Politics: Packing Pistols

I heard this story listening to Preston and Steve on my way to work this morning, but Anna Venger also mentioned it.

A guy tries to mug a wheelchair bound woman in Harlem. She is on her way to a local shooting range. Bad timing. She shoots him with her .357 magnum. In the elbow. Looks, like she really needed that range trip after all.

God: Mundane Miracles

Joe Cathey is showing off his newborn son Andrew along with Joe's questionable fashion sense. Congrats Joe!

Blogging: That's Why They Call Them Beta

According to Mitchell Lewis, the Blogger Beta is not all it's cracked up to be. Which is a shame because labels and heirarchical archive listings are things I really want.

I've been on Blogger for over two years now. For the first few months, Blogger regularly ate posts and spontanteously stopped working. It hasn't really done that for over a year. It sounds like Blogger Beta takes us back to the bad ole days of blogger. It's blogger so eventually they'll get it right.

Via John the Methodist.

Blogging: Cat Blogging Will Now Commense

Milo is settling in well:


He's acting like a normal cat:


And has made himself comfortable:


So far so good. We set up the usual cat items when we got home last night. Unfortunately we set them up in the master bathroom, which he doesn't seem to like. They're near our walk-in closet now and he's using them normally. He ate his food this morning and has already used the litter box so all is well.

Now hopefully waking us up at 3:30 am by sitting on our faces will not become a regular event.

God and Politics: The Left's God Problem

Robert Parham's essay on why the left is still losing ground with people of faith is quite excellent. The left embraces faith in much the same way the embrace minorities. With soundbites and scaremongering. That might be enough to keep voters you already have, but it isn't enough to get voters you don't.

Bruce Prescott, an Oklahoma Baptist and voting Democrat, has this to say:

Few Democrats that I know are concerned about preserving liberty of conscience for persons of minority faith, they are primarily concerned about preserving votes for their next election.

Republicans are certainly guilty of the preserving votes phenomenon too, especially in the last few years. But I'd like to see American government take a leading role in advocating for religious rights, especially on the international scene. I think either party would do well if they advocate for it.

UPDATE: Michael asked my thoughts about Faithful Democrats. Well I definitely prefer them to the athiest variety. But while I may share my faith in God with them, I doubt I share their likely faith in government. I would much rather have a small government that empowers citizens to perform good works instead of a large government that empowers itself to perform good works at the expense of its citizens.

My sister and brother-in-law are most likely faithful democrats. They go to church regularly. But in terms of practical values, I probably share more with athiests like Kim and Connie du Toit than I do with them. Which is a shame, but unfortunately no less true.

Fun: Kitty Time

We'll be picking up our kitty tonight at 6 at the Brandywine PetSmart. Amybear is the winner of the name the kitty contest with "Milo." She has the story behind the name on her blog.

UPDATE: Yes Amybear is married to the contest judge. I guess life just isn't fair in love, war, and kitty naming contests with unspecified prizes.

Politics: Good Politics and Good Policy

Newt Gingrich seems to have a pretty good 11 point plan for Republicans to run on in November. Now if only they had the spine to do it.

Via Kim du Toit.

God: Time Discipline

As always, Steve is giving good advice:

I sketched out a personal time budget tonight. I needed to see for myself how thin my margins are and make sure I'm not spending my energy in such a way that I am depleting my personal capital.

Why yes he does work in finance, how did you know?

Some people tend to be too busy. My mother is like this. She volunteered for a lot of activities because they need to be done. But of course they don't need to be done by her. While I was in college she kept herself almost crazy busy for several years. She wore herself down in the process and it seemed like she never had anything finished. Recently she has cut back a lot partly because she is getting a little older but mostly because my grandparents are getting a lot older. She wants to visit them a lot more which means she can do a lot less in other places. A time budget would probably show her that she is generally doing too much.

I'm probably on the opposite end of the spectrum. When I get home from work I want to sit on my rump, snuggle with my wife, eat some dinner, and watch TV. I'm not that interested in doing things as a general rule. For guys like me a good time budget would probably show me how much more I could be doing without sacrificing anything meaningful.

In any case, this kind of activity can't really hurt anybody.

God: Prayer for Joe's Growing Family

As I type, Joe Cathey's wife Nancy will be giving birth to their second child. She was scheduled to be induced at 8:30 EST. Prayers are always appropriate.

UPDATE: Actually I got that wrong, she was due to be induced yesterday. No word from Joe yet though.

