If I believed in kharma, I'd be really worried about you guys.
Below: Videos I like. Language and content warning.
All the talk of Iran and nukes reminded me of this video. It's old, but I still like it. "Ze End of Ze World":
John Mayer: Makin Music
Friday, May 23, 2008
Telling off some hippies + videos
Hank Hill, telling off some hippies:
Below: Videos I like. Language and content warning.
All the talk of Iran and nukes reminded me of this video. It's old, but I still like it. "Ze End of Ze World":
John Mayer: Makin Music
Below: Videos I like. Language and content warning.
All the talk of Iran and nukes reminded me of this video. It's old, but I still like it. "Ze End of Ze World":
John Mayer: Makin Music
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Senator Lieberman weighs in
in the pages of WSJ:
activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
[...]
what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned"no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies."This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.
Defeating an enemy vs ... um ... not
Point #1: There's a difference between diplomatic talks and direct Presidential talks.
Many world leaders crave the legitimacy a direct Presidential visit bestows upon them. Consider the words of this Russian mathematician who is a frequent commenter at neoneocon's blog:
Point #2: There's a difference between A) strategic determination to defeat an enemy, and B) ... um ... appeasement (the most accurate description).
When Pres. Reagan met with Gorbachev, the meeting was part of a strategic effort to defeat and destroy Gorbachev's government.
Conversely, a Barack meeting with Ahmadinejad would be Fred Rogers diplomacy: attempting to nicey-nice Ahmadinejad into being a good neighbor. The left seemingly imagines Barack will chat up Ahmadinejad just as a new age guru chats up Oprah: Get centered, Ahmad ... feel the loving energy ... we .. are the change .. we've been waiting for.
In the world as it actually exists, Ahmadinejad would effectively be the schoolyard bully: I'm going to beat you up. Barack would effectively be saying: What can I give you to not hurt me? Is my lunch money enough?
Barack has already announced he will cut back on investment in the "unproven" SDI which Reagan began(do we like irony?). Take a sharp listen to this 52 seconds of Barack:
In schoolyard terms, Barack has announced he is sending his protective big sister home. Barack fully expects the schoolyard bully to appreciate his gesture, and to respond like a person who has Western values and is sitting on Oprah's couch.
Update: Ace of Spades comments under this heading:
Many world leaders crave the legitimacy a direct Presidential visit bestows upon them. Consider the words of this Russian mathematician who is a frequent commenter at neoneocon's blog:
Sergey Says: May 21st, 2008 at 2:56 am
It is very hard to assess popularity of any terroristic totalitarian regime. It can look monolitic even when popular resentment fills every pore of society. But one thing is certain: its leadership strive for international recognition and legitimization to keep its grasp of society. So to undermine it from within it is crucial to deny it such recognition, so all direct talks and official contacts with Western politicians would be used as propaganda tools to prolong its life. They should be officially prohibited by West, if we are serious in attempts to isolate and denormalize it.
Point #2: There's a difference between A) strategic determination to defeat an enemy, and B) ... um ... appeasement (the most accurate description).
When Pres. Reagan met with Gorbachev, the meeting was part of a strategic effort to defeat and destroy Gorbachev's government.
Conversely, a Barack meeting with Ahmadinejad would be Fred Rogers diplomacy: attempting to nicey-nice Ahmadinejad into being a good neighbor. The left seemingly imagines Barack will chat up Ahmadinejad just as a new age guru chats up Oprah: Get centered, Ahmad ... feel the loving energy ... we .. are the change .. we've been waiting for.
In the world as it actually exists, Ahmadinejad would effectively be the schoolyard bully: I'm going to beat you up. Barack would effectively be saying: What can I give you to not hurt me? Is my lunch money enough?
Barack has already announced he will cut back on investment in the "unproven" SDI which Reagan began(do we like irony?). Take a sharp listen to this 52 seconds of Barack:
In schoolyard terms, Barack has announced he is sending his protective big sister home. Barack fully expects the schoolyard bully to appreciate his gesture, and to respond like a person who has Western values and is sitting on Oprah's couch.
Update: Ace of Spades comments under this heading:
Obama's Nuanced Position on Ahmadinejad Nuances to the Point of IncoherenceAw ... what the heck:
No preconditions, but there will be "preparations."
He's reversed himself on meeting with Ahmadinejad (maybe), but will meet with "leadership" which may or may not include him.
He's unwilling to say what he's willing to concede to Iran.
