Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

Fair, Balanced and Unafraid

As I dealt with the second day of driving to work without the aide of Bill Bennett's, "Morning in America" after AM 1230 has apparently made a switch over from conservative talk radio to become a sister station for 95.1 WRBS. While it is hard for me to be upset about WRBS expanding its coverage and this switchover was not quite as horrendous as the debacle of El Sol, it appears that there are no local stations picking up the WITH talk lineup at this time. Fortunately I have XM Radio as well, but they only carry 2 hours of "Morning in America" from what I remember. So I was forced to look for alternative news sources this morning, not a major deal because I listen to a wide variety of sources including Air America at times.

This morning I got to hear the "best of..." some Air America show which was talking about the horrible bias and coordinated attempts to skew real news by Fox News, Drudge Report, etc. They chided the "Fair, Balanced and Unafraid" news organization for being nothing more than GOP TV, making up stories and basically called them an illegitimate media source. That’s interesting coming from an openly liberal media source that was defending the MSM which many conservatives view as having a leftist view of the world.

So where does this leave my daily commute's aural delight? More time for CSPAN!! If you ever want to get your news straight from the proverbial horse’s mouth, this is the place to be. This is news organization that doesn't call itself fair and balanced, but certainly leaves no doubt that it is. I hear callers all the time say, "Thank you for CSPAN" and while it does get old hearing that I have to echo the sentiment. Many may find it boring because you have to listen to the entire speech, statement, press conference, etc. and not just the 20 second sound bite and then digest the information yourself. But at least you get to hear what people are saying in the context of what they are communicating before adding your own personal bias.

Now don't take this post as an admission that FOX is a shill for the Republican party, because I don't believe it is. I'll admit a conservative bias in their news reporting, but certainly no more than the leftist bias with ABC, CBS, NBC & CNN. Of course if you view those as being centered and unbiased, then it is no wonder you skew FOX as far right. Look at your starting point!

All that to say, Thank you CSPAN!

Offenses of Christmas

The idea that an omnipotent and omnipresent being could condescend to our reality, taking on the fragile form that we hold and not only subject himself to this world, but to the same physical growth process that we all go through offends our sense of logic. Speaking from the flesh, there is no rational reason why the almighty would put themselves in such an apparently weak vessel. The human mind cannot comprehend the thought that leads to such a humble act of obedience and love. We cannot even forgive ourselves for the bad that we have done, let alone understand forgiveness that is found in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Yet the magic of Christmas is not realized in a man delivering presents to all the world's children in a matter of hours. The magic is realized in the compassion of Christ to enter into our lives as a human being, to live a perfect life and sacrifice his life for our eternal assurance of salvation. Offensive to our sense of logic and our own personal love of the self, the Christmas story teaches us of compassion, love, humility and obedience.

Colossians 1:19-20
For it pleased the Father that in Him [Jesus Christ] all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

We are assured our eternal peace through the first steps of Christ taken on Christmas day to the cross. May the Holy Spirit illuminate our hearts more and more each day to find the offense of Christmas, the offense of the Gospel, the offense to our flesh less and less, and the beautiful message of forgiveness and redemption more real, more enticing to our humanity.

Chipmunks Back??

Justin Timberlake is bringing Chipmunks back. I love it when caricatures of people (i.e. pop culture icons) embrace the silliness that is them.

Take em’ to the chorus...YEAH!

Curious George goes to Annapolis

As someone that used to believe the Bible was nothing more than a children’s book for people that needed simplistic lessons to fill their weak minds with. As someone that compared God to the man in the yellow hat and Jesus Christ to Curious George, I shouldn't be all that surprised when I hear the argument, "christians are primitive". Being a former atheist who has had countless discussions/arguments with theists informing them of their inability to think for themselves and their need for this ridiculous crutch called religion; I shouldn't be all that surprised to find myself now in conversations with those that believe what I once did.

My company Christmas party was in Annapolis this past weekend and my wife and I found ourselves sitting next to the husband of one my coworkers, we’ll call him George, engaged in this very discussion. I suppose the surprise had more to do with the holiday atmosphere and the irony of the setting being a Christmas party and all. Yet there we were, my wife mostly because she was sitting next to him and I was engaged in other ongoing conversations, discovering the intolerance of the tolerance preachers.

While the wine continued to flow it become more and more evident that Christianity was being equated with republican politics, which was pure evil in the eyes of Curious George. As I can see now looking back on my atheist past it was me that was curious, it was me that was searching for answers to questions that I could not understand. I was reminded of the beauty of grace and the need for all Christians to liberally dispense grace to this fallen world. Despite the attempts of Curious George to declare his intellectual superiority, he only succeeded it reflecting his own spiritual bankruptcy.

