Fact-Checking and Faith First (by Jim Wallis)
John McCain's acceptance speech last night sought to present him as a maverick and bipartisan reformer, in contrast to the total partisanship of Sarah Palin the night before. She clearly relishes her own self-description as a pit bull with lipstick who fires up the conservative base, while McCain wants to reach out to the independents he knows he needs to win. He told his story again of how capture and torture took him from a reckless and selfish young man to a deep love for his country.
As I suggested after the first presidential primary many months ago, "change" has already won this election, given the deep unpopularity of George Bush and the many failures of his administration. Change is the theme of both Barack Obama's campaign and of John McCain's. Usually when voters want change, they change parties in the White House. But McCain has the difficult task of persuading voters that a different kind of Republican can do the job, while Obama will continue to ask him to explain why he voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.
But now the conventions are over and the fact-checking can begin. There were a lot of very partisan things said at both conventions (that is the reason for conventions), but now all those things should be tested. I hope those who say that this will be an election about "personalities" are wrong. It must instead be about the real issues facing the country and the world. Whose tax policies will benefit whom the most? Who offers the best hopes for poor and middle-class families? And who has the smartest policies to defeat the real threats of terrorism -- not whose rhetoric against Islamic fundamentalism is tougher? So let the fact-checking begin, and given the speeches we have just heard from some politicians, we will need full-time fact-checkers.
But one other thing bothered me last night, and it did also at the Democratic Convention. It was all those signs that read "Country First" and all those chants of "USA, USA, USA!!" The high-powered and, frankly, militaristic rhetoric kept telling us that "country" should be put above everything else -- including family and friendship. But what about faith? Should country be put ahead of faith, too? I kept wanting to yell back at the people yelling at me about putting the country first and say, "No, not me, I'm a Christian." Because we as Christians simply can't put our country first, ahead of God, ahead of Jesus Christ, ahead of the body of Christ (remember the worldwide body of Christ), and even family and friendship. Especially when our country is wrong, and when most of the rest of the body of Christ around the world thinks so.
"Country First" was the theme of John McCain's speech and night, and he asked us to "fight with him." Barack Obama also said in Denver that all Americans must put country first -- to counter the Republican exclusive claim on patriotism. Well, again, not all of us. I suppose people running for president have to say that, but Christian voters shouldn't go along with that. Can anybody imagine Jesus leading cheers shouting "USA!"?
This morning I spoke to the annual Wheaton, Illinois, prayer breakfast. I was driven there by a local Christian leader who spends his days serving poor women and children along with troubled teenagers. When he told me he was Canadian, even though he had lived in the U.S. for years, I asked him if Canadian Christians would respond to the call to put country first. "No," he said, we are "world Christians." What a good thought and what a clear sense of Christian identity. It was a great way to begin the day after two weeks of political conventions. So let the fact-checking and the radical assertion of "faith first" begin in this political campaign.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
That silly chant is used as a strategy to drown out dissent. It is actually in a memo that was handed out a few years ago to Republican volunteers, as a tactic to drown out "difficult" questions or protesters. And last night, of course, the strategy was used.
It also seemed the "boos" were choreographed. I wouldn't be surprised if some delegates had it in their script to boo after certain lines by the speakers. It just all sounded too fake, too unspontaneous, to me.
I just can't see the nation getting as excited over all this as that crowd. But of course, they are the elite that look down on such things as community organizers.
Posted by: I and I | September 5, 2008 4:17 PM
"and all those chants which yelled "USA, USA, USA!!" The high powered and, frankly, militaristic rhetoric, kept telling us that "country" should be put above everything else" Jim Wallis
The only thing missing was the brown shirts!
Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 4:21 PM
Good point Jim about what is really supposed to come first.
Posted by: hootie1fan | September 5, 2008 4:25 PM
Jim, I agree with your 'Country First' analysis in the context of me personally and in the life of the church body. However this was not meant to be a religious message and certainly not to the church. I liked his message on serving a cause higher that yourself and giving several examples and I am surprised you did not acknowledge him for that.
I know that you strongly support Obama and I would ask that you do so overtly and not try to pass off a piece like this as being trans-partisan.
Since you want to fact check maybe you should fact check this statement you just made: "Obama will continue to ask him to explain why he voted with George Bush 90% of the time"
Per factcheck.org: He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 4:27 PM
I never understood the myopia of many of my fellow Christians in putting the interests of those running their kind of government above the world interests of God and Jesus Christ. I always believed that God loved all his people and not just the right types of Christian ones who live in the USA.
Posted by: liz | September 5, 2008 4:30 PM
"Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time."
This is the same Democratic Senate that currently has a 9% approval rating vs GWB's 34%
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 4:31 PM
Saying Sarah Palin is a pitbull with lipstick is a joke. She's more like a chihuahua in drag. I find her criticisms to be really weak. I do a better job critiquing liberals and I am one.
I really don't like the militaristic tone of the republican convention either. But then again for them that's their culture and that's what they were about. It's sad really but what are you going to do?
p
Posted by: Payshun | September 5, 2008 4:38 PM
Jim, Another thing: These last three articles of yours seem pretty low brow and low concept. They mirror almost identically the DNC talking points and are hardly worthy of the mantra "God's Politics".
I hope you don't think you are speaking for God.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 4:40 PM
But now the conventions are over and the fact checking can begin. There were a lot of very partisan things said at both conventions (that is the reason for conventions), but now all those things should be tested.
I welcome the fact-checking.
I welcome the fetting of the individuals running for office and see what comes up. Their friends and people that they allow into their lives. The people that helped get them to where they are today. The people that have influenced them in the past two decades and even the canidates families, looking for conflicts of interest by members and their character.
The gloves will now come off and it will get ugly. DailyKOS will be writing about and outing people that will cause McCain 'hardship' and Obama will be silent about it as he did go speak to their gathering awhile back.
It will be interesting - historic and ugly.
Blessings to all!
.
Posted by: big guy | September 5, 2008 4:46 PM
"This is the same Democratic Senate that currently has a 9% approval rating vs GWB's 34%"Posted by: Peter S.
That is due in large part to the fact that they do not have a working majority- too slim of a majority to overcome the obstructionist Republicans. This next electoral cycle should go a long way toward remedying that problem. ;-)
"I hope you don't think you are speaking for God."
Posted by: Peter S.
Probably no more less than you do.
"She's more like a chihuahua in drag." Payshun
LOL. Good one. Maybe you should suggest that one to the Obama campaign!
Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 4:50 PM
"But one other thing bothered me last night, and did also at the Democratic Convention. It was all those signs which read "Country First" and all those chants which yelled "USA, USA, USA!!" The high powered and, frankly, militaristic rhetoric, kept telling us that "country" should be put above everything else--including family and friendship. But what about faith?"
Jim, Jim, Jim...
You act like you are so surprised at this? You know as well as I do that all political parties and even independent candidates support human solutions when our problems are at root spiritual. I've read your older book "Agenda For A Biblical People" as well as various issues of Sojouners over the past 3 decades. I know you know that both sides are beholden to support militarist solutions when Jesus dealt with his enemies by dying for them (to paraphrase Ron Sider).
I know you know that both parties justify killing in the name of personal expedience, because I remember you criticizing Jimmy Carter for his nuclear program and Walter Mondale on abortion.
Sojourners used to be a proud independent voice just like what I heard this year out of the Ron Paul and Ralph Nader campaigns. Something that would have made them unwelcome in most any political party!
What happened?
Why did we not get a progressive candidate this year with a consistent life ethic? Everything I remember reading and hearing from Sojourners as well as their cohorts: Ron Sider, Tony Campolo, John Perkins, etc., would have led me believe that given the opportunity, you would have ensured we got that much.
Nope. We just got politics as usual. A little flavoring on the side for those who prefer the Urban Activist Church over the Ultra-Conservative Evangelical Country church (like where Palin came out of) but not much else.
Speaking of fact checking, look up the O’Reilly interview with Obama if you haven’t seen it already. It’s on YouTube. You seriously think someone who’s joined in the drum beat against Iran is who Jesus would vote for?
I think some waking up needs to be done at the offices of Sojourners. And some serious re-examination.
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 5, 2008 4:50 PM
I don't think I heard "boo"s at the DNC, but I sure did hear a lot at the GOP's.
Obama has been very polite by comparison to the average Republican. WWJD? He would tell all those Conservative Christians to behave.
Posted by: Scruffy | September 5, 2008 4:54 PM
"This is the same Democratic Senate that currently has a 9% approval rating vs GWB's 34%"Posted by: Peter S.
That is due in large part to the fact that they do not have a working majority- too slim of a majority to overcome the obstructionist Republicans. This next electoral cycle should go a long way toward remedying that problem. ;-)
Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 4:50 PM
--------------
Yeah I'm sure nancy pelosi has nothing to do with the 9%. She is just another victim of the mean christian conservatives.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 4:56 PM
FactChecking McCain
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 5, 2008 5:01 PM
The Republican Part historically opposed "big government". However, their convention clearly attempted to reshape this election into one of competing cultures. Hence, we need to rethink "big government". There is not bigger form of government than one that wants to be in the bedroom with consenting adults. There is no bigger form of government than one that wants to take the religious and cultural values of one group of people, who have every right to hold those beliefs and values, and make them the foundation of public policy that impacts everyone. There is no bigger form of government than one that wants to respond to an increasingly diverse nation by creating a monolithic set of cultural norms that reflect the assumptions and values of evangelical,conservative, predominantly white middle and upper middle class people, good people, but not all the people.
