++>> Scratching your back. It's something most of us take for granted. But last night my 7-year-old daughter did something that reminded me that not everyone has the ability to relieve an itchy back.

My daughter has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair. Last night, while four of our family were sitting at the table near the end of dinner, my daughter started tensing her leg and trunk muscles in a way that caused her body to move up and down in her chair. It was a startlingly unusual movement, and I wasn't quite sure what to think. Because of her very limited physical ability and her difficulty in speaking, I always grow a little concerned when she makes odd movements; I fear that she may be having a siezure (she's never had one yet, thank God, but her CP puts her at risk for them) or that some part of her body has become caught in her chair in a way that is hurting her.

Since the reason for her actions was not readily apparent, we went through our typical twenty-question routine, trying to figure out what was going on, as she alternately tried to ennunciate her problem to us, pointed toward her back with her thumb, and moved her body up and down in her wheelchair.

Finally, in a flash of brilliance, someone at the table guessed what was going on. I guess calling this guess "brilliance" is an overstatement when one considers how long the "brilliance" took to finally flash. But we figured out that her back was itchy. It's always such a relief to figure out what she is saying.

And it was so cute -- once I knew there was no danger -- watching my little girl move herself up and down in such an unusual way.

It also was a bittersweet reminder of how very limited my little girl is.

I certainly hate the feeling of an itch in the center of my back, and I will do just about anything, including rub my spine against the corner of a nearby wall -- looking ridiculous to anyone who happens to be standing by -- just to find relief. An itcy back is pretty unbearable.

But what can my little girl do when her back is itchy. She has no choice but to do her best to get the attention of someone nearby and hope that person will recognize her plight and give her back a scratch.

Failing that, about the only thing she can do is patiently struggle to make herself understood, while that sensation in the middle of her back bores a hole into the middle of her sanity.

So, last night, after we got her back all scratchy and feeling better, I made a point of going to the other members of our family and describing to them what had happened. My admonition to them was that we absolutely must remember what it means when my daughter starts moving herself up and down in her chair.

I realize that in some ways this situation seems like such a trivial matter to be making such a big deal; it's a situation that poses no real danger to my daughter. But if you are thinking that, I would suggest that this means you don't have even the beginning of an understanding of the plight of the handicapped. These are the kinds of little things, mulitplied a hundred times over, that makes life for people with handicaps such a burden. There are so many things that my daughter cannot do and so many things that I cannot fix, when something as torturous as an itchy back comes up, I want to be sure we quickly relieve her discomfort; it's just one small thing we can do to ease one small burden of her disability.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go find a good, sharp wall corner.  ¶ 9:20 PM

  ++>> So, I haven't said much here lately.

I've been doing writing in several different places, and it's hard to keep up. I know I'm going to have to cut something out, but I don't want to eliminate any of the writing I am doing. Each thing I'm doing has its benefits, so I want to do it all.

How do I choose?

How    do    I    choose?  ¶ 4:06 PM

  ++>> Here's an interesting fact.

Recently I was writing an op/ed article for an online newspaper called The Cheers. It is a pro-life article, and I wanted to include some pictures of babies developing inside the womb.

I contacted some pro-life organizations and was surprised to find that most of them did not have pictures they could provide me.

Now, maybe you're thinking to yourself, "Of course not. How would you get such pictures without performing an abortion? And then wouldn't that undermine your whole cause?"

But that wasn't the issue. According to one pro-life web site I visited, there are plenty of pictures (and drawings) of this kind in existence (I don't know how they get them, but I'm guessing that with modern technology, some have probably been obtained without risk to the unborn baby). They are primarily used for medical education. But most of the copyright owners will not allow their pictures to be used in connection with the abortion issue.

I have no way of knowing if their unwillingness is because they have a specific bias against the pro-life cause, or if their refusal is just a general desire to avoid any connection with the whole issue. But regardless of the motivation, the fact is that only the pro-life side is negatively impacted by a lack of pictures. Here's why.

The pro-choice side is very careful in their descriptions of abortion to avoid using any terms that humanize the preborn baby. They avoid using the term "baby" itself and substitute terms like "tissue" and "fetus". This terminology avoids creating a picture in one's mind that an abortion has anything to do with harm to human beings.

But pictures in the womb contradict this terminology. At surprisingly early stages of development it is easy to identify that a baby is a human.

So since the pro-choice crowd has no desire to use such pictures, the absence of pictures in the debate only gives a disadvantage to the pro-life side. Whether or not it is intentional doesn't change this disadvantage.  ¶ 6:12 AM

  ++>> I always feel a little out of step when I find myself on the side of the ACLU, but it's happened again.

Yahoo reports that a case before the Supreme Court will determine if people are obligated to identify themselves to police if they are not accused of a crime.

