Merry Christmas

Boy, have I NOT felt like writing anything recently. It doesn't help that I'm buried up to my eyes in final projects, tests, and papers. Then we're off to Disney! I probably won't be back to blogging until January. See you next year.

Lynching? A-OK!

I guess lynching is OK when the victim is a middle-class, white, evangelical woman running for VP. See the news item here.

[picture from Drudge]

A Prediction!

I want to go on record as predicting something. The media have not broken any serious scandal about John McCain / Sarah Palin recently. Yes, they have been beating on Sarah Palin mercilessly, but we've heard nothing about the "Keating Five," or McCain's first marriage, etc. Does that sound strange to anyone?

Here's what I think: the media are saving any serious scandal-type stories until just before the election. If McCain starts getting some momentum - and polls are beginning to indicate that he is indeed getting some traction, perhaps the beginnings of a comeback - watch out! The weekend before the election the media will launch an all-out assault on McCain/Palin. The media are so heavily invested in an Obama presidency that they will never, NEVER allow McCain/Palin to have a chance.

If they wait until the weekend before the election, there won't be enough time for a news cycle to sort out what is true and what is smear. The goal will be to influence the undecideds against McCain and to stop any momentum.

I remember something like this happening with George Bush, 41, against Bill Clinton. Just as Bush started getting some momentum, Dan Rather and Ted Kopple came out with the story that George Bush had secretly met with the Iranians to delay the release of the American hostages until Reagan was in office. This story seemed to destroy any come-back, and put the Bush campaign on the defensive.

I'm no prophet, but ... watch for this in 2008.

Told Ya!

The "Criminalization of Christianity" - read about it here. It is not far in the future, folks, that Christians will be imprisoned in this country because of theological convictions. This is how things started in Nazi-Germany: very slowly, using ridicule, then laws for "good things," then gradually increasing limitations.

WOW!

Cleveland Browns - 35

Super Bowl Champions New York Football Giants - 14

Unbelievable!

Can Fascism Be Far Behind?

I've been listening on cd to Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, a fascinating book that roots modern American liberalism/progressivism not in Jeffersonian classical liberalism but in Italian fascism, German Nazism, and Marxism/Leninism, progressive movements all. In each of these movements, suppression of dissent was paramount, even under the (very progressive) Wilson administration! Compare this tendency of progressive movements to some reports on the Drudge Report today: here, here, and here.

This is a disconcerting trend. I've thought for years that here in America my grandchildren would have to face persecution for Christian/conservative/traditional beliefs; now, I'm wondering if my CHILDREN will face this. In some ways, maybe I will face this persecution. Once these hounds of intolerance have been released, who will reign them in?

As Michael Barone predicts, we may be seeing the beginning of a liberal "thugocracy."

Obama's Associations: Dangerous?

Charles Krauthammer's new column makes many of the same points I made in my previous post about Obama's character and associations. Read it here. Why do the MSM never ask these difficult questions?

Why I Cannot Vote for Barak H. Obama

WARNING: Long post!

I want to explain my reasoning behind why I think Barak Hussein Obama (henceforth, BHO) would not be good for this country. Of course, I speak as an individual, not as a representative of my church or the educational institution where I work. I have tried to watch and read as much as I can, and now that the election is nearing, I want to state some of my conclusions.

Let’s start with the positive. Cleary BHO is an energetic, good-looking, younger man with wide personal appeal. He is often articulate. He can be an inspiring speaker (when using a teleprompter). He is clearly a popular figure. He’s the first serious African-American candidate in American history, and I am genuinely excited about that. At first, he seemed to be a different kind of Af-Am candidate. He is appealing to the optimism and hope of young people. These are good things. I hold no personal animus toward BHO; in fact, between the two candidates, I’m much more irked by John McCain than BHO!

Speaking of John McCain, I need to say one more thing before I begin in earnest. One should not construe my strong criticism for BHO as strong support for a McCain presidency. I am very disappointed with the field of candidates the GOP put forward for this election. There were few strong leaders in the mix; I suspect most GOP heavyweights considered the election lost anyway, whether the candidate was Hillary or Obama, “So why,” they thought, “get a giant loss on my record? I’ll wait.” McCain, of course, does not have much time to wait. In any case, let me be clear: I’m not a huge McCain fan.

Back to BHO: there are several categories of reasons why I cannot support him.

Political Issues
The first is perhaps obvious: he’s a Democrat. Don’t laugh. I don’t associate with the Republican Party because I flipped a coin. I have reasons for voting the way I do, and when I look at issues, I usually side with the Republicans. Being a Democrat almost always sets a person at odds with what I believe. Look at what the Democratic Party stands for. I disagree with most of it. Why would I want to vote for a Democrat, no matter how popular, good looking or well-spoken s/he is? In general, I think Democrats are bad for the country, so why should I change my mind because of this particular candidate?

Dislike of America
Recently, in response to a question from a 7-year old girl, BHO said he’s running for president because American is not what it used to be, not what it once was. He has criticized his country in Germany. He often compares the United States negatively to other countries, even dictatorships! His association with Ayers and Dohrn (more on this below) again shows an alignment with people who hate this nation. Comments from BHO’s wife Michelle are also very disheartening. Is my country really all that bad? Are Americans bad people? BHO seems to think so. Despite his “hopeful” rhetoric, BHO spends much more time denigrating the United States than speaking positively of our accomplishments. I like my country; I don’t want as my president someone who doesn’t like it.