Posted by: Eileen Stenzeel | September 5, 2008 5:13 PM
"Saying Sarah Palin is a pitbull with lipstick is a joke. She's more like a chihuahua in drag."
And the hits just keep on coming from Wallis and his fanbase. Apparently the five golden rules (or whatever they were) go out the window once our candidate suffers a direct hit.
"I don't think I heard "boo"s at the DNC, but I sure did hear a lot at the GOP's. "
I heard plenty of boos at the DNC, and Republican protestors weren't even being hauled out of the place. Rebuttal conventions tend to me more negative generally (taking advantage of the order), but the Democrats had plenty of negatives.
Incidentally, what just happened to Obama's foreign policy? He just ceded the whole argument, there.
Posted by: kevin s. | September 5, 2008 5:16 PM
Since so much is based on change right now, it will be interesting to take note of how many people actually vote for change in November.
Usually, once it gets right down to the nitty gritty, and we really look towards the future, choosing the unknown is the scariest thing we can do. Most retreat to what they've seen before, because it's most comfortable.
As C.S.Lewis said, "It doesn't have to be good, just familiar."
Posted by: frankie | September 5, 2008 5:18 PM
"There is not bigger form of government than one that wants to be in the bedroom with consenting adults."
Where did McCain advocate this?
"There is no bigger form of government than one that wants to take the religious and cultural values of one group of people, who have every right to hold those beliefs and values, and make them the foundation of public policy that impacts everyone."
The name of this blog is God's Politics. What you are suggesting is precisely what Wallis is advocating.
Posted by: kevin s. | September 5, 2008 5:20 PM
The Invisible Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsAKXeyvxzU&feature=email
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | September 5, 2008 5:21 PM
I saw today that one of the polsters have the two tickets in a dead heat - 42% each. The next week will be interessting to se what happens and if they are still tied - it will go negative. I am waiting to see what the Clintons have to say in the next week - they could turn the tide on this one - one way or the other and I am not sure which way they will choose.
I listened to both VP' and both Pres. canidates speaches on the nights they were delivered. They were all good and there were cheers and boos at all of them.
Interesting - did not see too many people ruching the stage in Denver to disrupt the convention there - guess all the protesters in St Paul were in agreement with the Dems - no need to protest etc.
Blessings to all.
.
Posted by: Big guy | September 5, 2008 5:24 PM
Yeah I'm sure nancy pelosi has nothing to do with the 9%. She is just another victim of the mean christian conservatives.Posted by: Peter S. |
Uh, Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the HOUSE. We were speaking about the Senate. Maybe you should get your facts straight.
"Incidentally, what just happened to Obama's foreign policy? He just ceded the whole argument, there."Posted by: kevin s
He only conceded his foreign policy to extent that Bush conceded to timetables for withdrawal.
Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 5:26 PM
I saw today that one of the polsters have the two tickets in a dead heat - 42% each. The next week will be interessting to se what happens and if they are still tied - it will go negative. I am waiting to see what the Clintons have to say in the next week - they could turn the tide on this one - one way or the other and I am not sure which way they will choose.
I listened to both VP' and both Pres. canidates speaches on the nights they were delivered. They were all good and there were cheers and boos at all of them.
Interesting - did not see too many people rushing the stage in Denver to disrupt the convention there - guess all the protesters in St Paul were in agreement with the Dems - no need to protest etc.
Blessings to all.
.
Posted by: Big guy | September 5, 2008 5:33 PM
Peter S,
You are determined to disagree with Jim W. whatever he says. You are determined to find partisan rhetoric in everything he writes. Read through the post again: he mentions BOTH conventions in every criticism. Not everyone is slavishly tied to one party or the other....
Posted by: Kash | September 5, 2008 5:34 PM
"The only thing missing was the brown shirts!"
Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 4:21 PM
Your comment is
EVIL and way over the top but not suprising on a hatemongering blog that advocates puting President Bush in prison.
bill
Posted by: Bill Back | September 5, 2008 5:46 PM
"The only thing missing was the brown shirts!"
Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 4:21 PM
Your comment is
EVIL and way over the top but not suprising on a hatemongering blog that advocates puting President Bush in prison.
bill
Posted by: Bill Back | September 5, 2008 5:46 PM
Regarding McCain's going along with Bush 90% of the time vs. Obama's going along with the Democrats 97% of the time:
The fact is that of course Obama would support his party and its positions. They are the party out of power (in the White House, that is; and as JamesM points out, they don't have a veto-proof majority in the US Senate either). It stands to reason that the party's choice to try and win them the White House would be on their side.
In contrast, McCain is trying to run as an independent thinker among Republicans. He has that "maverick" image that he has carefully cultivated over the years. And there have been times when he indeed has broken with his party on particular issues. But those times seem to be over. Now, when one compares his rhetoric with his actual positions, one finds that he isn't differentiating himself from the White House most of the time. The maverick has disappeared in fact if not in appearance.
To conclude, it simply cannot be a positive reflection on McCain that he's with Bush 90% of the time, given what he wants us all to think about him and given what a large number of Americans think about Bush right now. At the same time, it's no negative at all for Obama to be with his party 97% of the time. It's what his supporters want. So it's perfectly legitimate for Obama to make this an issue. It's McCain who has to answer for it. It's McCain who has to try and convince Americans that the Democratic party's positions are not best for the country.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 6:05 PM
Your comment is EVIL and way over the top but not suprising on a hatemongering blog that advocates puting President Bush in prison.
Bill Black, please find us a quote from Rev. Wallis or any of the other Sojourners bloggers that supports imprisoning President Bush.
Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 6:08 PM
"Your comment is EVIL and way over the top but not suprising on a hatemongering blog that advocates puting President Bush in prison." bill
Yes it was meant to be shocking and provacative. It was also meant to be offensive. It does not mean that I believe that Republicans are fascists. Rather I am very concerned about the exaggeration of nationalism and patriotism that was on display at the Republican Convention. The Republicans are playing with fire-- a fire that may very well some day get out of their control. Given their knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 (which far too many Dems were only too happy to follow) and their taking refuge behind patriotism and nationalism, there is a real danger that they the are stoking something that could evolve into a dictatorship. No apology warranted and none offered.
Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 6:19 PM
Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 6:08 PM
Sen Biden told a news person that if they (Obama and Biden) get into office they will open an investigation to look into the Iraq War and bring to justice anyone that they believe lied or mis-lead the Congress.
Translation:
Put us in power and we will put Bush and his adm in prison.
He just up'd their vote quota.
Blessimngs to all!
.
Posted by: big guy | September 5, 2008 6:19 PM
"Sen Biden told a news person that if they (Obama and Biden) get into office they will open an investigation to look into the Iraq War and bring to justice anyone that they believe lied or mis-lead the Congress." Big Guy
Where did you hear that Moderatelad? That is great news!
Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 6:22 PM
big guy, if Sen. Biden said that, then Sen. Biden can answer for it.
Bill Black was alleging specifically that bloggers on this forum were advocating imprisoning Bush. I simply was asking him to give us evidence that one of them actually said that.
Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 6:24 PM
Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 6:22 PM
It's BIG GUY - just BIG GUY and only BIG GUY
(great news - LOL!!!!!)
Blessings to all!
.
Posted by: big guy | September 5, 2008 6:34 PM
Don,
Your points are right on. It is irrelevant that Obama voted with his party 97% of the time. He doesn't make the claim of being a maverick.
McCain on the other hand, has defined himself as a maverick. A trait he used to have, but one he has jettisoned to gain the Republican nomination. Very sad he had to sacrifice his true self to gain his ambitions, and exactly the reason he lost my vote.
In his speech last night, I began to wonder if he was trying to return to his maverick ways. He emphasized change. He made veiled criticisms of the current administration. I would think some of the more hard-core Republicans were thinking "uh-oh" as they listened to him. It was like he was trying to peel back his Bush mask.
Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 6:35 PM
Oh, come on Big Guy--you know we all know who you are.
Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 6:39 PM
I agree with Jim that our country should not come before our faith. No Christian should be asked to do that.
But when Barack Obama and John McCain use the phrase "country first" I think they mean it as they are going to put the needs of their country ahead of partisan agendas or the desires of special interests. I don't think mean they're going to put their country ahead of everything else in their life (family, faith, etc.)
Whether you think there are being sincere or "country first" is really just a bunch of hooey is another issue.
Posted by: Eric | September 5, 2008 7:16 PM
Since you want to fact check maybe you should fact check this statement you just made: "Obama will continue to ask him to explain why he voted with George Bush 90% of the time"
Per factcheck.org: He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time.
------------
Why should he check it when you just did, and found it to be accurate?