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, a Nevada cattle rancher, was arrested for refusing to reveal his name to a deputy after someone complained about an argument between Hiibel and his daughter near the side of the road.

Ultimately he was not charged with any crime other than his refusal to give his name. He was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest, though he never acted in a threatening manner and he cooperated when handcuffed.

In a free society, where we presume innocence until guilt can be proved, it seems unreasonable that any of us should be required to identify ourselves to anyone when there is no probable cause that we have committed a crime. This is the same standard used to allow the police to arrest someone.

During court proceedings Justices asked what would be next if identifying oneself is required? Fingerprints? Phone number? E-mail address?

Yet Justice Scalia suggested that police need the ability to get additional facts about a person to do their job effectively.

Certainly giving citizens the power to refuse identifying themselves when they are not specifically suspected of committing a crime will add another burden to police who have an already tough job of enforcing the law. However, I think the standard of probable cause is an important safeguard to our freedom, even if some, like Nevada senior deputy attorney general Conrad Hafen believe "identifying yourself is a neutral act".

While I am appalled to ponder that people routinely get away with things, merely because there is insufficient evidence, I am frightened by an authority that is allowed to exercise improper control over its citizenry. So I have to side with the rancher. It is important to err on the side of freedom, even if some who are guilty go free, because a worse error is to unnecessarily harass the innocent.  ¶ 5:22 AM

  ++>> According to an article in Yahoo, The U.S. Army has released a report that says the soldier who mistakenly killed Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana in Iraq was justified. Yet Reuters disagrees. They are calling on urgent implementation of safety recommendations listed in the report.

I guess I must be naive. I had always assumed that war was a place where people get killed. In fact it is such a violent, bloody place, that the U.S. military cannot even guarantee the safety of its own people. Sometimes the military ends up killing some of its own by mistake.

And I always assumed that if I were to wander into a place where bullets and grenades and rockets were flying through the air, that chances were pretty good I was going to get hurt really, really badly. Even if I were to hole up in a building, perhaps a hotel, and only peak out a window to get some pictures, I was really taking a pretty big risk, especially if one of my priorities was to avoid harm to any part of my body.

Boy! What an idiot I've been.

Now, I find out that it doesn't work that way. Call me Pollyanna, but now I find out that all I have to do is let the military know where I'm going to be. I don't have to make arrangements ahead of time to be someplace where they think I'll be safe. I just have to put them on notice where I'm going to need my circle of safety, and then no one will hurt me.

As Reuters states, "We believe that the Reuters staff killed in Iraq...would both still be alive if the recommendation regarding improved communications between U.S. units in the field and the military's high command had been implemented before their deaths."

They continue, "The Pentagon must now accept that independent journalists will always operate in the field outside the embedding process and there need to be sensible and prudent measures to avoid them being killed."

This is so cool. I have always wanted to watch a war from the center of the action. But I've always let fear hold me back. Now, I'm ready to go. Got my camera, my beach ball, my sunscreen. Oh, wait ... let's see ... anyone have the number for the U.S. Central Command in Iraq? And I'm assuming they'll notify the opposition forces for me?  ¶ 4:44 AM

  ++>> Here's a sticky situtation related to freedom of conscience.

LifeSite reports that the University of Manitoba Medical School is refusing to confer a degree on one of their students for his refusal to perform abortions. University policy states that students are obligated to tell patients about all treatment options which fall within the medical standard of care.

I can certainly understand the desire of the university to ensure that its students are competent in all areas of study that the student is required to take.

However, since I am a strong supporter of protecting the life of the preborn, it is unconscionable to me to think that any doctor would be required to perform abortions just to complete his training.

In issues of this magnitude -- that involve life and death (ironically, that probably covers more than half of the issues at a medical school) -- I think serious consideration should be given by the school to allow concientious objection. In the United States military during years when the draft was active, a policy of allowing people to stand on a concientious seemingly had no materially detrimental effect on the military's ability to be effective. This is true, because the percentage of people who legitimately claimed this status was tiny.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that this university would survive a policy of allowing conscientious objectors to graduate from their institution.

Of course, this action might require a level of academic freedom that the institution just might not be comfortable with. But that's OK. Saying that universities have academic freedom is a non-sequitur. An institution that rates the work of its students with grades cannot possibly practice academic freedom. Any judgment of someone's skills or knowledge implicitly places value judgments on the same.
  ¶ 6:11 AM

  ++>> A journalism student asked a group of us recently what we thought the proper voice was for an op/ed piece. Here's the answer I gave. I'd be interested in other people's comments.

1. Obviously, an op/ed piece is expected to be biased. I think a good op/ed piece shows a clear bias; the reader should not reach the end with any doubt about the writer's position. Beyond that I think the op/ed writer has the opportunity to take more stylistic liberties than one can in a more newsy piece. However, one should still show restraint. Outlandish writing generally doesn't appeal to a very broad audience. There are exceptions, but they are the exceptions. Try different approaches in your writing with measured experimentation. You might get lucky, if you use outlandish writing, and attract a huge base of readers. But the measured approach is a more predictable road to success, I believe.