He's also unwilling to explain how his plan of diplomacy without threat of force will do any better than Bush's six year strategy of diplomacy with threat of force.
[...]
And, whatever his current position may (or may not) eventually turn out to be, you shouldn't question him too closely on any of this, because it all is, yes, once again a "distraction" from the things we should be talking about,
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
With Catalanotto on third,
and Saltalamacchia on second, play by play announcer Josh Lewin noted:
"A base hit drives in eleven syllables."
Lookaround 3: Barack and appeasement
Instapundit
While it is true that every disagreement can be solved via discussion: sometimes you might be killed before discussion has sufficient opportunity to resolve things. In such situations, you have the right and the duty to defend yourself.
The second root of Barack's reaction are the dueling perceptions of the threat faced by the U.S.
The right believe Iran and Jihadis threaten Israel and the U.S. (and the larger West) due to Muslim fundamentalist religious conviction. The left believe a) Iran doesn't threaten us, and b) Jihadis only threaten us out of anger at misguided U.S. foreign policy, and c) Jihadis only number in the thousands, or maybe the tens of thousands.* The American left cannot fathom a mindset which values conquest and subjugation over mutual accommodation.
From these roots spring the left's belief that the Bush Administration has not properly negotiated with Iran. It does not matter to the American left - if they even know it - that the E.U. Three have negotiated with Iran for four years, and that the E.U. Three have already offered Iran the exact carrots Barack says he would offer Iran. It does not matter to the American left that American diplomats have taken over negotiations from the E.U. three, and that American diplomats are attempting to negotiate agreement with Iran. The left cannot fathom that death may come to us before discussion has had sufficient opportunity to resolve disagreement.
Therefore, Barack can grandly announce he will offer Iran the carrots which have already been offered, and the media and the left pretend Barack is bringing some new idea to the situation. That Barack would weaken both American bargaining power (via taking the American military threat to Iran off the table) and internal Iranian dissent (via legitimizing Ahmadinejad in the eyes of both Iranians and the world) is either not understood or not acknowledged.
* Gallup recently completed a four year survey of worldwide Muslim opinion. Gallup announced that 91 million Muslims are radicalized. Though Gallup doesn't specifically make this claim, we may assume - based on how these Muslims answered poll questions - these radicalized Muslims would, in the right situation, help to attack the West.
Gallup misrepresented their own results ... via arbitrarily terming all other Muslims "moderates." Under questioning, a Gallup spokesperson admitted an additional 360 million Muslims believe the 9/11/01 attacks on America were justified. We may assume these 360 million Muslims would willingly provide some type of logistical assistance to the 91 million Muslims who are willing to actively attack the West. 360M + 91M = 451M fundamentalist Muslims (out of a worldwide population of 1.1 billion Muslims).
Our strategy is to use democracy to help the 649M moderate Muslims de-radicalize or de-legitimize the 451M fundamentalist Muslims. To prevent U.S. nukes from some day falling on Middle Eastern cities: moderate Muslims must decisively prevail over fundamentalists in the struggle for the soul of Islam. Moderate, peace-loving Muslims must decisively dominate the religion.
MEMO TO THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN: When somebody condemns appeasement, it doesn't help things to jump up and yell "Hey, he's talking about me!"The first root of Barack's reaction is the left's conviction: "War is never the answer."
While it is true that every disagreement can be solved via discussion: sometimes you might be killed before discussion has sufficient opportunity to resolve things. In such situations, you have the right and the duty to defend yourself.
The second root of Barack's reaction are the dueling perceptions of the threat faced by the U.S.
The right believe Iran and Jihadis threaten Israel and the U.S. (and the larger West) due to Muslim fundamentalist religious conviction. The left believe a) Iran doesn't threaten us, and b) Jihadis only threaten us out of anger at misguided U.S. foreign policy, and c) Jihadis only number in the thousands, or maybe the tens of thousands.* The American left cannot fathom a mindset which values conquest and subjugation over mutual accommodation.
From these roots spring the left's belief that the Bush Administration has not properly negotiated with Iran. It does not matter to the American left - if they even know it - that the E.U. Three have negotiated with Iran for four years, and that the E.U. Three have already offered Iran the exact carrots Barack says he would offer Iran. It does not matter to the American left that American diplomats have taken over negotiations from the E.U. three, and that American diplomats are attempting to negotiate agreement with Iran. The left cannot fathom that death may come to us before discussion has had sufficient opportunity to resolve disagreement.