Posted by: DonF | September 5, 2008 7:24 PM
On the broader topic, the fact that some people wave the American flag, sing patriotic songs, cheer on their country, love their country more than others, or want their country to prosper isn't an example of nationalism, militarism, or an eventual dictatorship. Stop the hyperventilating. Political conventions are known for outlandish displays of Americana and faux patriotism. Calm down. It's not the end of the world.
No one's being asked to put their country ahead of their religious faith and chants of "USA" aren't going to turn the U.S. into a nation of national socialists.
Posted by: Eric | September 5, 2008 7:28 PM
Modbigguylad: ""Sen Biden told a news person that if they (Obama and Biden) get into office they will open an investigation to look into the Iraq War and bring to justice anyone that they believe lied or mis-lead the Congress."
JamesM: "Where did you hear that Moderatelad? That is great news!"
Perhaps the rule of law will return to the United States.
Posted by: carl copas | September 5, 2008 7:43 PM
I'm relatively new to this site, but I have not read of anyone here who has suggested putting Bush in jail.
However, Vincent Bugliosi (who as far as I know has never blogged on this site) recently published a book in which he argues that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder. Not imprisoned, mind you, but prosecuted. You still cannot be imprisoned for murder until a jury of your peers have heard all of the evidence and unanimously declared that you are guilty.
Now all of you Bush fans don't need to get defensive. I didn't introduce this subject. I'm just trying to set the record straight from someone who did.
And by the way, I just reread your quote from Senator Biden and I didn't see Bush's name mentioned anywhere in the quote.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 5, 2008 8:18 PM
I'm a long time subscriber to Sojourners and have bought all your books Jim. I think you are a great and honest man, but you really need to stop acting as if you are not taking sides in this election and then continue to put out one sided articles like this. Just be up front like Oprah and tell us you are for Obama.
Some of us are progressive Christians and DO NOT support Obama. Thought there is a lot to improve upon in the USA (poverty, education, etc.), it's NOT better in other countries, even though Obama thinks so. The great thing about America is that we are always striving to do better...
Posted by: Tim | September 5, 2008 8:23 PM
Sister Marie:
I haven't read Mr. Bugliosi's book, but I've seen it in the bookstores.
Does Bugliosi mention that before he could even prosecute Bush, he would have to convince a grand jury that there's enough evidence against him to return an indictment?
And prosecuting Bush for murder--what murder(s), specifically?
D
Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 8:23 PM
You are determined to disagree with Jim W. whatever he says. You are determined to find partisan rhetoric in everything he writes. Read through the post again: he mentions BOTH conventions in every criticism. Not everyone is slavishly tied to one party or the other....
Posted by: Kash | September 5, 2008 5:34 PM
------
Kash, That is my point here: he mentions "BOTH" as a diversion. Jim is tied and linked to DNC and Supported Kerry in 2004. He advised the big O on the Audacity book and was acknowledged for it in the book. All logical conclusions from his comments lead to Obama as his choice. If he does not out himself for Obama it would be extremely dishonest. Now that the conventions are both over he will probably produce a detailed analysis that leaves little room for a "logical" christian to object to Obama.
Save the keystrokes Jim and just tell us you are pulling for Obama.
Posted by: | September 5, 2008 8:36 PM
You are determined to disagree with Jim W. whatever he says. You are determined to find partisan rhetoric in everything he writes. Read through the post again: he mentions BOTH conventions in every criticism. Not everyone is slavishly tied to one party or the other....
Posted by: Kash | September 5, 2008 5:34 PM
------
Kash, That is my point here: he mentions "BOTH" as a diversion. Jim is tied and linked to DNC and Supported Kerry in 2004. He advised the big O on the Audacity book and was acknowledged for it in the book. All logical conclusions from his comments lead to Obama as his choice. If he does not out himself for Obama it would be extremely dishonest. Now that the conventions are both over he will probably produce a detailed analysis that leaves little room for a "logical" christian to object to Obama.
Save the keystrokes Jim and just tell us you are pulling for Obama.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 8:36 PM
Seems to me Wallis' last two posts strain to find something to object to. In both he finds fault with pretty ordinary and expectable political posturing. Would any political party have a chance of being elected if it didn't stress "country first?" It will be a long time - and will require an entirely new American electorate - before that changes.
Posted by: Gordon | September 5, 2008 8:43 PM
Here's a quote from page 160:
"If Bush did take the witness stand, the cross-examination of him would consume hundreds of transcript pages. One among many areas of inquiry would certainly be Bush's statement to the nation from Cincinnati on the evening of October 7, 2002, that Hussein and Iraq constituted an imminent threat to the security of this country. We know that on this very same day in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee by CIA Director George Tenet (signed for him by John McLaughlin, the number two man at the CIA), the CIA said Hussein was not an imminent threat."
Bugliosi is a lawyer and I do not fully understand all of the legalese. It's an interesting read and I probably would not have bought it but it was marked down considerably at the Post Exchange (PX).
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 5, 2008 8:49 PM
There is no such thing as a "non-religious" gathering of people who have the ability to affect the lives of billions of people around the world.
If you read a post by Jim or anyone else and it immediately offends you, the offense is the product of our own reactive emotions. This says more about us than the writer.
I haven't said the Pledge of Allegiance for years -- I won't pledge allegiance to a flag or a republic because sometime, or many times, what government and country ask runs contrary to what Jesus asks of me. That shouldn't break down to conservative or liberal, unless our faith is inextricably linked to the politics, and then it's not really Christian.
"I know that you strongly support Obama and I would ask that you do so overtly and not try to pass off a piece like this as being trans-partisan.
Since you want to fact check maybe you should fact check this statement you just made: "Obama will continue to ask him to explain why he voted with George Bush 90% of the time."
The tit-for-tat stuff can go on forever. Reading sites like factcheck.org, or fair.org, can give a great, non-partisan view of what is true or not true about statements by either party.
And the ultimate test of faith, drawing from Jesus' words in Matthew 5 and Paul's in Romans 12, is whether we can hear what someone else says or writes without reacting with personal attacks or without picking at the mites while ignoring the logs.
Posted by: openeyes | September 5, 2008 8:50 PM
" . . . it was marked down considerably at the Post Exchange (PX)."
Perhaps there was a reason for that.
Posted by: Gordon | September 5, 2008 8:52 PM
Rick: Hope you are reading this. I think that the statement that the fight for education reform (charter, private and other alternative schools) is the new Civil Rights campaign was racist on several levels. What do you think? (those other than Rick feel free to respond, I address Rick because I respect his prior posts re: black culture.)
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 5, 2008 8:53 PM
You guys are just clinging to your religion...oh wait.
All of these candidates you are SO PUMPED up about.. on either side, you WILL be disappointed in one year, guarantee it. The country first is simply code of putting me first.. the country first is defined by what matters to you... everyone can't be happy.
Posted by: Roan | September 5, 2008 8:57 PM
Pastor Jeff,
I suppose it would be racist if he meant that having educational alternatives was a way to escape contact with minorities. I see no reason to believe he meant that. I wold be interested in your assessment of why this would be a racist policy.
Posted by: Gordon | September 5, 2008 8:57 PM
Gordon: Thank you for the compliment but I am going to defer to other commenters for now. There are many wise bloggers here and their insights frequently outdo mine. One thing I did not mean to imply was that Sen. McCain was playing the race card in any personal or malicious way. Much racism stems from unexamined sub-conscious assumptions.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 5, 2008 9:09 PM
Pastor Jeff,
I am not Rick, but I can offer my perspective, having lived through the 1950s and observing the academic landscape in the wake of the 1954 decision invalidating the "separate but equal doctrine" established about 60 years previously.
Initially, nothing changed. The public schools in the south largely ignored the decision and Ike spent most of his two terms out at Burning Tree.
During the 60s, we began to see enforcement and the response varied from some southern governors standing in the door to some cities in Virginia where they simply shut down the schools for a year.
The so-called private academies were largely established by churches in the south as a means to ensure that their children would not have to go to the same schools as black children. Even today, when these academies have altered their entrance requirements, the relatively high tuition rates ensures that only a few token minorities will attend these schools. Ther is a private academy near our home and I would estimate that the minority enrollment is less than 5%.
Rick could offer more insight.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 5, 2008 9:29 PM
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/11/the-bush-administrations-curve.html
Here is the link. My reply about the "brownshirts" was removed and the original slander is allowed to stand.
Posted by: Bill Back | September 5, 2008 9:42 PM
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/11/the-bush-administrations-curve.html
Here is the link. My reply about the "brownshirts" was removed and the original slander is allowed to stand.
Posted by: Bill Back | September 5, 2008 9:42 PM
sorry,
the post is showing up now.
Posted by: bill back | September 5, 2008 9:47 PM
"Can anybody imagine Jesus leading cheers shouting "USA!"?"
I can.
I could see Jesus leading the chant, "Ethiopia!, Ethiopia!"
I see him chanting "Jerusalem, Jerusalem!"
I see him leading a chant at Chucky-Cheese's with a group of kids, "Chucky Cheese, Chucky Cheese!!"
I can picture Jesus taking joy in the things his children take joy in, just as we do as parents.
