Just a few random thoughts for a Tuesday.
Caught Netanyahu's speech to Congress. It made me wish there was a candidate for the American Presidency with his bearing and forthrightness. Still hoping somebody like that steps up, but haven't seen him (or her) yet.
Tornado season is pretty awful this time around. Barely catching our breath from Joplin, there seem to be a rash of new tornados running through Oklahoma.
Which somehow brings me to the end-time subject. I sort of feel sorry for the guy who predicted the "Rapture" this past Saturday, but can't really figure out what motivated him.
Just walking through some basic stuff in that area: The Bible's pretty explicit that we won't know the day or hour, thief in the night, and all that stuff. So if he is a committed evangelical, why did he overlook that?
Then, just suppose for a moment that he had some sort of divine inspiration that it was happening on Saturday. Think about it, whether he was right or not, his widely publicized predictions were widely and pretty much universally mocked and ridiculed, as was he. So even if he did predict it correctly and all the worthy followers of Christ disappeared from the earth Saturday. The only possible motivation he could have had for warning everyone about it in advance would have been the hope that one or two people out there would have taken him seriously and got right with God in time for the event. But from what I hear, he sort of seemed to expect to just be vindicated, sort of like "ha, ha, nya, nya, I was right and you're left behind to suffer the Great Tribulation!" That's not really very Christian either.
Then there's the little problem that as I understand it, most theologians think the whole "Rapture" concept is sort of bunk, just made up by misreading and out-of-context interpretations of various passages in the Bible. Oh well.
It's intriguing to see those sensationalist programs on the History and Discovery channels about end times prophecy, tying apocalyptic prophecies together to conclude they all have similar end of the world stories and all seem to point to it happening by next year.
Intriguing, but not important. As a believer, I'm looking for Christ's return like anybody, and understand I should try to be a solid citizen of the faith regardless of whether it happens in my lifetime. But it doesn't make sense to get all absorbed in the whole thing - we all need to live our lives as best we can and let what happens happen.
Looking around the world, it's still easy to be a bit concerned with all the stuff going on. We're in the middle of the disintegration of America, Iran seems likely to have nuclear weapons very soon that they can't wait to lob into Israel, the so-called "Arab Spring" seems more likely to turn the rest of the region into little Irans with the same goals, the little Communist Chavez in Venezuela is reportedly setting up missiles he's aiming at the United States. Tornados and earthquakes and volcanos, Oh My! The country is broke, gas costs 4 bucks a gallon, food prices are skyrocketing, our kids graduate from high school without being able to read a newspaper or balance a checkbook, more people now live off the government than by private means, and half the country is more interested in arguing about whether gay people should get married.
Put them all together, and the end of the world seems inevitable. Maybe the Rapture would be a good thing, but then again only if I qualify and can somehow get my loved ones to jump the line and come with me.
Maybe that's it - the guy was right about the Rapture happening on Saturday! It just turned out that Jesus arrived but couldn't find anybody worthy enough to take to Heaven, so he just called the whole thing off.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Obama All In
The fitting analogy comes from the ubiquitous televised poker tournaments, where a player about to lose decides to go "All In", betting everything he has left on the current hand, knowing he'll either lose and be out of the tournament or win and have a chance to keep playing.
Even though it seems a bit early, Obama seems to be going All In right now, presumably as part of his re-election campaign. In only the last couple of weeks, he's taken stunning leftism to new and unprecedented levels.
He's been demagoguing the immigration and energy issues, shamelessly lying and distorting both issues in the apparent belief that you can fool just enough of the people to get re-elected. Claiming to be championing expanded domestic energy production and declaring the borders secure when everyone knows the opposite is true would have the media screaming "liar!" if he were a Republican.
We're all (except perhaps the most hard-line Leftists) happy he allowed the Seals to take out bin Laden, but he seems to have used that PR victory as impetus for pushing boldly ahead with his incomprehensible foreign policies. This guy the Left holds up as the smartest President decides on his own that Israel should unilaterally pull back to pre-1967 borders to appease the Arab world, as if that will magically pacify Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other groups bent on wiping them off the map.
That's either naive in the extreme or he's playing for the other team. I'm rapidly coming to conclude that it's the latter.
Then there's the healthcare mess and the government spending mess and the explosion of regulation, crises he and his party refuse to even acknowledge. Take a look at this article for the latest on the disaster that is Obamacare.
What is most difficult to understand is how polls still seem to show that half the country still supports the narcissist-in-chief. I realize there isn't a clear and strong leader out there yet, and it will be next summer before one emerges. Still, if you're not to the point yet of supporting anybody but Obama, you're either a card-carrying socialist/communist revolutionary or you're just not paying attention.