Therefore, Barack can grandly announce he will offer Iran the carrots which have already been offered, and the media and the left pretend Barack is bringing some new idea to the situation. That Barack would weaken both American bargaining power (via taking the American military threat to Iran off the table) and internal Iranian dissent (via legitimizing Ahmadinejad in the eyes of both Iranians and the world) is either not understood or not acknowledged.
* Gallup recently completed a four year survey of worldwide Muslim opinion. Gallup announced that 91 million Muslims are radicalized. Though Gallup doesn't specifically make this claim, we may assume - based on how these Muslims answered poll questions - these radicalized Muslims would, in the right situation, help to attack the West.
Gallup misrepresented their own results ... via arbitrarily terming all other Muslims "moderates." Under questioning, a Gallup spokesperson admitted an additional 360 million Muslims believe the 9/11/01 attacks on America were justified. We may assume these 360 million Muslims would willingly provide some type of logistical assistance to the 91 million Muslims who are willing to actively attack the West. 360M + 91M = 451M fundamentalist Muslims (out of a worldwide population of 1.1 billion Muslims).
Our strategy is to use democracy to help the 649M moderate Muslims de-radicalize or de-legitimize the 451M fundamentalist Muslims. To prevent U.S. nukes from some day falling on Middle Eastern cities: moderate Muslims must decisively prevail over fundamentalists in the struggle for the soul of Islam. Moderate, peace-loving Muslims must decisively dominate the religion.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Lookaround 2: pathos to surround Senator Kennedy's death
My heart goes out to Senator Kennedy and his loved ones.
And yet, I must work to keep perspective ... as the MSM and the Dems will use Sen. Kennedy's illness as an excuse to lionize liberal ideology. It's appropriate to celebrate Senator Kennedy's lifetime love of, and devotion to, liberalism. It's inappropriate to slander conservatives in the process.
But, slander they will - gleefully - b/c they have a free pass from media: any liberal ideological push will be tolerated(such as at Sen. Paul Wellstone's 2004 funeral service); any conservative pushback will - properly so - be criticized. The Democratic Party will orchestrate a propaganda event disguised as a memorial service. The media will gleefully disseminate. Dems will say Senator Kennedy would've wanted it that way, and - who knows - they might be correct!
And yet, I must work to keep perspective ... as the MSM and the Dems will use Sen. Kennedy's illness as an excuse to lionize liberal ideology. It's appropriate to celebrate Senator Kennedy's lifetime love of, and devotion to, liberalism. It's inappropriate to slander conservatives in the process.
But, slander they will - gleefully - b/c they have a free pass from media: any liberal ideological push will be tolerated(such as at Sen. Paul Wellstone's 2004 funeral service); any conservative pushback will - properly so - be criticized. The Democratic Party will orchestrate a propaganda event disguised as a memorial service. The media will gleefully disseminate. Dems will say Senator Kennedy would've wanted it that way, and - who knows - they might be correct!
Return to blogging lookaround: Chinese Earthquake
I'm happy to be back, and to have things to express.
Chinese earthquake
There are no words - of either comfort or explanation. Maybe 70,000 are dead. If so: how many injured? The mind boggles. The heart breaks.
Searching my mind ... I find no comforting words or thoughts. I think of C.S. Lewis (paraphrasing)
Shoddy construction is being blamed for part of the death and injury: corrupt government officials took bribes to sign off on shoddy construction. If true, this is an indictment of communism's attempt to impose morality via law.
The U.S. Constitution recognizes both free will, and pervasive immorality. It sets up an adversarial system in which everyone is accountable either to the law, to the voters, or to the voters' elected representatives. We are susceptible to corruption - it is a true threat to us. Yet, we are not as hopelessly susceptible and threatened as communist nations.
Chinese earthquake
There are no words - of either comfort or explanation. Maybe 70,000 are dead. If so: how many injured? The mind boggles. The heart breaks.
Searching my mind ... I find no comforting words or thoughts. I think of C.S. Lewis (paraphrasing)
Christianity is not about comfort. It is about truth. If one searches for truth, one may find comfort.Tough. Existence is tough. Hard as nails. Harder, actually.
Shoddy construction is being blamed for part of the death and injury: corrupt government officials took bribes to sign off on shoddy construction. If true, this is an indictment of communism's attempt to impose morality via law.
