A lot of folks get saved and have to forsake all of their old friends, their old hang-outs, even their families in order to gain a much better reward. I certainly did had to! Often, because old habits and natures assert themselves around those former peer groups and environments, a new convert's very survival, sadly, makes these sorts of situations unavoidable. Yet because Man is a social creature, this leaves a Void in their lives.

Now, a lot of folks will tell you that you should fill this Void with God. Well-meaning believers will make the claim that God alone should be sufficient, and that so long as we have Him for a companion, we should never feel alone. But while it's true that God could fill that Void completely with Himself, he has chosen instead that we believers support one another. Too often we forget that His method is men. By that, I mean you and me, of course.

The problem that many folks run into is that the Church's concept of "fellowship" is somewhat less than the Book advertised. They find the "ever-loving" Family of God to be somewhat estranged in most cases, and even dysfunctional in the worst cases! What we call "fellowship" doesn't even come close to the level of interaction that social humans require. Worse, it doesn't even compare to the relationships that new converts enjoyed when they were out in Sin!

We get a quick round of hugs and handshakes, and a few "God-bless-you"s, "Glad-you're-here"s, and "I-love-you"s that may be sincere, but are often merely rote. We say and do those things automatically, without thought or consideration. It's just a custom or a social nicety. Even if we are sincere, is this enough to base a "family" relationship on? How can you love someone you barely even know? How can you bear my burdens and I your's if we don't even know the load each of us bears?? I mean, who is that guy in the next pew exactly? What's their name? What are they going through? How did they get saved? Are they saved at all? Why do they come to your mutual church week after week? Why weren't they there last week?

Honestly, do we expect Sunday morning churchiness and potluck dinner gatherings to qualify as fellowship of any substance? My generation in particular cannot be satisfied with superficiality. A lot of our families are divorced, shattered, broken. We aren't sure we can trust this Heavenly Father because many of our own fathers were abusive or absent. How are we to trust our church fathers and pastors? Family is a notion we'd dearly like to experience, but to many of us it's just a notion.

So what is the answer? Small groups ministries? Special focus groups? Retreats? More belly-bustin' potluck dinners?

Opportunities are certainly needed, but what we need more is trust. What we need is a place where we can come together and not feel the need to put up a false front of Pharisaical spirituality. What we need is a place where we can confess our faults one to another [James 5:16] without these faults being used against us. Trust is hard to come by. It's reeeeeally easy to lose. Forever. But the USAmerican church has this tendency to eat their wounded. The moment someone shows a sign of weakness or dare I say earthiness, the attack begins. The judging. The holier-than-thou snobbery and snubbery. In some cases, I've even seen men of God try to run those who confess their faults out of the church, having used those confessed faults or weaknesses as leverage to oust someone for, I fear, political gain [I abhor church politics] -- for there ARE true wolves amongst the sheep.

But we must create, cultivate and ardently defend and maintain church environments that allow trust and honesty, for only then can we come together in authentic fellowship with one another.

Of course, trust has to begin with us. That's right. We have to be the one who is brave enough to go out on a limb and admit that we're not perfect. We have to be courageous enough in the face of a potential roomful of ferociously Pharisaical rule-breathing dragons to stand up and confess our faults, admit that we need help and for someone to stand in the gap with you to live this life. That's where true fellowship will begin in your congregation.

Take it from someone on the eathy side of Christendom,

Sirius Knott

ABOUT SARAH PALIN

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe."

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.

She is "pro-life." She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative." During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later — to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.

She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys." Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal — loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State's top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the "old boys' club" when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects — which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance — but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as "anti-pork."

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiative that would have either: a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.

There have to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there's a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.

CLAIM VS FACT
-- "Hockey mom": true for a few years
-- "PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
-- "NRA supporter": absolutely true
-- social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconstitutional).
-- pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
-- "Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation.
-- "Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
-- political maverick: not at all
-- gutsy: absolutely!
-- open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
-- has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
-- "a Greenie": no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
-- fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
-- pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
-- pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents.
-- pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
-- pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn't make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?
First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent." Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that’s life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall — they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s.

Anne Kilkenny
August 31, 2008

I Timothy 2:11-14 (NIV)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. (Ouch! Paul, take it easy.)