Posted by: americanbean | September 5, 2008 9:49 PM
"The only thing missing was the brown shirts!"
Posted by: JamesM | September 5, 2008 4:21 PM
Your comment is
EVIL and way over the top but not suprising on a hatemongering blog that advocates puting President Bush in prison.
bill
Posted by: Bill Back | September 5, 2008 5:46 PM
Au contraire, Billy, I thot it was quite funny, and thanks for bringing up that putting Bush in prison idea, b/c that IS a good idea.
Posted by: canucklehead | September 5, 2008 9:55 PM
Jesus said, 'Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's' -- so I think Jesus would approve of Christians being thankful to live in a free country, one that is so great that people all over the world have either already come here to live, or are still striving to do so. Anything less than great love for this country seems ungracious to the God who allowed us to be born here, or to migrate here.
And just because one has a motto of 'Country First', that in no way means anything about the rest of the world! It is meant in reference to those politicians who are SO greedy and self-serving that they have been raping this country of its resources for years now. McCain called on Americans to NOT be so selfish -- he said, 'When we went to Washington, we lost our way.' That's what McCain's whole speech was about: reforming Washington, shaking it upside down, and that is why he chose another reformer (Governor Palin) who has proven her willingness to cut excess from her budget and save taxpayers whenever possible. It's why McCain was impressed with her, when she sold the Governor's jet, dismissed the Governor's Chef, and started driving herself around rather than using a Chauffeur. She put 'Alaska first', rather than herself -- even she put Alaska first, rather than her family, in that instance. I think, to her, it was the ETHICAL and UNSELFISH thing to do, and I think Jesus would approve.
How did you possibly jump from McCain's speech and his motto, to the assumption that he didn't want to include the rest of the world as being important, too? He has always spoken about the protection of Israel (and the Bible says the nation that harms Israel is in grave danger itself), and his own wife has spent the last 20+ years going into Africa and Asia in an unprecedented role, among American women, of reaching out, personally sacrificing self, to the 'least of these'. Don't you think it took the Love of God to release any hate that might have been in McCain's heart, for Viet Nam? It took a real touch from God, for these two people to go back into Viet Nam and work to help needy Asians.
I was a strong Hillary supporter, but not even SHE has done as much for the welfare of the world, as has Cindy McCain. And yet, until last night, most Americans didn't even know about her charity work, even though it rivals that of Princess Diana. (I'm supposing she wasn't doing it for the accolades of men, but out of the genuineness in her heart).
It's disconcerting that I haven't read anything of that from you here. . . with all due respect, may I ask, Why?
Posted by: Sami | September 5, 2008 10:00 PM
Much racism stems from unexamined sub-conscious assumptions.
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 5, 2008 9:09 PM
------
Pastor, Maybe people are subconsciously prejudiced in various ways, but that is a far cry from racism. Racism is a much more conscious decision.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 10:00 PM
Thanks Bill Black for that link (last paragraph quoted below):
"Several of you have correctly pointed out that the heart of the gospel is forgiveness, and judgement is ultimately up to God. You are right, and I apologize. What I meant to say was in the legal context of “If they are found guilty,” deliberately lying about going to war should not be pardoned. Remember Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon before he had even been tried for anything, or George H.W. Bush pardoning the leading Iran-Contra figures. I do indeed believe in God’s grace and forgiveness for anyone who repents. But the crime of lying about going to war should not be politically pardoned."
Breathe deeply, all you right-wingers. Bush is not going to prison unless he is first charged (based on the evidence available) and he is found guilty by a jury of his peers. Just keep electing Republican presidents and the evidence will never see the light of day.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 5, 2008 10:02 PM
Okay, Bill Black, but you are wrong.
Your comment was (emphasis mine):
"Your comment is EVIL and way over the top but not suprising on a hatemongering blog that advocates puting President Bush in prison."
The relevant paragraph from that blog is this (emphasis mine):
"But I don't favor impeachment, as some have suggested. I would wait until after the election, when they are out of office, and then I would favor investigations of the top officials of the Bush administration on official deception, war crimes, and corruption charges. And if they are found guilty of these high crimes, I believe they should spend the rest of their lives in prison - after offering their repentance to every American family who has lost a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister. Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven."
Rev. Wallis was not advocating putting Bush into prison, as you allege. He wasn't even advocating impeachment, as indicated by the first sentence. He was advocating an investigation into the deceptions leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and then, if necessary, prosecuting and, if convicted, sentencing top Bush administration officials who were involved in the deception.
Nothing there at all about imprisoning President Bush.
Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 10:03 PM
You know, reading the comments following Jim's postings this week has provided no end of comic relief for me. You can't get this kind of entertainment even on satellite TV. Apparently Peter S has been commissioned by Evangelism Explosion to come here to convert ye Democratic heathen; ModLad, in the manner of a WWF star, attempts to make a comeback wearing a new mask only to have it and his wrestling shorts yanked down over his knees; meanwhile Don, Payshun and Carl Copas motor bravely on, ignoring the sticks and stones in an effort to advocate a modicum of sanity; every now and then some Fundy wanders in to share the love of Jesus by advocating repentance and turning in simple child-lake faith to the one and only savior, George Bush
thanks for the entertainment, guys; and may George Wallace win
Posted by: canucklehead | September 5, 2008 10:04 PM
It's disconcerting that I haven't read anything of that from you here. . . with all due respect, may I ask, Why?
Posted by: Sami | September 5, 2008 10:00 PM
------
Sami, Great post and great question at the end. I believe it is because Jim is blinded to the truth by his liberal views that started in the 1970s. Jim is liberal and supported Kerry in 2004. He has not yet admitted support for Obama which, as in your above question, concerns me.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 10:21 PM
Peter: Prejudiced, racist? Racism is so ingrained in the American psyche that many times we (myself included) can behave and speak as racists without being aware of the offense until we have viewed our behavior through the eyes of the oppressed.
For starters, to equate the required attendance of children in public schools with the systematic denial of persons the right to vote or be treated as humans marginalizes and minimizes the latter cause.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 5, 2008 10:25 PM
How much charity work is required to offset the nefarious influence of alcohol on American highways and in American homes?
Posted by: canucklehead | September 5, 2008 10:30 PM
re: canucklehead | September 5, 2008 10:04 PM
------
Thanks for mentioning me Canucklehead. You should mention Squeaky too. She and Don have each others backs (which is cool). My wife is Canadian so i understand some of your humor and perspective. It is amazing the low opinions that those in the great-white-north have of USA and Bush specifically. She now sees the light and supports McCain and LOVES Palin, but it took several years of logical arguments and evidence.
God bless you dear Canucklehead whoever you are! :)
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 10:31 PM
2008 Top Secret Presidential Election Lexicon
Election: American-Idol-the-Liar's Edition, the longest running reality series, dating back to the Fall of 07
Fox: the Herod News Network (Luke 13)
Conservatives: people who are morally and spiritually superior to you
Liberal: a cuss word, consisting of 7 letters, 3 more than the usual 4
Family values: system for dividing people into competitive hate groups
Exotic: Obama's black skin
Obama's ambition to be president: acting uppidity
Candidate: idol of idiot worshipers (borrowed from Shakespeare)
No new taxes: money will fall from the sky
New programs to fix health care and education: money grows on trees
Fair and balanced: Corporate greed operators expecting a big thank you from those they've ripped off; you may tip them by licking their boots
Free market economy= sacrificing children for the fraud god Mammon
Liberty and justice for all= slogan from the marketing department
Off shore drilling: drug addicts running the rehab half-way house
The fact of the matter is: I'm shoving my opinion down your throat
With all due respect: I'm being honorable, and you're being a jerk
Approval rating: gain the whole world while losing your soul
Pundit: the blind leading the blind
Elite: someone who embraces ambiguity, complexity and nuance, offering no easy solutions that can be reduced to simple-minded slogans
Christian: someone who does the exact opposite of how Jesus calls us to live
Support our troops: don't criticize the politicians running the war while trashing the emotionally, physically, spiritually wounded veterans when they get home
CBN= (pseudo)Christians-broadcasting-nonsense
NRA= Jesus sends us out as sheep in the midst of wolves, carrying no purse, no bag, no sandals, no greeting people on the road, BUT packing heat, and whoever rejects your welcome blow that garbage to h-e-double-toothpicks
War are terrorism: Americans turning into their jihadist enemies
Pro-life: taking control of women's bodies
Pro-choice: murdering innocent babies
Change: what we expect other people to do, but not us
Global warming: sponsored by both deniers and hypocrites
Maverick: s/he looked attractive after a couple of beers, but had morning breath the next day
Political convention: bad liars, bad dancers, wasted balloons
CNN= Creepy Nudist Navel-gazing
Experience= what professional sex workers have
Judgment and character= purchased by the high rolling investors
Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin= flawed human beings who are beloved by God through Christ
Not to be posted on YouTube
Don't want to get Jeremiah Wright III in trouble, not to mention his undercover student
Level vibes
Posted by: Level Vibes | September 5, 2008 10:32 PM
Canuklehead: We know entertainment up there is sparse, but to admit that your humor is derived from this blog...? BTW- Do you think you can wrangle an appointment in a McCain/Palin admin since you are her neighbor? That should count for something shouldn't it?
