Thursday, September 30, 2004
are revolting again, and they need our help.
In a post critiquing Russia's push
to sign the Kyoto Pact, Andrew Stuttaford goes after creation science. I'm not a science expert, and I realize there some shallow pastors pretending to be geologists out there, but I wonder if Andrew has ever read any work by intelligent design theorists William Dembski or Michael Behe?
I won't assign motives to people, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that he hasn't.
Here is my response to part two
of Al Mohler's series on Christians and the media.
I'll work with same format as my last blog on this topic, which is posted below. And now...
Principle Six: The likelihood of being uninformed and misinformed increases as the number of news sources decreases.
Me: Not necessarily! While filters and biases exist in the media, there was time when one could pick up the morning paper and listen to or watch the evening news and get a pretty general idea of what was going on. The problem here is Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw, it is not an inherent trait. The current problems with MSM are just that - current. We can fix these problems and, to some degree, return to a point where on the whole we can rely on our morning papers and evening news.
Principle Seven: Beware the error of following the crowd.
Me: I'm not sure the point here. Beward of the mob is good advice at all times, not just as it regards the media. Mohler's broader goal in all of this seems to reinforce a proper worldview, which is sorely needed if anyone gives the Dixie Chicks or Whoopie Goldberg the time of day.
Principle Eight: Those who get their news only from broadcast media are missing much of the story, and much of its significance
Me: Again, not necessarily. There is not inherent problem with broadcast media. The problem is the biases of the journalists and producers, not in the format itself. Most Americans simply don't have the time to read the blogosphere or any number of alternative media source. Mohler is speaking to the current problem with tv and radio news, but I think his point loses some of its strength the minute the New York Times and CBS News (and CNN and ABC and ...) demonstrate some accountability and begin reporting the facts. I'll argue that we should always seek more information, if it's nothing more than reading U.S. News or Time. But there are limits to what each individual can do, and that is one reason why the MSM must be reformed.
Principle Nine: When it comes to issues of importance, turn off the tube and think.
Me: Excellent point. The evening news has a lot of bad stuff in it. Hurricanes have been the order of the day lately. But a thinking Christian should know the difference between a hurricane and genocide. Hurricanes just happen, and all we can do is offer our prayers and support (money, material goods, labor) to the victims. Genocide in Sudan can be stopped and in some cases prevented. Christians should know the difference. We are useless if we can't make the distinction.
Principle Ten: Use the news media as material for worldview analysis
Me: Sigh. The sky is falling, isn't it? Look, there's a lot of worldview analysis to be done by watching Bill O'Reilly or Dr. Phil or the ladies on the View. Alan Colmes, Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt all have a worldview that determines the presentation of their radio programs. However, a properly fucntioning, objective media shouldn't have much of a worldview to interject.
Here's a scenario. The Bush National Gaurd story comes up. We know that Bush was in the TANG and that he served for several years. The evening news could say the Bushies say point A, and the Kerry group says point B. If Brit Hume simply states what the facts say with documentation, there is no worldview at work. He could then refer viewers to Hannity and Colmes to see the topic debated. Worldview would then come into play, as Hannity argues one thing, Colmes goes for another thing.
Worldview might come into play in this regard. An editor feels strongly about the post-hurricane suffering in Haiti. He or she might order a story to appear on CNN or Fox or what have you. But even then, while worldview determined the story's appearance in the program, it didn't necessarily have any impact on how the story was told. I guess if Linda Vester said "the Godless savages are experiencing divine punishment for their sinful ways" in response to the AIDS crisis Africa, worldview might come into play. But she didn't
. Seriously, Linda, I think you're great, so please don't sue me. It was just an example.
I think Mohler has made some great points, though I fear that he might be preaching to the choir in a lot of respects. I also think he's making a few mountains out of molehills. The MSM is a corrupt institution, but that is not its permanent state. Mohler provides a Christian response, but he does little to offer a way for Christians to change the circumstances. Christians can make a change, either by voting with the remote control and waller, or by being mature Christians who work in the media. Is that such a novel idea? We need the media, and the current problems with it cannot be reduced to an us vs. them mentality.
The good in all of this is that Mohler is encouraging engagement, which is needed. He does not resort to oft-heard cries of a godless media hellbent on destroying the Church. I simply wish that his principles on the matter extended further. Nothing is permanent, an in this sense Christians can be part of the revolution, not just the reaction.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
On Monday, Al Mohler posted Part One of the two-part series on Christians and the Media. (The link is found here
.) Both parts of the series are must-reads in light of the recent CBS scandal. Dr. Mohler is perhaps the sharpest individual in the evangelical world, and his column is always pertinent.