My Synopsis:

Obviously this is probably one of the more controversial debates within the today's religious communities. While there are some churches that still adhere to Paul's stipulation, there exist quite a few institutions of which women are not only allowed to spread the gospel; but they're encouraged as well. I'm not sure by which selective process we pick & choose the significance of particular doctrine and its durability over time but I always believed the word of God was eternally absolute; never changing -- ever preserving the divine instruction; of which our Lord has given us for use until the end of time. Considering this, the concept of a woman minister seems to be one of an oxymoron.

It is apparent to me that God had not intended for women to occupy seats of jurisdiction within the church (or anywhere else for that matter). Instead he goes on (through Paul) to insist the route upon which women should meet salvation -- through childbearing, faith, love and holiness. Furthermore, Paul does not restrain himself from mentioning Eve's infamous role in the unfortunate fall of man; almost insinuating faulty judgment within women and an ability to lead men astray. This is reasonable argument for anyone who reads their Bible in a literal manner. However, it is without a doubt that women of a more contemporary age are likely to find feelings of unfairness and discrimination.

For me, an atheist -- male at that, it matters little as to whether a man cites a non-existent God or if he chooses a woman to perform this task for him. Nonetheless, it is definitely a concern of which the entertaining congregations should address. Hypocrisy is not only an agent of social stigma but also something that Jesus, himself, slammed hard. If not to save face within the eyes of those who recognize the essence of holy doctrine; a woman should tackle this confusion for sake of her salvation.

I believe the single most important reason why so many of these Hollywood creative personnel are opposed to the Republican party, especially to the more conservative members of this party, is that the personal morals of many filmmakers deviate greatly from general norms of the American population.

General norms of the American population? Look around you, Dr. Becker. Where in this country can you find those norms being practiced? For someone who grew up in a religious, conservative town of 2,000 in the Midwest I would expect to have my own first-hand experience. Instead, I could create a laundry list of deviations from that "norm" among the residents of my hometown that would rival any sample of the same size in Hollywood. Sure, we hear about LiLo and Britney Gone Wild, but how many people from small town America have Access Hollywood tracking their divorce proceedings?

Anyone living in small town America should notice the doublespeak about how their traditional values are the backbone of this country while rumors fly around town about the latest affair involving a City Council member. It's not that Hollywood is more liberal, it's that Hollywood is admittedly more liberal. It is viewed as being more dysfunctional, but in reality it is a matter of exposure and a marginal increase in reckless behaviors. Any construction team in this country contains the same percentage of casual drug users (based upon my own substantial experiences, if you fund the research I will prove this empirically).

Creative contributors to films divorce in large numbers, often several times. Many have frequent affairs, often while married, they have children without marriage, they have significant numbers of abortions, have a higher than average presence of gays, especially in certain of the creative categories, who are open about their sexual preferences, they take cocaine and other drugs, and generally they lead a life style that differs greatly from what is more representative of the American public.

Again, Gary Becker assumes that what-you-see-is-what-you-get. In fact, he just seems a bit out of touch with reality (as he accuses Hollywood liberals of being) and more concerned with what our public record indicates (which has absolutely no balance of coverage between small town America and Hollywood). It's true that some in Hollywood love their bananas and blow, but I've never seen more blow than I did while partying with the daughters of the "traditional values" crowd throughout my high school and college years.

Here I am making unsubstantiated claims as I am certainly accusing Gary Becker and Richard Posner of doing, with two major differences. One, I am not supposed to be a well-respected academic with standards to uphold and two, I am using my own experience as my guide. If anyone cares to argue that Becker and Posner have observed these behaviors in Hollywood firsthand, be my guest.

By contrast, an important base of the Republican Party is against out of wedlock births, strongly pro life and against abortions, against gays, especially those who adopt an publicly gay lifestyle, against affairs while married, and very much oppose the legalization of drugs like cocaine and even marijuana.

This is the gem of the entire post. I'd like to thank Gary Becker for making my argument for me. It's true that "the Republican Party is against out of wedlock births...gays...affairs while married...and the legalization of drugs". The inherent flaw in that statement is that it admits they are not always behaving as such. I can think of one impending prominent out-of-wedlock birth from among the ranks of the same party. I believe I remember hearing about the McCain campaign pandering to their (obviously) selfless but underground gay Republicans. If I'm not mistaken Senator McCain actually began seeing his current wife while still married to his newly disfigured first wife. Then there is the example of Senator David Vitter of Louisiana who admitted to frequenting an escort service. I could continue, but this hypocrisy has already been exposed to any rational person who bothers to pay attention.

