actually paying for such a project. Governor Jeb Bush warned loudly and often that if voters passed the ammendment, they'd better figure out a way to fund it too, because it was going to cost a ton of money that just wasn't there. Of course, nobody listened because, hey, "schools are important and stuff, and so the kids should have, like, smaller classes and stuff."

Now, educators and parents here in Broward County are going ballistic, because (from today's South Florida Sun-Sentinel):

Entire magnet programs will likely disappear from some Broward County schools next fall. Hundreds of employees will be laid off. Most field trips will be canceled.

Superintendent Frank Till insists students will suffer under even the most generous budget proposals chugging through the Legislature.

Why are all these calamities suddenly befalling the Broward County public school system? Because the idiot voters of Florida decided to constitutionally require class sizes to be reduced without providing any funding for it!

It looked beautiful there on the ballot: "Hey, I can simply vote the classes smaller!" They didn't have to give even a moment's thought to where the money would come from. Thus, of course, because of the Law of Unintended Consequences (something that liberals should be strapped to an electric chair and forced to learn on penalty of death), their big vote to improve education actually will lead to drastic cuts in education for the students.

And how many pregnant pigs had their suffering alleviated by the benevolent voters of Florida? None, as it turns out. Because of the prohibitive costs involved in bringing their pig stalls up to the level of comfort provided by the ammendment, the two pig farmers who were its targets simply sold their pigs off to be slaughtered. The vote to give legal protection to pregnant pigs actually resulted in the slaughter of those same pigs.

But hey, at least the voters' intentions were good.

In what seems like a previous life, I used to be a sports radio talk show host. The calls that you take on the air in that job pretty much all fall into only about five categories. I won't ennumerate them all here, but perhaps the most common is the "overpaid atheletes" call. The basic idea is "it's ridiculous for Michael Jordan to make $30 million per year while for throwing a ball through a hoop while teachers and fireman make next to nothing."

Certainly, on a cosmic scale of importance, there is truth to this. A good fireman will actually put his life on the line to save others, while the only thing Mike puts on the line are his feet, while making a free throw. But these callers fail to understand how the free market works, and why the way it works is a very good thing. The entire essence of modern liberalism is to take these gut-level value judgements and force them on society via law.

Today, economics professor Walter Williams writes a wonderful column that every student in the country ought to be required to read, explaining in very basic terms why it's right for Michael Jordan and the firemen to make what they make. For some, this is foundational stuff. But for many, there's no understanding of why things cost what they do.

Williams writes:

Why is it that Michael Jordan earns $33 million a year and I don't even earn one-half of one percent of that? I can play basketball, but my problem is with my fellow man, who'd plunk down $200 to see Jordan play and wouldn't pay a dollar to see me play. I'm also willing to sell my name as endorsements for sneakers and sport clothing, but no one has approached me.

The bottom line explanation of Michael Jordan's income relative to mine lies in his capacity to please his fellow man. The person who takes exception to Jordan's salary or sees him, as my letter-writer does, as making "little contribution to society" is really disagreeing with decisions made by millions upon millions of independent decision-makers who decided to fork over their money to see Jordan play. The suggestion that Congress ought to take part of Jordan's earnings and give it to someone else is the same as arrogantly saying, "I know better who ought to receive those dollars."

It's as if it were a page torn out of Thomas Sowell's wonderful Basic Economics textbook, which I will be working through with my own kids in the not-too-distant future.

In the interests of showing my Neoconfederate friends (who have been quite irked with me as of late) that I am a fair-minded man, I'd like to direct you to a good, mostly balanced, pro-South article in Razormouth.com dealing with the issue of the War Between the States. The author lays down a strong preliminary case, and did not once call me an idiot, an idoloter, or an undereducated simpleton while doing so: "Critics, Christians, Gods and Generals"

There were a few mild shots taken, but no streams of harsh invective, which is probably why I actually read through the whole thing and gave some actual consideration to his arguments.