Mohler lists five principles in this post. I will list each point and then offer my own thoughts.
Principle One: In a fallen world, everyone is biased
Principle Two: News reports are heavily filtered--and the filters matter.
True enough. Everyone has a bias, whether Christian or agnostic, conservative or liberal. I think the goal here is to get the media to either be as unbiased as possible, or openly admit their biases. Quite frankly, I don't mind a biased perspective, so long as it doesn't pretend to be otherwise objective.
Below this heading, Mohler remarks: "These filters are extremely significant, and the news reports we receive are but a fraction
of what could be published and presented. Someone is making those decisions, and the worldview of those decision-makers is of the utmost importance." (emphasis is mine) Exactly how much of a fraction? Mohler is correct is stressing news is filtered, but to what degree? I don't think that question is easily answered. I'm willing to believe, as Boortz and Rush have said, that the current media filter is a template stating that bad news for America is good news for John Kerry and good news for America is good news for GWB. To some extent, I wonder if Mohler is turning political bias into worldview.
Principle Three: The media are driven by commercial interests.
True point. However, I don't think there was a commercial interest involved in the CBS story. I suspect there was a heavy political bias, but I don't think Dan Rather or Don Hewitt had any money riding on the story. The commercial interests are Charlie Gibson interview Pete Rose or Bill O'Reilly sitting down with President Bush. What Mohler doesn't mention is that disgruntled viewers - Christian or otherwise - have the power to change media by changing the channel. CBS is feeling the pinch now as angry viewers turn off Dan Rather. Fox News whips CNN for the same reason. Christians often complain about Hollywood, and usually (though not always) with good reason. Yet movies make money hand over fist, and it's not just the heathen among us who buy the tickets. Vote with your wallet, and change will come.
Principle Four: The media elite is demographically and ideologically removed from the world inhabited by most Americans
Now things get interesting. Mohler is spot on here, and this point can't be stressed enough. The media elite simply don't live in the real world. Tom Brokaw may have once resided in the vast South Dakota farmland, but he doesn't hold those values anymore. Howell Raines may have graduated from the University of Alabama, but his outlook on the world is a far cry from most Alabamians. Consider the furor over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. It was obvious that most in the major media didn't understand Christianity. It wasn't so much that they were antagonistic; they were simply ignorant. The worldview of the media is vastly different from most of America, particularly the evangelical church. Where Mohler seems to drop the ball - and I'll deal further with this point in part two - is that he does not encourage Christian involvement in the media. There is much to be said on the matter of response, but nothing about making an inward change. Mohler speaks of the secular, humanist worldview of the media, but says nothing about raising Christian children to one day serve as honest, ethical and (as much as is possible) unbiased anchors, reporters and editors. This is where true change will come; decent journalists with a strong Christian worldview committed to the truth. I won't go so far as to say that this is the only way to change the media, but I do believe that committed Christians - committed to both God and trade - can have a positive impact for both media and consumer.
Principle Five: Headlines often lie and language often misleads.
This point is spot on. It doesn't take long to find headlines that are misleading and confusing. Words like "insurgents" replace "terrorists" and pro-life activists are now "anti-abortion." The MSM is great at playing semantic gymnastics and we must be cautious in our digestion of such terminology. At the same time, we must guard against cynicism. The media is large in this country, and we should be suspicous. We must also realize that we eventually want the media to work. No one is served when we lose our central forms of communication. We need objective standards, and we must work to correct the standards that have gone amiss.
Back with my response to part two later...
Read this article
over and over again. Read it until your stomach is in knots. Read it until you're not hungry and you've lost your appetite. Read it until you're angry enough to scream.
And then remember that John Edwards said he would give the Iranian government nuclear fuel. Remember that John Kerry would be content to let the U.N. Security Council ramble on and on about the need for discussion and negotiation and diplomacy. There is no negotiation with this brand of evil, this brand of vile, sick depravity.
If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
over at JollyBlogger concerning the need for greater historical and theological understanding among the Protestant movement. I couldn't agree more with these sentiments. Read the whole thing to see what I mean.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Following Alabama's loss to Arkansas on Saturday afternoon, it was my duty to procure the necessary ingredients for hamburgers. The troops were restless and hungry, so off I went. The store nearest to my friends apartment was Target. Feeling a little bummed from the loss, I thought to cheer myself up. I was still in a football mood, so I thought I'd pick up the new book about Alabama football by Warren St. John, Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer
. The book is available all over town at Wal-Mart, all bookstores and even grocery stores. Logic would lead one to believe that Target would also join the fun, since this is the home of the the
University of Alabama.