Foreign Support
BHO enjoys considerable support from abroad. Why should this matter? We are not electing a “king of the world.” Should we really think that non-Americans (e.g., Europeans, Asians, Africans) have the best interests of the United States in mind? Are they thinking of our security or of our economic prosperity? It might be one small factor to consider – the president is the face of the nation abroad – but that is a minor factor. In fact, when I consider what most non-Americans want from the US, I would be more likely to choose the candidate less popular overseas. Is an endorsement from Hamas really a good thing? Should we care what the French or the Germans think about our candidates? Are the endorsements of socialists and communist party leaders a good thing?

Lack of Experience
BHO has never run a business or been the executive officer of anything. A “community organizer” in the suburbs of Chicago is not significant experience for being the President of the United States. BHO said at the Saddleback Church Forum that he would not have nominated Justice Clarence Thomas for SCOTUS, based on his lack of experience. However, Justice Thomas had far, FAR, more experience than BHO has. As Hugh Hewitt said, “No corporation would make Obama CEO, and few states would elect him governor on his resume.” Some have criticized the McCain/Palin ticket for inexperience at the VP spot. Truth be told, Sarah Palin has more executive experience than BHO, and she’s running for VP, not President.

Not A Unifier
Despite all the rhetoric about being a unifier, BHO has never demonstrated bi-partisanship. Could a BHO supporter name ANY example of when he departed significantly from the stand of his own party? Has he sponsored ANY legislation that garnered broad bi-partisan appeal? McCain has demonstrated much more ability to cross the aisle and come together with members of the other party in order to achieve what he thinks is a greater good. BHO has never done this: never.

Judgment Issues
It bothers me that some BHO’s inner circle consists of people I would probably not even welcome into my home.

It began with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I understand that BHO does not subscribe to everything his pastor believes; I could say the same with reference to my pastor. However, my pastor has never uttered the kind of vitriol and anti-Americanism that I’ve heard from Wright. Nor would he use the kind of language Wright uses. The church BHO attends is not about building bridges. BHO knew the kind of church he was attending, and he continued to do so for 20 years. This demonstrates to me BHO’s inability to assess accurately the effects of his associations; BHO lacks judgment.

[As an aside, I think the whole Jeremiah Wright affair has set race relations in this country back about 30 years. What became clear is that many African Americans, as exemplified by the thousands who attend Wright’s church, are comfortable with a Wright-style of rhetoric, complete with racially charged language and sexual innuendo. As a result, many white people, who were comfortable with BHO as a candidate, believing the media-hyped persona that he was a different kind of Af-Am candidate (not a Jesse Jackson white-hater), became deeply disillusioned by the whole Wright affair. Perhaps BHO is not so different after all. In fact, maybe the supposed relational progress between blacks and whites in general is just a charade. The trust that many white people have developed with their black fellow-Americans was threatened, because now, it is clear that some African Americans can be cordial to their face, but on Sunday morning, can imbibe with approval such racially charged rhetoric. Far from being a unifier, BHO, quite unintentionally, has ended up being a divider.]

But the troubling associations do not end there. What about BHO’s associations with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn? This husband/wife team was part of the radical leftist organization called Weather Underground, a group which endorsed violence and declared war on the US government during the Vietnam era of the 1960’s. As far as I know, this couple has never expressed remorse about or renounced their previous commitments and actions. The connection between BHO and Ayers/Dohrn is still becoming clearer and clearer. At the very least, we know that Ayers contributed to BHO’s reelection campaign in Illinois; they live near one another in the Hyde Park area of Chicago and served on some committees together. As I am writing this, however, evidence is emerging that perhaps the relationship between these two is closer than BHO is willing to discuss publically. The charge is not that BHO believes or endorses everything Ayers/Dohrn do. The charge, from my perspective, is that BHO is content to associate with, in any sense, people who endorse such a radical, leftist agenda. Let’s reverse it: suppose John McCain had some loose associations with some former Nazis, or KKK members. Let’s say they gave him a little money for his presidential campaign and they served on a few boards together. Would it be a good defense simply to say something like, “Well, he doesn’t subscribe to those views”? I don’t want my president anywhere near such groups, on the right or the left. I think it is safe to say that at least BHO enjoys a political friendship with Ayers/Dohrn, and perhaps more. To me, this is big a problem: either BHO lacks the ability to make accurate character judgments, or he comfortably associates with radicals who hate America.

Finally, I draw attention to BHO’s associations with real estate developer Tony Rezko. This man was convicted of fraud and bribery in 2008. He is clearly a political operative in Chicago, and he has raised money for all sorts of politicians, including Republicans, even George Bush! My complaint is not that, because Rezko raised money for BHO and was subsequently convicted of fraud/bribery, therefore BHO is guilty of shady activities. Rather, my complaint is that BHO is comfortable in his dealings with men like Rezko. The Obamas and the Rezkos bought some adjoining real estate together and, from what I have been able to gather, clearly enjoyed a cozy political/financial relationship. Again, the issue is judgment.

Economic Policies
The American government spends too much money. Obama wants to spend more. He has gone on record stating that he intends to raise taxes. He claims to intend to raise taxes only on the “wealthiest” Americans, but we know from other politicians (and Obama is just another politician) that this kind of promise quickly melts away. Taxes destroy the earning power of individuals, ruin incentives to be successful, and slow the economy. Our economy is too fragile right now to jeopardize it with increased taxes. He also wants to raise the estate tax, which means the government can take more from people’s estate when they die, which means their descendents get less and less of the estate. Under an Obama presidency, taxes will increase, at a variety of levels, and spending will balloon out of control. This is what led to the horrible economic conditions of the Carter years. We can’t afford Obama; he’s simply too expensive.

