Commercialized Prayer. Wow. It's Really Come to This!

"We are disappointed in the lack of participation by the Obama administration," Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Committee, said in a statement. "At this time in our country's history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer."

Wow.  I hope that Shirely Dobson never has the opportunity to comment on my prayer life!  I have a feeling she would have a lot to judge, especially as I would much prefer to pray in private.  Before anyone has a chance to tell me I'm evil for having the audacity to call myself an Evangelical and yet question a Dobson, let me fully explain.

First of all, the National Day of Prayer as celebrated by the Bush family...  What was that really?   He invited both Christian and Jewish leaders to his office, gave a short speech about prayer and then invited them to pray.  Now, if he's going to invite Christian and Jewish leaders, then why not Muslim?  Why not Hindu?  What's the real purpose of this?  And, why, simply because Obama chooses to pray in private, rather than make a political spectacle of it, is he criticized? 

Delving in deeper... what is the history behind the National Day of Prayer?   The National Day of Prayer was established as a fixed holiday in 1952, although since the founding of our country various leaders have co-ordinated efforts for a National Day of Prayer . Ronald Reagan made sure that the date of the National Day of Prayer was the first Thursday in May.  Some credit Billy Graham as the one who instigated the more modern version of the idea, although it strikes me that his idea might not be the same one as Shirley Dobson and the National Day of Prayer Task Force.  His idea leaned more towards a day , "on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation  in churches, as groups and as individuals."  

If that's the purpose, then I don't see where a meeting at the White House fits in, and it also appears that Obama did participate in the National Day of Prayer. 

Another confusing thing about this day is the "National Day of Prayer Task Force".  This task force is in no way an official task force in any body's mind, except maybe their own.  However, if you go to their website, their logo makes it look official:  "National Day of Pray official site"  with an itty bitty nearly hidden task force under the banner.  It confused me as I first began to research this, and I'm certain that many people are under the false impression that this task force is actually the body that organizes the National Day of Prayer or actually has some kind of official status. 

What adds to this even more, is that the woman criticizing Obama is the woman who runs the task force that has actually commercialized the National Day of Prayer!  Yes, of course, the National Day of Prayer Task Force has a store!  On it you can purchase things entitled "Event Essentials" -- things you simply can't pray without:  balloons, balloon launch kit (I guess so you can launch balloons that will eventually be litter around the country, although they are supposedly biodegradable), special envelopes, letterhead, fliers, flag pens, and of course, the essential "waving flag pens".  After you've collected your essentials for hosting a National Day of Prayer Event, then you can also purchase apparel, "theme products" and of course, visit their bookstore.   

Have we hit a new low?  We've actually commercialized prayer!  There are self-proclaimed leaders among us that don't believe a church or small portion of the body of Christ can pray for our nation on our own.  We need to be told how to pray, and we can't do it without balloons, flag pins and special letterheads.

Wow.  I don't think that Shirely Dobson really understands what needs criticized here! 

Several Definitions

A Democrat a person who's political persuasion leads them to believe in a higher level of government involvement in the structure of our society, not just at the state level, but also at the federal level. Believes higher taxation is necessary in order to provide our society with just and quality social services.

A Democratic Leader A democrat who believes that everybody else should pay those taxes (see: Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Tim Geithner)

An Idealist Someone who believes that the democratic party leaders are truly leaders of the poor and common people -- like people who earn enough income to owe more than $40,000 in back taxes (See Tom Geithner -- see also Caroline Kennedy, John Kerry...).


A Republican A person who believes that our country functions better with less federal government and that state and local governments should have more influence, albeit unintrustive influence, than the federal. There is a strong belief that private charitable organizations function better than state. Fiscally conservative, they often weep when they hear "God Bless America" and have a tendency to forget that America has had largely imperialistic dalliances around the world.

A Republican Leader Someone who believes the same as the typical Republican, but is afraid to stand up to big-business and loves to compromise on moral issues (see; abortion is wrong vs capital punishment is okie dokie or gay marriage is wrong but our divorce rate is rather good). They also like to rally around their major candidates and say things like, "No, she really is right for the job. It's okay that she's only left the country to vacation in Mexico and that she used to be sportscaster. Did you know she won a beauty pageant once?"