Well, that gang of dyk..er...sweethearts over at the National Organization for Women (NOW) has finally weighed in on the Laci Peterson murder case.

Being a "women's rights" group, of course they spoke out to denounce this senseless act of violence upon a woman, right? Or perhaps they spoke out to condemn what was potentially a horrendous act of domestic violence?

Wrong. They wanted to make sure we all understood that Laci Peterson's baby was not actually a person.

This paragon of "women's rights" wanted to ensure that Scott Peterson was only charged with one murder, rather than two (which in California would constitute a "special circumstance" and make him eligible for the death penalty), by declaring that the Petersons' eight-month old fetus, who was found two miles from his mother's corpse, who had different DNA from his mother, who had been alive up until the time that he and his mother were killed and dumped into the San Francisco Bay, was not actually a human being capable of being murdered.

Nice.

Apparently the American viewing public committed another gross, outrageous infringement of Susan Sarandon's First Ammendment free-speech rights by staying away from her TV movie (on CBS last night) in droves.

Expect her "partner" Tim Robbins to call a press conference today to protest the callous, flagrant disregard for Sarandon's constitutional rights on the part of America's Kafkaesque citizens, who failed to cancel their other Easter plans (or to turn the channel from other stuff) in order to prevent this Orwellian nightmare from taking place.

One of the other programs that trounced hers in the ratings was a rerun of "The Ten Commandments," starring noted gun-advocate Charleton Heston, thus confirming suspicions that the unconstitutional, un-American, "chill wind" that blew past Sarandon's movie last night was part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy backed by the NRA and its cronies in the Bush Administration.

Did I forget to mention that I am a comic genius? (Of course, I am here defining "comic genius" in the narrow sense, i.e.: "was one of ten people who won a cheap t-shirt from the Letterman show for submitting an item they used for an online Top Ten list.")

The topic was "Top Ten Iraq Tourism Slogans." My entry is number six. Here's the list:

Top Ten Iraq Tourism Slogans

10. According To Our Former Minister of Information, The Surfing Is Better Than In Hawaii
James H., Valparaiso, IN

9. Pardon Our Dust! We're Democratizing!
Jay S., Ventura, CA

8. Come See Our Newly Created Future Ancient Ruins
Randy P., Thornton, CO

7. No More Worrying About Giant Statues Falling On You!
Mark McL., Philadelphia, PA

6. Take Home Priceless Antiquity From Our National Museum (while supplies last)
John R., Ft. Lauderdale, FL

5. If You Find Any Weapons of Mass Destruction, Your Stay Is Free!
Tom McC., Durham, NC

4. 10% Discount If You Say "George Sent Me"
Stephen M., Camino, CA

3. Free Rides For The Kids On Saddam's Statue's Disembodied Head!
John K., Baltimore, MD

2. Now Constituting An Axis Of FUN!
Jason T., Liverpool, UK

1. Holy Shiite, This Is A Great Place!
Kevin B., Los Angeles, CA

And if that's not worth the $3.62 they'll spend on the shirt, plus 78 cents in shipping costs, what is?

I'm sure this will be the beginning of a long, succesful career of t-shirt freeloaderism wherever I can find a media entity giving away cheap crapola.

Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?" "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."

Jesus said to her, "Mary."

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

The comment link from Squawkbox appears to be temporarily down, so I apologize for any frustration you've experienced trying to post feedback. Hopefully, it will be fixed soon. "You get what you pay for," as the old saying goes...

Pilate decided to grant their demand. He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will. As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. Jesus turned and said to them,

"Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say,

'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' Then
" 'they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!"and to the hills, "Cover us!" 'For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?"

Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals--one on his right, the other on his left. Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One."

The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar and said, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."

There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man."

How I Know the War is Really Over:

As I sit here at 12:54am on Friday, April 18, 2003, I know that the war is finally over because for the first time in a month, all three of the cable news networks (CNN, FOX, and MSNBC) are running taped programs rather than being live. On CNN it's a rerun of the 9pm "Larry King Live." MSNBC's running last night's Olbermann. And on Fox, there's no Shepard Smith, no Rick Leventhal live from Baghdad-- just Brit Hume, the Beltway Boys, and broad afternoon daylight outside their Washington D.C. window.