Foreign Policy Issues
BHO exhibits laughable naiveté, or worse, in his policy on Iraq. His ad with the mantra “We can stop a war,” complete with glazed-eyed young people, is insulting. There are huge international issues at stake here, and yes, oil is one of them, but it is not the only one. American presence in the Middle East is almost a necessity. He has only begrudgingly admitted that the surge has brought about significant security improvement. He has refused to admit that the Maliki government has reached about 12 of the 18 political benchmarks that his party demanded. He has continued to cater to the radical fringe of his party. McCain’s statement that “Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign” rings true for me. BHO does not support a strong American; rather, he wants a weak, apologetic America. I agree that our nation has made errors and mistakes in our dealings with other nations, but it is not a sign of strength and confidence to duck and run, to apologize everywhere, and to act guilty. Our country does far more good than evil.

Moral Issues
Abortion: BHO has an extremely anti-life voting record from both his time as a state senator and his brief time in the US Senate. I realize that many people accuse “pro-lifers” (or “anti-abortionists”) of single-issue voting, but the fact remains that the consistent destruction of our future is a human rights issue, and BHO fails to demonstrate any ability to rethink the radical policies of his party. Forget abortion on demand; forget partial-birth abortion; BHO has even voted to support the intentional killing of humans who have survived attempted abortions, which is essentially a form of infanticide. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who defends these practices. The Democratic Party platform of making abortion “safe, legal, and rare” is a lie (this year they have even taken out the word “rare”). The only part they actually support is the middle one. Democrats have opposed every attempt to regulate the safety and health standards of the abortion industry as well as any attempt to limit its destructive effects, even parental notification laws. BHO shows no sign whatsoever of being a new kind of candidate on this issue.

He has pledged to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” as one of his first acts as president. This would wipe away all state restrictions on abortion funding. He will force all taxpayers to pay for abortions. He advocates no restrictions on late-term abortions or any kind of abortions.

Homosexuality: This is a complex moral issue currently facing our body politic, but, true to the radical policies of the Democratic Party, BHO supports the complete legalization of gay marriage, equating lesbian and gay relationships with heterosexual marriage. There is room, in my opinion, for talking about various proposals for recognizing the legality of domestic partnerships, and the like, but to redefine – legally – an institution as fundamental as marriage is not something to be done lightly. I’ve not even begun to talk about the Biblical aspects here. Whenever a culture seeks to endorse and approve, let alone recognize and permit, something that Scripture clearly proscribes, that culture, at one point or another, sooner or later, will reap negative effects. I oppose the legalization of gay marriage; BHO supports it; ergo, I oppose the candidacy of BHO.

Conclusion
BHO’s candidacy is certainly historic. I think Americans should be happy that an Af-Am candidate has been put forward by a major party as its nominee. But I don’t think we should vote on the basis of race, or gender; we should vote policy. No matter how much we may like BHO, his policies are not good for this country.

Many of my readers are probably thinking of John McCain’s many faults as they read my words here. I am not saying John McCain is the ideal candidate. I have several problems with him, and I would probably not have chosen him to be the candidate for the GOP. But, despite his negatives, and despite the mistakes I think John McCain will make, I still believe he will make a far, far better president than the junior senator from Illinois.

A Simple Question!

Check this out:

Met at [his Senate office] door by a few reporters, [Barack Obama] answered a key question — at least for his generation.
"Beatles or Stones?" asked a Congressional Quarterly reporter.
"Stones," Obama replied.

How sick!

I would have answered, "The Statler Brothers!"

[image]

Obama and the Media

I couldn't agree more with this op-ed piece in the Washington Times. Our media have never been very objective, but this year, it seems ridiculous.

[image]

Hilarious! The Lipstick Brigades!

Read about this campaign event in Colorado here. It is where I got this picture.

Heavy Handed Redacting!

The edits out of the interview between Charlie Gibson and Governor Palin are laughable. ABC did its best to portray Governor Palin as a Bambi-like ignoramus. Look at what was edited out here at Mark Levin's website. Amazing. This much is clear: they don't know how to handle this woman, but it is clear what they want to do with her. [picture] Perhaps the McCain/Palin team should have agreed to the interview only if ABC played it in its entirety. The McCain/Palin team should have also demanded to have a copy of their own.

Pretty Sad When A "Truth Squad" is Necessary

McCain-Palin has had to assemble a "Truth Squad" to counter the dis-information of the Obama-Biden smear campaign. Read about it here, and see who the members are.

Free advice to Obama-Biden: "Don't go there!" I would not want to get on the wrong side of that list of women.

Palin News

Here's a realistic appraisal of Palin's background, written by a Brit who's lived in Alaska.

Here's a response to many of the rumors flying around about Palin, at Newsweek, of all places!

I was happy with the choice, but I'm surprised at two things:

1) how much the left hates her guts;

2) how effective she has been at re-energizing the Republican party.

I'm amazed. GO SARAH!

UPDATE: Ohio campaign sign:

America Respects John McCain;

America Loves Sarah Palin

Absolutely Brilliant! The Election is Over

Barak Obama just lost the election. Read about this amazing woman here and here.

Here is a list of some important blog posts about Governor Palin. Here's an article by Fred Barnes about Gov Palin's reform work in Alaska.

UPDATE:

Read this article. I laughed my head off!

Here's an excerpt:

It's as though Karl Rove sat down with pen and paper and sketched out the perfect conservative nominee....
A hunter with a lifetime membership in the NRA.
Regularly attends church.
Fought corruption even within her own party.
Knew her son would have Down Syndrome and still chose life.
Has a son who is headed to Iraq, but still supports the war.
Has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined.
Sold the governor's state plane because it's a waste of tax dollars.
Her husband is a union laborer.
Wants to drill in ANWR.
Oh yeah, she's a woman!

For a collection of more discussion of the McCain/Palin ticket, follow Hugh Hewitt's links here.