A Disgruntled Republican A person who believes that less federal government is good, is fiscally conservative, morally conservative (across the board, not just on one issue), and knows that it takes more than a pretty smile and some spunk to win a national election.

A Study in Contrasts

I was struck this week by a study in contrasts. The contrast? Our new president.

I was very glad when President Obama made executive orders involving Gitmo. I think that our nation's stance on abusive interrogation and unsubstantiated arrests without a speedy trial are unjust, immoral and a nasty scab on the face of our nation. I never really had a problem George W., but I sure had a problem with his administration and their views on this. I think that George W. went wrong when he chose his running mate and the majority of his cabinet. Their counsel led to so many of the international issues we face today, and the fallout from Gitmo is one of the worst. Totally ungodly. Totally wrong. They made us as bad as the bad guys, but then justified it.

So, I was so very glad to see President Obama move in the right direction.

However, I was so confounded that one individual could be so vibrantly focused about the value of one group of humans' lives and yet so blinded to the value of another. How could Obama make life-giving decisions with suspected criminals and terrorists, and yet be willing to remove a ban on monies going to snuff out the life of innocent ones?

I understand that the debate on abortion centers around the idea that not everyone believes human life begins at conception. Even if you can look past the fact that embryos have the same DNA as us, heartbeats, and the ability to feel pain among other things, what if you're wrong? What if they are, in every sense of the word, human? At what cost does that decision come? Our society and our world is only going to be as strong as our willingness to take care of our weakest members. So, with each abortion we've weakened our ability to flourish.

People can talk to me about the suffering of children with this, and they have. Most of those people have never set foot in an orphanage, so they really don't have a clue. Even if they have, though, I know that the solution is not to snuff out a life. The solution is to embrace their lives. To provide homes for them. To spend our money on giving them life, rather than spending our money on SUVs. That solution gives life to not only the "unwanted person" but to the parent as well.


Instead, like Bush's administration, we, as a society, choose the low road and then make ourselves the same as the bad guys. Only we justify it.


People have tried to convince me that it's okay in the case of rape. Yet, I personally know people whose conception happened as a result of rape. Both they and their mothers argue differently.

People have tried to convince me that their is a quality of life issue. If a person is severely disabled then it would be better if they weren't alive. I can only feel sorrow for a person with such a misunderstanding of life, and such a shallow understanding of humanity's ability to over come.

I live each day with 3 beautiful people that many in our world would have thought were "better off aborted". They live life to the fullest, with total disregard to the shallowness of most people's understanding. They are more human than the lot of humanity, and the world is a better place because they were not snuffed out, but instead given the opportunity to live.

So, these "human rights" groups that practice abortion? I've pondered how a group that is dedicated to the rights of humanity could find in their solutions the option to kill. All I can think is that this is where human rights cross the line into self-rights. It's no longer about the rights inherent to a human, it's about what an individual is allowed to do to themselves, or more correctly, for themselves.

So, what would prompt President Obama to have this dichotomy in thinking? Politics? Perhaps, as he owes his successful bid to office in part to those who prosper from abortion and those who champion it as their cause. However, I would like to believe that it has more to do with his blindness. As all people, he is blind to the dichotomy in his own thinking. What he sees as compassion, he has indoctrinated himself to see that way.

So, as I pray for myself that God will remove the blinders that hold me in my schizophrenic thinking, I will pray for President Obama that God will as well.

In the meantime, I will mourn that humanity is will lose more of it's human-ness and around the world so many people will lose the opportunity to love and be a part of a story where someone over comes.

Americans are Made

Before becoming a delusionally bad poet due to my current illness, I’d been reading “50 Facts that Should Change the USA” by Stephen Fender, an American born in San Francisco but educated and residing in the United Kingdom. The book is well written and fairly balanced. I enjoyed expanding my knowledge surrounding facts that I already knew: There is one car for every adult in the U.S., Over twice as many Americans claim to go to church as actually do, Only 18% of Americans hold a US passport (our entire family does...I'm just not sure where that "special place" is that I put them to keep them safe), and When Bush cut taxes for the rich in 2004 the family that owns Walmart increased their wealth by $91,500 per hour.