I don't miss the war at all; thank God it's over. But I do miss having a live body to watch in the wee hours. I didn't realize how fond I had grown of the Smith/Leventhal sideshow.

From Scrappleface.com:

'Chill Wind' Could Reverse Global Warming

(2003-04-16) -- The Bush Administration hailed yesterday's announcement by Tim Robbins that "a chill wind is blowing in this nation" as a sign of the reversal of global warming.

"We want to thank Mr. Robbins for discovering this meteorological fact," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "It makes us all the more glad that we didn't sign that Kyoto accord."

Mr. Robbins, who earns his living pretending to be someone he's not, will be invited to the White House next month to receive the Boy Scout Weather Merit Badge, the highest honor the United States can confer upon a Hollywood celebrity.

Am I the only person who finds it odd that those on the left who couldn't give a flying fig last month about Iraqi children's prisons and Uday Hussein's person-shredder are now up in arms because some pottery at Iraq's national museum got broken?

"A few hundred thousand gassed Kurds are unfortunate, but good heavens! What about the vases?!"

Regrettably, some international news organizations are reporting that there are rumors floating around that Iraq's beloved (former) Minister of Information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, may have done himself in not long after his comical speech before the cameras where he proclaimed that "Bagdhad is safe" while American tanks rolled in the background.

I hope it's not true. I was really looking forward to catching this guy's act at Caesar's after this was all over.

In some Christian circles, there is an odd Neoconfederate movement that is apparently an outgrowth of paleoconservatism. They believe that Abraham Lincoln was evil, that the old South was the closest thing to God's Kingdom that the earth has ever seen, and that the United States should never dare involve herself in a dispute outside of her own borders. Not coincidentally, they were also vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq.

It seems that there's a disturbing pattern with these guys. They are strangely unmoved by the plight of the enslaved--whether it be the slaves in the South, or the people of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Amazingly, they actually frame it as though the people fighting to free these people are (or were) the ones in the wrong!

Ironically, many of these same people claim to be indignant about the plight of the unborn in abortion-happy America (a shameful blight on our society, to be sure). And I'm sure that they are. But it's odd that they evidently couldn't care less about the condition of human beings beyond the third trimester.

Fortunately, most conservative Christians still recognize that the Southern slave trade and abortion are both abominations, and don't pick and choose so strangely. They still recognize that it is a good thing for Iraqi people to be free, and that though our culture has much evil in it, it is at least a culture in which people are free to hear about and worship Jesus Christ. These Neoconfederates would apparently prefer that the Iraqi people be spared from the "imperialistic expansionism of secular humanism" (their rhetoric sounds suspiciously similar to that of most Arab dictators) in favor of a government that would kill them for attempting to worship Christ or tell others about him. An odd position for a Christian to take.

"Since we have the scourge of abortion in our own country," their reasoning goes, "we have no business toppling oppressive regimes elsewhere." This rationale springs from their bitterness at having the North, which certainly had problems of its own, come down and free their slaves for them. They actually still refer to it as "The War of Northern Aggression." Just like Saddam's Information Minister, who refers to the Iraq war as "The War of American Aggression." They'll cite all sorts of nutty revisionist histories and conspiracy theories to "prove" that the Civil War was really just about Lincoln's evil impulses, that there is a "Jewish cabal" within the government forcing us to go to war with Arabs, and that you are not historically literate enough to realize the "real" causes behind all these things, which they by dint of their sheer brilliance have managed to uncover.

I guess every generation has them. In my parents' generation, it was the Birchers who believed the the Trilateral Commission was conspiring to fluoridate our drinking water in an attempt to control our minds. While unpleasant, these groups at least give us the benefit of following one another off into eventual obscurity.