UPDATE:

Here's the link to a story in the British TimesOnline. Pretty fair, though there were a few potshots. I really loved the comments. They are about 5-1 in favor of Palin. I think McCain succeeded in energizing not only his ticket, and the convention, but the whole Republican party!

More praise - it keeps pouring in. Here (Fred Barnes), here (Bill Kristol), and look at all the blog postings at BeldarBlog! And here's a often humorous comparison between Palin and Obama.

Still Trouble in Georgia

In my opinion, this is a flag we should all become familiar with. It is the Georgian flag. Recent reports are that the Russian army has pulled out significantly but not to pre-invasion marks. They also have not left the port of Poti, the main deep water, commercial port along Georgia's west coast.

What is Russia gaining here? It seems Moscow is intent on flexing its muscle in its previous, Soviet-era, sphere of influence. With most of the West busy with other issues, like Iraq and Iran, and with most of Europe dependent on Russian oil, Moscow thinks the time is right for a re-assertion of influence. The West has no desire to go to war with Russia, so what have they got to lose?

This picture, of a Russian soldier on the road between Tbilisi and Gori, pretty well sums it up.

Very Interesting Article

I found an excellent article about Rick Warren in the Wall Street Journal (thanks to Justin Taylor at "Between Two Worlds"). The gist of the article is that the huge "lurch to the political left" that evangelicals are supposedly doing is a farce. The MSM have interpreted an interest among evangelicals in environmental issues, poverty, and disease as an embracing of a leftist agenda. This interpretation, though, only reveals the bias of the interpreters. Why assume that government is the only solution? Rick Warren makes clear that a person can both be passionate about such "liberal" issues AND be someone who strongly believes in limited government. Why is this so hard to understand?

Here's a key quote:

Over the years, [Warren] has repeated the idea that he became a pastor instead of a politician because he does not have a lot of confidence in the ability of government to get things done. In addition to social issues and foreign policy, this is where evangelicals often part ways with more secular types.
The media assume that when religious people express interest in the problems of poverty and disease, they must have taken a left turn politically. But one can be interested in solving such problems without believing that government is the solution. "Our government has spent trillions of dollars in Africa," says Mr. Warren, "and the standard of living is worse now than it was 50 years ago." He knows whereof he speaks, having launched a massive effort to help the country of Rwanda rebuild itself. "There is only one way to get people out of poverty and it's not charity. It's jobs."

Read the whole article here.

The Most Heroic Moments in British History

Here's the results from a TimesOnline survey:

Battle of Britain - 55%


Declaration of War on Nazi Germany in 1939 - 20.8%


Defeat of the Spanish Armada - 8.9%


Slave Trade Act - 5.9%


Napoleonic Wars - 5.4%


Oliver Cromwell - 3.3%


King Alfred's Danish Wars (huh?) - 2.8%



{image}

Charles Williams Quote

On my way to Sri Lanka, I read a book by one of the "inklings," Charles Williams, called The Place of the Lion. It didn't do much for me - I probably didn't understand most of it - but I did find an interesting quote, on the first page no less. I should've have stopped reading then.

{image}

Mightn't it be a good thing if everyone had to draw a map of his own mind - say, once every five years? With the chief towns marked, and the arterial roads he was constructing from one idea to another, and all the lovely and abandoned by-lanes that he never went down, because the farms they led to were all empty?

Movie Reviews

It's movie month at my house! We signed up for Blockbuster's movie pass for one month. We can check out two movies at a time, as many times as we want, all for the low, low price of about $30. Here's a partial review...hopefully, more to come.

10,000 B.C.

I watched this movie with the family, and we all liked it. It was a good escape, including elements such as adventure, tension, romance, etc. I especially liked its ancient setting. I felt like I was watching an episode of "Age of Empires." In the West, we forget that for most of human existence, life has been very fragile and violent, might making right, ubiquitous evil and cruelty. Although that exists in much of the world, we generally don't fear a clan of mauraders sweeping down from, say, Canada, or up from Mexico, killing, burning, raping and pillaging anything in their way. In this movie, that is exactly what the characters face. I liked it.

Vantage Point

Again, a hit. I love the intrigue of an assassination, international violence, conspiracy, plots, etc. We were all on the edge of our seats for most of the movie. I liked how the various perspectives of the movie were gradually assembled to create the full story. Well done.

Rails and Ties

A nice, warm fuzzy, feel good movie starring Kevin Bacon and Marcia Gay Harden. A train engineer's wife has terminal cancer and after some tragic events, the engineer and his wife have to care for a little boy who starts to live with them. Again, I liked it, though it was a bit syrup-y at points. It showed how people deal with pain and death and tragedy. In one particular scene, a social worker has to choose between doing what is technically legal and what is morally right. She chooses the right (which I think is unusual for social workers). Sometimes rules have to be broken to achieve a greater good.

There Will Be Blood

This movie got a lot of hype from the industry and the media, probably because it demonizes capitalism, oil companies, and Christianity. Putting all that bias aside, I still did not care for the movie. Daniel Day-Lewis is good, but the story itself did not grip me. I was repulsed by the religious hypocrisy and I was disgusted at the callous heart of Daniel Plainview, the oilman. There were points I got bored. I couldn't keep my daughter interested either. It tries to be an epic, but I don't think it succeeds.

Jumper

Yeah, not much to say here. Nice premise, but the movie did not deliver.

The Death of Protestant America

Please read this essay: "The Death of Protestant America: A Political Theory of the Protestant Mainline." It is available at _First Things_: Here's the link. I especially hope you young people read it. The author, Joseph Bottum, offers a great survey of religion (Christianity) and its influence in American, and in doing so, describes an American that few of you young people have ever seen, let alone remember.