2. Also, a good op/ed writer has passion in his writing. This is not a place to set emotion aside. However, one should not load so much emotion into the piece that logic and good sense are left out. Also, too much emotion, even if backed up with good facts, can leave a bad taste in the mouths of your opponents. Ironically, the taste of hyper-emotion can be like candy to those who support your position. Personally, I like a measuredly passioned approach with good reasoning.

3. A wise op/ed writer does not take cheap shots at her opponents. That's an easy out, but it can undermine one's credibility. Sticking to the issues is important. Attacking someone'e character, if that person's character is the point of the article may be acceptable, but attacking someone's character when it serves merely to sidetrack a reader's thinking is bad strategy.

4. I have no objection to hiding one's hand at the beginning of an article. But I don't think this is ethical if one's purpose in doing this is to manipulate readers. I think it is acceptable if your purpose is to avoid causing your opponents to throw up walls before they've heard you out. But as I said earlier, your point of view should be clear by the end.
  ¶ 11:50 AM

  ++>> Is tact an important skill? Or is it just a waste of time?

I'm part of an email list of amateur and professional journalists and editors. We are the "staff" for a new online newspaper. Recently, one of our editors, apparently driven to the edge of sanity by too much drivel in too many of the articles she had editted, posted a list of writing rules to the email list. Many of the rules were clearly good advice.

But many of us found the way she put things pretty obnoxious. Basically she stated or implied that some of the writing being submitted was stupid or useless, and the writing was horrible. She also said that we shouldn't submit something if noone else is interested in our topic.

While her comments were insulting, I also thought her comment about not submitting uninteresting material was laughable. Think about it. How many writers dash off an article and think to themselves, "There. Something that only I care about. I better get it into the editors so I don't miss my deadline."

After several people confronted her about her insulting posting, she defended herself by saying she didn't have time to be tactful.

In one sense she is right. Phrasing the things we say, especially those things that have the potential to offend another, in such a way that we minimize the bite does take extra thought. Depending on the topic, it can take a bit of experimentation in our minds to try to anticipate how another person might react to our words.

But for the amount of time it takes, I've almost always found it to be a good investment, especially with people I see regularly. I've found that it takes a whole lot less time to get quality help from someone when the two of us have good repoire. Help given to me grudgingly, maybe because I've offended someone with present or past interactions, tends to be less complete and haphazardly offered. How much time I can waste if a person only gives me exactly what I ask for, not what I really need.

It's pretty funny how some people wear their lack of tact like a badge of honor (I hope I'm not being too tactless here. But I'm probably OK, because the only people who might be offended are those who would revile me for using tact anyway.). You'd think rudeness is a virtue. But I don't remember learning that in kindergarden. Being tactless certainly does attract attention to oneself. So maybe that's really what it's all about. But tactlessness on our part drives those around us to throw up walls so they learn to ignore what we are saying.

I do admit that using tact can be a temptation to be insincere. But the two are not inextricably tied. One can be tactful and still be straightforward. Some things we might need to say will sting no matter how much we sugarcoat them; sugar added to lemon juice doesn't mask the fact that we are still drinking lemons.

I remember a time I was talking religion with a co-worker. She asked me a pointed question. I knew she would not like my answer.

I certainly could have answered her with all the fire of a worked-up preacher.

Or, I could have lied and given her an answer she wanted to hear.

Instead, I gave her an answer that was true but offered as gently as I knew how in the moment of "being on the spot."

She was offended and switched the subject, she said, so she wouldn't get madder.

So my point was heard -- no misrepresentation -- but later we were able to discuss the topic in a non-confrontational manner, because I had used tact.

Tactlessness gives some people the ability to bully. Tact earns me the right to be heard.
  ¶ 8:49 AM

  ++>> Two questions for my blogging buddies/visitors/guests:

1. Who is the best provider of a blogging site. By "best," I mean a) free, b) easy to use, c) lots of standard and cool blogging functionality, d) good-looking templates. As you can tell from looking at my blog, looks are not its strong point. Also, I have a friend who wants to start blogging, and I'd like to give him a good recommendation.

2. How does one make use of trackback? What is it good for? Why would I want to use it? Does it have anything to do with trains or spines?

Unfortunately, most documentation I find assumes a basic understanding of blogging that newbies like me just don't have. And I don't want to spend forever trying to figure it out. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks!!!

Bonus Question: What is one thing you would recommend to give me the biggest improvement to my site (besides pulling the plug on it)?  ¶ 8:19 PM

  ++>> Today I heard an interview on the radio with a man who is a rising star in the Christian music industry. He's seen a sudden jump in his popularity, and when asked how he felt about it, he was at a loss for words. About all he could muster to say was, "I'm really humbled by it."