The U.S. Constitution recognizes both free will, and pervasive immorality. It sets up an adversarial system in which everyone is accountable either to the law, to the voters, or to the voters' elected representatives. We are susceptible to corruption - it is a true threat to us. Yet, we are not as hopelessly susceptible and threatened as communist nations.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
A taste of our national future
Jim Geraghty at NRO's Campaign Spot:
It's ... strikingly acceptable to declare Hillary's voters racist lately, isn't it?Related: 1, 2
Oh Foxnews
you mercilessly taunt with the belly button piercings of your Foxbabes.
Above: Courtney Friel, some TV guy, Shira Lazar Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Rangers' Hamilton interviewed by Galloway
Mostly quoted, some paraphrased:
Ham: They're not going to pitch me inside too much. When they do, I've gotta take advantage of it.
Galloway: Ron Washington talk?
Ham: We can't listen to that. Wash is doing his job. We had team meeting, and we said: "let's start the season over."
Galloway: adjustments? is it looking easier for you than it is?
Ham: My dad told me, last year: "if you swing at pitches out of the zone, they're gonna throw pitches out of the zone." So, that's the approach I'm taking. I'm not gonna swing at pitches out of the zone. Rudy Jaramillo is probably the best guy in baseball. He tries to get me in the cage more than I'd like to sometimes, just b/c he loves it so much. We'll adjust to each other.
Galloway: do you keep up with Edinson Volquez and the Reds?
Ham: "To be honest, I don't watch baseball, period. I've heard he's doing good. If it works good for both sides, I'm all for it."
Ham: They're not going to pitch me inside too much. When they do, I've gotta take advantage of it.
Galloway: Ron Washington talk?
Ham: We can't listen to that. Wash is doing his job. We had team meeting, and we said: "let's start the season over."
Galloway: adjustments? is it looking easier for you than it is?
Ham: My dad told me, last year: "if you swing at pitches out of the zone, they're gonna throw pitches out of the zone." So, that's the approach I'm taking. I'm not gonna swing at pitches out of the zone. Rudy Jaramillo is probably the best guy in baseball. He tries to get me in the cage more than I'd like to sometimes, just b/c he loves it so much. We'll adjust to each other.
Galloway: do you keep up with Edinson Volquez and the Reds?
Ham: "To be honest, I don't watch baseball, period. I've heard he's doing good. If it works good for both sides, I'm all for it."
Mavs' Carlisle interviewed by Galloway
Mostly paraphrased, some quoted:
Galloway: Last week I said you were an awful hire, b/c Donny and Cuban want an uptempo offense.
RC: One of the things that attracts me is that it is a different kind of offense than I've had in the past. Compared to what I've had, this is an uptempo offense. I've had a history of being able to adjust and adapt. In the playoffs, the opponents are so familiar, each team has to be able to adjust and freelance more, and my teams have done that.
Galloway: J'accuse! You are slow play!
RC: 1) Give me a chance. 2) "The complexion of this roster could change significantly between now and the end of the summer." Mid-level exception.
Galloway's assistant: What did you learn from studying D'Antoni's offense this season?
RC: before the Shaq trade, they left the middle of the floor open all of the time. The PF: Sean Marion, ranged all the way out to the three point line. The thing about this, in most cases, teams don't have Steve Nash. With Jason Kidd, we will certainly do some things similar to Phoenix. We cannot and will not do it all the time, but we will do it some.
Galloway: your opinion of Mavericks talent and overall situation?
RC: 2006 was a great run. 2007: an awkward match up. Future: players must be willing to run floor with Kidd; we must focus on defense. Those two items are in opposition to each other, but we must find a way to make it work.
Galloway: does Mavs talent suck?
RC: roster tweaks are needed; there may or may not be quick fixes available. I turned around Indiana w/o roster changeover; maybe I can do something similar here.
Galloway: Mavs need to thug things up. Ron Artest?
RC: He's under contract. I can't talk about him. He's a real difference maker in this league. I love him. I love his family. He's one of the most physical, intimidating players I've ever seen at the SF position.
Galloway Asst: From previous stops: what did you learn that you would do differently?
RC: hoping to hire staff w/head coaching experience, and that have experience with diff types of systems and personnel in the league. A lot of times, you learn more from your players than you do from coaches. I will be in information collecting mode from players and coaches.
Galloway: Josh Howard?
RC: I don't like the word "handle". I'm getting with Josh tomorrow night for dinner, and we'll have a long talk about a lot of things. People make mistakes. I certainly have. Josh Howard is one of the guys in this league we as opposing coaches really feared. I hope Josh feels he has something to prove.
Galloway: Avery: Misused Kidd? Used Dirk well?