His conclusion is worth thinking about: the only voices left in America that can provide a "national conscience" are Catholicism and Evangelicalism, both of which, in his opinion, have too many problems. Please read the essay.

Obama's Narcissism Knows No Ends

Another devestaing critique of Barak Hussein Obama by the ever sharp Charles Krauthammer. When Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate, Krauthammer observes:

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronal Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.
Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Read the rest here.

IMHO, self-absorption is a serious disqualification for the highest office in the land.

ATTN: Obama Freaks!

Here's a nice post by Hugh Hewitt on contrasting BO with John McCain. Read it here.

The Fourth of July celebrations will get underway for many Americans with an early getaway today. At picnics and backyard barbecues across the country the conversation will turn to politics, and particularly to Barack Obama. ...

"More Privileges than Any POWs in History"

The testimony of a former JAG officer:
"Gitmo detainees are given more privileges than any POWs in history" (not verbatim quote, but very close).
Watch the video here.

GAFCON Statement

Here's the GAFCON statement in full. I was very encouraged by it. I think something very interesting has begun in the Anglican communion. I wish I could be a part of it...

Brothers and Sisters in Christ: We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, send you greetings from Jerusalem!

Read the whole thing here.

I'm Baaaaaaaaaack!

After about a month hiatus - I was on a teaching trip to Sri Lanka - I'm back and hope to make some posts soon. Of course, we're off again soon for a short vacation. For reasons of my own, I decided not to blog about my trip.

"The Cup Is In The House!!!!"

TONIGHT...REDWINGS VERSUS PENGUINS...
AND THE CUP IS IN THE HOUSE! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! GET CUP CRAZY!"

IJ & Crystal Skull: "I Want My Money Back!"

WARNING: spoilers ahead.



I took my family to see "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" on Sunday night while we were on a short trip upstate. We stayed in "The Jameson Inn" on Clemson Road, then spent Memorial Day hiking to waterfalls near Walhalla. In any case, I spent $39 for this piece of entertainment. To be brief, I want my money back.



Clearly, the Indiana Jones franchise has "jumped the shark." Of course, IJ is known for his thrill-packed action sequences, but seeing a group of 4-5 people go over three consecutive South American Niagra-type waterfalls of over 50 feet each in a military style amphibious vehicle - all the while staying in or very near the vehicle - well, I checked out.

Picture

Also, the whole "alien" motif was, in my opinion, lame. Nice try.



IJ is known for action sequences with a supernatural element thrown in. "Raiders" was with Judaism; "Temple of Doom" was with some kind of tribal Hinduism (I think); "Last Crusade" was with Christianity; "Crystal Skull" was with extra-terrestrial life? I suppose the supernatural element had nowhere to go to gain my sympathies. But aliens? It didn't work. I would have been happier even with a "Scooby-Do" type "it looks supernatural but its really not" kinda thing.



Harrison Ford is old...like really OLD. Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood, again, she is OLD. The magic was not there, though I liked the "family" element, that Indy and Marion had conceived a son together. I thought that was kinda cute.



The Russians were nice enemies, though again, the Nazis are simply too much fun to hate. I can't quite hate the Russians in the same way.



The Cate Blanchett character, Irian Spalko, was...just weird.

So, all in all, the romance was weak, the supernatural element was too fanciful, and the stunts unbelievable. IMHO, "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" are great; "Temple of Doom" and "Crystal Skull" are too dark or too weird/overdone.

Irmo High Principal Resigns Over Gay Club

The principal of Irmo High School, here in Columbia (about 2 miles from my house!) resigned recently over the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance Club in his school. Read the story here. He resigned because the club conflicts with his professional and religious beliefs. I respect his decision (he was apparently a popular principal), but I'm not sure that this is the right course of action. If every Christian did that, this would be an easy way to rid the government school system of Christians, just start up Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs and off go the Christians. Must we agree with everything the courts demand of us? In any case, my heart goes out to this man of conviction who has made a very difficult choice. (Photo from FOXNews website)

UPDATE: "Prince Caspian" Shocker!

Could it be? Some are suggesting that the movie, "Prince Caspian," is actually BETTER than the book! GASP!


Fredrica Mathews Green writes an interesting piece in NRO. Her discussion ranges wide, touching other movies that were better than the books that inspired them. [BTW, she includes in that list _Lord of The Rings_, which will infuriate some philo-Tolkien-ists, but...I actually agree.]


Having reread the book so close to seeing the movie, I can see why she says Prince Caspian the movie is better than Prince Caspian the book. After finishing PC, I told my wife, "This is not the best of the Chronicles of Narnia." Green makes some of the same points I was thinking about. There actually isn't a whole lot of action in the book (one battle scene), whereas the movie has three major battles. It seems most of the book is taken up with the Pevensie children traveling to get to Prince Caspian, whereas the movie covers that journey pretty quickly.


John Mark Reynolds writes a positive review as well. He doesn't discuss how the movie trumps the film as much as Green does; rather, his is a reflection on how good the film was. I agree. My kids loved it, and I want to go see it again.

"Prince Caspian" Movie Review

OK, so we all, the whole fam, went to see "Prince Caspian" on Saturday. We had actually just watched LWW again that morning, so the first volume was fresh in my mind.

(CAUTION: there will be some spoilers ahead!)

First, I was impressed by the action. For the first 20 minutes, I felt like the movie grabbed me by the throat and wouldn't let go! Very good.

Second, the fight scenes were much better than LWW. They kept the lighting dark, which was one of my complaints against LWW in which the big battle scene was so "sunny" that I thought they should be having a picnic rather than fighting a war with the White Witch. This time, Adamson kept things dark which added to the realism and other worldliness of Narnia.