Well, I didn’t know the specific numbers, but was fairly aware of those facts.

I also enjoyed learning some facts about America as well: that we’re generous with our time (donating more hours to volunteer work than the Japanese, Spanish, Italians or Australians), and that it’s the red states, the conservative states, that are the most generous with their time and money. New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Vermont have a few things to feel ashamed about in this area, I guess.

But, by far, the essay I enjoyed the most was, “Americans Aren’t Born; They are Made”. Now, of course, I like this one because I’ve seen it play out so fully in my life.

He begins the essay by briefly laying out the fact that our nation was founded, something not all nations can lay claim, and that that founding was ‘advertised’ by our Declaration of Independence. In retrospect, doesn't it make sense that we would have an ad as one of our first great documents? Continuing on, that founding was codified by the Constitution. Fender terms the Constitution as the “greatest artifact of the collective imagination” and states that it makes becoming an American “as much a contract as a country.”

He points out that for an immigrant to become an American you must test in its laws and that by understanding and agreeing to those terms you can choose to be an American. Now, my girls became Americans through their adoptions, so there was no test. Rob and I did, however, have to sign a paper stating that they had no intention of practicing polygamy, dealing in drugs or becoming involved in terrorist activities. It was a lot to take on ourselves as no one knows for certain just what a 2 or 3 year-old is planning to do. I did vouch for them, though, and when the plane wheels hit the ground in Detroit, they were immediately American.

In other countries you can test and become a citizen, but Fender essentially contends that while a person might become a citizen of that nation, they don’t become one of them. The example he gives is a man name Robert Maxwell. Maxwell was born in Czechoslovakia, but became a full-fledged, military serving Brit. Despite living his entire adult life in Britain, raising his children as Englishmen, participating in military service, political service and financial work, the citizens of his adopted nation never considered him fully British.

In fact, in his obituary, the London Daily Mail claimed that he never fully understood what it meant to be an Englishman!

Fender compares that to Henry Kissinger in the U.S.

“Born in Germany just 14 days before Robert Maxwell, Kissinger never felt the need…to smooth out his gravelly European accent. Did he still feel like an outsider in America? Whatever they may hold against him for his foreign policy, will his memorialists say that he never learned to understand what it meant to be an American… How absurd it would be to expect anything remotely similar being said and written by and about Henry Kissinger. He became fully-fledged as an American when he was naturalized as a United States citizen on June 19, 1943. Since then, he has been at the center of the American establishment, even serving as the country’s senior official representative to the rest of the world, as Secretary of State. As an American, he was made, not born.”

John Steinbeck pointed out that all Americans are descendants of criminals or adventurers, which is, while a very romantically Steinbeck point of view, probably only partially true. I would add to that many Americans are also the descendants of the natives whom survived what was essentially a genocide or slaves that survived horrors of slavery. And, then there are the kids, like mine, who are the survivors of life in orphanages. So, it does seem that there is a spark of some sort that unites anyone who does make it in this country, especially when you consider that a large number of people who tried to immigrate here actually ended up returning to their original country.

I've seen in my girls how, in this country, you truly can be fully American, and yet not need to snuff out what was there before. They don't have to give up a love of their birth country, in fact they can even celebrate the heritage that they left. It's like a marriage, in that there is no need to give up who you were before you married, only the need to craft yourself into a new unit, to merge those two personalities into one.

While I know that everyone who has come to this country has not had the success story that Henry Kissinger had (and that many would argue if Kissinger was truly successful), I'm proud to be a part of a country where there is hope. A friend of mine from Africa told me, "In this country, at least a child can dream and there is a hope that the dream can come true."

So, tomorrow, my Kazakh-Ukrainian-American family will watch the inauguration of our country's first African-American President, and, for the first time in a long time, my heart will be very proud that I am an American. I may not agree with all his politics, but it is so inspiring to see that God has begun to heal one of our nation's greatest wounds.

Plus, maybe now we'll start seeing a little diplomacy coming from Washington D.C.

I wonder what Henry Kissinger would think about that?