RC: It's hard for me to comment on that. It's hard to integrate new players in mid season. Kidd came to a team that was a mid to medium tempo team. It was hard for Kidd and the team to adjust to each other. Avery and I had a long talk yesterday. He and I have gotten to be pretty good friends, actually. He said he wasn't sure what he was going to do next.
Galloway: Last week I said you were an awful hire, b/c Donny and Cuban want an uptempo offense.
RC: One of the things that attracts me is that it is a different kind of offense than I've had in the past. Compared to what I've had, this is an uptempo offense. I've had a history of being able to adjust and adapt. In the playoffs, the opponents are so familiar, each team has to be able to adjust and freelance more, and my teams have done that.
Galloway: J'accuse! You are slow play!
RC: 1) Give me a chance. 2) "The complexion of this roster could change significantly between now and the end of the summer." Mid-level exception.
Galloway's assistant: What did you learn from studying D'Antoni's offense this season?
RC: before the Shaq trade, they left the middle of the floor open all of the time. The PF: Sean Marion, ranged all the way out to the three point line. The thing about this, in most cases, teams don't have Steve Nash. With Jason Kidd, we will certainly do some things similar to Phoenix. We cannot and will not do it all the time, but we will do it some.
Galloway: your opinion of Mavericks talent and overall situation?
RC: 2006 was a great run. 2007: an awkward match up. Future: players must be willing to run floor with Kidd; we must focus on defense. Those two items are in opposition to each other, but we must find a way to make it work.
Galloway: does Mavs talent suck?
RC: roster tweaks are needed; there may or may not be quick fixes available. I turned around Indiana w/o roster changeover; maybe I can do something similar here.
Galloway: Mavs need to thug things up. Ron Artest?
RC: He's under contract. I can't talk about him. He's a real difference maker in this league. I love him. I love his family. He's one of the most physical, intimidating players I've ever seen at the SF position.
Galloway Asst: From previous stops: what did you learn that you would do differently?
RC: hoping to hire staff w/head coaching experience, and that have experience with diff types of systems and personnel in the league. A lot of times, you learn more from your players than you do from coaches. I will be in information collecting mode from players and coaches.
Galloway: Josh Howard?
RC: I don't like the word "handle". I'm getting with Josh tomorrow night for dinner, and we'll have a long talk about a lot of things. People make mistakes. I certainly have. Josh Howard is one of the guys in this league we as opposing coaches really feared. I hope Josh feels he has something to prove.
Galloway: Avery: Misused Kidd? Used Dirk well?
RC: It's hard for me to comment on that. It's hard to integrate new players in mid season. Kidd came to a team that was a mid to medium tempo team. It was hard for Kidd and the team to adjust to each other. Avery and I had a long talk yesterday. He and I have gotten to be pretty good friends, actually. He said he wasn't sure what he was going to do next.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Answering "Why?"
Above: part of Palo Duro Canyon, in the Texas PanhandleI have searched, much, for the answer to "Why"?
C.S. Lewis explains the Christian answer to "Why?" in "Mere Christianity" (paraphrasing): each of us has a supernatural, guiding sense of right and wrong. Lewis:
"There is more than one kind of reality;... there is something above and beyond ... which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us."[1]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears to me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong."[2]
I shall stop Lewis' argument, here, for now. There is a longer conversation which further defines Lewis' assertion about the supernatural sense, and which delineates such sense from impulse, and from cultural mores. I shan't open that conversation now. I will say: even when that conversation is opened at the logical level at which C.S. Lewis opens it, how each person ultimately answers the question is not about logic, but rather is about spirituality and faith.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This was my my sense - growing up - of my family's beliefs: we did not believe what we could not see, touch, and/or scientifically verify. We did not believe in ghosts, extra sensory perception, chakras, energy fields, auras, demon possessions, exorcisms, healings, or any other tripe - including that God personally moves or communicates with regular people as they go through their days. Our family motto could've been: The Lord helps those who help themselves. The End. Maybe my brothers and my parents remember differently. I am only saying this was my sense of things.
Later, when I searched, much, for the answer to "Why?": I conducted a logical search - devoid of spirituality. My logical search was hopeless. "Why?" cannot be answered - to my satisfaction, at least - at a logical level. I was able to shoot down (with logic) every logical answer I temporarily hoped might answer the question. The question can only be answered at a spiritual level, aka at a supernatural level.