Did you catch Tim Robbins' performance at the National Press Club yesterday? I know that he's been vocally anti-war and all, but I've gotta think that the thing at the Press Club was a put-on. Either it was a magnificent piece of self-spoofing jocularity, or else the poor fellow has made the turn into Madonnaland, the magical land of irreversible self-importance. He kept screwing his face up like the crazy homicidal bomber guy he played in "Arlington Road" and insisted on speaking ominously with an affected, semi-English accent (again like the forementioned Madonna): "The administrasheeon now wants tyew silence those of us in the theatahhh..."

All in all, it was pretty hilarious stuff. Though I fear there's a possibility he might have been serious.

Now that the shooting portion of the Iraq war has just about ended, are we ready to declare a new "Scud Stud" for Operation Iraqi Freedom? In an "American Idol" culture, I think we need to do it--so that this war can really mean something. Besides, if we fail to name a new "Scud Stud"...the terrorists will have won.

For what it's worth, I've gotten more search engine referrals to my blog for "Rick Leventhal" than anything else on here. There have been quite a few searches for "Shepard Smith" too, but since he spent the war in New York, he's not really eligible. One thing is for sure: it will be a much sought-after, much coveted title. After all, look what it did for Arthur Kent's career. In fact, I just saw Arthur the other night. He cleaned my windshield at a stoplight.

Over the past few days, I've been enjoying Dinesh D'Souza's terrific little book Letters to a Young Conservative. It's a breezy read, but very insightful and profound in places. D'Souza was once the senior domestic policy analyst in the Reagan White House, and one of his chapters is titled "How Reagan Outsmarted the Liberals." In it, he gives one of the best explanations for Reagan's success that I have ever seen.

He says (and I'm paraphrasing here, I don't have the book with me) "Reagan recognized that even as powerful as the President of the United States is, he can't change the world in 65 different ways. At best, he can change the world in two or three significant ways. Reagan decided that the three ways he was going to change the world were: reversing the tide of Soviet communism, curbing inflation, and reviving the economy."

Of course, Reagan did all these things brilliantly. Even then, he had a good number of the critics on the conservative side (the liberal opposition being obvious) who were hammering him for not: 1). bringing down the federal deficit, 2). destroying the Department of Education, 3). driving a stake through the heart of the welfare state, or 4). a million other things. But Reagan wisely realized that he couldn't do all these things. He was operating in the real world with a real Congress and real obstacles in front of him, and he focused in on maintaining his three objectives, naysayers from either side be damned. History has shown the effectiveness of his approach. All through, he was accused of being "detached." At one point, he was lambasted for not recognizing his own HUD Secretary at a meeting of big-city mayors. But, as D'Souza points out, this was mainly because he didn't care about HUD. Not one iota. He saw it as a huge bureaucratic rathole that would suck him in if he got anywhere near it. Despite criticism from the right ("Why aren't you doing anything about Big Government?!?"), he simply ignored it altogether in favor of his set objectives.

Just look at the recent presidents who have tried to change the world in 65 ways (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, among others)--they've all been largely ineffectual and have left no positive historical legacy.

Were the Fringe Right ever to miraculously get one of their nutty candidates actually elected (fantasize with me for a moment), he'd never be able to get a single thing done. His core constituency would demand that he end welfare, destroy 14 federal departments, repeal the income tax, shut down Social Security, close all the government schools, outlaw abortion, and close the borders all in one fell swoop. After about six months of not accomplishing any of this, they'd call for his head on a platter.

I could never be president (as if that were a looming possibility...) because I believe that the world does need to be changed in 65 different ways--and then some. I woudn't be willing to bend on, say, letting the Department of Education continue to bloat while expending all my political capital to get pro-life judges nominated. I'd want both. And I'd end up just like Jimmy Carter. Thank God for the president who has two or three big ideas that he can really make happen, whatever the whiners who want everything yesterday say.

From the hilarious Saddam Hussein blog:

:: Saturday, April 12, 2003 ::

The looting and rioting is continuing unabated in Baghdad. You'd think we just won the NBA championship or something.....