Caroline Kennedy, is Like, You Know, Wanting to be, You know, like a Senator

In what must be one of the most amazing quotes I've ever read, Caroline Kennedy announced her desire for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. She claims, according to Time Magazine, that in her family, "There's a sense of having to work twice as hard."

Maybe she meant yell twice as loud in order for the butler to hear her?

I'm trying to get my mind around this, because from what I could tell, in her family, you just had to be rich. Her brother, upon dying, was said by the media to have been snuffed out of a great political career -- possibly a future president. That he had incredible business sense and great social insight.

Maybe personally he was a great guy, but professionally, from what I can tell, all he had accomplished was a failed magazine for men. I also never saw him on any presidental ballots.

I guess he didn't do the requisite "work twice as hard." But, he was really rich, and he was a Kennedy.

What I'm really trying to get my mind around is this whole idea that Caroline Kennedy thinks she should be a senator, when she isn't even a regular voter, something for which she can't provide an explanation. I think she can't because there isn't a good explanation. It appears that her best arguement for getting the appointment is that her Uncle Ted really wants her there.

Apparently, I'm not the only one who can't figure out exactly what she stands for, or what she plans to do. According to Karen Tumulty of Time Magazine, "On policy questions, her answers have run from cautious to vague, except for her declared support for gay marriage. She does not appear to have given much thought to the specifics of what she would try to accomplish once in office -- even on education, which presumably is her area of expertise..."

She even refused to get into a debate with the New York Times about abolishing tenure and establishing merit pay for teachers. In addition to that, the British Daily Telegraph noted that she used the phrase "you know" 142 times in her interview with the New York Times.

You Know, if she's not going to, you know, give her perspective on these, you know, things, it's patently obvious that she hasn't, you know, given any thought to them as well. You know?

She's like the Sarah Palin of the democratic party! At least, though, with Palin, you knew where she stood on things. She wasn't afraid to state her opinion. I would guess, too, that she regularly voted.

I do agree with Palin on one thing. It will be interesting to see how the media handles Kennedy as opposed to how they handled Palin. My guess is that they will take it nice and easy on her.

Maybe New York can console itself with the fact that she probably doesn't cry as easily as Hillary Clinton.

Shoeless in Iraq

As everyone knows, George Bush was attacked by an Iraqi journalist toting two lethal shoes. How the man, Al-Zeidi, was able to smuggle those shoes into the press conference is still under investigation, however authorities suspect that he might have done so by a method known to many as "wearing the shoes". Apparently, he did not have to enter the room through airport security.

In an official statement issued by the Iraqi government, Al-Zeidi stated that the attack was planned by the infamous terrorist, Al-Maliki. Al-Zeidi's family is claiming that his confession was coerced. One would tend to believe Al-Zeidi's family, as one would have to wonder exactly how much planning would be necessary in order to throw a pair of shoes halfway across a room at a nearly 6' tall man. However, according to the new Iraqi government, this was a planned and unnerving attack.

Really, people, we need to take this very seriously.

Apparently, during the elaborate planning of the attack, Al-Maliki and Al-Zeidi debated the best type of shoe for the attack. First discussed was the use of military boots. However, Al-Zeidi decided against using his boots for that purpose. When asked why, Al-Zeidi responded, "No... these boots were made for walking."

Stilettos were discussed as well, however, neither Al-Maliki nor Al-Zeidi could produce a dress that matched. Sandals were considered too flimsy and unable to cause enough damage. Flip flops? Pahh. Those aren't even shoes!

See. This attack did take some planning.

Where will this all lead? Well, according to top secret sources, there is a joint effort between the Iraqi government and the CIA to find this new cell of terrorists, known now as the "Slipper Cell", equal in infamy only to the "Loafer Cell", which was a threat earlier, but due to a lazy disposition, they never actually achieved any of their goals. Neither cell is as dangerous as the "Stiletto Cell", which is made up of pure young women willing to die in order for their soles to enter into the highest level of heaven, also known in fashion circles as "Paris".

With fashion implications like these, it's easy to assess that this cell most certainly has ties to Italy.