Even though it seems a bit early, Obama seems to be going All In right now, presumably as part of his re-election campaign. In only the last couple of weeks, he's taken stunning leftism to new and unprecedented levels.
He's been demagoguing the immigration and energy issues, shamelessly lying and distorting both issues in the apparent belief that you can fool just enough of the people to get re-elected. Claiming to be championing expanded domestic energy production and declaring the borders secure when everyone knows the opposite is true would have the media screaming "liar!" if he were a Republican.
We're all (except perhaps the most hard-line Leftists) happy he allowed the Seals to take out bin Laden, but he seems to have used that PR victory as impetus for pushing boldly ahead with his incomprehensible foreign policies. This guy the Left holds up as the smartest President decides on his own that Israel should unilaterally pull back to pre-1967 borders to appease the Arab world, as if that will magically pacify Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other groups bent on wiping them off the map.
That's either naive in the extreme or he's playing for the other team. I'm rapidly coming to conclude that it's the latter.
Then there's the healthcare mess and the government spending mess and the explosion of regulation, crises he and his party refuse to even acknowledge. Take a look at this article for the latest on the disaster that is Obamacare.
What is most difficult to understand is how polls still seem to show that half the country still supports the narcissist-in-chief. I realize there isn't a clear and strong leader out there yet, and it will be next summer before one emerges. Still, if you're not to the point yet of supporting anybody but Obama, you're either a card-carrying socialist/communist revolutionary or you're just not paying attention.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Book Review
Actually, this post might more accurately be described as a commentary more than a review of the autobiography by Dick Van Dyke called My Lucky Life in and Out of Show Business.
I picked up the book on my Kindle because I'd always sort of admired Van Dyke as an immensely talented entertainer, mainly through his original TV show with Mary Tyler Moore and his amazing performance in Mary Poppins. I wanted to find out whether he really was as nice a guy as he seemed to project on screen, and just to get an idea of who the man was away from the camera.
My conclusions are mainly these: Yes, he apparently is a very nice and appealing person in real life, but sadly is also another one of those cliche'd Hollywood narcissists. While if I ever had the chance to meet him, I'm certain that I would find him likeable and engaging, I'm disappointed in how little he's seemed to learn over his long and blessed life.
Dick was a very well-grounded man of integrity through much of his life, until he fell victim to Hollywood. He was a devoted man of God, an elder in his church until the day his developing liberal sensibilities were insulted by one or two of his fellow elders. Their offense was in opposing an idea he proposed for some kind of racial church exchange program between his upscale Brentwood congregation and a black church from Watts.
Rather than being patient and understanding of what obviously was an expression of fear by his colleagues in the church, Dick stormed out of the meeting and never darkened the door of that or any other church again.
What happened in his life after that major turning point is interesting.
He became an alcoholic, even though previously he had never even touched alcohol.
The man who admitted having a crush on Mary Tyler Moore made a point of doing nothing about it because of his commitment to his marriage. But by severing that anchor that was his Christian faith, he changed that particular principle when he became attracted to the younger woman during his inevitable mid-life crisis. He left the wife with whom he had raised four children and broke his solemn vows to her, God, and everyone else so he could live out an adulterous affair with the younger woman, Michelle Triola of "Palimony" fame.
His clumsy rationalizations for his adultery used every cheap Hollywood line you'd expect to hear. They'd just grown apart, they both changed, they both wanted different things from life, he was experiencing a new chapter of self-discovery, the new girl (Michelle) understood him so well, blah, blah, blah. Megan Fox could invent more intelligent rationalizations. I would have appreciated him more if he'd just been honest; pure and simple, he got bored with his aging wife and hooked up with an exciting younger model.
Dick's religion these days appears to be Liberalism, although I don't get the sense that he's obnoxious about it like many of his colleagues. Instead of gaining wisdom with age, he seems instead to have regressed. He comes across as the typical shallow California liberal; as long as he supports liberal candidates and causes, he can assuage his guilt over his wealth and success.
I had hoped to find someone in this book I could admire as a man who overcame his mistakes and personal failures to emerge as a great example to the rest of us of wisdom and integrity. Instead, I just found a likeable and very talented entertainer that is sadly just as narcissistic and self-absorbed as seemingly every other talented entertainer. That's disappointing.