Third, they took certain liberties with the story-line, but all in all, I was not disappointed in what they did. For example, the book starts out with the four children at the train station, but the movie begins with Caspian's flight from the castle. They also added later a fight scene at the castle which does not appear in the book at all. Nevertheless, it was well done. There is a very moving scene in that section of a minotaur holding up the gate of the castle so many his comrades can escape. My kids all spoke of that scene later when we shared our opinions of the movie.

Fourth, there was some romantic tension between Queen Susan and Prince Caspian during the whole movie, but at the end, it all comes out and Queen Susan goes up to the prince (now King!) and lays one on the lips! It was a bit shocking at first, but as I thought about it, it was appropriate. Peter and Susan aren't children any more, and that scene underscored the maturity of the older two Pevensie children.

Which leads me to this: Fifth, I was surprised how attached I've become to these actors/actresses who portray the Pevensies. When Peter and Susan announce they won't be coming back, I got all teared up. It was kind of a "Puff the Magic Dragon" moment; they are too old for Narnia now. All my affection for these literary characters has been transferred to these young actors; I suppose that means they have done their jobs well!

Sixth, the guy who played the dwarf Trumpkin was amazing. You'll know what I mean when you see it.

Some differences between the book and the movie

I reread the book yesterday so I could contrast it with the movie while the movie was still fresh in my mind. Here's a summary of prominent contrasts:

The book starts with the four whereas the movie begins with Caspian's ride.

The book sets the train station as a small country station with no one else present; the movie sets the train station in busy London and the scene is one of chaos (and therefore Peter's fight with other students is totally created; I don't know why. Peter comes out looking rather bad in the movie.)

The book devotes considerable space to the relationship between Caspian and his tutor, Dr. Cornelius. The movie barely develops Dr. Cornelius at all.

When Caspian is found, the book puts three (Trumpkin, Nikakbrik and Trufflehunter) in a cave; the movie puts only Nik and Truff, and it is in a tree, not a cave.

Chapter VI there is a prominent scene of fawns dancing; there's no dancing, that I remember, in the movie.

In the book, Caspian blows the horn after some initial battles with King Miraz's forces; in the movie, he blows the horn almost immediately, when he is still riding away from the castle.

The book devotes considerable space to Trumpkin and the children rowing in a boat to get off the island. I don't remember much rowing at all in the movie. The whole travel sequence is abbreviated.

In the book, the bridge at Beruna simply disappears, whereas in the movie, the bridge is the scene of another battle.

Well, there are many more differences, but these are illustrative. I think the spirit of the book was preserved, even if a few liberties were taken here and there. All in all, WELL DONE! This is better than "LWW," and I hope "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (my personal favorite) (2010) will be better still.

A Fetus's Worst Nightmare

Check out this post at "Between Two Worlds" on Barak Obama's abortion commitments. Frightening. Horrific.

12 Spiritual Lessons from Prince Caspian

I thought this was a great article, written by Kris Rasmussen. Read it here. The movie opens today, I believe.

I'm summarizing the 12 main points here, but the whole thing is worth the read.

1. Time Really Is Relative.

2. Let Go of Great Expectations.

3. Faith Shouldn't Be Decided by a Majority Vote.

4. Hang on to Faith in a Culture of Doubt.

5. Fear Not, for God is With You.

6. Be Thankful for Blessings in Disguise.

7. Make Time to Enjoy God's Presence.

8. Actions Can Have Lasting Consequences.

9. Vanity Corrupts Character.

10. Loyalty and Sacrifice will be Rewarded.

11. Stick Close to Your Spiritual Family.

12. Leaders Are Made, Not Born.

So Much for Separation of Church and State

This flyer says it all. Unbelievable. Find it here.

"Over A Barrel" - Ariel Cohen article

Today on the Rush Limbaugh show, Rush read a column by Ariel Cohen, who is Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Davis International Studies Institute at the Heritage Foundation. He is a specialist in Russian, Turkish, and Israeli issues. Here's the first paragraph:

As you go deep into debt filling up your tank with $4 gas this weekend, look on the bright side - you're helping to fund countries that hate you.

Read the whole article here. His analysis is, imho, excellent, as was Rush's commentary.

Here's his conclusion:

To stave it off and to combat its oil-rich adversaries, the US needs, in the short term, to expand its domestic energy sector. Increasing oil and gas production in the West, along the Pacific and Atlantic continental shelf, and in Alaska will help, and so will a coal and nuclear power build-up.

The US Congress should also abolish corn ethanol subsidy and lift tariffs on the really competitive ethanol made from sugar cane. Brazil and Africa can produce more ethanol than Iowa and Nebraska. However, in the long term, more advanced technological solutions are vital to stem the global wealth redistribution to OPEC potentates and other America-haters.

Narnia Character Quiz

I'm Prince Caspian; so is my son, Andrew. Who are you?

Find out here.

Israel at Sixty

May 15th, 1948 is "Independence Day" for Israel, so this year will mark the 60th anniversary. Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic.com has written a thoughtful reflection on Israel's present state. Read it here. Here's one quote, from a prominent Israeli writer:

“[Prime Minister of Israel] Olmert is paralyzed because the people are paralyzed,” A. B. Yehoshua said. “The whole country is paralyzed.”

The article discusses many issues, especially the war in Lebanon in 2006, the settlements in the West Bank, Hamas/Hezbollah/Fatah, the Two State solution, the recent killings at a Jerusalem yeshiva, and the current angst among Israelis. The article focuses especially on a rift between PM Ehud Olmert and a prominent Israeli novelist, David Grossman, who lost his son Uri in the war in Lebanon. The article is a bit long, but very informative.