One of the scariest aspects of this attack is the availability of weapons. Once upon a time, shoes were a pricier purchase, but now these weapons can be bought almost anywhere, and authorities believe that this greater availability will only exacerbate the threat. As such, additional security will now be added to stores such as Payless, Walmart and Target. There is also talk about having security clearance before purchase, and a 24 hour waiting period placed on anyone after choosing which shoes they decide to buy. Needless to say, many impecunious husbands are applauding this measure.

In the meantime, people must be willing to express some type of pride and patriotism at the agility of our out-going president. Boy, can he duck. Obviously, that was never considered in the original planning of the attack.

Brothels, Protesting by Laziness, and Corruption

Several months ago I heard a knock on my door. I opened it to see my neighbor's 10-year-old-daughter standing there clinching a catalogue, a pen and some sort of registry list. I knew then that I had lost. It was a school fundraiser. So, within a few minutes, I had flipped through the catalogue and found the thing I most wanted (ie had any inclination at all to buy, since nobody ever actually wants the junk that places sell for fundraising), which was a subscription to "Time" magazine. After receiving our first issue, I realized that I had made a great choice. Blog fodder! So without further ado, here is my commentary on things international:

First off, in Geneva, we learn that too many children die from unintentional accidents. I would tend to agree with that. However, what I think is wonderful is that somehow the "World Report on Child Injury Prevention" thinks we can decrease these unintentional accidents. If they're unintentional, then how do we stop them, as I would tend to think that "unplanned" would fall into the equation as well. Also, I read, once, that annually over 1000 adults in our nation hurt themselves with a mattress or ceiling. Now, if we can't stop adults from getting hurt by the ceiling, then how will we prevent children from getting hurt in unintentional accidents? Aside from using seat belts -- which if you can get people who aren't Americans to use seat belts I'm pretty impressed with you -- how can we prevent "unintentional accidents"? Maybe in Geneva this is a good discussion, but not here in the USA where people are already way too overprotective of their kids.

Another tidbit from Europe comes from Amsterdam. I had the honor of being in the Amsterdam airport the very week that they opened their first airport brothel. It had the effect of making me think, "ewwww" the entire time I was there, and want to use a disinfectant wipe on anything I touched or sat on. Unfortunately, I didn't have a disinfectant wipe, so I just paced for several hours.

Anyway, according to Time magazine, "Citing its brothels and marijuana cafes as havens for crime (NO KIDDING!!! -- my words, not Time's), city officials in the Dutch capital have unveiled a $50 million plan to replace half of them with restaurants , galleries and hotels. Officials hope to broaden the city's appeal and make tourists feel less embarrassed about visiting."

I wonder if this little bit of information will be brought up the next time someone wants to discuss how it "works in Holland" in regards to the legalization of marijuana and prostitution. Somehow I doubt it. In the meantime, the Dutch get to pay for the $50 million plan to replace those brothels and cafes, and many more travelers get to go through Amsterdam thinking "ewwww".

Leaving Europe, I want to point out that, according to Time, the Italian government is putting up $65 million dollars to purchase 200,000 wheels of Parmesan cheese to help the ailing cheese makers of Italy. The cheese will be donated to charity. That got me thinking about the auto bailout in the US. I think if it was a cheese bailout we'd all feel better about it. Then we could all get free cheese. I guess GM could give everybody a free Chevy, but that's just like being given cheese, and since you can't depend on it, and you also can't eat it, it's just not worth it.


One of the more interesting news tidbits I found was "Calling in Gay". I have no idea if this actually happened as it was set for December 10, and I did go into work that day. However, an Internet organized movement to protest California's ban on same-sex marriage was to happen that day. Millions of people were supposed to "call in gay" to work and not show up.

Now, that's responsible! Not stand outside and protest, or gather petitions or write letters to the editors, or even write on a cheesy blog! People are just supposed to call in sick and not work. I guess the idea is you can protest by staying home in your jammies, reading your novel, playing video games... Wow. I think that must say something about our culture that there are people out there that actually think this is a form of protest rather than second rate relaxation!

Of course the other question that it raises is that if you're gay, does that mean you're sick and can't work? Hardly a message I would think that anyone would want to send. There's a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and they are clearly on the ridiculous side of the line.