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 5, 2008 10:33 PM
Racism is so ingrained in the American psyche that many times we (myself included) can behave and speak as racists without being aware of the offense until we have viewed our behavior through the eyes of the oppressed.
For starters, to equate the required attendance of children in public schools with the systematic denial of persons the right to vote or be treated as humans marginalizes and minimizes the latter cause.
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 5, 2008 10:25 PM
-------
Pastor, I personally reject that kind of self-projected racial guilt. I'm not perfect, but i see no need to feel like I am guilty of racism just because God made me white. Maybe because I grew up in Calif. and was taught Jesus loves the little children...red, yellow, black, white from birth-- I don't have the same experiences as you. As you know, Jesus forgives and he renews the mind (through the word) also. I pray that for you.
As for the second part about school attendance i really dont know what you are talking about.
Love in Christ,
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 10:39 PM
re: Posted by: Level Vibes | September 5, 2008 10:32 PM
-----
If some of you regulars you don't harshly condemn this ASAP I will be really disappointed in you.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 10:45 PM
Peter: Thank you for your prayers. I trust that God will answer those that are prayed in accordance with His will and the Spirit of Christ. Your post perfectly illustrates my point. I would anticipate that based upon your prior posts which demonstrate,IMO, some confusion between guilt and humility.
BTW, I think that Cali is one of the major fronts on which the true Civil Rights fight continues, notwithstanding songs they may learn in Sunday School or sing in their worship services.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 5, 2008 10:52 PM
PJS, I grew up in CA and now live in a former slave state. Anyway I still am not guilty of rascism. so please dont paint everyone with that broad brush. Please tell me of one white person in America who is not racist in your opinion.
Thanks.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 10:58 PM
I think that the statement that the fight for education reform (charter, private and other alternative schools) is the new Civil Rights campaign was racist on several levels. What do you think? (those other than Rick feel free to respond, I address Rick because I respect his prior posts re: black culture.)
Pastor Jeff -- Thanks.
To answer your question, it's not so much racist but classist. I come from a fairly well-educated and -cultured family and was educated largely in private schools, but my classmates were all on that same income/cultural level so I fit in pretty well; race thus was not that big of an issue in my recollection except when I made it one (to my shame, looking back).
That said, on Monday I explained to a long-time acquaintance whose politics lean conservative who teaches kindergarten in the city school system that voucher proposals keep getting shot down because people in the better schools simply don't want kids from lesser means in their schools. I don't think people realize that the reputation of the school is inversely proportional to its accessibility and that the very lure of a private education is that not everyone can get one.
Sister Marie -- I can add nothing more to what you said.
Posted by: Rick | September 5, 2008 11:00 PM
Your post perfectly illustrates my point. I would anticipate that based upon your prior posts which demonstrate,IMO, some confusion between guilt and humility.
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 5, 2008 10:52 PM
---------
PS: wow is that the way you talk to those in your congregation? My question was not hostile to you in any way. why be condescending?
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 11:02 PM
"If some of you regulars you don't harshly condemn this ASAP I will be really disappointed in you. "
It's generally better, in my view, to ignore the incomprehensible.
Posted by: Gordon | September 5, 2008 11:06 PM
Good illustration- "broad brush".
I find that many conversations on this blog progress like this:
Lib: Broad accusation/wide assertion/think globally/appeal to human need
Con: Narrow application/demand for specifics/localized action/appeal to specific scriptural interpretation.
I have never accused you or others of being racist. Our behaviors can be interpreted as racist without intentions behind them. The Bible says "as much as is possible be at peace with all men". Painting with the broad brush helps me do that. I think it may help others do that as well, but that sometimes leads to looking through Jeremiah Wright's or Sarah Palin's eyes.
Thanks for the dialogue.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 5, 2008 11:19 PM
"PS: wow is that the way you talk to those in your congregation? My question was not hostile to you in any way. why be condescending?"
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 11:02 PM
Yes, in our congregation we make it a practice to challenge one another's assertions of sinlessness and none of us seem to feel condescended upon.
I'm sorry if you felt belittled. It was not my intent to insult you. But, now do you see how non-whites can feel? Was I guilty of intentionally hurting you? Should I refuse to accept those feelings of guilt?
Remember you are the one praying for my mind to be renewed through the word so I can be as free as you. ;)
PJS
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 5, 2008 11:40 PM
I think the insults of community organizer was the last straw for me. Some of Gods greatest workers were community organizers. First and the most important Jesus... Martin Luther king, Gandhi, Susan B Anthony..
Posted by: Crystal | September 5, 2008 11:57 PM
"I think the insults of community organizer was the last straw for me. Some of Gods greatest workers were community organizers. First and the most important Jesus..."
This "Jesus was a community organizer" talking point is making the rounds. Palin was not criticizing the act of organizing the community, but rather saying it made a poor qualification for the presidency.
Would Jesus be qualified for the presidency? Sure, but not because he was a community organizer.
"Here is the link. My reply about the "brownshirts" was removed and the original slander is allowed to stand. "
Welcome to Sojo.
Posted by: kevin s. | September 6, 2008 12:35 AM
I am proud of my country and would have joined in the USA! chants if I had been at the convention hall. But I am also committed to Christ above country. I'm sure if you asked John McCain if country should be put ahead of faith he would say it shouldn't. Has anybody here heard of context? As in "all meaning is context dependent"? The context of "Country First" was in contrast to putting self first. And "country" means "the people of the United States." McCain has said several times that "we are all God's children." He has shown he cares for all people not just Americans by working to normalize relations with Vietnam...you know, the country that tortured him. Come on people...is there anything a Republican can do or say that you won't completely twist out of context?
Posted by: Brian B | September 6, 2008 12:54 AM
"I'm sure if you asked John McCain if country should be put ahead of faith he would say it shouldn't."
Of course, if the mantra had been "God before country", Wallis' review would have been positively GLOWING.
I could have done without the USA chants. You chant USA when Michael Phelps is swimming for gold. I actually think the crowd did a disservice to McCain, and that chanting in general turns off those you are trying to persuade.
Posted by: kevin s. | September 6, 2008 1:28 AM
Canuklehead: We know entertainment up there is sparse, but to admit that your humor is derived from this blog...? BTW- Do you think you can wrangle an appointment in a McCain/Palin admin since you are her neighbor? That should count for something shouldn't it?
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 5, 2008 10:33 PM
I already have her personal guarantee that I'll be the new Secretary for Mounting Moose Heads w/ season ticket privileges to all Redskins, Nationals, Wizards and Capitals' home games and a posh condo in Buckley, West Virginia, with access to all snake-handling rituals in local churches;
in the immortal words of Wendi Bagwell who was once trapped on a WV church platform as the brethren came forward w/ the rattlers in the boxes: "is thar a back dowar to thiz playce? Well, reckon where du they wont wan?"
Posted by: canucklehead | September 6, 2008 1:40 AM
Did get a kick out of the republicans acting like they had to stop the power in DC . Last 8 years basically republican ! Don't know much about Palin , did notice the large anti god folks of the left come out with the mocking of her family values , using abstinence only education as reasons for her daugher's pregnancy . The patehtic descriptions of her baby , the slang for for sexually active women appearing on blogs , even on media news , and democratic party support groups. How nasty the partsians on both sides can be , but nothing worse then the godless left.
Even religion is used to dis her qualifications.
Actually the sarcams and self righteous smuggness that is associed so much with the left just ticked me off , I was retired from republican politics . But mcCain's speech got me interested again , He did speak to the middle and those who still think politics should have some sincerity behind it .
He spoke to the fact republicans were wrong with their feeding the corporate welfare and lobyist . . He also appeared before the whole American people and stated how he was broke by the enemy . How he gave up . That was hard to do , but totally not surprised a person like Wallis would not go into depth of that . Regardless of politics , a lesson and spirtual understanding worth talking about happened to McCain. Not that it makes you a better leader , but to come to know your not all that , that without his friends and others he was just a beaten man .
Well he has my support , the best man to lead this country . Obama is a good man , but I am more concerned abiut the leftist who support him then him .
Posted by: Michael | September 6, 2008 2:38 AM
"Ridiculous question. The real question is would "Jesus give the hindquarters of a rat about the presidency?"
I agree that it is a ridiculous question. For the same reason, it is ridiculous to point out that Jesus was a community organizer.
"West Virginia, with access to all snake-handling rituals in local churches;"
An excerpt from her churches website:
"If you are visiting... You are free to remain as anonymous as you want to, but we encourage you to stop by the Information Desk in the foyer to pick up a gift bag containing more information about congregational life at WBC."
Sounds innocent enough. Unfortunately, the gift bag is full of DEADLY POISONOUS SNAKES!!!!
Sarah Palin is a reformer, and she is tired of all these m-----f------ snakes in her m-----f-----gift bag. Also, she leads a women's bible study on Tuesday evenings.
Posted by: kevin s. | September 6, 2008 2:45 AM
Posted by: Level Vibes | September 5, 2008 10:32 PM
-----
If some of you regulars you don't harshly condemn this ASAP I will be really disappointed in you.