Politics: Marriage Amendments

Instapundit agreed with this article by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson. To put it bluntly I think the article is crap. I was going to give the article a thorough fisking, but frankly I don't have the time. There is just too much wrong with it. Here are a few highlights:

• Wilkinson suggests that ordinary legislation will suffice to settle this issue. Since he already admits that the Massachusetts Supreme Court invented state constitutional rights in their ruling, obviously this is not the case. Only a state constitutional amendment will settle the issue.
• Wilkinson states that a constitutional amendment (state or federal) will "shackle future generations" to this policy. Remember Prohibition? Well no probably not, it was repealed before most of us were born. Hey wasn't that a constitutional amendment?
• He states that constitutions are not the place to enact policies. Except for things like the Federal budget cycle and many other important policy considerations which are in the US Constitution.
• He states that the Federal Marriage Amendment is giving the states "constitution fever." Actually the FMA is going nowhere, but Massachusetts pointed out that state amendments are necessary to prevent local abuses of power. They are cropping up everywhere because of checks and balances not a few conservatives.

I really really really expect better from a Federal judge.

Wheels: The New Swift Sport

The "high performance" Suzuki Swift Sport is featured in a World Car Fans article. I'm pretty excited about this car, provided I could actually fit into the drivers seat. It is passably quick, great in the corners, and gets good fuel economy. Think of something like a Mini Cooper, but lighter by several hundred pounds and about ten thousand dollars. Sounds pretty good to me. Suzuki is talking about bringing the car to US shores the 2007 to 2008 timeframe.

Via Autoblog.

Fun: Cat Names

I mentioned that Amy and I will probably be adopting an orange tabby soon. His name is "Skippy" and he's about 1 to 2 years old. Not a kitten, but still a kitty. Amy and I don't like his name very much. We have a few alternatives like "Dexter", "Ginger," "Loki," and "Gizmo." If you have a preference or a suggestion, go ahead and make it in the comments. Oh and while he is an orange tabby we won't be naming him Garfield or Heathcliff.

God: Paying the Pastorate

John the Methodist asks:

What do you think? What should be the basis of pastoral compensation?

The conversation over there is worth the read, but one aspect that hasn't been brought up much yet is scripture. The bible actually has something to say on this very subject in 1 Corinthians 9:

Don't we have the right to food and drink? Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?

Paul goes on to discuss how he and Barnabas foreswore compensation from the Corinthian church, instead they worked themselves in order to pay their own way and further serve that church. But it is the minister who can refuse payment, not the ministry which can refuse to pay.

Pastoral compensation is a pretty tricky subject. While the pastoral staff at my church seems to earn their keep, we also seem to be picking up full-time non-pastoral staff right and left. And those folks are often in much more of a gray area of effectiveness. Other churches have pastors who are overburdening the (often shrinking) congregation with their high salaries. But they are very respected ministers in the denomination, I assure you.

So it's a tricky subject and I don't have an easy answer. Since I prefer congregational church government, I'd like to see the individual churches hammer this out for themselves on a case by case basis. I doubt the Methodist church has that option since ministers are almost certainly paid by the denomination and not the individual church.

Blogging: In the News

Delaware blogging was covered in yesterday's News Journal, Paul Smith represented the DCBA and did it well. The conclusion worries me though:

Scott, of "Delaware Liberal," is ready for that new era to begin.

"I'm waiting on the edge of my seat for Castle's announcement speech, because I'm going to pull that thing apart," he said.

He must be a liberal if Mike the Megamoderate Castle is too far to the right for him. The only difference between Castle and Tom Carper is the letter next to his name.

Fun: Kitty Cats

It looks like Amy and I will soon be adopting a cat. We think that this should work better than a dog, because cats are more self sufficient and don't need facilities, like a fenced in yard, that we don't have.

Amy had a cat when she was younger. I've never had one, so this will really be a learning experience for me.

Not So Fun: Steve Irwin, Dead at 44

Amybear and I have enjoyed his various antics and television series for a long time. Sure he seemed suicidal, but I always had a certain sense that he knew what he was doing and I didn't. Now he's gone, killed because he swam too close to a sting ray on Austrailia's Great Barrier Reef. He left behind his wife Terri, an 8 year-old daughter, and a 3 year-old son. We'll miss you Steve.

Via Physics Geek, Jesus Freak.

God: Jesus is the Answer

But what is the question? According to Jared at Thinklings, you just have to pick a question. Any question.

I donÂ’t believe in this day and age the Church can stress enough that the "point" of Christianity is Jesus himself. The point of Scripture, the point of prayer, the point of faith - all Jesus.

I can understand where Jared is coming from. Jesus is the most important, most significant, and most unique figure in our religion and our faith. He is what sets us apart from everyone else. When we lose sight of him we suffer. To the extent that Jared talks about the Gospels, he still has it right.