My favorite, though, is Governor Rob Blagojevich, of Illinois. If you looked up the definition of crook in the dictionary, you'd see his name next to it. The allegations (which are backed up with taped phone conversations and other such physical evidence) include: conspiring to solicit bribes from many people, including the future President of the US, extortion, forcing the Tribune Co. to fire editorial writers in exchange for a tax break, and even threatening to revoke millions in funding for a children's hospital if they didn't contribute to his campaign.

Of course, he's claiming he's innocent. Of course.

What I think would be a just punishment for the Governor would be that he be forced to live for 5 years in a country where corruption of his type is the norm. However, he wouldn't get to live there as a governor, but as an ordinary citizen who has to live under the rule of crooks like him. Now, that would be justice, however, I'll be just as glad to see him spend the rest of his life in jail.

Not surprisingly, there is involvement with the Service Employees International Union. This is the same union that my husband was forced to join, and that sent a representative to my home late one night (when I was alone) who lied to me and told me he worked with my husband. He then tried to get me to tell him who I was going to vote for. So, it's not surprising to me at all that the SEIU is alleged to be considering Blagojevich's idea of creating a "nonprofit" organization that could pay his salary if he picked the "right" candidate for the Senate seat (ie a union supporter) and then retired from politics.

Well, at least we can be comforted with one thing. According to Time, "Blagojevich whined that Obama's people were 'not willing to give me anything except appreciation.'"

Lest Anyone Think I'm a McCain Fan

Lest anyone think I'm a McCain fan, due to my recent post about Joe Biden's hiney, I thought I should post a bit about McCain and Palin and my concerns there.

McCain -- I like the fact that he and his wife do seem to have a compassionate aspect to their lives. Yes, they are filthy rich. But, really, so are the Obamas, so I don't see how that matters. I also like the fact that they are hearing the cries of so many families of children with special needs, specifically the families of children with autism. Obviously, the growing rate of autism should be a concern in our nation. I'm skeptical that any federal aid to our health insurance situation is going to help, so I also am comfortable with his positions on health care. I don't think that two wrongs make a right, so I'm with him on abortion and the need to obtain stem cells in an ethical manner.

What I don't agree with him on is the war. However, Obama's going to inherit this war, too, and I'm not certain that he really knows what he's doing either. Yes, they both inherited this war from George W., but really, he inherited the situation from Bill "floundering with foreign policy" Clinton. He inherited some of it from George Senior .... at some point we have to stop pointing the finger and just solve the stinking problem.

We need to invest more in diplomacy, which is not something I see either candidate saying. I see McCain upping the ante in the war, and Obama sticking his head in the sand. This summer I attended a small seminar on foreign policy, with the discussion being lead by a man that spent 30 years working in diplomatic relations for the U.S. government. He pointed out that when he was sent to a new part of the world, as a diplomat, he was given a 4 week course on that region of the world, and then dropped into it as a diplomat. When an upper level military person is stationed in a new part of the world, they receive near-graduate level training on that particular culture -- usually at least a year's work of education. What does that say about our government's values, be it democrat or republican?

Then there is Palin. I like a lot of what she professes to be policy. I admire her decision to birth her son with Down Syndrome and show so much love towards him, although isn't that just what a mother is supposed to do anyway? I also, frankly, question how someone can be an effective VP of a major nation and give appropriate time and attention to a large family. Maybe her husband is planning on staying home with the kids. If so, kudos to him and I'm impressed with their family. If not, then I don't think that Sarah Palin actually has the same values that I have. The values I have don't just value that the life of my child exists, my values dictate that I give large quantities of my time to my child.

I can run the nation when my kids are grown. Until then, I can only blabber away on a second rate blog.

Another concern with Palin, of course, is her inexperience. Let's face it. John McCain is old. Could Palin act as president? It's unsure at best. She really seems clueless on an international scene.

The worst thing is, though, that I'm no more confident with Joe Biden.

They' re all just a bunch of ..... politicians.

Let's hope congress shapes up!

Biden Needs To Get His Little Hiney Out of Dream World and Into Reality

Could somebody out there give me just 5 minutes with Joe Biden? Just 5 minutes! Perhaps he could actually walk away with some kind of idea as to what advocating for the disabled and respecting life actually means.