Target had a copy of the every David Sedaris book. Target had a copy of The Devil Wears Prada
. But nothing about Alabama.
Now I've always been something of a crunchy conservative(see here
), and I'm not a huge fan of Target. Wal-Mart is even worse. But how hard is it for Target to be aware of the surrounding community and make the slightest attempt to cater towards it?
Guess not. I can see why flyover country still prefers Wal-Mart. I love David Sedaris but sheesh.
Here's a Monday morning rundown.
- Al Mohler
has the first of a two part series up on Christians in the media. Part One is worth reading. I'll post my thoughts after the final installment tomorrow.
- From one law professor to another, Glenn Reynolds
points out this post by Ann Althouse
, discussing how John Kerry lost her vote. As an aside, should I really give Glenn a hat tip when I would have read Althouse anyway? Yeah, I think so.
- Dr. John Mark Reynolds
has a reply to Mark Roberts' series on Christians and voting. I came down on Reynolds' side last week (see below), and still maintain that position. (I say that as though I might have experienced a dramatic paradigm shift in the last four days. Hey, it could happen!
) At any rate, Reynolds and Roberts are sure to continue to have good things to say on that front.
- Peyton Manning and Brett Favre put on a show yesterday. The fans in Indianapolis saw something special.
- Lastly, Alabama lost to Arkansas 27-10. Mike Shula is in for a long week of second-guessing, and deservedly so. Punting on 4th and 1? Inside your opponents forty-yard line? With less then ten minutes to go? And you're losing?
Bush-league, I say. Shula needs to learn to win, and quick. If not, he better talk to Bill Curry about how to make a graceful exit, lest he begin to resemble Mike DuBose. And let me tell you something - that ain't a pretty picture.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
I found this story via Althouse
a few weeks ago. See her post here
and the follow the subsequent links.
It was a left-wing mantra for a long time, but we're seeing a paradigm shift. It's no longer reserved for anarchists and socialists. Human rights is a cause for all us, conservatives, too.
If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
has raised a stink over some GOP mailouts recently. The mailouts are pretty disgusting. Captain's Quarters
correctly calls for a GOP apology, but also provides some perspective concerning comments by leading Democrats. (Hat Tip: Hugh Hewitt
Also, via Instapundit
comes this post at JunkYardBlog
concerning Michael Moore's most recent activity.
Lastly, Black & White
, Birmingham's fantastic alternative bi-weekly paper, features Mark Steyn's column from the Australian
on the Beslan massacre. Birmingham readers should make sure to read the piece, either through the link above or via the hardcopy over a cup of joe at one of Birmingham's many fine establishments. Steyn's money quote:
I remember a couple of days after September 11 writing in some column or other that weepy candlelight vigils were a cop-out: the issue wasn't whether you were sad about the dead people but whether you wanted to do something about it. Three years on, that's still the difference. We can all get upset about dead children, but unless you're giving honest thought to what was responsible for the slaughter your tasteful elegies are no use.
More later, after football and laundry and other Saturday errands.
To go along with my post below on Christians and voting
, Touchstone has dedicated its newest issue to the topic. Most of the magazine is only available off-line, but this editorial
by James M. Kushiner is here for the taking. I find his points to be quite sobering.
Let me also say this: I am not a single issue voter. In fact, national security is the major issue in this election as far as I am concerned. Second to that is electing men and women to Congress who will work to reverse the nanny-welfare state that we're currently drifting towards. But speaking specifcally to Christians, in reference to Mark Roberts'
excellent series on voting, a few things must be pointed out. As Touchstone has shown, one party has made a choice on matters of life, and that choice is not easily justifed when weighed against Scripture. Kushiner closes with these words:
No amount of health insurance, of support for religious freedom in other countries, of ways to end the conflict in the Middle East, or of AIDS drugs will protect us from the short- and long-term consequences of supporting candidates who will not protect life and marriage. A society in which vulnerable human life is not protected and in which marriage is made irrelevant is a society that will not long continue to care for the freedom, peace, and health of others.
I was both humbled and thrilled to see that Hugh Hewitt
(scroll down) had designated this site, along with Got Design
, as October blogs of the month. I hope you find something here that piques your interest. Please, if you're reading, leave comments and e-mail me with thoughts, suggestions, hate mail, whatever. I hope you like what you find and you'll stick around for the long haul. I also do posting at Pros and Cons
, so do check that out.