I sought out "Mere Christianity" (227 short pages; $11.95) because so many persons recommended it as a clear and powerful explanation of why Christians believe as we do. I join those persons in recommending the book. Whether or not you ever become a Christian, you will gain a better understanding of Christian belief from the book(which is adapted from a series of BBC radio lectures Lewis gave during WWII, when he was teaching at Oxford). It's valuable to fully understand what the wacky Christians believe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post was prompted by a Mother's Day comment from my Mother-in-Law-in-Law: Jewel. Her comment was directed, warmly and lovingly, to me and my son(Jake): "I know Jake's going to make something of himself", she said.
Jewel is one of those soft-spoken Texas ladies with big hair, perfect make-up, and an iron will. I love those ladies, and I love Jewel - even though I am still getting to know her fully. Jewel is the mother of the new husband of Jake's mother. So, we are family. My Mother-in-Law-in-Law, sort of.
Anyway, when Jewel said "I know Jake's going to make something of himself", I thought to myself ... well, first I thought:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This was my my sense - growing up - of my family's beliefs: we did not believe what we could not see, touch, and/or scientifically verify. We did not believe in ghosts, extra sensory perception, chakras, energy fields, auras, demon possessions, exorcisms, healings, or any other tripe - including that God personally moves or communicates with regular people as they go through their days. Our family motto could've been: The Lord helps those who help themselves. The End. Maybe my brothers and my parents remember differently. I am only saying this was my sense of things.
Later, when I searched, much, for the answer to "Why?": I conducted a logical search - devoid of spirituality. My logical search was hopeless. "Why?" cannot be answered - to my satisfaction, at least - at a logical level. I was able to shoot down (with logic) every logical answer I temporarily hoped might answer the question. The question can only be answered at a spiritual level, aka at a supernatural level.
I sought out "Mere Christianity" (227 short pages; $11.95) because so many persons recommended it as a clear and powerful explanation of why Christians believe as we do. I join those persons in recommending the book. Whether or not you ever become a Christian, you will gain a better understanding of Christian belief from the book(which is adapted from a series of BBC radio lectures Lewis gave during WWII, when he was teaching at Oxford). It's valuable to fully understand what the wacky Christians believe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post was prompted by a Mother's Day comment from my Mother-in-Law-in-Law: Jewel. Her comment was directed, warmly and lovingly, to me and my son(Jake): "I know Jake's going to make something of himself", she said.
Jewel is one of those soft-spoken Texas ladies with big hair, perfect make-up, and an iron will. I love those ladies, and I love Jewel - even though I am still getting to know her fully. Jewel is the mother of the new husband of Jake's mother. So, we are family. My Mother-in-Law-in-Law, sort of.
Anyway, when Jewel said "I know Jake's going to make something of himself", I thought to myself ... well, first I thought:
"Make something of himself" is not the perspective I would most ideally choose as motivation, but, close enough(!)
and second I thought:
For the first time, I know exactly why Jake is going to make something of himself: he has a spiritual sense of right and wrong which will guide and encourage him! If he doesn't do right, he will feel responsible and uncomfortable.
Always before, if Jewel had said this, I would've wondered "But, WHY is he going to make something of himself?" Now, for the first time, I truly know the answer!
This post was also prompted b/c I have yet to speak of this with Jake. Therefore, if I am killed, tomorrow, by a sequence of unforeseen and seemingly random and coincidental bad luck events: at least Jake can read this post and then receive a hint of why he is going to make something of himself(!), just in case he doesn't already know.
This was additionally prompted by the prudence of dry running any potential conversational characterization of C.S. Lewis' writings(in case I survive tomorrow, and eventually have this conversation with Jake). I understand things better if I write them out. "Spiritual sense of right and wrong" does not easily leap to the front of my consciousness, and thence off of my tongue.
Just tonight, I failed to quickly explain the characteristics of extreme narcissism. The listener was clueless. I therefore blundered through an expanded explanation, and ... disaster. Conversational Titanic. So, maybe narcissism will be a future post. Can it be cogently described in 15 words? 50 words? 125 words?
Shall I go back - for your benefit - and reduce this post to 15 words, or to 50 words, or to 125 words? Heck no! I'm too sleepy to go back now! You are out of luck. Hitting "Publish Post"...
[1] Book 1, Chapter 3; pg 20 of HarperCollins Edition 2001(paperback)
[2] Book 1, Chapter 4; pg 25 of HarperCollins Edition 2001(paperback)
This was additionally prompted by the prudence of dry running any potential conversational characterization of C.S. Lewis' writings(in case I survive tomorrow, and eventually have this conversation with Jake). I understand things better if I write them out. "Spiritual sense of right and wrong" does not easily leap to the front of my consciousness, and thence off of my tongue.