:: Saddam "No Nukes" Hussein 10:10 AM [+] ::

Here's an interesting sidelight to the CNN/Eason Jordan scandal. In an email I receive regularly from the Media Research Center, they recounted a phone call they received from Jordan himself on Friday regarding the flap. Of course, he defended himself and CNN's actions, but I was fascinated by an aside he threw out during the conversaition. Here's the description from MRC analyst Rich Noyes (who received the call from Jordan) as relayed in the MRC email (though it appears that this hasn't been posted yet on their website, so there's nowhere to link to):

I [Noyes] told [Jordan] that I was going to make the point that other networks should come forward with their own stories, that he shouldn't be hanging out there alone. He noted with some pride that when the Iraqi Foreign Minister indicated CNN could come back to Baghdad if they would hire Peter Arnett, he replied "Bull****. No f****** way." I chuckled.

Incredible. According to CNN's news chief, Iraq tried to pressure them into rehiring Peter Arnett (who was pushed out the door in the late 90's in the wake of his involvement in another journalistic scandal). Is anyone suprised by this?

I see that Matt Drudge has now posted this on his site, so you may already know about it. Still, I can hardly believe what my eyes are reading. Today in a New York Times Op-Ed, CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan says that CNN withheld news of atrocities committed by Saddam's regime from the viewing public . The article is titled "The News We Kept to Ourselves," and in it, Jordan tells of Uday once informing him that he planned to kill his two brothers-in-law (which he eventually did) and King Hussein of Jordan, of a CNN cameraman (Iraqi) who was kidnapped and tortured, and of Iraqi secret police terrorization of Iraqi media employees. Jordan also reveals (among other things):

I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.

I don't blame Jordan for not reporting these things--he was afraid that to do so would endanger the lives of his staff and the people who told them these stories. But the question is, why didn't he pull his staff out of Baghdad and then tell the world what was going on? What was the point of being there if they were only giving us a sanitized, government-approved version of what was going on? And how exactly am I supposed to trust anything else CNN now reports?

To have the head of a major U.S. news organization admitting that his network covered up atrocities for Saddam Hussein is flabbergasting. Jordan says:

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.

Is it possible that it would have been useful for us (particularly many of the pundits on Jordan's own network) to have heard some of these "wrenching tales" about "decades of torment" while Saddam was still in power?

I am against public broadcasting in principle. I think that the market generally does a very nice job of culling the herd, and I don't like my tax dollars funding cranks like Bill Moyers, who can no longer cut the mustard in the free market because his 60's-era platitudes are such an anachronism.

Having said that, there are very few things on television better than PBS's "Frontline." For me, it has become a must-watch program. Last night, they did an examination of North Korea, Kim Jong Il, and how things got to where they are today that was incredibly compelling. For public broadcasting, "Frontline" has been quite even-handed in many of the recent shows I've watched (though I can remember when that was not true--particularly in the mid-80's). While certainly no cheerleader for the current administration, the program did not flinch in examining the Clinton-era appeasement (including an interview with smugly self-satisfied dupe Jimmy Carter, who stuck his nose into things again in his bald, relentless pursuit of the Nobel) that helped lead us to the current situation.

A month or two ago, they also did a two-hour program on the lead-up to the Iraq war that was balanced, riveting television. I work in TV, and I can tell you that people in TV watch "Frontline" to see how its done. Occassionally they show a bias, but I think there's a difference between being biased and being unfair, and I can't recall a time recently where I felt they were being unfair.

But PBS is still a ship that ought to be sunk. A product as high-quality as "Frontline" could easily survive on A&E, Discovery, or any of a dozen other networks.

I found some of my links on the righthand side of my page missing this morning. Why would that happen? Have any of you longtime bloggers ever had this happen? Very odd. I didn't lose all the links--only two or three of them, and I think I've replaced them all. Weird.