When I read further and noticed that Becker would attempt to explain away the instances of hypocrisy among Republicans, I decided to remove the link from my blog. These authors may continue to have some great posts about economics, but their social commentary only proves that is their only area of expertise. Maybe their next post should be "why are economists always wrong?"

Here's the sweet irony that's soon to be dribbling out of your overflowing mouth. Check out his update where he instructs you how to get Firefox and install greasemonkey and a script that will allow you to bury Digg comments without reading them automatically. Yeah, I saw it in one of his commentor's posts, but I couldn't blame the J man for his commentor's ideas.

I couldn't until J town embraced them as his own.

I didn't make the list (yet!) but I did at least get myself banned from participating in juicy J's land of fascist muzzling. Work harder soldier!

I will...

P.S. That list is a great resource for lots of very active diggers with great stories. So that's been a plus for me.

Check out this video about the Sarah Palin Gender Card and this one where Samantha Bee drives home a good point on the matter of choice.

Now, I am extremely loyal to my friends, because it takes a lot for someone to become a close friend of mine whom I love. In fact, some people who consider themselves my close friends would probably be shocked to know they don't quite meet my criteria for dog-like devotion, unlike this particular girl. While I'm generally not confrontational, my friends are the one things that will cause me to start arguments and hand out slaps.

Also, of my friends, many don't believe in my romantic view of relationships. Many prefer the more modern fashion of sleeping with whoever they like. I don't approve of this, mainly because it usually works out badly for them in the end, but also because with most of them I know it is not so much a way to have fun, but more a desperate cry for intimacy in an attempt to get over previous heartbreak. The fact that this particular girl is now in a happy relationship proves my point. Anyway, back to my story:

We'd all gone out drinking earlier that night, and due to a few disagreements over choices of pubs, me and this guy - let's call him Jamie - were already slightly pissed off with each other. During the course of the night my friend - Sarah - went off with a friend she hadn't seen in ages and we didn't see much of her after that, which is normal. At about three in the morning we all went back to my boyfriend's flat for banter, and the conversation turned to people we knew.

'Did Sarah go off with that guy?' Jamie said. 'Man, she's a slut.' A murmur of dissent from one girl. 'No, admit it, she's a slut.'

Rewind to two months previously, the night I got together with my boyfriend: at the end of the night Sarah suddenly went home with Jamie, which was a surprise to us all as they had shown no previous interest in each other. Our "Walks of Shame" crossed the next morning, with the variation that while she looked embarrassed, I was ecstatically happy. A week later, she asked him if he would like to do it again, and he told her quite clearly it was a one-night fling, which upset her and she went off with another guy she met at the end of the night.

So there you have it: guy has a one-night stand with a girl, doesn't want to make it anything more than that - hey, no problem there, his choice - and then feels he has the right to call her a slut.

I was furious. I turned to him.

'I'm sorry, but what right do you, of all people, have to call her a slut?'

He was unperturbed. 'I was innocent until I met Sarah -'

'What right do you have to call her a slut?'

'Well, you see, Sarah -'

At that moment we were interrupted by Sarah herself walking in (she was my boyfriend's flatmate at the time), staggering, nearly falling over from drunkenness. Smiling, she said a few garbled words about the friend she had been with - yes, the guy friend, that she had not done anything with - and went out again. There was a silence, and then someone struck up a different conversation, and we all acted as if nothing had happened, even me, sitting there seething like the coward I am. He left at about five in the morning and I was glad I wouldn't have to see him again for another three months.

What the hell goes on in his mind? What the hell gives a guy the idea that it's okay to sleep with a girl and then call her a slag? I don't understand it. I know I'm not the first to complain about the unfairness of a promiscuous guy being seen as a good thing while a promiscuous girl is a whore, but when you see real indications of that thinking in real life it's horrible. I thought we were meant to be past all this ancient "A man can have a million wives and mistresses but a woman must be monogomous or die" mindset.

Like I said, I don't agree with my friends' promiscuity, mainly for their own benefit. While she may get pleasure in being able to text me in the morning saying 'Guess who I slept with last night?' I imagine she gets far less pleasure when someone thinks she's an easy ride and doesn't listen when she says no.

Yes, that happened to one of them. And she's still sleeping around.

But in the end it doesn't matter what I think because it's their choices and their lives. Some do manage to make it light-hearted fun and I'm glad for them. I just wish that they'd be allowed to get on with it without being surrounded by all this hypocrisy.

Man, I might just go and slap that guy when I next see him...