So be disappointed. I'm not going to condemn it. I actually thought it was entertaining. It gave me a few chuckles. And there was a germ of truth in much of it. I could recognize myself in one or two of the one-liners.
So where's the offense?
Posted by: Don | September 6, 2008 7:27 AM
The Republican Part historically opposed "big government".
Posted by: Eileen Stenzeel | September 5, 2008 5:13 PM
The Republicans have always favored expediency in the name of efficiency—cutting through the red-tape of protecting the public's interest from the self-interest of wealthy patrons. Of course, they are quite willing to expand the manpower and legal authority of "law enforcement" agencies that seem to be rather adept at bringing the full weight of the government against the poor and middle class while turning a blind eye to the BIG GUY.
Democrats haven't done much better, but they tend to favor creating more opportunities for political patronage through the creation and expansion of government bureaucracies liberally staffed with paper pushers that may or may not care for the people they are meant to care for. It's a mouthful, but that's it in a nutshell.
Posted by: Hermes | September 6, 2008 8:52 AM
Save the keystrokes Jim and just tell us you are pulling for Obama.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 5, 2008 8:36 PM
Do you care to reveal who you are pulling for, or should we just keep guessing? McCain, perhaps?
Posted by: Hermes | September 6, 2008 8:54 AM
You know, reading the comments following Jim's postings this week has provided no end of comic relief for me. You can't get this kind of entertainment even on satellite TV. Apparently Peter S has been commissioned by Evangelism Explosion to come here to convert ye Democratic heathen; ModLad, in the manner of a WWF star, attempts to make a comeback wearing a new mask only to have it and his wrestling shorts yanked down over his knees; meanwhile Don, Payshun and Carl Copas motor bravely on, ignoring the sticks and stones in an effort to advocate a modicum of sanity; every now and then some Fundy wanders in to share the love of Jesus by advocating repentance and turning in simple child-lake faith to the one and only savior, George Bush
thanks for the entertainment, guys; and may George Wallace win
Posted by: canucklehead | September 5, 2008 10:04 PM
Come on, Canucklehead. You know that you're the star of the show.
Posted by: Hermes | September 6, 2008 8:57 AM
This comment made me wonder:
"Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time."
Did he vote "PRESENT" or did he REALLY make a decision when voting. Yes or No is a decision, "PRESENT" is to cover yourself in case of future criticism.
Yeah, the digging will begin, also on Obama by the republicans. They have held out for a reason.
Posted by: Liz Griffin | September 6, 2008 9:41 AM
This is my first time to this blog and I would like to ask how it would affect the entries if everyone had to use their real names? As a group that pretends to be followers of Jesus, there is no reason to be afraid to identify yourself. As we hide behind anonymity we become less honest even though we think it is the opposite. Have the courage to only write what you would be willing to own. Remember that someday "everything will be revealed" Adios JC
Posted by: John | September 6, 2008 9:53 AM
Liz - You are repeating untruths and have a misunderstanding of the great state of IL's legislative process. You can do the research on what a present vote in IL means, and why it is used. Please do.
Posted by: Angela Crane | September 6, 2008 9:57 AM
"I hope you don't think you are speaking for God." - peter s.
You sure seem to think you are. But, then, for many on the Religious Right, voting Republican is like voting for God.
Posted by: ando | September 6, 2008 10:05 AM
Canucklehead, I am glad that we had a governor of the ilk of Sarah Palin to keep you Canadians at bay at that dangerous Alaska-Canadian border. The money she made by selling that plane on E-bay (uh er, I mean by selling that plane through a broker after that E-bay thing didn't work out) gave her just what she needed to beef up security on that treacherous border.
Hip hip hooray for the Chihuahua in Drag! (thank you Payshun for that one) Uh er, the Pitbull with lipstick , I mean.
Posted by: JamesM | September 6, 2008 10:29 AM
I suggested after the first presidential primary many months ago, "change" has already won this election, given the deep unpopularity of George Bush and the many failures of his administration. Change is the theme of both Barack Obama's campaign and of John McCain's. Usually when voters want change, they change parties in the White House.
Posted by: James | September 6, 2008 11:06 AM
This election is shaping up to be the most divisive one in the past 50 years, particularly among Christians. Obviously, the Christian community has rarely supported the same candidate. However this election's potential for making history has elevated passions and many Christians seem to have lost their sense of decorum.
On January 21, we are still going to have to love one another.
Posted by: Jay | September 6, 2008 11:54 AM
Jay: "This election is shaping up to be the most divisive one in the past 50 years, particularly among Christians . . . this election's potential for making history has elevated passions and many Christians seem to have lost their sense of decorum. On January 21, we are still going to have to love one another."
A good point Jay. I've been guilty at times of losing my sense of decorum on this blog. Thank you.
Canucklehead, this blog is more proof that the USA exists solely for the amusement of Canadiennes!
__________________________________________________
"Posted by: Level Vibes | September 5, 2008 10:32 PM
-----
If some of you regulars you don't harshly condemn this ASAP I will be really disappointed in you."
Peter, I thought it was pretty funny, and like Don recognize myself in several of the definitions. And this one reinforces what Jay reminds us: "Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin= flawed human beings who are beloved by God through Christ." Amen.
Posted by: carl copas | September 6, 2008 12:29 PM
"Save the keystrokes Jim and just tell us you are pulling for Obama."
In fairness, he alluded to this when he said he would be voting differently from Richard Land in this election cycle.
"Did he vote "PRESENT" or did he REALLY make a decision when voting. Yes or No is a decision, "PRESENT" is to cover yourself in case of future criticism."
In those times when he did vote, he voted with them 97% of the time. Someone above mentioned that this was not significant, and that McCain's 90% agreement is.
Given that Obama seems to have ditched the "post-partisan" talking point, let's just cede the argument.
The majority of the votes in the Senate are either procedural, or utterly non-controversial (bills to commends firefighters and the like). Someone has probably done a tally of every vote, but by my quick math, Obama has voted with the Prez about 60% of the time. Given that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, it's probably safe to use this as a baseline.
This means that the remaining legislation is the real indicator of solidarity. If McCain has voted with the president 90% of the time, this indicates that, he supported the president's position approximately 75% of the time (that's 30 into 40).
On the flip side, Obama has supported his parties position on controversial legislation about 93% of the time (37 into 40). I would argue that the discrepancy more than sufficient that McCain has a fair case to argue his political independence.
I don't expect Obama to change his talking points accordingly, but since we're in the business of fact-checking...
Posted by: kevin s. | September 6, 2008 12:52 PM
This is my first time to this blog and I would like to ask how it would affect the entries if everyone had to use their real names? As a group that pretends to be followers of Jesus, there is no reason to be afraid to identify yourself. As we hide behind anonymity we become less honest even though we think it is the opposite. Have the courage to only write what you would be willing to own. Remember that someday "everything will be revealed" Adios JC
Posted by: John | September 6, 2008 9:53 AM
------
Good comment John. That is why I use my name.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 6, 2008 12:55 PM
his means that the remaining legislation is the real indicator of solidarity. If McCain has voted with the president 90% of the time, this indicates that, he supported the president's position approximately 75% of the time (that's 30 into 40).
On the flip side, Obama has supported his parties position on controversial legislation about 93% of the time (37 into 40). I would argue that the discrepancy more than sufficient that McCain has a fair case to argue his political independence.
I don't expect Obama to change his talking points accordingly, but since we're in the business of fact-checking...
Posted by: kevin s. | September 6, 2008 12:52 PM
------
Kevin, Nice analysis. Homerun!
"In fairness, he alluded to this when he said he would be voting differently from Richard Land in this election cycle."
>>> I see your point but the casual observer is not going to pick that out. He more than alludes to being impartial.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 6, 2008 1:01 PM
Kevin:
Regarding Obama's vote of "present," please read:
Posted by: Angela Crane | September 6, 2008 9:57 AM
Regarding the McCain 90% v. Obama 97% thing, please read:
Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 6:05 PM
And read Squeaky's reply:
Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 6:35 PM
Don
Posted by: | September 6, 2008 1:14 PM
"Regarding Obama's vote of "present," please read:
Posted by: Angela Crane | September 6, 2008 9:57 AM
Regarding the McCain 90% v. Obama 97% thing, please read:
Posted by: Don | September 5, 2008 6:05 PM
And read Squeaky's reply:
Posted by: squeaky | September 5, 2008 6:35 PM
"
I read them. I disagree with their conclusions, for the reasons cited above.
" I see your point but the casual observer is not going to pick that out. He more than alludes to being impartial."
Oh, believe me, I know.
Posted by: kevin s. | September 6, 2008 1:54 PM
"As we hide behind anonymity we become less honest even though we think it is the opposite."
For me, it's based on search engine results. I want searches for my name going to employers or clients, not to the places I spend my free time. Further, while I stand by my religious and political views, I recognize that those unfamiliar with Sojo will reach conclusions about them based both on the content of the blog and my comments here.