Here is my guiding principle for reading the Gospels: The point is Jesus. Every saying, every story - Jesus. If the main point you're getting out of the story doesn'’t center squarely on Jesus, I respectfully suggest your aim is off.

Yes the Gospels are all about Jesus. They are his biographies after all. But I have a real problem with this whole all Jesus and nothing else philosophy. For instance Acts is all about the Holy Spirit. If you leave out the Holy Spirit, you miss the point. Large parts of the Old Testament are all about the power of the Father.

God in each of his three beings is ultimately what we, as Christians, should care about. Jesus is so important because he allows us to reconnect to God and is God. He is the Way to God, but he is not the entirety of God. Which is why I have a problem with that philosophy. It seems like you are leaving out two thirds of the story.

Let me illustrate. Think about the Golden Gate Bridge. It is gorgeous. The American Society of Civil Engineers proclaimed it a Wonder of the World. It is perhaps the most photographed bridge in the world and ultimately many of us have only seen pictures of it. But ultimately, it wasn't constructed to be in pictures. It wasn't built to be the symbol of San Francisco. It was built to bridge opening of the San Francisco Bay from the city in the South to Marin County in the North.

Jesus is like the Golden Gate Bridge. He is the Wonder of the Universe. He is the central figure of all Christianity and the symbol of our faith. People come to Christianity just to get to see Jesus. But in the end he is so important because he is the reconciler and redeemer. He is the final sacrifice. He is the bridge through whom Christians gain access to the Spirit and the Father in a deep and personal way. I think if you asked Christ what made him so special, he would have pointed to the Father.

Ultimately making everything about Jesus is not a good idea. It is about losing sight of the Spirit and the Father. It is about sacrificing meaning not creating it. I cannot worship the Prince of Peace so deeply that I lose sight of his father the King. After all, he came to me solely to make the introduction.

Politics: Detainees and the Geneva Conventions

John the Methodist is discussing the legal nature of detainees. While I agree with his interpretation, unfortunately the Supreme Court did not. I would like to bring up one of his points:

...they argued that the Geneva Conventions class people in only two ways: prisoners of war and civilians. There is no such thing as an 'unlawful combatant' -- a term that never appears in the text of the Geneva Conventions. Captured terrorists are actually civilians.

I have heard this rhetoric before and I would like to expose it's half-truthfulness. The half-truth is that the Geneva Conventions do not use the term unlawful combatant. That is true. The half-lie is that under the Geneva Conventions an individual can only fall into one of two groups, "prisoner of war" or "civilian."

The way the conventions actually work is that, out of the entire population within a warzone, it creates two protected groups. These are "prisoners of war" who are former "combatants" and "civilians" who were not "combatants." These groups are mutually exclusive, so you can't be in both. However it doesn't divide the population into one of those two groups. They are not all-encompassing, so that you can be in neither. If you do not meet the definition of a "prisoner of war" or a "civilian" then you are simply not protected by the Geneva Conventions at all.

By unlawful combatant, the administration is essentially saying that these detainees are in the "neither" group. They are fighting and therefore they are not "civilians." They are non-uniformed irregular combatants who blend in with the civilian population and therefore they are not "prisoners of war." Therefore they are simply not protected. These rules were changed significantly by Protocol I, Section III, Article 44 which is an amendment to the Geneva Conventions. The USA has not ratified Protocol I and so they are non-binding on the US.

The Geneva Conventions were deliberately written to exclude people in this way. Russia used this loophole to crush dissent across most of Eastern Europe after WWII. No one wanted to grant unaligned irregular forces any international rights or protections for obvious reasons. Nations treat unprotected groups however they see fit within the structure of their own laws. Which is how we should be dealing with them, by creating our own laws not by inventing things out of thin air or fat heads.

Guns: Why I Support Israel

Hot female Israeli soldiers. Jewish women are both beautiful and dangerous, a fact which is not lost on me. After all I married one. And pretty Jewish girls with guns? Hey even better.

A lot of pictures show these femme fatales with their rifles which I found especially interesting. It looks the Israeli M-16s all use A1 sights. Some of their guns are definitely A1s, at least they have the triangular handguards of A1s. But their A2s and M4s also use A1 sights.

I always considered the A2 sight superior to the A1, I wonder why they didn't switch? Perhaps it has to do with standardized training their troops or arsenal refinishing older rifles into newer variants.

Fun: Kitchen Myths

Rob has a link to mythbusting legends of cooking and the kitchen. Among other things, they reveal that searing does not seal in juices and that alcohol used in cooking does not entirely (or even mostly) evaporate.