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ descended upon his heart this holiday season, soften it and draw him into a love beyond any comprehension. May he soon begin to ask the questions that his heart longs to have answered and may I be better equipped with the patience and love of the Spirit if I find myself in conversation with him again.

Does the ISG have a problem with Billy Madison?

When Billy Madison stepped onto the dodge ball court during recess he was promptly peg by a first grader and then retreated to the safety of his teacher. A short time later he returned to the game, caught the ball with one hand and let loose a resounding cry, "YOU'RE ALL IN BIG TROUBLE". Billy suffered an initial defeat despite being bigger and stronger, but in the end prevailed by pounding the little kids into oblivion.

Is this a ridiculous example? Of course. But why do so many wish to sound the bell of retreat and defeat when it comes to the War on Terror? The Battle of Iraq as part of the War on Terror must be fought and won for the future of America and for the future of the Middle East. Our government has faithfully been working on solutions towards that end while the President has announced that he will be sharing the way forward after the first of the year.

Perhaps the most scrutinized aspect of this collective thought process comes from the Iraq Study Group Report. Admittedly, I have only read the Executive summary and there is plenty of analysis floating around the web including some interesting thoughts on the Good, the Bad and the Ugly realities from the Heritage Foundation. For my simplistic mind I have focused on two basic aspects of this report as laid out in the summary: the External and the Internal Approach.

External - Yet Iraq’s neighbors are not doing enough to help Iraq achieve stability. Some are undercutting stability....Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available.

The ISG seems to contradict itself to some degree with the foreign policy solutions. While they talk about the undercutting that exists by outside influences they then suggest the direct negotiations with those that are doing that very undercutting in the first place. In all fairness, James Baker while briefing the Senate was questioned by Senator Lieberman and stated that there was no harm in asking, despite the probability of their answer and thus showing the international community what they really are. Haven't they figured out who Iran & Syria are yet though and will that really make much of an impact if they haven't?? I doubt so. It seems that we need to focus more on the disincentives and use the big dodge ball that we have in hand.

Internal - The United States should work closely with Iraq’s leaders to support the achievement of specific objectives—or milestones—on national reconciliation, security, and governance. Miracles cannot be expected, but the people of Iraq have the right to expect action and progress. The Iraqi government needs to show its own citizens—and the citizens of the United States and other countries—that it deserves continued support.

This is a great summary of the domestic challenges facing the people of Iraq. Preventing an all out Civil War, maintaining the safety of their citizens from the undercutting insurgency and establishing a solid democracy will preserve a future for Iraq. In turn they will become a vital partner in the War on Terror. The major problem with this is that by in large the outcome of these challenges will be decided by the Iraqi's themselves and not by the US. This is obviously an uncomfortable position to be in for us, but not one that makes us weak; one that shows a trust in a greater hope for the world. Something that real leadership must be willing to show when called upon.

Political Aspirations

The debate has raged on in my heart and in my head, but I have finally decided that I can wait no longer. The exploratory committee is being formed now to determine if I can put the network together and raise the funds necessary to run for office. For far to long I have denied myself and the good people of my community the benefit of my leadership. In a few short weeks I should be announcing my candidacy for the Mayor of Parkville. I will run an ethical campaign refusing to participate in any mudslinging. This should be relatively easy since I will be running unopposed. How do I know that so early in the campaign cycle? Because there is no Mayor of Parkville and my political aspirations for that office may be a bit premature.

Premature political aspirations don't seem to be stopping the junior Senator from Illinois, so why should I let them stop me?? The cries for President Obama began during the 2004 campaign before he was even a Senator and he spoke at the Democratic National Convention. It appears that his Presidential campaign may be kicking into gear soon for 2008; at least if you listen to the collective media swoon over the possibility.

His views on a multitude of issues are relatively unknown and his lack of a politcal record gives him the opportunity to shape that debate rather than years of votes. However; the clearly liberal senior Senator from Illinois who has compared our troops to Nazi’s has said that he and Obama agree on just about every major issue. That was pretty much enough to solidify my thoughts on Obama's views, but of course I still look forward to hearing what he actually has to say if he becomes a legitimate candidate.

I don't think he is making a very wise decision if he does enter the 2008 campaign. What harm does it do him to gain more experience before going down that road? If he has what it takes to be the most powerful leader in the world, the additional years in the Senate will only develop that leadership. Perhaps he should exercise a little patience and grow a little more wisdom before making the decision to let his political aspirations blind him from reality. I'm not really banking on that possibility and look forward to a possible Presidential showdown between an inexperienced Obama and pretty much any of the Republican hopefuls that will display true experienced leadership.

Swear to Me

When you are strung up several stories in the air and Batman asks you a question, it is best to tell him the truth. Swearing your oath of truth to the dark crusader of justice is probably a good general rule of thumb in Gotham, especially if you know you have been naughty.