Posted by: kevin s. | September 6, 2008 2:02 PM
To Sister Marie
[i]That said, on Monday I explained to a long-time acquaintance whose politics lean conservative who teaches kindergarten in the city school system that voucher proposals keep getting shot down because people in the better schools simply don't want kids from lesser means in their schools. I don't think people realize that the reputation of the school is inversely proportional to its accessibility and that the very lure of a private education is that not everyone can get one.[/i]
I cannot agree. I consistently vote against vouchers. Here's why:
The concept of vouchers and choice is based on the false assumption that all parents are able to make an informed choice on their child's education. Selecting the right school (public or independent) for your child takes a tremendous amount of time, research and money for application fees, entrance exam fees, transportation to open houses, etc.
By allowing our public education dollars to supplement independent schools, we are taking money away from our public schools and setting up a system whereby children with savvy parents are able to access the best schools, and children with parents who are less savvy (and under a number of burdens from language barriers to working multiple jobs to drug addiction and everything in between) stuck in underfunded, failing public schools.
Posted by: | September 6, 2008 3:31 PM
"This is my first time to this blog and I would like to ask how it would affect the entries if everyone had to use their real names?"
I've said this before but 'Carl Copas' is not my real name, it's the name of a deceased relative whom I admire. I teach history at a public university in California, and I don't want my comments on here to somehow become fodder for classroom discussions or charges that my faith biases my teaching, research, and publishing. Hence, 'Carl Copas.'
Posted by: carl copas | September 6, 2008 3:37 PM
And my real name isn't Gordon, either. The name "Gordon" has a significance to me that is important, but would bore the life out of you. Like Kevin S., I would rather keep my comments on this site separate from the rest of my life. If you googled me by my real name, you would indeed find me, but just about everything you would find would be irrelevant to what I say here.
Posted by: Gordon | September 6, 2008 4:01 PM
Unlike many here here, Squeaky really is my real name. I am, in fact, Lea's cat, posting here on her computer without her knowledge. I fear she suspects, though, so please keep it a secret...Oops, I hear her coming! Gotta go!
Posted by: squeaky | September 6, 2008 4:10 PM
Jim and everyone:
Thanks for posting this, Jim. You said what I have been feeling all week. I took the liberty of quoting your blog and expanding it a little bit at my own blog:
http://www.ericfolkerth.com/wheneftalks/files/palinowesanapology.html
I also reposted it to DailyKos, and it's getting quite a bit of discussion there this afternoon. Folks might be interested:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/6/153731/7568/616/589254
Posted by: Eric Folkerth | September 6, 2008 4:27 PM
Squeaky, are you a one-pawed or two-pawed typist? Or do you type with all four?
Posted by: Don | September 6, 2008 4:45 PM
Well, that's an interesting question, Don. While most cats use two paws, I prefer three. Well, I also occasionally use my tail. Igor, my brother, is a terrible typist. He can only use his nose.
Igor was an outstanding and promising pianist and composer in his younger years. His pieces were quite dissonant, and consisted largely of minor and major seconds producing very random patterns and rhythms. Then Mom, who has the musical appreciation of a rock, told him to stop walking on the piano.
He is now a frustrated artist and has turned to hairball sculpture as his outlet. I also occasionally express myself in this genre, but my attempts pale in comparison to Igor's monumental accomplishment. Mom doesn't appreciate this artform, either, and she keeps throwing our art away, grumbling the whole time.
It's hard to live with someone so void of all artistic sensibilities. Pity us.
Posted by: squeaky | September 6, 2008 5:33 PM
That's Igor Schoenberg, I guess . . .
Posted by: Gordon | September 6, 2008 5:39 PM
I trust what I write is honest and somehow conveys the love of Jesus. I understand the point about names but it really cuts both ways. We sometimes very much trap ourselves in our identities, relationships,and commitments. I frankly would be happy if we all could (particularly me) elevate our self-identityto one who is dead--but yet alive because Jesus lives in me.
And then prayerfully allow His life to permeate the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart.
I use "letjusticerolldown" as a call to myself--not as a means to anonymity.
let justice roll down like a river
and righteousness like a quiet stream
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 6, 2008 5:47 PM
Well, Stravinsky, actually. Igor wouldn't appreciate the Schoenberg comment, as he is very dedicated to his namesake, and he knows that Stravinsky was not at all a fan of Schoenberg. I won't tell him, though.
Anyway, Mom has been enjoying all these explanations of people's monikers. She thinks they are pretty cool, and helps her know her fellow posters a little more...thanks!
Posted by: squeaky | September 6, 2008 6:19 PM
Well, to me Shoenberg always sounds like a cat walking randomly across a piano.
Posted by: Gordon | September 6, 2008 7:55 PM
Well--no argument there. Although Stravinski had a period like that, too...but Schoenberg was more consistent in his style
Posted by: squeaky | September 6, 2008 8:02 PM
And at this point we've pretty-much exhausted my knowledge on the subject
Posted by: Gordon | September 6, 2008 8:04 PM
[If you googled me by my real name, you would indeed find me, but just about everything you would find would be irrelevant to what I say here.]
Likely I don't know you so don't think this is personal to you. I just want to say that as a Christian is one who say's 'Jesus is Lord,' and is called to follow Jesus in every aspect of life; why wouldn't what one says here be relevant to the rest of our lives?
Igor (:-)>
Posted by: Deryll | September 6, 2008 8:14 PM
Canucklehead, I am glad that we had a governor of the ilk of Sarah Palin to keep you Canadians at bay at that dangerous Alaska-Canadian border.
MMMMM, il-lee-gal sal-mon
This is my first time to this blog and I would like to ask how it would affect the entries if everyone had to use their real names? As a group that pretends to be followers of Jesus, there is no reason to be afraid to identify yourself. As we hide behind anonymity we become less honest even though we think it is the opposite. Have the courage to only write what you would be willing to own. Remember that someday "everything will be revealed" Adios JC
Posted by: John | September 6, 2008 9:53 AM
Ok, I confess, I'm really Dick Cheney
Posted by: canucklehead | September 6, 2008 8:33 PM
Posted by: Deryll | September 6, 2008 8:14 PM
Suffice it to say that I prefer anonymity when it comes to this sort of discourse. The details of my professional life have little to do with my most deeply-held beliefs, which is what tend to appear here. Here I am a personality known as "Gordon", who talks about things that really matter. The rest of the time I am known for my expertise in a rather arcane and uninteresting field.
Posted by: Gordon | September 6, 2008 8:35 PM
Gordon
What I do many hours would seem, I suppose, uninteresting to most; but that's not what I mean. It is important to me and not just a way to 'eat.' I don't have a problem with anonymity (unless it is used to lie). I just believe that I, as a follower of Christ, should not see this or any part of my life as separate from the rest. The command to love God with heart, soul, and strength means, to me, that all of life is connected and not that there are separate parts to our lives. Jesus seemed to accept the 'Greek' term mind, but in a way that again connects all of life.
Igor (I've used the moniker a bit, since an occasion when I forgot to sign my name and squeaky called me Igor - not Stravinski)
Posted by: Deryll | September 6, 2008 9:18 PM
Deryll - agreed
Posted by: Gordon | September 6, 2008 9:26 PM
Tomorrow is the commemoration of Jane Addams birthdate and I agree with Jim Wallis that Sarah Palin owes a BIG apology to community organizers who are trying to help people better themselves. I fear where this country/world would be without agitators--like Jane Addams, Jesus, Gandhi, Dorothy Day and others.
Posted by: TryintolivelikeChrist | September 6, 2008 9:37 PM
"Igor (I've used the moniker a bit, since an occasion when I forgot to sign my name and squeaky called me Igor - not Stravinski)"
I have seen you do that before, and I thought surely my brother was taking a break from his hairball sculpting and sneaking on the computer without me or Mom noticing! I thought I was going a bit nuts, because I would see postings from him on days when I KNEW for a fact he had done nothing but sleep! Phew! Now I know the truth! Thanks for clearing that up!
Posted by: squeaky | September 6, 2008 9:53 PM
Squeaky and Gordon -
Can I make a confession? My name is really Arnold Schoenberg, and I resent the implication that my music all sounds the same. I wrote a cute little Christmas piece that includes Silent Night and a couple of other tunes that even you would probably recognize. But you're right that I don't write pretty music. In fact, I haven't written anything under my own name for 57 years. I got tired of the sly looks I got at parties when people thought I was too self-absorbed to notice. But as for my music all sounding like a cat on the piano - Gott im Himmel!! Ihr seid alle nur mittelmaaessige Philistiner!!
Posted by: Another nonymous (not my realy name) | September 6, 2008 10:23 PM
" I don't think people realize that the reputation of the school is inversely proportional to its accessibility and that the very lure of a private education is that not everyone can get one."
Wouldn't this be a compelling argument against funding college education? If not, why not?
If I do not home school my kids, I am sending them to private school because the Public School system is a disaster. The majority of parents I know who have made this decision do so for the sam reason.
There are a small handful of prestigious private schools in Minnesota. The tend to house the children of an effete liberal class, which likely assumes that all people think the way they do. R.T. Rybak, Mayor of Minneapolis, as well as the Humphrey clan, send their kids to Breck because they don't want them to associate with the great unwashed.