In reference to advocacy for people with disabilities, Biden made the following snipe:

"Well, guess what, folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?" asked Biden, the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama.


First of all, stem cell research is not as advanced as the proponents of it would like people to believe. I'm really tired of hearing about how the "cures" for diabetes, spinal chord injuries and other illnesses are just steps away but can't be found because we, as a culture, don't have access to enough stem cells.

For years I listened to the American Diabetes Association herald this cry. Then I actually read the research and learned that, like many of the other illnesses, the "cure" was not around the corner, but decades away and possibly not even linked to stem cells.

Secondly, most conservatives are not against stem cell research -- most conservatives are against harvesting them from embryos. Get your stem cells ethically and then research away! Personally, I just don't believe that you take one person's life to solve the medical problems of another.

Thirdly, not all disabilities can be "cured" through research from stem cells. So, advocate away for your stem cells, Joe, but your advocacy doesn't do a bit of good for someone who has a disability due to amniotic banding or their birth mother drinking alcohol while pregnant, nor thousands of other reasons that people end up with disabilities. Not to mention, it's certainly not going impact the life of any person right now.

To reduce disability advocacy to stem cell research is simply a way to politicize a new topic (disability rights and services) that both he and Obama are clueless about. In the meantime, while meaning to slam McCain and Palin, he has totally offended me by seriously implying that I don't care about the disabled because I don't support unethical stem cell research.

Thanks Joe! Glad my life counts for a hill of beans in your book!

Well, guess what, folks, if you care about the disabled, then why don't you actually research what can be done to support them and their families?

Jesse Jackson: Enough to Light My Fire to Blog Again

Well, it's been awhile since I've had the chance to blog, but Jesse Jackson has brought me out once again!

If you watch any TV at all, you're probably aware that Jesse Jackson is now the third Chicago pastor to pose a serious problem for Barack Obama's bid for the presidency. There's the Jeremiah Wright (who is a slippery snake) scandel, there's Pastor Michael Felger who used a sermon to attack Hillary Clinton, and now, not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson has appeared on the scene.

However, Jesse Jackson's derogatory comments shouldn't be surprising. Jackson has always been about one thing, and one thing only: Jesse Jackson. He wants to be president, so of course, in his angry bitter soul he's going to attack the one man who's arrived at the place where he's always wanted to be but could never obtain: the democratic nominee for president.

In addition to the immaturity of his comments, which were lewd enough to be banned from my blog, what's really sad about this is that it was in reaction to Obama's speeches addressing the need of black fathers to commit to their families. If Jackson actually spent any amount of time working with inner city children, he'd stick his foot directly in his mouth right now. Maybe Jackson would like to explain to a group of black children who have never had the benefit of an involved father that Obama was coming down too hard on black people?

Honestly, this incident reveals his character. If he wasn't a self-absorbed con artist, then he wouldn't have to watch his mouth when he thinks that camera's not there. How in the world someone who is as anti-family, anti-life, and anti-decency could even attempt to pretend to be a pastor is beyond me.

Of course, it happens on the right as well, as all these political "pastors" really need to get their heads rescrewed on. Using the pulpit to gain political power is straight from the pit of hell, and about as far away from a mustard seed revolution as anyone can get. They are aren't just missing the boat, they're at the wrong port.

Grand Theft Jesus -- Thoughts from the Opposite of the Religious Right

I usually read about three books at a time. That way, I can read a book until I'm tired of it, and then switch to a different book until I'm tired of it, and so on and so forth. Right now I'm reading How Much Is Enough? Hungering for God In an Affluent Culture by Arthur Simon, Lust For Life by an author I can't remember, and the book Grand Theft Jesus; The Hijacking of Religion in America by Robert S. McElvaine.

Written in what is supposed to be a humorous voice, Grand Theft Jesus comes off as flippant, immature and incredibly mean-spirited. The jokes, whether tongue-in-cheek or not are simply not funny. There is really no humor in this book, although many a reader has probably inwardly groaned at a horrible attempt at humor. The only real humor in the book is unintentional. His point in writing the book is how unchristlike the religious right really is. Of course, he's just as unchristlike in his attacks and judgements. His real agenda comes through loud and clear towards the beginning of the book when he says that many Christians voted against Jesus when they voted for George Bush.