As thoughts of his success rolled around in my head, I began to feel -- I'm embarrassed to admit -- pangs of jealousy at his success. Since I like to consider myself a tiny bit of a musician, I've always wondered what it must be like to be a star. I've actually told myself many times that I probably could be one. I just haven't tried; I don't have the time; I've pursued other things.

But I have to concede, I'm probably not being realistic.

Now. Let me stop right here a second. I just wrote that last sentence -- that I'm not being realistic -- meaning that I probably could not actually be a star, even if I tried. But it's not working. Nope. Deep down I still have this nagging fantasy that I really could make it big, if I really gave it a try.

And so I always feel this jab of envy when I think about someone else making it big.

It's a bad feeling. I feel it when a person has achieved success after years of grueling work. But I feel it even more sharply when success comes to someone at a young age.

How can life be like this? Here's a young, inexperienced talent who's hardly put in sufficient time to reach the status he is enjoying. How many thousands have work a lot harder than he has, piling up year after year of labor and never coming close to achieving the level of success that some of the newbies do.

What is that mystical element -- that Midas Touch -- that turns some people's efforts to gold, while the rest of us struggle just to dig a little copper from the mines of our everyday lives. Where do I get my golden touch?

Wait. Let me step back and take a deep breath. There. I'm going to take another run at this issue from a different direction.

I've got to believe that God plays a big part in the amount of public recognition people receive, especially for those who call Him Father. It's probably largely out of my control whether or not I receive astounding recognition. And why does it matter?

While I can acknowledge His part in this whole situation, deep down that explanation doesn't satisfy me.

I want to be somebody of significance. And -- honestly -- for me that includes an element of having others hold me in high regard.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. I have to believe that the blogosphere is full of people just like me. Looking for importance in a hurry-by world. A blog gives each of us a chance to reveal to the entire world (literally) the things that we consider important. At what other point in history have people had such a breathtaking ability, the ability to make what they write visible to people on pretty much any part of the globe?

But for most of us, the ability to be seen is just not enough. We want to be noticed. We want to know that someone's paying attention. We hope that people will read our writings and flock to our sites to sing the praises of our piercing insights.

When that doesn't happen, we practically drool for a handful of comments. Any comment, even a flaming attack on our abilities and points of view, brings some sense of relief.

Somebody actually read. Somebody actually understood. SOMEONE WAS ACTUALLY MOVED ENOUGH TO FLAME ME.

We register ourselves on blogging directories, cross-link our sites to other people's blogs, and enter contests for king of the mountain, all in hopes of bringing visitors to our sites, visitors who we secretly hope will become regular guests. We dream of our guests drinking from our well of wisdom, always thirsting for more. More guests mean more popularity. More popularity means more significance. More significance means better feelings about ourselves. Maybe we'll become the next overnight success.

Eventually, I suspect most people who have reached for widespread recognition, bloggers or otherwise, step off the "I need big success" train to content themselves with moderate recognition. Some even appear to shun the popularity contest. But I bet if we could see the secret thoughts of people, we would find many whose rejection of popularity is planted firmly in the garden of sour grapes -- if I can't achieve spectacular recognition, than I don't want it. Someday I won't be terribly surprised to find myself there.

So ... time will determine what happens with my blog, regardless of my hopes. Will it grow to a position of immortality, or will it wind endlessly through the finite existence of the mortal? And will I eventually feel a genuine sense of contentment in either case?

And my life in general. Of what will it become?

I do know one thing. Someday my Lord will look me directly in the eye and tell me something very important. He'll say, "Well done thou good and faithful servant." Or ... He'll say something different - less flattering.

If he tells me something different, then I will know that I spent my years panning for gold in the wrong creek. My struggles will have been for naught.

Recognition seems a golden prize of great worth to me; but it isn't necessarily real gold.
  ¶ 11:44 PM

  ++>> For those who might wonder about the post that follows this one (or precedes this one in time), it is part of my submission for the King of the Blogs contest:

Write a post which incorporates all of the current top five Words or Phrases for Impact on the English language (as cited by the Global Language Monitor): "wardrobe malfunction," "bootylicious," "extreme makeover," "Gigli," and "Give it Up!"
  ¶ 5:08 AM

  ++>> I got the following letter, today, from my cousin Moritmer Notasharpwun:

Cuzzin,

Thought I better write and let ya know what happened to my sister Mabel.

I don't know where she seed this idea, but she decided she was gonna get a little makeover of her face. Ya know hows those Hollywood beauties gets those tucks for the wrinkles and that sorta nonsense. Well, Mabel figures it was a good time to get that mole removed that's always punctuated the tip a her nose.