As I read it, I was struck by the wide spectrum of opinion among Israelis, which, in one sense, is nothing unusual. However, I was struck by how similar the situation is today to the First century. In Israel today, we see ultra-leftists, concerned with human rights, etc., calling for reconciliation with the Palestinians. On the other hand, we see the intransigent and recalcitrant Jewish settlers who will never leave the West Bank and for whom compromise is equivalent to religious apostacy and national treason. Caught in the middle are many, many families - on both sides, Jew/Arab - trying to live their lives in relative peace and prosperity.

In a sense, not much has changed. Think of the situation in the First century. We had the ultra-leftists, who advocated compromise with Rome and the hard-line zealots, who advocated open rebellion.

The Attraction of Liturgy

An article in CT discusses briefly the attraction liturgy has for evangelicals. Here's a quote:

The worship leaders wear medieval robes and guide the congregation through a ritual that is anything but spontaneous; they lead music that is hundreds of years old; they say prayers that are scripted and formal; the homily is based on a 2,000-year-old book; and the high point of the service is taken up with eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a Rabbi executed in Israel when it was under Roman occupation. It doesn't sound relevant.

Read the whole thing here. The article did not discuss why I am attracted to liturgy though.

Evangelical Political Involvement?

Joe Carter, whose blog is one of the leading Christian voices in the blogosphere, writes that evangelicals in the political process are like unicorns: powerful in the imagination, but factually non-existent. Here's a powerful pull quote:

More Christians voted for the 5th place contestant on last week's American Idol than have petitioned to defund abortion mills.

Ouch! Read the whole thing here.

Something Beautiful Has Begun

Peggy Noonan, one of my favorite columnists, and a catholic, has written a piece (here's the link) contrasting Pope John Paul II with Benedict XVI. "Something beautiful has begun." Perhaps so. Here's my favorite graph:

John Paul made you burst into tears. Benedict makes you think. It is more pleasurable to weep, but at the moment, perhaps it is more important to think.

That would be nice, to have a thinking church for a change.

Sex Ed on Campus

Here's a great column on the sexuality of today's college-aged students. Read it at the WSJ. Here's a sample:
After conducting a national college survey of over 2,500 students, I found that among those who reported "hooking up" -- a range of sexually intimate acts, from kissing to intercourse, that occur outside a committed relationship -- at Catholic and nonreligious private and public colleges and universities, 41% are profoundly upset about their behavior.

I'm going to have to chat about this a bit, but right now I've got to go. More later.

The Myth of Obama

Charles Krauthammer's new column mentions, among other things, the "myth of Obama."
Read it here.

Excellent Column Comparing MLK and BHO

Here's a great column by Juan Williams comparing/contrasting MLK to and with Barak Hussein Obama. He has expressed some of my own concerns.

Here is a key graph:

So far, Mr. Obama has been content to let black people have their vision of him while white people hold to a separate, segregated reality. He is a politician and, unlike King, his goal is winning votes, not changing hearts. Still, it is a key break from the King tradition to sell different messages to different audiences based on race, and to fail to challenge racial divisions in the nation.

Read the whole thing. It is well done.

UPDATE:

Another column by Richard John Neuhaus, at First Things, is also very sensitive and well written. In his opinion, the whole Obama/Wright issue is setting back race relations in this country, and I agree.

A Huge Decision for Conservative Anglican Churches

A court in Virginia has apparently ruled that conservative churches which broke away from the national church over issues related to human sexuality can keep their property and assets. Here's the story in the WaTimes. This is the largest case of its kind in the US. Here are some blog reactions: from Stand Firm, Transfigurations, and here's the whole decision (in .pdf format).

UPDATE:

More responses: VirtueOnline, from the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV), and from the TimesOnline. Now from the Office of the Presiding Bishop, and from Christianity Today.

Eliot Spitzer and Barak Obama: Profiles in Hypocrisy

The recent revelations about the private life of ex-governor Eliot Spitzer and the recent revelations about the convictions of Barak Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, have a common denominator: hypocrisy.

The whole Eliot Spitzer affair (no pun intended) is disappointing on several fronts. First, his professional reputation was made, among other things, by aggressively going after those involved in prostitution. To find out that he himself was involved in prostitution at that very time, is the height of hypocrisy. The public has a reasonable expectation that law enforcement officials who hold others to the law are doing so themselves. Spitzer has helped create the illusion that strong “law and order” type prosecutors are actually living outside the law themselves. A similar thing happens when some pastor who preaches strongly about sexual morality is himself a closet homosexual or serial adulterer. These kinds of events create the impression that no one really lives a moral life. It is an unusual application of the old rabbinic hermeneutical rubric that reasons from the harder case to the easier: “if it is not so in this case (and it should be), how much more is it not so in this case (where the expectation is not so high).” If even a prominent prosecutor, who more than the average person should be living a law abiding, moral life, does not, then how much more so should we expect that the average person does not live a law abiding, moral life.

Second, the Spitzer affair is painful on the personal front. Think of the shame that he has brought down upon his precious wife, a kind-hearted, Baptist, North Carolinian who has spent significant resources contributing to charity and teaching her daughters the importance of thinking of others. Did his wife really not know about his sexual escapades? If she didn’t know, she looks naïve and gullible; if she did know, she is a willing participant in the charade. What a sad situation to put one’s loved one in. Think of the shame he has brought upon his daughters, who will now forever be known as the daughter of a disgraced governor. Think of his wider family, his friends, his associates who believed in him and in what he was trying to do. These are all casualties of flawed moral decisions.

Finally, the Spitzer affair is saddening when you consider the individual, the man Eliot Spitzer. What was he thinking? What drives a man to engage in such reckless, self-destructive behavior? Sex? I suspect it was that, but also much more. There is something deep within, something deeply wrong, that drives a person to risk so much for so little. A bright future – possibly the first Jewish president, I heard one commentator say – has vanished amid the jokes of late night talk show hosts.