Bill O’Reilly’s Faux bravado

By Jay Bookman
Saturday, September 6, 2008, 11:55 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

On this peaceful, pleasant Atlanta Saturday morning, my colleague Cynthia Tucker, syndicated columnist and the AJC’s editorial page editor, was returning from a trip to the grocery store when she was “ambushed” on the sidewalk in front of her home by a three-person crew sent by Fox’s Bill O’Reilly.

Here’s a little background:

In a recent column, Tucker noted that Bill O’Reilly had skewered the parents of 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears after she became pregnant. “The blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her,” O’Reilly said. Yet as Tucker noted in her column, O’Reilly seemed to have a different set of standards for the parents of Bristol Palin.

As Tucker stopped outside her house to pick up her mail, the Fox camera crew emerged out of a car parked across the street and advanced on her, yelling questions. At this point, I’ll turn it over to Tucker for the blow-by-blow account, as she recalls it:

O’Reilly guy: “Cynthia, in your column, were you comparing Bristol Palin to Jamie Lynn Spears?”

Cynthia: “In my column, I was criticizing Bill O”Reilly. And I stand by that.”

O’Reilly guy: “Bill pointed out that Jamie Lynn Spears was running around unsupervised. You know that. So you were saying that Bristol Palin was running around unsupervised.”

Cynthia: “If I said that, read that part. You’re holding the column (in your hand). Read where I said Bristol Palin was running around unsupervised.”

O’Reilly guy: “You inferred (sic) it.”

Cynthia: “I inferred O’Reilly is a hypocrite. And I stand by that. Good day, gentlemen. I’m going inside to finish my Saturday chores.”

(They ran behind me, shouting, “Why weren’t you in Minneapolis? You went to the Democratic Convention. Why didn’t you go to the Republican Convention?” I didn’t look back — just got in my car and drove into my driveway.)

Check out the entire column here.

You can read Cynthia's column about O'Reilly's hypocrisy here.

Bill O'Reilly has got some nerve to have his flunkies harass Cynthia in front of her home.  All she did was tell the truth about O'Reilly's hypocrisy.

I have a nice set of cards of the Tao that was translated by Chao-Hsiu Chen, and I bought a translation by Jonathan Star in book form to go with it. I was browsing books online today as I often do, and came across a rather fatuous interpretation (based on reviews) of the Tao by Wayne Dyer.

Then I decided to explore what else was available by real scholars of the Tao, preferably Chinese. When in doubt it's very simple: Chinese people understand and interpret their own culture and subtleties of language best. I came across a book I have put on my wish list called 365 Tao: Daily Meditations by Deng Ming-Dao. Since I do daily meditations with card decks generally, I thought I'd like this. He has other books but I liked the simplicity of this which is clearly written and avoids new age thought and speech according to reviews.

Considering the number of tarot decks I own and use and study, you might think that I am a new age type of person. Actually, I have little tolerance for new age precepts and find most followers of such things to be vacuous and ready to believe any bit of nonsense that flies about. Like other groups, they use collective buzzwords and bafflegab expressions without thought to what they are saying. They tend, as all humans in groups, toward hypocrisy and intolerance of those who do not agree with them. You will not be allowed to join them or speak, despite their oral devotion to rationality or "bright blessings" and "love and light," unless you believe what they believe in.

I have observed the sad reliance on a facade of personal power from several people. My direct experience of psychic ability or intuition, is of a biological ability similar to that documented in other animals, which has kept humans alert and alive for centuries. New age believers tend to hold it up like a shield earned only by select warriors, who are "special" in some way. They are "in the know" and "one of the few" and "connected to the Divine" and only they hold the secrets of life, and thus have power. Other groups promote "special" literature, the words that will give you power and take you to the next level and on to the ultimate mage-old secret, a secret that defies endangered life, finite resources, and unbreathable air quality. To unlock this members-only cosmic orgasm of the secret society, you must pay, and pay again, and never reveal the secrets of the initiate, but fork out cheese dip for your local group meeting, charged with the electric intellect of the successful few.

Tell it to your Granny, honey. Ascended masters, spirit guides, zonpower, auras, out of body revelations, the Akashic Library, channeling from outside? I do not want to know, thank you.