Let's just say things didn't go quite like we was aspectin'. The way Mabel telled it to me, that doctor had some kinda laser contraption that he was fixin' to use on her nose. The cord that feeds the power from the wall, (you know what I'm talkin' about?) caught on his operatin' coat sleeve, and he cut off a might more nose than he was a plannin'. He called it some sorta wardrobe malfunction. But when I seed Mabel, it looked more to me like a extreme makeover.

I aspected Mabel to be madder 'an a hornet all riled up over a rock hittin' his nest, but somehow when she caught a look at herself in a mirror, she just plumb started laughin'. Don't that beat all?

She was so gigli all afternoon, I finally lost my patience and yelled, "Would you just give it up?"

And wouldn't ya know it! Yesterday, I buys me some new kickers. And like a dumb ox, who don't know nothin' about anythin', I weared 'em today when I taked Mabel into town. Now my feets are akillin' me. I always hate breakin' in new boots.

I swear (hand over my heart) I'd give a whole pickup load a dollar bills if I could get me new boots with that same bootylicious feeling that the old ones offer up to a fella.

Give my love to what's her face, won't cha?

Morty
  ¶ 5:01 AM

  ++>> Is it live, or is it Memorex?

There was a commercial a number of years ago for Memorex cassette tapes that showed an opera singer shattering a glass merely by singing. It then showed a similar glass shattering from a recording of that same singer's voice. Of course, the brand of tape used to record the singer was Memorex.

Today, I had a vaguely similar experience -- after church. Our pastor said that a woman had recently mentioned that his preaching lately seemed to have some urgency to it. This lady's mother had noted a similar urgency in several radio pastors' preaching lately. As our pastor told the story, he seemed somewhat surprised that she had made the comment, but his body language seemed to me to say, "I hadn't thought of that, but she's right."

Recently, I have felt an urgency to write. I have a particular fondness for writing, but recently I have felt a persistent urge to write, to hone my skills and place my efforts in the service of God.

So, today when our pastor mentioned the lady's comments about an urgency in his preaching, it hit me that maybe that described my recent urge to write. I felt a quickening in my gut when he mentioned it.

Later, after I put a little distance between the sermon and my feelings, I realized that many times I have felt strongly about something and wondered if it was God, only to find out that it was just me. Reminiscent of the commercial is my question: "Is it God, or is it indigestion?"

Maybe I'll take a Tums and see what happens.
  ¶ 3:30 PM

  ++>> Oh, dear. A slip up over the new manufacturing czar.

Reports are out that the nominee for the new manufacturing czar, Anthony Raimondo, has withdrawn his name from consideration. Apparently, the chief responsiblity right now for the czar will be to hatch ideas about how to save America's factory jobs from being outsourced overseas. Unfortunately, a little tidbit from Raimondo's past seemed inconsistent with being crowned czar. As head of Behlen Manufacturing Co. he had set up an offshore factory in China.

I think the Republicans are in deep water. The withdrawal of Raimondo's name is not such a big deal. But where are the Republicans going to find the head of a major American company who hasn't done some form of outsourcing to another country? I think such creatures have gone extinct.


I hope you'll pardon my sarcasm in this post, but I've been seeing jobs in my speciality (computers) evaporate and rain down in India, so I'm wondering how long I'll remain employed. That makes this area a little sensitive to me. Surprisingly, I am generally against protectionism, but I guess it's starting to hit a little close to home?
  ¶ 11:40 AM

  ++>> The sports world is abuzz. Did you hear about the Todd Bertuzzi incident? He's an all-star player for the Vancouver Canucks.

If you know much about hockey, you are well aware of the fact that it is a rough sport. That aspect of the game bothered me a lot when I first started watching it. But it's my favorite sport to watch (though I hardly ever watch sports). Over time I've gotten used to the hitting and fighting.

But pretty much everyone agress that Bertuzzi went way over the line with his latest stunt. If you haven't followed the story, here's the scoop.

The Colorado Avalanche (yay! my team) and the Canucks were in the middle of their contest a few games ago when Avalanche player Steve Moore elbowed Canucks star Marcus Naslund in the head. Moore claims it was accidental, and he received no penalty.

But revenge was on the minds of the Canucks.

So in the next matchup that occurred in Vancouver, a game where the Avalanche were burying the Canucks, Bertuzzi decided to play Equalizer. From behind Moore, Mr. Bigshot threw a punch, unseen, at Moore's head. Moore, unprepared for the hit, crashed to the ice -- face first -- and Bertuzzi landed on top of him. Now Moore is recovering from a broken neck and various head injuries.

I've had a whole mix of emotions over this incident.

I have no patience for intentional injury by one player to another. That conviction runs so deep in me, that if an Avalanche player routinely engages in such conduct, I don't want him around, even if he's our star player. Thankfully, the Avalanche fall on the cleaner side of play.