So I can see why this talking point is so readily embraced by the left. But the vast majority of private schools are not, per se, prestigious. They are neighborhood schools, mostly religious, and mostly seen as an alternative to failed public schools within the district. Parents often work two shifts just to send their kids there.
That's desperation, not classism.
"The concept of vouchers and choice is based on the false assumption that all parents are able to make an informed choice on their child's education."
And the concept behind this statement is why Democrats don't win elections. What condescending tripe. If parents aren't able to make wise decisions about education, then we shouldn't tax them to pay for education.
Posted by: kevin s. | September 6, 2008 10:37 PM
Posted by: Another nonymous (not my realy name) | September 6, 2008 10:23 PM
That was priceless
Posted by: Gordon | September 6, 2008 11:11 PM
Gordon -
Vielen Dank.
- AS
Posted by: Another nonymous | September 6, 2008 11:21 PM
Wouldn't this be a compelling argument against funding college education?
Not necessarily, because tertiary education isn't compulsory.
But the vast majority of private schools are not, per se, prestigious. They are neighborhood schools, mostly religious, and mostly seen as an alternative to failed public schools within the district. Parents often work two shifts just to send their kids there.
They still have better reputations than public schools, especially in urban areas. And besides, Catholic schools were founded in part to avoid the Protestant slant to public schools back in the day; in fact, they originally were free to parish children. (They started charging tuition when they started hiring lay teachers and administrators.)
If parents aren't able to make wise decisions about education, then we shouldn't tax them to pay for education.
The problem is that they often want "choice" for their kids but not for other people's kids.
Posted by: Rick | September 6, 2008 11:31 PM
"The problem is that they often want "choice" for their kids but not for other people's kids."
What exactly do you mean by that, Rick?
Posted by: Gordon | September 6, 2008 11:36 PM
Another Non--
Well, I don't necessarily dislike Schoenberg's music, although I prefer Webern to him. It is Igor who is not a fan. Dein "beef" ist mit ihn (entschuldegung, Sie, bitte. Mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut. Mein Mutti lassen mir nicht in die Schule gangen).
Our feet are stained (auf wiedersehn)
Posted by: Fraulein Squeaky | September 6, 2008 11:52 PM
Unfortunately, my German isn't good enough to keep up with this conversation.
Posted by: Gordon | September 6, 2008 11:58 PM
Kevin S.,
The public high school I attended was very high quality and prepared me well for college. In fact, many area college English teachers could spot a graduate from my school because we wrote so much better than other incoming freshmen. We were just a small, outstate school, but the teachers and administration gave us a quality education.
Unfortunately, my school is struggling, and a big reason it struggles is due to the lack of funding that resulted from open enrollment. Now students go whereever they want, meaning that enrollment is declining in our small school, meaning we no longer have the resources to give the same quality of education we used to be able to. Maybe open enrollment can be absorbed by a larger school in the Twin Cities area, but losing kids to this misguided program has a dire affect on our small schools and the quality of education we are able to provide. If the education in my public school is a disaster, it is largely due to the decline of resources provided it.
Posted by: squeaky | September 6, 2008 11:59 PM
What exactly do you mean by that, Rick?
See what I said at that picnic above.
Posted by: Rick | September 7, 2008 12:12 AM
sorry, Rick, I don't follow you.
Posted by: Gordon | September 7, 2008 12:14 AM
[i]"The concept of vouchers and choice is based on the false assumption that all parents are able to make an informed choice on their child's education."
And the concept behind this statement is why Democrats don't win elections. What condescending tripe. If parents aren't able to make wise decisions about education, then we shouldn't tax them to pay for education.[/i]
Posted by: SolvayGirl | September 7, 2008 2:54 AM
Ooops.Hit the send by accident...let me continue.
First...I don't get your point about the taxes. Explain please. We tax everyone for schools—because an educated populace is a benefit to society.
But it's not condescending tripe, it's reality. Perhaps you have never spent much time with people unlike yourself.
My child attended our city public school through 5th grade. We live in a very diverse neighborhood both socio-economically and racial/ethnic. It was a decent school, and my daughter came out with wonderful values and pretty color-blind. As a PTA member, I worked in the school a lot and got to know many of the kids and some of their families.
We had 18 languages in the school. Many of the immigrant (legal) parents could not speak or read English. Many could not read in their own language. Most were hard-working people who cared a great deal about their kids, but they had a difficult time negotiating the system. Our District offered a lot of choice for public schools, but many of these parents ended up in their neighborhood school because it was the easiest thing to do. They would go to the enrollment center and the people there would sign them up for the closest school. Few had access to the District's website. Many could not read the extensive catalog of options. They might not have even realized they had other choices.
Our neighborhood options for middle school were less than stellar, so we opted for an independent school. We were lucky to have generous grandparents to help us pay for it. I would never had expected tax dollars. I do know that our family spent tons of hours researching schools online, attending open houses, talking to people we knew who attended, filling out admission and financial aid applications. My child wrote essays and sat through interviews. We had to weigh a number of things including transportation when deciding which schools would be the best fit for our child. It was not easy, took a great deal of time and cost some money (app fees, etc.).
I don't think it is condescending to think this might be an insurmountable task for some parents either because of language/culture barriers, time constraints because of work, etc. Just because a school is not public doesn't mean it's good. There are plenty of lack-luster independent schools, and some mediocre to bad ones too. Research has shown that some schools that spring up in response to vouchers are not very good at all. And the best schools often
have tuitions well beyond what a voucher would cover.
So, I support my original statement. We need the entire population to be educated. Vouchers will only dilute the effectiveness of the public schools. They have a very difficult job teaching kids who come from less than ideal home situations. Today's teachers are as much social worker as they are mentor and disciplinarian. The kids they teach deserve the chance to reach their full potential. I don't think Christ would want us to turn our backs on them just because their parents weren't as able as some.
Posted by: SolvayGirl | September 7, 2008 3:22 AM
'McCain on the other hand, has defined himself as a maverick. A trait he used to have, but one he has jettisoned to gain the Republican nomination. Very sad he had to sacrifice his true self to gain his ambitions, exactly the reason he lost my vote."
I would say picking a women , an unknown person at that , is something I would consider being a Maverick . Because his decisions to not agree with yours , does not neccessarily mean his decisions are any less principled or political .
Telling a full Convention of republicans that the GOP went to DC and forgot their way is not something many Prsiential Candidates have stated before . I can't name one , can you ?
Amazing that at a political convention a person like Obama would pick an insider with more political experience in DC then McCain . My guess is he was being hit so bad on his in experience , and when Hillary started doing it , in fact Biden even did it , he started loosing primaries to Clinton . Hence he compromises and picked an insider .
Squeaky , McCain never had your vote , From the issues you support , just reading your posts you fall to the far left to medium , to medium left on almost every issue .
Posted by: Michael | September 7, 2008 5:09 AM
'That said, on Monday I explained to a long-time acquaintance whose politics lean conservative who teaches kindergarten in the city school system that voucher proposals keep getting shot down because people in the better schools simply don't want kids from lesser means in their schools"
That is not the leftist debate it . They use fear as their number one tactic . They promote a belief education will be hurt by the funding lost . This is deabtable , but I disagree .
In this state we have had a 33 percent increase in funding , public education is the number one function of government in our state Constitution . We are falling farther behind .
The three largest Minority organizations In the Seattle are all advocated and supported for the last Charter school Bill . Inner cities are the worse hit in the public eduction in regards to the chances of a kid receiving a good educaton .
The kids have gone form generation to generation living in these ares receiving the butt of education . Yet the promise , with increase spending on a host of other freebies , a super majority in the House , a hugh majority in the House , a liberal Governor , and education has no increase in funding .
It will take the next generation who have been brainwashed by the liberal establishment to stand up against the democratic party stranglehold on education and opportunity .
Ask a person with a high intellect and who received better educational opportunities and your answer is go as we are going . I see what happens when the godless leftist who see children described as "capital" in educational policy are treated . They are on the the list of things to do , But gettng there orgers getting their;s first is more important .
Not me , every kid deserves a chance . If that is ot your goal , get out of the education business.
Posted by: | September 7, 2008 5:27 AM
And the concept behind this statement is why Democrats don't win elections. What condescending tripe. If parents aren't able to make wise decisions about education, then we shouldn't tax them to pay for education.[/i]
Posted by: SolvayGirl
Well I agree it is condescending , but disagree its why they loose elections . The left uses fear better then republicans . For social security , especially in education . School Choice is just like shopping at WalMart to a leftist , they force their values on anyone who does not agree with them , make you appear as though you are not concerned awith kids or care about the envirnoment , jobs or whatever . For allt he talk of the right wing , left wing facism is alive and well in using govenement resources to control how you educate your children to where you shop .
I really think the education establishment will have to hit rock bottom before the people just get so sick of it . Good thing in my state we are starting to get golks like billionair Bill Gates , minority organizations , the ever present religious organizations , and those circles are starting to interact .
Posted by: Michael | September 7, 2008 5:34 AM
Gordon, Squeaky, and