My view on humanity is fueled, not surprisingly, by a devotion to the Humanities. It's not cool these days, but so what, I have never been cool in my life, I figure I'm batting a thousand clichés of uncool. In the Humanities, there is room and freedom for the human mind, for the expansiveness of the human spirit and spiritual connection, for learning, philosophy, music, for literacy, language, history, and art; for enhancement and development of all the gifts and talents that humans are given. Could there be anything more exciting? Could there be anything more geared to connecting you to the Divine, to making you feel like the entire Universe is available to you?

So, stuff the special powers and magic incantations; forget reiki, the adept exercises and levels; the fourth dimension, the visions of past lives; the secret society of the desperate who feel weak without the prop of cant; forget the master designation from one organization or other, grand or not. Forget the course taught by an expert; the new book by the enlightened author who is all the rage, with all the answers on the meaning of life, or the meaning of cards, or how to be wealthy and famous and have fabulous psychuous sex and immortality. Forget the mailing list with the needy minds that read popular psychology and pseudo science or other false quagmires of clever words; forget the hierarchy, the in-crowd, the insular forum with pretend discussion by insular minds that circle the same, and the same again. Forget the repeated gobbledygook; the magic chalices and ceremonies in the woods; spooky, scary, evil card decks; and the lying allure of having special powers that others do not have.

We are HUMAN. What a delightful, unending opportunity!

“Today our opponent brought up earmarks and frankly I was surprised that he raised the subject. I didn’t think he’d want to go there,” she said. “Our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks in just three years…about a million dollars for every working day. Just wait until President John McCain puts a stop to that.”

The entire article can be found at FOXNews

As is nakedly evident, the speech’s central argument, that the 72-year-old McCain will magically morph into a powerful change agent as president, is a non sequitur. In his 26 years in Washington, most of it with a Republican in the White House and roughly half of it with Republicans in charge of Congress, he was better at lecturing his party about reform than leading a reform movement. G.O.P. corruption and governmental dysfunction only grew. So did his cynical flip-flops on the most destructive policies...

We still don’t know a lot about Palin except that she’s better at delivering a speech than McCain and that she defends her own pregnant daughter’s right to privacy even as she would have the government intrude to police the reproductive choices of all other women. Most of the rest of the biography supplied by her and the McCain camp is fiction.

She didn’t say “no thanks” to the “Bridge to Nowhere” until after Congress had already abandoned it but given Alaska a blank check for $223 million in taxpayers’ money anyway. Far from rejecting federal pork, she hired lobbyists to secure her town a disproportionate share of earmarks ($1,000 per resident in 2002, 20 times the per capita average in other states). Though McCain claimed “she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities,” she has never issued a single command as head of the Alaska National Guard. As for her “executive experience” as mayor, she told her hometown paper in Wasilla, Alaska, in 1996, the year of her election: “It’s not rocket science. It’s $6 million and 53 employees.” Her much-advertised crusade against officials abusing their office is now compromised by a bipartisan ethics investigation into charges that she did the same.

Okay Obama-Biden, now it's your turn to go after McCain-Palin with the same hammer and tongs.

Hello?

Anyone there?

I blew off reading the article when it first appeared, after all Gloria Steinem is utterly irrelevant to my life. She is just another East Coast, elitist, snob laboring under the pretension that she somehow has the right to tell me what to think and do. I grew up as a daughter of the 70s Dazed and Confused generation, when the National Organization of Women was at its nadir. While our mothers were supposedly all living the Swingtown experience and ignoring their children, I and many of my friends were taken under the wings of older feminists. These women, trying to relive the dubious glory of their 60s bra burning days, encouraged us to fight The Man, be independent, not allow ourselves to be baby-making factories, and to storm the halls of the Captains of Industry.

True to the quote attributed to Ms. Steinem, "Evil is obvious only in retrospect," my eyes were opened to the phoniness of feminism in the 80s. Now in their mid- to late-thirties, these NOW nags began popping out babies at a rapid pace. They somehow couldn't divest themselves of the motherly urges programmed into those X chromosomes. After years of advising that children would only tie me down and ruin my career, one of them proudly told me she didn't feel like a "real woman" until she got pregnant. This, after years of trying to convince us younger women that motherhood and family life were antiquated and outdated! Unfortunately for me, my biological clock stopped ticking earlier than most women's, therefore no mid-life crisis babies for me. Several of my contemporaries, who bought into the free-sex and liberation lie, had so many abortions by that time that they could no longer conceive.

