Memorial Day is the day of "memory" for our nation. It actually started after the Civil War, in 1866 as Decoration Day with Americans going to cemeteries to decorate the graves of soldiers in honor of their sacrifice. It eventually became Memorial Day, a day of remembrance. Dennis Prager was talking today and mentioned the idea that our memory is what makes us who we are. If we ever lost our memory we would lose our identity, very much like a victim of Alzheimer's, who forgets not only who he is but also who everyone else in his life is.
On a national level, when we lose our memory, we also lose our identity. There are many famous quotes about those who fail to learn from history (our memory) are doomed to repeat it, etc. Well, connecting this with one of my other favorite quotes about remembering, I found Prager's comments quite profound.
One of the interesting components of our history, our national memory, that I have learned lately, especially as it relates to war, is that we WON the Vietnam war. Seriously, check out your history. The problem was the "won, now run" policy that our decision-makers implemented prevented Vietnam from stabilizing the peace and getting up on its feet. Thus, "in early 1975 the communists launched a massive attack. President Gerald Ford asked for $1 billion in supplemental funds to help the South Vietnamese, and Congress refused. They had already pulled the plug on the U.S.-supported government of Lon Nol in Cambodia. Ford had no choice but to order the evacuation of remaining U.S. personnel."
Now, this is important to our national identity because people are claiming Iraq is the new Vietnam. The parallels are striking. But have we learned the lessons? If we win the peace, but leave as soon as it looks certain, without staying long enough to secure it, will Iraq become the new Vietnam for certain?
Obama claims that if we have not been able to stabilize Iraq in 7 years, we won't be able to do it in 14, 21, or 54 years. Really?! Well, how does he explain Korea? It's not that we failed in the Korean conflict, ultimately, as much as our presence there helps maintain the peace we secured. This precisely is John McCain's point about being in Iraq for 50 or 100 years, if necessary.
It's a shame to see one so young suffer from such a horrible disease - Alzheimer's. I pray on this day of memory, we as a nation, will not fall victim to it as well.
Thank you to all who have served and are serving.
National Alzheimer's
Pro-Gay AGAINST Gay Marriage
Here is a great article arguing against same-sex marriage by a pro-gay journalist! The whole article is well worth your time. In part:
"The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.So what?
People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy."
Lessons from Negotiating
This NY Times Op Ed piece is a brilliant REMINDER of history (Remember, the opposite of remembering is not forgetting, but dismembering!). As it relates to Obama referencing Kennedy's meeting with Krushchev to support why an American President should sit down with our enemies, the NY Times explains:
"...Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”
A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.
If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate."
Steven Curtis Chapman
In case you have not heard, the youngest daughter of CCM artist Steven Curtis Chapman was killed this week. She was hit by a car driven by her brother in the family's driveway. Here is a blog if you wish to see some video of the family having fun a couple weeks ago, or to express your condolences. Please pray for them in this horrible hour of grief.
A Whole Lotta' Shaking Goin' On
Dad's are notorious for letting little Jimmy sit on his lap and "take the wheel". I remember when I had my first shot at it. I was probably about 8 or 9. We were on a straight stretch of road and my dad let me sit on his lap, at first with his hands and mine on the wheel. He asked me if I thought I could do it, and with all my naive enthusiasm, I said yes, so he took his hands off the wheel. To be continued...
A couple years ago I took my nephew (then around 7) to Disney World. We rode the "car ride" - you know the old fashioned cars that have a motor and are forced to go around the track at about 2 mph following a rail down the middle of the road. Of course, I let him "drive". Well, my nephew did the same thing I did when I was roughly his age sitting on my dad's lap with my hands on the wheel of a real car.
...well, I had watched my dad drive and clearly saw his hands vibrating on the wheel, as if he was moving the wheel back and forth. So as soon as my hands were alone on the wheel, I started jerking the wheel back and forth, to my mother's gasps and shouts at my father to grab the wheel. My nephew "drove" the car at Disney World the exact same way: by jerking the wheel left and right like we were a pinball bouncing back and forth against the middle rail. But I let him be since there was no real danger.