Isn't it about time to rid ourselves of the silly executive order that Gerald Ford signed in the 1970's barring the United States from assasinating foreign leaders? I'm having trouble distinguishing why its unacceptable to take out Saddam Hussein with half a dozen sharpshooters, but okay to drop several tons of bombs on him.

There are some horrendous, evil leaders in the world who do not require an entire war to deal with. Robert Mugabe? Take him out with one shot. Bashar Al-Asad? Buh-bye.

But if we do it, what prevents them from doing the same thing to us? Well, the Secret Service, for one. It's not as though hostile regimes are refraining from assasinating the American president out of some sense of fair play. They'd be happy to kill him if they had the chance. But our security, intelligence, and special ops people are much better than theirs. Frankly, there are a few folks who the world would simply be better off without. Gerald Ford never won a national election in his life, so lets take off the handcuffs and start living in the real world again.

Presented for your perusal, without commentary. From the March 6, 2003 Janeane Garofalo interview on Fox's "The Pulse" with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: If you are wrong… and if the United States - and they will, this is going to happen - goes in, liberates Iraq [with] people in the street, American flags, hugging our soldiers… you gonna apologize to George W. Bush?

GAROFALO: I would be so willing to say, "I'm sorry". I hope to God that I can be made a buffoon of, that people will say, "You were wrong. You were a fatalist". And I will go to the White House on my knees on cut glass and say, "Hey, you and Thomas Friedman were right… I shouldn't have doubted you"…

Time to start smashing the bottles for her. Oops, I guess that was commentary.

Somebody help me out. At what point, exactly, did Greg Brady hair come back into style, and why wasn't there some sort of announcement?

When I was in high school in the mid-80's, you could've gotten killed for showing up with Brady Hair. It would've clashed with everyone else's mullet. But I work next-door to a high school, and I'd say about one out of every four boys now has a big, puffy, Greg/Mike Brady perm. I know style is cyclical, but aren't there at least a few things that are so bad that they never come back? And if so, shouldn't this have been one of them?

I wish every pastor and theological student (really every Christian, for that matter) would read this article by John Piper. Oh that we would have this view--Jonathan Edwards' view--of God in our lives! There is more truth, depth, and glory in this one sermon of Piper's (which, in turn, exposits Edwards) than in most entire Christian bookstores. I want this vision to be my template for an entire life of Christian ministry.

...our people need to hear God-entranced preaching. God himself needs to be the subject matter of our preaching, in his majesty and holiness and righteousness and faithfulness and sovereignty and grace. And by that I don't mean we shouldn't preach about nitty-gritty practical things like parenthood, and divorce and AIDS and gluttony and television and sex. We should indeed! What I mean is that everyone of those things should be swept right up into the holy presence of God and laid bare to the roots of its Godwardness or godlessness.

What our people need is not nice little moral, or psychological pep talks about how to get along in the world. They need to see that everything, absolutely everything – from garage sales and garbage recycling to death and demons have to do with God in all his infinite greatness. Most of our people have no one, no one in the world to placard the majesty of God for them. Therefore most of them are starved for the infinite God-entranced vision of Jonathan Edwards and they don't even know it.

If every Christian had Jonathan Edwards' view (which was the Bible's view) of God, we wouldn't have to wish for revival. It would be revival.

Sometimes the truth is just too good. Here's a paragraph from a straight news story in the Daily Herald, a suburban Chicago newspaper (to which I was alerted by Opinion Journal):

A former state worker with Democratic ties at a Joliet treatment center for the state's most dangerous sex offenders registered more than 125 of them to vote last fall.

Voting patterns show the child molesters, rapists and other sexual deviants overwhelmingly supported Democrats.

I guess this is some of that vaunted "diversity" the Democratic Party is always crowing about.

This is old news, but reading Mona Charen's excellent Useful Idiots has reminded me of it. It's hard to believe that you can still find this kind of mindset in the upper eschelons of American journalism, but there it is for all the world to see.