In a sad, satirical way my 70s and 80s experience with feminism is somehow captured in the 1987 movie Lost Boys. A generation of girls, left without direction when their mothers went to work or off to do their own thing, were like lambs for the feminists to seduce. As grandpa snorts in the Lost Boys, "There's one thing about living in Santa Carla I never could stomach - all the damn vampires." There's one thing about feminists that I never could stomach - all the damn vampires. Bite me, Gloria.

Additional Reading:

• Why Democrats Fear Sarah Palin, by Patrick Dorinson
• With Friends Like Gloria Steinem..., by Rick Moran
• The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse, by Michelle Malkin.

Oh, and don't even get me started on how "the 'liberal' media is attacking Sarah Palin's personal life." And don't tell me her personal life should be off-limits in the first place. Because it seems only the embarrassing aspects of her life are off limits. And nothing was ever off limits for the Clintons.

Obama disclosed that he had once considered serving in the military.

“You know, I actually did,” Obama said. “I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there.

“And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren’t engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue.”

UPDATE at 9/7/08 9:12:26 am:

Just one problem with Obama’s little story.

Registration for selective service was not reinstated until 1980.

On March 25, 1975, Pres. Gerald Ford signed Proclamation 4360, Terminating Registration Procedures Under Military Selective Service Act, eliminating the registration requirement for all 18-25 year old male citizens. Then on July 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed Proclamation 4771, Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act, retroactively re-establishing the Selective Service registration requirement for all 18-26 year old male citizens born on or after January 1, 1960. Only men born between March 29, 1957, and December 31, 1959, were completely exempt from Selective Service registration. The first registrations after Proclamation 4771 took place on Monday, July 21, 1980, for those men born in January, February and March 1960 at U.S. Post Offices.

(Hat tip:Nancy@LGF)

Yesterday, Michelle Malkin reported on the latest rumor being floated about Sarah Palin in the liberal blogosphere.

A brief recap of the story: a waitress known only as "Lucille" (out of fear of being "discovered telling folks in the lower 48 about life in Alaska") "overheard" Sarah Palin exclaim derogatory comments about Barack Obama AND Hillary Clinton upon learning that The Anointed One had secured the nomination selection process by the DNC.

What's really funny about this is that there is real evidence of racial stereotyping and derogatory comments made by the Democrats' own Vice Presidential candidate. Watch the following three videos of Joe Biden discussing employees at Dunkin' Donuts, Barack Obama's cleanliness, and the proud status of Delaware as a slave state:

Has Bill O'Reilly apologized to the Spears family for calling them pinheads? If the Spears parents are pinheads then aren't the Palin parents pinheads too? I mean Jamie Lynn Spears isn't relying on society to support her and her baby.

By the way the second largest city in Alaska is Fairbanks.  I though Karl Rove is suppose to be so smart.

I have previously stated in another post that I believe that real change begins from within, and herein lies the challenge I must confront. That challenge now is to change from within, and to allow that change to permeate throughout my conduct. The challenge is to exercise discipline in my behaviour, and to integrate my beliefs with my actions. Alone I cannot achieve this, I know that.

I feel direction-less sometimes, superficial even, and vain. Preaching one thing and then conducting differently. This must end, and I must make an effort. For me this realization is a personal milestone.

You may have noticed that recently my posts have been focused upon character, with the emphasis placed on the 'act' within the term. That particular post, on character, provides some indication of why I believe it is important, and therefore, why I believe I must change.

My take?  It's Oprah's show, and she can bring whomever she darned well pleases onto the show.  She's campaigned for The One, so she's invested in him.  However, she also has to be able to handle the fallout from any of her decisions, even poor business decisions like this one.  My guess is that in the end, her double standard and her choice of race over gender won't scar her too terribly.

Note the introduction explaining the clear as day hypocrisy of Sen. John McCain claiming he's going to tell Washington lobbyists that "change is coming." Mac won't have to go far to mouth those words to his campaign staff his lobbyist friends, several of whom are still doing lobbying work (cough, Charlie Black, cough, cough) while on the campaign bus and one of whom (sniffle, sniffle, Randy Scheunemann, sniffle) is co-owner of a lobbying firm that raked in a $200,000 payout from the nation of Georgia as McCain was simultaneously ramping up "his" heated rhetoric about Russia and Georgia.

The question on November 4th is simple: Should the West Wing be filled to the brim with staff people who draw a paycheck from foreign governments and special interests or with staff people who are smart enough to bring about a change to the lobbyist-culture entrenched in Washington?

In other words, where do you want the West Wing's sympathies to lie with we the American people or with foreign governments, international corporations, and moneyed special interests?