This post didn't start out with the intention of being as hard on Dick as it turned out. I still think I'd like him a lot if I ever got to meet him. It is striking to me that he never seems to have made the connection that's so obvious from his own book; every one of his life's biggest problems, except for the tragic loss of his teenage granddaughter, happened as a direct consequence of his abandoning God and the Church. My prayer is that God finds a way to hold up that mirror for him someday before he passes.
I picked up the book on my Kindle because I'd always sort of admired Van Dyke as an immensely talented entertainer, mainly through his original TV show with Mary Tyler Moore and his amazing performance in Mary Poppins. I wanted to find out whether he really was as nice a guy as he seemed to project on screen, and just to get an idea of who the man was away from the camera.
My conclusions are mainly these: Yes, he apparently is a very nice and appealing person in real life, but sadly is also another one of those cliche'd Hollywood narcissists. While if I ever had the chance to meet him, I'm certain that I would find him likeable and engaging, I'm disappointed in how little he's seemed to learn over his long and blessed life.
Dick was a very well-grounded man of integrity through much of his life, until he fell victim to Hollywood. He was a devoted man of God, an elder in his church until the day his developing liberal sensibilities were insulted by one or two of his fellow elders. Their offense was in opposing an idea he proposed for some kind of racial church exchange program between his upscale Brentwood congregation and a black church from Watts.
Rather than being patient and understanding of what obviously was an expression of fear by his colleagues in the church, Dick stormed out of the meeting and never darkened the door of that or any other church again.
What happened in his life after that major turning point is interesting.
He became an alcoholic, even though previously he had never even touched alcohol.
The man who admitted having a crush on Mary Tyler Moore made a point of doing nothing about it because of his commitment to his marriage. But by severing that anchor that was his Christian faith, he changed that particular principle when he became attracted to the younger woman during his inevitable mid-life crisis. He left the wife with whom he had raised four children and broke his solemn vows to her, God, and everyone else so he could live out an adulterous affair with the younger woman, Michelle Triola of "Palimony" fame.
His clumsy rationalizations for his adultery used every cheap Hollywood line you'd expect to hear. They'd just grown apart, they both changed, they both wanted different things from life, he was experiencing a new chapter of self-discovery, the new girl (Michelle) understood him so well, blah, blah, blah. Megan Fox could invent more intelligent rationalizations. I would have appreciated him more if he'd just been honest; pure and simple, he got bored with his aging wife and hooked up with an exciting younger model.
Dick's religion these days appears to be Liberalism, although I don't get the sense that he's obnoxious about it like many of his colleagues. Instead of gaining wisdom with age, he seems instead to have regressed. He comes across as the typical shallow California liberal; as long as he supports liberal candidates and causes, he can assuage his guilt over his wealth and success.
I had hoped to find someone in this book I could admire as a man who overcame his mistakes and personal failures to emerge as a great example to the rest of us of wisdom and integrity. Instead, I just found a likeable and very talented entertainer that is sadly just as narcissistic and self-absorbed as seemingly every other talented entertainer. That's disappointing.
This post didn't start out with the intention of being as hard on Dick as it turned out. I still think I'd like him a lot if I ever got to meet him. It is striking to me that he never seems to have made the connection that's so obvious from his own book; every one of his life's biggest problems, except for the tragic loss of his teenage granddaughter, happened as a direct consequence of his abandoning God and the Church. My prayer is that God finds a way to hold up that mirror for him someday before he passes.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Handicapping Early Debate
I checked out the too-early debate last night with five of the GOP presidential hopefuls. It seems to have been an opportunity for the lesser-known candidates to get exposure, and because the top contenders didn't show up, it was also a chance for top-tier candidate Tim Pawlenty to test his debate chops.
From my perspective, Pawlenty succeeded. He seemed poised and confident, and provided plenty of red meat for the Republican audience in South Carolina. His performance ranked him first on my scorecard.
The sneering Left will accuse Fox News as being too cozy with the candidates, but the panel did a great job feeding tough questions. This was no softball MSNBC-hosted Democrat debate, nor was it Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann throwing 'when did you stop beating your wife' spitballs. The Fox panel asked pertinent and challenging questions, sparing no one and following up to demand substantive answers from the candidates.
Ron Paul is certainly consistent, reprising his role in the debate as the maverick libertarian in the race. I know he excites a certain segment of young libertarians, but he's still a little too far out there for my tastes.
Herman Cain is an interesting candidate, and I thought he did well in the debate. He's the exact sort of black conservative we'd love to see running against Obama to put the lie to the constant drumbeat over the course of Obama's presidency that conservatives who oppose his policies do so only because of racism.