So what's the point besides a charming boyhood memory? Well, I find this a clear analogy to much modern-day preaching. There are preachers who look at the art of preaching and think if they imitate certain tasks (voice intonation, posture, turning to a couple verses connected by a common word/theme, having a certain outline/structure to what is being talked about, etc), they are actually preaching when all they are really doing is jerking those in the seats around, and possibly threatening their well-being.
There is a clear and critical distinction between knowing how to preach and imitating the act of preaching. Regrettably, in many cases, the preacher himself does not notice the difference. The outward elements may look almost identical; like my hands shaking the wheel and the wheel shaking my dad's hands looked identical to me. But the difference is who's doing the shaking.
Some preachers have learned some powerful techniques to "turn on" a crowd. They are doing the shaking. But a true preacher has learned how to turn the crowd on to God and His Word. And here, there may be shaking, but the preacher is simply doing his best to hold on and aim straight while God does His job.
What may appear to be a minor distinction is actually a world of difference.
Sharp Drop in Terrorism
Little Green Footballs references a study by the UN that finds global terrorism on the decline! So the world is a safer place. From the article:
"...For example, global terrorism fatalities declined by 40 percent between July and September 2007, driven by a 55 percent decline in the “terrorism” death toll in Iraq after the so-called surge of new U.S. troops and a cease-fire by the Shi’ite militant Mehdi Army, the brief said...."
Nutrition and Health
Here is a funny post from "Sandy's Thoughts":
For those of you who watch what you eat, here's the final word on nutrition and health. It's a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting nutritional studies.
1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you.
Laminin
If you want to be encouraged in your faith, here is a fascinating video (as part of an altar-call at a Christian conference by Louie Giglio). At about the 2:30 min mark he starts to talk about Laminin. It truly is amazing. I don't want to give too much away without you seeing the video, so here it is:
32,000!
Is that enough scientists who renounce human-based global warming to persuade people that this is a hoax? From the American Thinker Blog:
"The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself.
...
Solomon also points out that these dissenting scientists - over 9,000 of whom hold Ph.Ds -- now outnumber the environmentalists that attended the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio that actually kicked off the global warming craze. And, I might add, far exceed the count of UN IPCC "scientists" whose calamitous predictions lie at the very heart of climate hysteria and what Solomon calls "the Kyoto Protocol's corruption of science."
Amen! Cal Thomas
Here's Cal Thomas's latest column that says, in essence, the same thing I mentioned in my "McCain Terrorist" post. From the article:
"...John McCain has promised to bring Democrats into his Cabinet and work with Democrats in Congress. Does that mean ideas don't matter? Does it mean that when Democrats disagree with him he will embrace their ideas just to get along? If so, why should voters vote Republican? They might as well vote for Democrats and get their liberalism straight-up.
...
Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society."For Republicans to win - and be worthy of winning - they need to get back to where they belong."
Epsilonk.com
My roommate has a web design company that some of you may want to check out, especially if you are looking to make your church website something more substantial than black print on a white page with a Mapquest map. Also, for those who want to have personal websites for hobbies and other such interests, he'd be happy to talk to you for free to let you know what's doable. Check him out at epsilonk.com (pronounced: Ep si lon kay).
NBC Opinion = MSNBC
Here is a letter from the White House to NBC regarding their blurring of the line between reporting the news and expressing commentary/opinion about it. Well worth a read.
Is John McCain a Terrorist?
Ever since McCain took the lead in the primaries to become the presumptive Republican nominee for President, I have taken a break from commenting on him explicitly. I am now ready to articulate my thoughts as I have developed them thus far.
Conservatives have always argued "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" This has come into clear relief as President Bush's comments at the Knesset stoked a firestorm from Democrats who felt Bush's comments were directed at them, and more specifically, Obama, as it related to his willingness to meet with foreign dictators without preconditions, or what Bush labeled "appeasement."