The whole Spitzer affair can be summarized in one word: hypocrisy.

How does all this bring us to the Obama / Wright issue? Because, at its core, the problem is the same: hypocrisy.

Obama has cast himself as a person who transcends race. Being half-white/half-black himself, he certainly appears to be uniquely positioned to give expression to the best hopes and dreams of our nation, that people of all racial groups can settle and live here together and lead productive, prosperous lives. Barak has tapped into that dream, that hope, the deeply held conviction that our country is profoundly good. Here we do not find a Jesse Jackson like candidate, who is angry, and so race conscious. Here we find someone who appeals to both black and white people of all socio-economic and political perspectives. Barak portrays an America we like.

The recent revelations about the theology, the racial perspective, and the political convictions of Barak’s pastor have destroyed all those hopes and dreams. Some have attempted to pass this off as something inconsequential, that Barak doesn’t really hold to every conviction of his pastor. I can understand that, and at first I was inclined to believe it. However, much more has come to light since the story broke. I didn’t know that Barak had attended this particular church for 20 years; I didn’t know that Wright did Barak and Michelle’s wedding; I didn’t know that Wright baptized the Obama’s daughters; I didn’t know that the title of one of Barak’s books came from a Wright sermon; I didn’t know that Barak considers Wright a mentor. When all this information came out, I was deeply discouraged. Barak’s association with Wright is clearly neither distant nor minimal. When we heard the excerpts from Wright’s sermons, we began to realize that our picture of Obama was untrue. Barak is an angry man. His wife is angry. His pastor is angry. The racial reconciliation that we thought Obama embodied was a charade. Just as with Eliot Spitzer, we can ask this: if genuine racial reconciliation has not taken place in this case (and we thought it had), how much more should we not expect it in other cases. Obama is a hypocrite.

A Liberal Converts to Conservatism

Read the article here, at, of all places, "The Village Voice." Playwrite David Mamet: I think he's in for a rude awakening, when he finds out how hateful people can be.

Bernard Lewis Interview

What we are facing now is the third major threat to the world. The first was Nazism, the second Bolshevism and now this. There are parallels. Germany is a great nation, and German patriotism is a perfectly legitimate expression of the pride and loyalty Germans have for their country. But Nazism was a monstrous perversion of that and a curse to the Germans, as well as a threat to the rest of the world.

The aspiration for social betterment and social justice is very noble. But Bolshevism was a monstrous perversion of that, as well as a curse to Russia and a threat to the rest of the world.

Now we have a third similar situation. Islam is one of the great religions that sponsored one of the greatest civilizations in human history. But it has fallen into the hands of a group of people who are the equivalent of the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. They are a curse to their own people, as well as a threat to the rest of the world.

Here's the link.

British-born Bernard Lewis, renowned Arabist (and Jew!), was professor at Princeton. An interesting interview.

Terrorist Attack in Jerusalem

A terrible terrorist attack occured today in West Jerusalem, in the area of Kiryat Moshe. Here are some important links to the story.

The seminary itself.

The wikipedia entry.

Blog coverage.

More blog coverage.

A Jerusalem Post article.

The BBC article.

FOXNews coverage.

UPDATE:

More BBC reporting here.

An article in Int'l Herald Trib.

Response from Hamas.

Graphic photos.

Take the Hermeneutics Quiz!

I'm a "conservative" (surprise!). How do my former students score? Here's the link. (Hit the "take assessment" button.)

More News about Barak H. Obama

Evangelicals for Barak H. Obama? See more discussion about the Democrat "wunderkind," BHO. See the post by Justin Taylor. He has some good discussion of Evangelicals and BHO.

The Real Barak H. Obama

Here's a helpful column which tells us a little more about the likely Democratic candidate for President of the United States. We don't know much, that is for sure, but this column helps elucidate a few things about his voting record.

Anglican Realignment Videos

Here is a great set of YouTube videos explaining the current situation facing the world-wide Anglican communion, and specifically the Diocese of New Westminster (the Vancouver, BC. area). Here's a handy collection of links to the videos. The videos are in 10 parts: parts 1-5 and 10 are an interview with Rev David Short, Rector of St. John's Shaughnessy, a congregation which recently voted to separate from the local Diocese and to align itself with an alternative pastoral oversight; parts 6-9 are an interview with Dr. J.I. Packer, famous evangelical theologian. I found the discussions with Rev Short to be very informative concerning the current situation, especially from an historical and political perspective, whereas the discussions with Dr. Packer are more basic and theological. If you attend an Anglican/Episcopal church, or have any interest in global Christianity, this is an important issue, and I recommend that you watch all these videos.

Ben Stein's Movie

Check out the trailer of a new movie involving Ben Stein. Here's the link. It is called "Expelled," and it has to do with Intelligent Design. I love the scene of Stein writing on the blackboard, "Do not question authority; Do not question Darwinism." Naughty boy!

Good News from Iraq

The never-ending narrative of defeat in Iraq from the Democrats is impervious to reality. Read the recent column from Charles Krauthammer.

Here's how the column ends, with a telling question:

Imagine the transformative effects in the region, and indeed in the entire
Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United
States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his
that they would deny their own country a now-achievable victory?

This is why a Democrat in the WH is so depressing. They care more about hating GWB than about their own country winning. That is sad.

Obama-Mania!

So, you thought I was a bit out of control in my comments about BO? Read the most recent column from that source of calm sagacity, Charles Krauthammer. Here's the link.

UPDATE:

Now Drudge reports that BO's campaign is suffering from fainting fits! See here.