Rick Santorum tried to convey strong convictions and the mythical "fire in the belly" as the social conservative champion. But I thought he seemed nervous, and had some difficulty putting the right words together; I felt like I could see him fighting an internal losing battle with himself to suppress those nerves. I've heard him speak before and like him, so I could tell he wasn't totally on his game on this important stage.
Gary Johnson turned in the worst performance of the night, to the degree that he's the one candidate of the five I've already scratched off the list. Besides my disagreement with many of his ideas, I wasn't impressed with him in the way he looked or talked, and was irritated at his carping over not getting enough attention from the panel.
When the rest of the field gets in, I don't look forward to the cattle-call debates. When you get much beyond last night's 5 candidates, debates don't really work, because there's no way anyone can have enough time to give people a true sense of who they are and what they believe. I wonder how future debate organizers will address that problem, or if they will even try.
At least there will be something for everyone in the Republican field. Ron Paul the libertarian, Santorum, Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann the social conservatives, Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels joining Romney as the fiscal conservatives downplaying the social angle to court moderates, Herman Cain the anti-Obama, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump the celebrity candidates.
I'm not ready to support anybody yet, willing to let things play out. Although I do profess a strong leaning in favor of Daniels just because I know him as my home state's governor.
Polling suggests it's Romney's to lose, in a race with Huckabee, Trump and Palin. But I think those polls are more about name recognition than anything else at this point, and don't really believe those are the main contenders. Not to mention I'm not all that comfortable with any of those top-polling candidates.
My prediction is that the race will eventually come down to the establishment candidates, who will have the party machinery solidly behind them. Romney, Daniels, and Pawlenty are the three most likely to win the nomination in my opinion, with Huckabee the dark horse. Despite all the buzz around folks like Trump and Palin, I don't see them appealing to a broad enough base of GOP voters to succeed.
Now we'll see who proves me wrong.
From my perspective, Pawlenty succeeded. He seemed poised and confident, and provided plenty of red meat for the Republican audience in South Carolina. His performance ranked him first on my scorecard.
The sneering Left will accuse Fox News as being too cozy with the candidates, but the panel did a great job feeding tough questions. This was no softball MSNBC-hosted Democrat debate, nor was it Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann throwing 'when did you stop beating your wife' spitballs. The Fox panel asked pertinent and challenging questions, sparing no one and following up to demand substantive answers from the candidates.
Ron Paul is certainly consistent, reprising his role in the debate as the maverick libertarian in the race. I know he excites a certain segment of young libertarians, but he's still a little too far out there for my tastes.
Herman Cain is an interesting candidate, and I thought he did well in the debate. He's the exact sort of black conservative we'd love to see running against Obama to put the lie to the constant drumbeat over the course of Obama's presidency that conservatives who oppose his policies do so only because of racism.
Rick Santorum tried to convey strong convictions and the mythical "fire in the belly" as the social conservative champion. But I thought he seemed nervous, and had some difficulty putting the right words together; I felt like I could see him fighting an internal losing battle with himself to suppress those nerves. I've heard him speak before and like him, so I could tell he wasn't totally on his game on this important stage.
Gary Johnson turned in the worst performance of the night, to the degree that he's the one candidate of the five I've already scratched off the list. Besides my disagreement with many of his ideas, I wasn't impressed with him in the way he looked or talked, and was irritated at his carping over not getting enough attention from the panel.
When the rest of the field gets in, I don't look forward to the cattle-call debates. When you get much beyond last night's 5 candidates, debates don't really work, because there's no way anyone can have enough time to give people a true sense of who they are and what they believe. I wonder how future debate organizers will address that problem, or if they will even try.
At least there will be something for everyone in the Republican field. Ron Paul the libertarian, Santorum, Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann the social conservatives, Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels joining Romney as the fiscal conservatives downplaying the social angle to court moderates, Herman Cain the anti-Obama, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump the celebrity candidates.
I'm not ready to support anybody yet, willing to let things play out. Although I do profess a strong leaning in favor of Daniels just because I know him as my home state's governor.
Polling suggests it's Romney's to lose, in a race with Huckabee, Trump and Palin. But I think those polls are more about name recognition than anything else at this point, and don't really believe those are the main contenders. Not to mention I'm not all that comfortable with any of those top-polling candidates.
My prediction is that the race will eventually come down to the establishment candidates, who will have the party machinery solidly behind them. Romney, Daniels, and Pawlenty are the three most likely to win the nomination in my opinion, with Huckabee the dark horse. Despite all the buzz around folks like Trump and Palin, I don't see them appealing to a broad enough base of GOP voters to succeed.
Now we'll see who proves me wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)