But not Bertuzzi. He routinely racks up penalty minutes during a season. Right now he ranks a squeakingly close third in penalty minutes on his team. The person in fourth trails far behind. Admittedly he's a skilled player, but he's also a goon (hockey terminology for a guy who makes dirty hits on opponents).

So, on the one hand I'm outraged at his behavior. Part of me wants to see him banned for life from the game. And I hope he does jail time (which is looking like a possibility).

But, then part of me relents. I understand that he was terribly upset over the incident. At least that's the story that's wound through the grapevine. And he was tearfully upset at a recent press conference. How I know the regret you can have over doing something stupid in the heat of anger and then wishing later you could rewind the tape.

So then I think his penalty shouldn't be so severe. Perhaps a short jail sentence and a 6 month to 1 year suspension from the game.

Then I bounce back the other way, because I remind myself that he's been running his whole career as a goon, and what does he expect? Duh?! Too bad that he went so far.

This issue brings clarity to one thing. Justice should be administered by people in authority, those who are trained to balance mercy and punishment. Bertuzzi's administration of justice to Moore clearly got out of hand. My view of justice for Bertuzzi is too emotional. Justice, in order to be fair, must not be based on excessive emotion, neither excessive empathy for or excessive outrage over the accused.

Hmm. This sounds like something I learned in the Old Testament.

  ¶ 6:54 AM

  ++>> And now a word about a really COOL (brownie points here, I hope) blogging contest:




  ¶ 4:30 AM

  ++>>

King of Blogs Royal Rumble

Below you will find my entry for the King of Blogs Royal Rumble contest. The object is to write a blog entry to address the following situation:




The blogosphere has just been invaded by space aliens from the planet Zebnon. As King of the Blogs it is your duty to meet the threat. In doing this you must make a delegation of bloggers to rise up and meet the aliens. You are excluded from including members of the judging panel on this delegation. For each member you must include a reason why.




My Response

Compatriot Royal Rumble Participants:

As you know, the invasion of the Zebnon invaders threatens our blogospheric existence. It is imperative that the blogging community form a delegation to meet the Zebnoners to discern their intentions and convince them of our worthiness to live as a free people. Because you have already shown your Great Courage by participation in the Royal Rumble, I have chosen you to challenge the Zebnon invaders.

The Blogger from 1000words.net - chosen because of your eye for beauty in pictures. Your presence will convince the invaders that we are a people worthy of blogging life because of our appreciation for art and beauty.

The Blogger from thegreatseparation.typepad.com/newsfront - chosen for your commitment to the unborn. Your commitment will show the invaders that we are a worthy people because we defend the defenseless.

The Blogger from zwichenzug.blogspot.com - chosen for your ruminations on why people should follow the law. You will display to the invaders that we are a people who study the intricate details of justice.

The Blogger from themeowmeowlounge.blogspot.com - chosen for your spirited humor. You will make the invaders laugh and show them our good nature.

The Blogger from loadedmouth.com - chosen for your political convictions. You will convince our "visitors" that we are a force with which to be reckoned.

The Blogger from sarahs_stuff.blogspot.com - chosen for the clear demonstration of your Christlike spirit. Need I say more?

The Blogger from www.bullandscales.com/weblog/bull - chosen for the great skill you showed in the previous Royal Rumble. Your mastery with words will keep the invaders from playing us for fools.

And I?

Yes, Compatriots, I too will be there with you. For I hope to see familiar faces among the aliens, faces I have not seen since my Abduction in Roswell.   ¶ 4:18 AM

  ++>> Today I read of the efforts of several animal welfare groups to outlaw the practice of whaling. According to a recently released report, it takes an average of two minutes for a whale to die after being hit by a grenade-tipped harpoon.

Now, I have no quarrel with the efforts to prevent animal cruelty -- in fact, I support them to a great extent -- but where is the outcry against babying?

There's a term that's liable to raise the ire of some. "Babying," the slaughter of innocent human persons prior to birth.

I wonder how long it takes for a baby to die after being torn apart by the tool used to "mix things up" before they get vaccuumed out. I wonder if death lingers very long, during a partial birth abortion, after the doctor delivers all but the head of a baby and then plunges forceps into the back of the head to make a conduit through which the brain can be vaccuumed out.

Graphic, I agree. But we've sanitized abortion so much, that it's hard to care about the rights of the unborn.

The ending of the whale article reminded me of a pro-life movie called, "Silent Scream," an ultrasound filming of a baby being aborted. The article said, "The gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream, the industry would stop for nobody would be able to stand it."

I believe that if babies could scream ...  ¶ 6:01 AM

  ++>> True Confessions of a Human in Weakness (written late yesterday morning):

Boy, what a morning I've been having. I started my day off early in the morning by writing a rather long letter to a friend who had asked my opinion on a particular issue. Because of that, I was late to my Bible study (only five minutes), but I felt rushed and somehow not complete.