But what do you do when you are becoming an elected official and are taking your oath of office to defend the US Constitution? Do you swear on the Bible? Torah? Qur’an? Do you just affirm your oath and not swear by anything? Or do you keep it real with the Bat? Now that we have our first Muslim official coming before the country to take his oath of office that wants to use his holy book, we find ourselves debating the issue.

I understand why it makes some uncomfortable, but when it comes down to it the religious freedom that we enjoy and proclaim in our Constitution does allow for this type of expression. I realize the question of how far the freedom of that expression extends can be a complicated one. The unfortunate result of the discomfort is that some believe Rep-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) should not be allowed to take his oath of office on his chosen holy book.

Here is the actual oath that US Representatives take before entering office:

I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

For me the result of the discomfort focuses on the question of Ellison’s allegiance to truly defend the US Constitution. Does he believe in an Islam that alleges to be a religion of peace or in one that wants to see the western world crumble? Clearly if it is the later than he cannot live up to his oath of office and he should not be allowed to sit as a US Representative.

In the end, I believe he has the right to take his oath on whatever holy book he chooses, but don’t mistake the god he swears by for the God of the Bible.

Confederate States of America

It is an interesting question as to what would have happened to this continent had the Civil War ended with a victorious Confederacy over the Union. Unfortunately, Spike Lee’s one dimensional movie, The C.S.A. only focuses on a singular issue for the first hour of the film. That issue being race (big surprise) and that hour being the only hour that I could stand to watch before turning it off.

As a true Mid-Atlantiker, despite those from the north who view Maryland as a southern state, I don’t have any great love for the Confederacy. I thought the film would be an interesting “what if” scenario even if Spike Lee was associated with it, but I was really disappointed. There were some interesting moments in the beginning as the shift in history was made, especially as it dealt with Abraham Lincoln. There were definitely some views expressed, although satirically, that some of my southern friends would lend a sympathetic ear.

The main issue for me though and what the filmmakers ignore completely, as the timeline shows, is that the government structure would be completely different from the Union. They continue down a path of a strong Federal government and the draw to the film for me was seeing what would happen without that. The CSA would never have been able to transform into the strong world power that the USA is today. They would have been as fragmented and feckless as the European Union.

In the end, I’m glad that the Union was victorious and whether you want to call it the Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression you’d be hard pressed to make the argument that our nation would look anything like it does today had the results of that war been different. For better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part, this is our union, our country, our United States of America.

Stay The Course

With the Iraq Study Group’s report due to be released in a couple of days, lots of gloating Democrats pointing to Iraq as their “change in course” message of victory. Of course it’s a hot topic on my mind. I have heard lots of criticisms of the Bush Administration and their “stay the course” message, and as usual most of this criticism is blindly based on a false message.

So what does “stay the course” really mean? Because that has been a part of the Administration’s message in the past, but not in the distorted context that so many like to present it. There is another aspect of the message that has been there from the beginning, and in fact it predates President Bush though he has also echoed this truth. The military is an adaptive organization and has always adapted their methods based on what was happening on the ground. While the mission for victory has been the ever present goal, adaptation has always been a part of that mission.

The true message of “change the course” is really retreat, surrender and defeat. Democrats didn’t win on that message, they won by distorting what staying the course really means and hiding what changing the course means to them. In a post, Where Has Our Resolve Gone?, HumanEvents writes, “The enemies of the United States…evidently only had to wait a half-decade before a significant portion of the U.S. population folded, and decided that a fight against terrorism wasn't worth winning.” I hope this is not the case.

We need to remember the cost of inaction and what happens when we don’t take the fight to our enemies. We need to listen to the echo of freedom’s call at Ground Zero when President Bush said, “I can here you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

Stay the course means protecting this country from another day like September 11th. And that is a course we should all support.

Jéef®

You have seen reversible jackets. You may have worn convertible pants. Now you are ready for the next fashion explosion to hit the market. Coming to stores everywhere Summer 2007.

TRANSFORMABLE CLOTHES

From the innovators that brought you the latest and greatest trash removal system, we are now pleased to offer you Transformers by Jéef®. This is a new clothing line of pants that can become shirts and shirts that can become pants.

Inspired by the latest trend in reality TV programming on Bravo, Project Runway, has captured the nations attention along with Top Chef where everyone can force their ugly clothing ideas and horrible food on the public! In all honesty, being someone that hasn't paid any attention to reality TV since Pedro & Puck fought it out in San Francisco; these new shows have caught my interest. Is it because I am now married and have been properly domesticated? Or is it because these new shows have people using their creativity in productive ways? I don't know but as soon as I can figure out how to turn rolled up fabric into something other than a tablecloth we might just be able to bring Jéef® to the open market.