Recently, the conservative Media Research Center held their annual "Dishonor Awards" for the "Most Outrageously Biased Liberal Reporters of 2002." The winner of the "And They Called it Puppy Love Award" was Barbara Walters, who actually said this in the narration of her fawning 20/20 interview with Fidel Castro:

“For Castro, freedom starts with education. And if literacy alone were the yardstick, Cuba would rank as one of the freest nations on Earth. The literacy rate is 96 percent.”

Without exageration, this might be the single most stunning quote I've ever seen. Has anyone ever gone further to suck up to a murderous dictator? The mind reels at such fallacious reasoning. Surely, she couldn't have been buying this crap herself even as she was spewing it.

Barbara, dear. You poor, stupid twit. Literacy is not the yardstick of freedom. Freedom is the yardstick of freedom. Being able to move, speak, and think freely without being imprisoned or killed is the yardstick of freedom. And by that "yardstick," Castro proves to be an evil, murdering, tyrannical thug, as we have always known.

Her statement is akin to saying "For Hitler, freedom starts with exterminating Jews. And if dead Jews alone were the yardstick, Nazi Germany would rank as one of the freest nations on earth." The fact that she was willing to stretch this far to find a way to praise Fidel Castro should tell you something important about the bubble-heads who feed you your news.

For work reasons, I've been in touch over the past few days with some of the members of Jessica Lynch's family in Palestine, West Virginia. These are sweet, small-town folks. In a conversation with a local minister there, he (and we're not making this up, as Dave Barry would say) referred to Jessica's grandfather as her "grandpappy." Everyone in town has to be sick of the media innundation, but all the people I've talked to have still been unfailingly polite.

Anyway, I saw this in an article in the Parkersburg News and Sentinel, the main newspaper in the Lynch's area of Wirt County, recounting a phone conversation she had with her parents from her hospital bed in Germany:

At one point, Jessica asked if there had been any mention of her in The Parkersburg News and Sentinel.

Deadra said her daughter, who has dominated headlines for days in West Virginia and around the world, does not realize how much attention is focused on her and her family.

"I told her she was a hero," Deadra said.

Jessica Lynch asked if there had been any mention of her in the Parkersburg newspaper. How can you not love that?

I talked to my mom last night, who has been somewhat uncomfortable with my belief that the Bible is literally true. We have a very close relationship, and I've been trying to explain to her exactly what Christians do and don't actually believe, as opposed to the media stereotypes which (apart from me) are her main exposure to "biblical Christianity."

She was distressed that a college play in St. Louis (my hometown, where my folks still live) about Matthew Shepard was being picketed by "a church group from Topeka."

"Wait a second," I said, "let me guess. This is Fred Phelps' group."

For those of you who are not familiar with the "Reverend" Phelps, he is the originator of "God Hates Fags," and led protests at Shepherd's funeral, carrying signs saying things like "Burn in Hell Matthew Shepard." After the explosion of the space shuttle Columbia, his group handed out flyers saying "The 7 (sic) are in Hell!" and laying out "The Roster of the Damned, who entered Hell Feb. 1, 2003."

It's important to note that Phelps is entirely a media creation. He's an obscure moron who has no clue about biblical Christianity, but who is endlessly featured on television news programs because he says idiotic, controversial things (in news parliance, "he's great copy"), and because he supplies the media with the opportunity to put a negative face on "Christianity." In fact, Phelps' theology is unrecognizable as any historic form of biblical Christianity, and he represents a "church" of a couple of dozen people, almost all of whom are directly related to him (he has 13 children and 52 grandchildren).

"Let me see," my mom said, scanning the Post-Dispach article she had in front of her. "Yes, there it is, 'Rev. Fred Phelps.'"

"Don't worry, Mom," I said. "Fred Phelps is an idiot. I am what the world would call a 'fundamentalist' Christian. Most of my friends would be called 'fundamentalist Christians.' And I've never met one, singe fundamentalist Christian who thinks that Fred Phelps is anything more than an inbred moron. He's more of a cult leader than anything else. Just the fact that I knew exactly who you were talking about without having heard anything else about it should show you that this guy sticks out like a sore thumb."