Once I got to work, a document that I had hoped to get written as a final draft by last Friday was still waiting for me to finish it. On top of that, three people approached me to ask for assistance with some problems going on here at work.

By late morning I was feeling very alone. It felt like I was boxed in, being squeezed from all sides. No one was aware of my situation, and I had no desire to confide in someone, because:

1. I had too much to do.

2. Would anyone really care?

As I participated in conversation in a meeting I was in, it felt like the words I spoke only left the hard shell of what is me through great effort, and the words spoken by others bumped against my outer shell, so that I was able to discern their meaning, but they didn't come in.

Just thinking about my situation and thinking through how I might express my thoughts in writing has helped me feel better. Plus, before I wrote this, I at least got that document written to a point that it is in someone else's hands to do a final read.

It's always fascinated me about how we humans are ruled by our emotions. Sometimes we feel like we are flying along at 30,000 feet with hardly a care in the world. We are in control of our destiny -- at peace with the world -- and every dream we have ever had feels as if it is in reach. But then we come spiraling down to an altitude where we feel in danger of crashing. Life closes in around us as we fly at breakneck speed through life's jungle, weaving precariously through trees of overwhelming responsibilities as their branches and leaves tear at our craft.

At times like that it is good, if we can remember it, to focus on knowing that God is still in control. And there are only a few things that He deems important. We can re-center on Him and rest in His sovereign Love. An eternal perspective of life. Too bad I so rarely run to Him in these situations.
  ¶ 4:55 AM

  ++>> Isn't this a bizarre story. I'm talking about the one where Luz Cuevas lost her daughter in a fire, or so it seemed to most people, but really her daughter had been kidnapped. Can you imagine how you would have reacted if Cuevas had been talking to you at a party and related her suspicions to you?

She tells you that in 1997 there was a fire at her house in her baby daughter's bedroom. After the fire is out, there is no trace of her baby and the police and fire fighters tell her that the flames were so intense, they left no trace of her daughter. At that point you're feeling pity for the poor woman.

But then she relates her suspicions of how she thinks her daughter had not burned up but was kidnapped. One of the things that doesn't make sense to her is why was the window open, when it was a cold night and she, herself, would not have left it that way. And a "friend" of hers, the one who turned out to be her baby's kidnapper, suddenly broke off their friendship shortly after the fire. Now you are politely smiling and looking around the room, wondering if there is an easy way out of the conversation.

But then comes the clincher. Cuevas tells you she ended up being at a child's birthday party where she saw a little girl she just knows is her little daughter. In fact she was so convinced of the fact, that she faked getting gum out of the little girl's hair just so she could get 5 strands for DNA testing. Now she is anxiously awaiting test results. At this point you are anxiously hoping someone who believes he has been abducted by space aliens will join the conversation and steer your talk back to something closer to reality.

Amazingly, this poor woman, who must have looked like a kook to just about everyone who heard her story, turns out to be right! Wow! Pardon the cliche, but truth is definitely stranger than fiction.
  ¶ 5:46 AM

  ++>> Harry A. Blackmun was the Supreme Court justice who authored the Court's majority opinion in the Roe v. Wade case. He was an adament defender of that decision.

Recently, his personal papers became available to the public, and there was one big surprise to pro-lifers.

His notes show that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was leading a five-justice majority that planned to overturn Roe v. Wade as part of a 1992 case involving Planned Parenthood (Blackmun was not on the Court at this time). Rehnquist was already drafting the majority ruling when Justice Kennedy sent a note to Blackmun indicating that he was changing his vote. He now agreed with a compromise solution that some of his fellow jurors supported.

It is hard to believe that we came that close to seeing the abortion law overturned. I know that many people at the time expected the ruling to be overturned, but when it did not happen, I thought people had been naively optimistic. But, apparently not. I am truly stunned.

  ¶ 7:18 AM

  ++>> The granting of gay marriage licenses in various places throughout the nation has really taken the country by storm. Some have compared the actions of these local officials to anarchy.

But that comparison is overstated. This is just routine government (and political) action.

Government officials regularly make new interpretations of existing law. I'm not talking about the extreme cases of clear, outright criminal behavior (though that happens sometimes, like President Clinton's lying to a grand jury while under oath, which, by the way, at least one court ruled is what happened). I'm talking about an elected official or other civil servant applying a novel interpretation of the law. Presidential executive orders sometimes fall into this category.

Some might like to think that no existing laws authorize the granting of marriage licenses in the places where it is happening, I think existing law actually might.