Just tonight, I failed to quickly explain the characteristics of extreme narcissism. The listener was clueless. I therefore blundered through an expanded explanation, and ... disaster. Conversational Titanic. So, maybe narcissism will be a future post. Can it be cogently described in 15 words? 50 words? 125 words?
Shall I go back - for your benefit - and reduce this post to 15 words, or to 50 words, or to 125 words? Heck no! I'm too sleepy to go back now! You are out of luck. Hitting "Publish Post"...
[1] Book 1, Chapter 3; pg 20 of HarperCollins Edition 2001(paperback)
[2] Book 1, Chapter 4; pg 25 of HarperCollins Edition 2001(paperback)
Cooking/food meme
from Alice. My answers:
What would you have for your last supper?
Fried chicken - hopefully home cooked in an iron skillet; biscuits; thick cream gravy; iced tea.
What’s your poison?
My poison is Blue Bell Ice Cream, which is easily available, and is creamy delicious. I like all flavors. At this moment, some Mint Chocolate Chip would be nice.
In liquor: I like Glenlivet Scotch - the older the better.
I once lived in the backyard guesthouse of a lawyer who collected expensive single malt Scotch - as some people collect wine. He loved to invite me up to taste through various of his collection. Those whiskeys were divine - and amazingly expensive, as I remember. We drank them neat, as one would not dare pollute such fine Scotch with meltings from an ice cube.
Name your three desert island ingredients.
Onions, tomatoes, peppers.(assuming I already had access to fresh water)
What would you put in Room 101?
Can't immediately think of anything. Radishes pretty much suck eggs. Heh.
Which book gets you cooking?
I don't cook much, so I'm a quirky choice for this meme! The cable TV Food Network does, however, get me fired up and desiring culinary adventure. I like Bobby Flay's food challenge show, and Iron Chef, and the one where the guy travels and eats odd foods, and the one where the rude New York chef who grew up in France travels the world and smokes cigarettes. I can't make it through even 60 seconds of Rachel Ray. She may be genuine, but she reminds me of ungenuine people I have known, which sets my teeth on edge.
What’s your dream dinner party line-up?
Buxom and beautiful women who like to laugh and had not been around any man for months, and thus would be quite delighted to share the table with me. Any of this group would be wonderful: Ingrid Bergman, Grace Kelley, Hedy Lamarr, Kate Winslett, Babe Didrickson, Jane Austen, Georgia O'Keeffe, Margaret Thatcher, Unsinkable Molly Brown, Dolly Parton, and of course: my Mom, and my lively and fun Aunts, and my dearly departed cousin Margaret - who always doted on me, and would greatly enjoy attending such a dinner.
What was your childhood teatime treat?
No teatimes in my neighborhood in Fort Worth, Texas. We did like chocolate chip cookies in the afternoons.
What was your most memorable meal?
The first thing to mind was a comfort meal, when I was 10 years old, after a horribly cold and wet and miserable and disappointing football loss, when my Mom took me home and seared a simple steak. I really needed some comfort.
I'm running through my memories of meals: French, Italian, expensive, quirky, unusual, homey, ... and maybe I need more work on how to appreciate and experience exquisite tastes ... b/c I can't pinpoint a favorite meal which was about the food. It was always about the guests. I will say this: all food tastes better when you are camping. Even a sandwich.
What was your biggest food disaster?
It was simple and it was my first disaster: overcooking steaks. Our household of three boys going in all directions was in serious disarray, overwhelm, and momentary semi-crisis. As I was oldest boy, my Mom, in desperation, dispatched me to grill steaks. I had grilled hamburgers, but I protested that I had never grilled steaks. She only had time to say: "just do your best", then she was off to another task. I had beautiful steaks to work with; I cooked them too much like hamburgers; my poor family had to chew every tiny bite 45 times before swallowing. I was mortified. I seriously wondered if we might not dump all the steak in the garbage and eat Peanut Butter Sandwiches with our baked potatoes.
What’s the worst meal you’ve ever had?
Ham salad sandwich, on a geology field trip. Was famished, yet could not choke down even three bites. The ham salad made me gag.
Who’s your food hero/food villain?
My mom is my hero.
Nigella or Delia?
Don't know Delia, but Nigella would fit in at my dinner party - especially after Alice used Nigella and voluptuous in the same sentence.