She seemed greatly relieved that I did not support Phelps. I did point out to her that God makes His view of homosexuality abundantly clear and that His view is the only one that counts. But I shared with her that biblically the Christian's job is to reach out in love and preach the gospel to a homosexual, calling him to repentance and faith. The Christian's duty is not to stand outside the funeral of a homosexual gleefully announcing that the deceased is now "burning in hell."

Fred Phelps is going to have a lot to answer for when he stands before Christ at the judgement. If he thinks its hot where Matthew Sheperd is, he is going to be absolutely horrified at the temperature in the place where those who have practiced abominations in Christ's name go.

In thinking about the political poles and some of the crazy things I've been hearing and reading lately, I've had an original thought (though not necessarily a unique one--I'm sure I'm not the first one to have said this, but I've never heard anyone else say it): We often think of politics as existing on a line or a continuum. We speak in terms of being on the "left" or on the "right." But I've been having a different idea: think the political spectrum is actually much more like a circle than it is a continuum.

Within the regular two-party system, views can be seen as generally left, right, or center. But when you travel outside the normal political boundaries that we're used to, the further you get to the radical "left" or "right," the more the two viewpoints seem to begin to converge again. Thus the circlular idea: two things moving from a given point on a circle heading in opposite directions will be travelling away from each other for a while, but at some point they again getting closer again until they meet.

This observation is brought to mind by how much the radical right and the radical left have sounded like each other in opposing the Iraq war. (Incidentally, this doesn't make either of them wrong neccessarily, it's just an observation on their similarities in some areas.) And much further out on the fringe than either of these two groups, can you really easily tell the difference between a left-wing dictator and a right-wing dictator? Can you see much of a difference between the conspiracy theories of Noam Chomsky and the John Birch Society?

The further right or the further left you get, the more you end up with either anarchy or dictatorship.

Watch while Chronicles Magazine, the official publication of the more-conservative-than-thou Rockford Institute, plants a big, sloppy, wet one all over the French: A Message to Our French Friends

Among the gems you'll find here:

...we at The Rockford Institute and Chronicles are happier than ever with our decision to hold a conference in France in May 2003. Despite the false stereotype created by some Francophobic English and American writers, the French people are among the most courteous in the world, and we know that we can expect, even in this difficult period, nothing but the kindness and good manners that have always been shown to us and our friends and colleagues on trips to France.

And you look very lovely today, too, Mrs. Cleaver...

While I've been mostly watching FOX's coverage of the war (since whenever I turn on the others, they are usually only showing anti-war protests somewhere), I have to admit that I find parts of FOX's presentation a bit grating--particularly the breathless, "we have a huge breaking story!" tone of Shepard Smith no matter how mundane the news he's about to report. I swore that if I heard him say "You are loooooking liiiive..." one more time, I would throw a brick through the television.

That having been said, I've been greatly enjoying the quirky, idiosyncratic interplay between Smith (in the studio) and correspondent Rick Leventhal, who is embedded with a Marine unit deep in Iraq. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is an undercurrent of one-upsmanship, veiled inside jokes, and sarcasm that should drive me nuts but has actually been quite appealing to me. You never know whether one is going to make the other laugh at him or yell at him. For some reason, I have a feeling that it conveys a more accurate view of the mood on the battlefield than all the embedded Ted Baxters combined. Which has been the real strength of FOX's overall coverage--they've put us more on the battlefield with our actual, human, American soldiers than everyone else.

Opening Day has come and gone, and the Cardinals are 1-0. I say let's start the World Series today.

This is the best thing I've seen in a while: Saddam's Blog (I first found this link at the alert Scarecrow's blog)

A sampling:

Saturday, March 29, 2003:

Good news and bad news: The good news is that one of my missiles got through to Kuwait City and hit a shopping mall. The bad news is that I was aiming for the Target.... Get it? Aiming for the Target!! HA, HA, HA!

Who says brutal despots can't have a sense of humor?

I'm adding this one to my permanent list of blogs.