The little phrase "equal protection," which appears in our federal Constitution and many state constitutions has been interpreted quite broadly. While it might be argued that 10 or 20 years ago no legitimate court would have interpreted that phrase to allow gay marriage, the legal environment today, I think, makes that interpretation pretty likely. It's an approach to constitutional law that allows our interpretation to evolve over time (the other major approach is to interpret the law based on original intent).

So, while these local officials my be relying on an evolutionary interpretation of the phrase "equal protection," I don't think they are acting without some legal basis, though I question their motives. Truthfully, I think some of them have every intention of bending the rules as far as they can, and they don't actually give a whit about the legality of what they are doing. But they are also pragmatists. They realize that if they stray too far afield of society's boundaries of acceptability, they will pay by being recalled or losing re-election. This causes them to stay close enough to the legal limits that I can hardly call their actions anarchy.
  ¶ 7:08 AM

  ++>> OK. I'm missing something here. Yahoo reported recently that the Education Department plans to relax enforcement of Title IX, the landmark anti-discrimination law. The changes would make it easier for school districts to create single-sex classes and schools.

For the twenty years I've been paying attention, the cultural elites have hammered me with reasons why "separate but equal" for peoples of different races is wrong. They've also pressed for equal access in career paths and military service for women.

Fine. I've been generally agreeable to that whole effort.

But now we are talking about separate but equal classes and schools. Whoa!

Then -- to my surprise -- I find out that "separate but equal" has actually been possible well before this announced change. Well, where have I been?! The rules already had allowed a single-sex school or class to be offered for one gender as long as the same arrangement was offered for the other gender. What's actually changed is that now districts will be allowed to create a single-sex arrangement for only one gender. The other gender can be left in a mixed-sex arrangment as long as it is "substantially equal."

But I thought past court decisions relating to race had found that "separate but equal" is unachievable. And I thought the big issue with gender was that women were not content to have women's groups that paralleled the ones open only to men. Call me stupid, but I thought that's what the whole issue was about!

Supporters of this change say that girls do much better academically when they are separated.

So -- let's see -- when some deemed it an advantage to males to have separate but equal, we cried foul? But now that it is deemed an advantage to females we applaud?

OK. I admit it. Trying to be consistent is one of my faults.
  ¶ 6:45 AM

  ++>> OK. I've added my Blog to a bunch of directories, and now I'll just wait for the readers to roll in!

I'm kidding. I know that may or may not happen.

But, if you are reading this, maybe you are one of those who stopped by to check it out.

Sit back, relax, and enjoy exploring the inner workings of a fellow human being.

Now, I need to go work on my next humor column for The Cheers (http://www.thecheers.org).  ¶ 5:51 AM

  ++>> My wife invited me to go see a movie yesterday. We unexpectedly had a cancellation of an event at our house, so she had the good sense to suggest that we go.

So we went to the movies. But we did not go to see The Passion of the Christ (more about that in a later post). Instead we went to see Miracle, the story of the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team's stunning victory over the heavily favored Russian team. The movie focuses on their coach, Herb Brooks.

The movie was enjoyable and generally a good flick. I found it inspiring to the point that at one part of the movie I was committing to myself and to God that I would do everything I could to be the best humor writer I could possibly be, despite whatever odds might pop up. That kind of thinking seems silly now that I have gotten some distance from the film, but Herb's intense drive was contagious.

Despite this aspect of the movie, and the incredible feat achieved by the members of the team, it's not a movie I would care to see again. It does not strike me as a great movie.

Perhaps the part I most enjoyed was the portrayal of Herb's relationship with his wife, Patty. Through their interactions they displayed little relationship quirks that were unfortunately all too recognizable for those of us who have been married for umpteen-some years.

In one late-night scence, Herb is reviewing films in his study when Patty comes in and mentions that she'll need him to pick up one of his children from an activity the next day. Patty's attempts to get Herb's attention fail at first. She presses further, and after a small spat that she loses, she marches off to their bedroom. Herb tries to refocus his attention on the films, but he can't concentrate. After his guilt rises to a level he can't stand, he goes to their bedroom and tries to talk with Patty. In typical husband-wife style she now refuses to talk.

In another scene, Herb is in the kitchen getting himself something to eat. As he pulls a carton of milk from the refrigerator, Patty says something to him that he doesn't want to hear. He makes no reponse to her statement, so she tells him again. In typical husbandly response he snaps, "OK. I heard you."

Yet, despite these irritants of their relationship, they clearly have a deep fondness and love for each other. This aspect of their lives probably shows most clearly just after the US team has beaten the Russian's for the Olympic Gold. Herb, the normally stoic, stone-faced hockey coach, turns towards Patty in the audience above him and catches her eye. He smiles at her and gives her this goofy little shrug, one that no man would be caught dead giving to anyone he did not love deeply. It was a great little glimpse of the vulnerability they shared, because of their years of life together.  ¶ 4:20 AM