Vegetarians: genius or madness?
both
Fast food or fresh food?
fresh
Who would you most like to cook for?
My Mom, as she deserves a bit of payback from me.
What would you cook to impress a date?
I am not a skilled cook. I would impress her via my choice of fresh and simply prepared foods: asparagus, carrots, mushrooms - all grilled with fresh herbs, add in some olive oil. Less is more.
Make a wish.
Onions no longer linger on one's breath.
What would you have for your last supper?
Fried chicken - hopefully home cooked in an iron skillet; biscuits; thick cream gravy; iced tea.
What’s your poison?
My poison is Blue Bell Ice Cream, which is easily available, and is creamy delicious. I like all flavors. At this moment, some Mint Chocolate Chip would be nice.
In liquor: I like Glenlivet Scotch - the older the better.
I once lived in the backyard guesthouse of a lawyer who collected expensive single malt Scotch - as some people collect wine. He loved to invite me up to taste through various of his collection. Those whiskeys were divine - and amazingly expensive, as I remember. We drank them neat, as one would not dare pollute such fine Scotch with meltings from an ice cube.
Name your three desert island ingredients.
Onions, tomatoes, peppers.(assuming I already had access to fresh water)
What would you put in Room 101?
Can't immediately think of anything. Radishes pretty much suck eggs. Heh.
Which book gets you cooking?
I don't cook much, so I'm a quirky choice for this meme! The cable TV Food Network does, however, get me fired up and desiring culinary adventure. I like Bobby Flay's food challenge show, and Iron Chef, and the one where the guy travels and eats odd foods, and the one where the rude New York chef who grew up in France travels the world and smokes cigarettes. I can't make it through even 60 seconds of Rachel Ray. She may be genuine, but she reminds me of ungenuine people I have known, which sets my teeth on edge.
What’s your dream dinner party line-up?
Buxom and beautiful women who like to laugh and had not been around any man for months, and thus would be quite delighted to share the table with me. Any of this group would be wonderful: Ingrid Bergman, Grace Kelley, Hedy Lamarr, Kate Winslett, Babe Didrickson, Jane Austen, Georgia O'Keeffe, Margaret Thatcher, Unsinkable Molly Brown, Dolly Parton, and of course: my Mom, and my lively and fun Aunts, and my dearly departed cousin Margaret - who always doted on me, and would greatly enjoy attending such a dinner.
What was your childhood teatime treat?
No teatimes in my neighborhood in Fort Worth, Texas. We did like chocolate chip cookies in the afternoons.
What was your most memorable meal?
The first thing to mind was a comfort meal, when I was 10 years old, after a horribly cold and wet and miserable and disappointing football loss, when my Mom took me home and seared a simple steak. I really needed some comfort.
I'm running through my memories of meals: French, Italian, expensive, quirky, unusual, homey, ... and maybe I need more work on how to appreciate and experience exquisite tastes ... b/c I can't pinpoint a favorite meal which was about the food. It was always about the guests. I will say this: all food tastes better when you are camping. Even a sandwich.
What was your biggest food disaster?
It was simple and it was my first disaster: overcooking steaks. Our household of three boys going in all directions was in serious disarray, overwhelm, and momentary semi-crisis. As I was oldest boy, my Mom, in desperation, dispatched me to grill steaks. I had grilled hamburgers, but I protested that I had never grilled steaks. She only had time to say: "just do your best", then she was off to another task. I had beautiful steaks to work with; I cooked them too much like hamburgers; my poor family had to chew every tiny bite 45 times before swallowing. I was mortified. I seriously wondered if we might not dump all the steak in the garbage and eat Peanut Butter Sandwiches with our baked potatoes.
What’s the worst meal you’ve ever had?
Ham salad sandwich, on a geology field trip. Was famished, yet could not choke down even three bites. The ham salad made me gag.
Who’s your food hero/food villain?
My mom is my hero.
Nigella or Delia?
Don't know Delia, but Nigella would fit in at my dinner party - especially after Alice used Nigella and voluptuous in the same sentence.
Vegetarians: genius or madness?
both
Fast food or fresh food?
fresh
Who would you most like to cook for?
My Mom, as she deserves a bit of payback from me.
What would you cook to impress a date?
I am not a skilled cook. I would impress her via my choice of fresh and simply prepared foods: asparagus, carrots, mushrooms - all grilled with fresh herbs, add in some olive oil. Less is more.
Make a wish.
Onions no longer linger on one's breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