Let me break down the logic as to why we don't negotiate with terrorists (and I welcome all to challenge me if my logic fails at any point):
- Loosely, a terrorist is someone who uses force/threats to compel others to comply with his demands.
- It "almost never" (I never like to say "never") matters what the demands are: money, political asylum, etc. If someone uses force, their demands are not granted.
- Force can be defined as anything from hijacking an airplane to threatening to blow something up or kill someone, or any number of other dire consequences.
- If someone who threatens dire consequences to get what they want, and those who have the power to grant the request actually comply, this will promote/encourage others to use force/threats to get what they want. This would promote anarchy and violates one of the founding principles of democracy, the rule of law.
The thing is, we've heard this before. We have given in to demands such as this and it has predictably encouraged others to make similar demands (i.e. previously George Bush and now John McCain). Now, in the case of elections, the arm twisting and threats are unfortunately all legal (I will concede this point is not consistent with the general logic of dealing with terrorists). George bush was supposed to be better than John Kerry or Al Gore, and I believe all things considered, he has been. But that's not how we justify good decisions. It may actually be better to let a hostage live by merely giving a terrorist $1 million, but we don't do that.
When we "settle for the lessor of two evils", we fall into the trap of exchanging our principles for expedience and practicality. I'm tired of that. I'm tired of giving in, of blinking first in a game of political "chicken" with the king-makers who say we have to do it if we want a platform to speak from, or to save our place at the table, or whatever other good and strategic thing we are supposed to get out of it. I'm tired of negotiating with terrorists who threaten dire consequences if I don't give them my vote!
If anyone wants my vote, in this free society we live in, they will have to earn it and demonstrate by past experiences that they will support my view of what America ought to be. I won't accept a politician who promises the world and poll-tests his convictions in order to get into office, only to run like he had always run before.
I cannot vote for John McCain because:
- The arm twisting by the conservative elite and the Republican leadership has become clear to me for what it is: terrorism.
- I don't agree with John McCain on global warming, immigration, campaign finance, etc.
- I don't trust John McCain to run to the right once he gets into office if he is more interested in running to the left to get in (those who do this only have more political IOU's to pay out, and most of them won't be in line with conservative ideas).
- John McCain's reputation as a maverick has only proven that he will run against the tide of Conservatism toward the tide of Liberalism. If that's an asset from a Conservative perspective, I'm not sure what to believe anymore.
- There are no guarantees that John McCain will do anything about the issues that Conservatives want him to. To prove this all you have to do is look at George Bush on Immigration, Government Spending, and Global Warming.
John McCain and the Republican king-makers will be solely responsible if he fails to get the true Conservative vote and loses the White House. I will not be guilted or shamed into voting for a man I do not agree with. If that's the case, why not vote for Hillary or Obama? The only difference is variation of degree.
Politicians my sell their souls to achieve certain ends; something they are despised for even though we almost expect it. But the day that voters sell their souls, we might as well start playing Taps on a muted trumpet! I expect more from myself, and hope for better from my government and its leaders.
Evangelical Intelligentsia
Here is an interesting article from the Washington Post that might give Christians some insight as to how the world views us, and maybe how we should view ourselves. The article is titled: Exploring Evangelical Minds, and looks at the Intelligentsia in the Evangelical world. From the article,
"...The study is being directed by Berger and Timothy Shah, an evangelical political scientist at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Shah is documenting the history of the evangelical movement, including its hostility to higher learning, a revival of scholarship, and the minds and ideas it has since produced.
Some aren't convinced that evangelical scholars have made as much progress as they think.
Boston College sociologist Alan Wolfe, who wrote an article in the Atlantic in 2000 called "The Opening of the Evangelical Mind," said despite the success of some evangelical scholars, many have retained an insularity and defensiveness that limits their effectiveness...."
This is a sad commentary on those of us who are called to serve the Lord with all our MINDS. If this study is any accurate indication of our success on that front, I think we really need to evaluate ourselves and what we are doing to represent the all-wise God that we serve and represent.