Am I the only one who gets to incredibly sick and tired of people on both sides of the political spectrum using Jesus to tell me who to vote for?

He shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scripture by the 6th chapter, when he attacks the inerrancy of scripture -- claiming that all the many contradictions in the Bible prove that it's not the infallible Word of God. While there are debatable points to scripture, one of the amazing aspects of it is that a book can be written by so many authors over such a long period of time and NOT contradict itself. He provides two examples for his purpose, showing a real lack of content that is prevalent through out the book. He starts in Genesis.

Yes, there are two different orders to the creation story in Genesis, and no that doesn't mean it's a contradiction. Perhaps the point isn't the order -- perhaps the point is just that, in fact -- the order of the creation is not what the story is about. Certainly, though, this only proves a contradiction for those who take the Bible completely literally. It appears he hasn't done the necessary research to really go beyond the tip of the ice berg with this criticism.

Then he goes on.

"For now, it should be sufficient to note that Jesus disagreed with the notion that there was no "mixture of error" in scripture. In the Sermon on the Mount, he unambiguously revised some of the early regulations of the Hebrew Bible ("You have heard that it was said to the men of old....But I say to you...").

Wow. That shows a total misunderstanding of the old covenant and the new covenant. Jesus consistently pointed out that things were different once He came, not that things were wrong in the old testament scriptures! Honestly, it leads me to believe that McElvaine has never really studied scripture and has no context for any opinions or thoughts that he shares. This only serves to prove the point that this book is not about Jesus, but truly about convincing people to vote democrat.

When he also points out, in Chapter 6, that God is bigger than "one holy book" (or holey book as he quips -- I told you the jokes were terrible), and bigger than one religion, he points out his own contradictions. Though he's trying to pass himself off as someone who follows Christ, apparently perfectly since he's comfortable judging anyone who isn't a member of the democratic party, he finds no problem in blowing off Jesus' statement, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me."

Another thing that I find incredibly annoying with this book is the lack of content. Even worse, McElvaine tries, unsuccessfully, to cover up the lack of content by being extremely repetitive. In that way he's like the leftist version of John Elderidge. If I could edit out every sentence where he says something about how "ChristianityLite" is taking over the country, I'd be reading a 140 page book rather than a 280.

However, all that said, as much as I am disgusted by the attitude and beliefs of the messenger, I agree with a good portion of the message. So, for the next few blog entries, I'm planning on sifting through his junk and studying the nuggets of truth he happens to have stumbled upon.

New Hampshire is Moved by Tears and Tales of Eating Too Much Pizza

Wow! All these years of spouting ardent feminism, and Hillary has just played the sex card! Apparently, her poor performance in the last debate wasn't enough to do her in. The voters of New Hampshire were moved by her tears and sad tales of eating too much pizza and not exercising.

She cried and got the sympathy vote!



Honestly, I don't stress too much over who will be the next President, unless, of course, it's Hillary. I'd take just about any other choice over her... and if she wins, I might be writing my blog from my exile spot in Northern Canada. I just don't understand her dire need to run the country -- she already had her turn over 8 years ago.

I almost felt bad for her, too, when I watched the video. But then I thought, "You know, I really don't think resorting to tears is a good thing for a president."

"Mr. Bin Laden," she says as she's wiping her eye, "It's just really hard to find you. I mean I won't give up because I believe this is what's best for my country, but this is really hard. So many days I don't have time to exercise, and I keep trying to eat right, but pizza's just so easy... so please come out of hiding."

or

"Mr. de Jung, I asked you not to drop the bomb, and now look at what you did!" Her eyes welling up with tears, "I've got dead Americans, angry voters and I can't plan for dinner! Pizza again, and with all these decisions to make, when will I ever exercise?!"


So, I think that maybe Hillary needs to learn how to lose something without losing it. Or maybe not, because her strategy did work.

What does that say about the Democrats in New Hampshire?