Despite my flattery at being chosen by Hugh as a Blog of the Month, I must address being labeled as a football dunce. Look folks, I'm a Southerner. There is only one kind of football that matters around here, and that's the SEC. I have nothing but respect for the programs at Ohio State and Notre Dame. Indeed, our own struggles these last few years at the University of Alabama
might be comparable that of the Fighting Irish. I think Jim Tressel at OSU is a fantastic coach, and unless Michigan finds its mojo and with a quickness, the Buckeyes are heading for another Big 10 Championship.
But the Browns? The Browns
I can understand regional loyalty, but I simply cannot cheer for any team that would draft Kellen "I'm a Soldier!" Winslow.
On the topic of football, Alabama is in Arkansas today. Kickoff is in about four and a half hours. Paul Finebaum
has his thoughts on the importance of the game. This is the biggest game of the season thus far, and perhaps in Mike Shula's tenure as head coach of the Crimson Tide
. Arkansas is favored by roughly five points. This is understandable, as Bama is without its starting quarterback and playing away from home - in a day game, no less - for the first time this season. And as former Auburn coach Pat Dye might say, Fayetteville ain't an easy place to play.
I still think the Tide could pull this on out, but it should make for a good afternoon of football. Should Hugh ever make it down this way, say for an Alabama/Auburn game, ribs at Dreamland
are on me.
Concerning Christians and voting, Mark Roberts has done a marvelous five-part series on how the church should respond to political matters. I admire Pastor Roberts' plea for neutrality in partisan matters, and I would agree with it entirely were it not for one major exception. Take this quote, for example:
So a solidly evangelical faith can lead you to support either the Democrats or the Republicans, depending on your ideas that have little to do with the core of Christian belief and practice.
I simply cannot accept this. I can accept that Christians will have differing views on economics, welfare, education, gun rights, America's role in the world as a superpower and criminal justice. Though I would argue, as Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey did in How Now Shall We Live?
, that the Bible does have something to say on many of these matters. Yet I cannot shake the idea that the demographic shift among Democrats in the past thirty years (see this Touchstone article
by Rod Dreher) has created an environment where serious evangelicals, particularly theological conservatives, are no longer welcome. Furthermore, it seems to me that not only are they not welcome, but they should no longer have a reason to support a party that celebrates abortion and the restructing (by judicial decree) of traditional marriage. The month after Touchstone Magazine (Juen 2003) published Dreher's article on the The Godless Party (indeed the entire issue was dedicated to taking issue with the Dems), the magazine was swamped with angry letters. For the editors, S.M. Hutchens published a respone entitled Practical Atheism
Hutchens argument is simply that the moral policies of the current Democrat party are so explicityly un-Scriptural that no Christian can, in good conscience vote for the party. In Hutchens' words:
A Christian may think the Democrats’ social, economic, or environmental programs are superior to the Republicans’, but he knows that the Democrats’ moral policies are aggressively ungodly.
Those are certainly strong words, but I would argue, despite Pastor Roberts' wishes to the contrary, that this is the current situation. I wish it were not so, particularly given the rancorous state of public discourse in this country. I know of one friend, with whom I have many political disagreements, who is a strong Christian with a husband in the ministry. She spoke to my roommate of her opposition to the President, disagreeing strongly with the war in Iraq. Yet she stated clearly that she could not vote for John Kerry because of his support for abortion. She stated emphatically that she would sit out an election, and despite her objections, she would vote for President Bush.
I realize that this brings up the issue of single-issue voting and like our man Hugh Hewitt
says, majorities matter. I'll deal with that in a later post. This post was my own humble response to Pastor Roberts' recent series. Roberts is a smsart, wiser man than I am, and I admire his longing to see a day return where Christians of good faith could diagree on political matters and sit down as equals to discuss things. Indeed, I wish it were so. I strongly believe, however, that the current political makeup in this country, while not elevating the GOP to the status of "God's Party," has certainly established the Democrats as a party that is indifferent to God, at best, or outright hostile, at the absolute worst.
Friday, September 24, 2004
I think we've had a pretty good relationship for the last six years. I've given you a fair amount of money. In return, you've given me a handful of nice sweaters, shirts and pants to help me develop a halfway respectable wardrobe. This is a good thing, and I especially enjoy receiving your catalog here at my apartment. On the rare occasion that a girl visits, your catalog is a helpful means of proving that I am a modern man, well-versed in the world of fashion and culture.
Herein lies our problem. Today I opened my mailbox to your September catalog. As is often the case, the cover of the magazine featured a pretty girl, probably about my age. Once inside the confines of my apartment, I begin to thumb through the pages of the catalog, only to find that there were no clothes for men. Just page after page of pretty girls in pretty clothes. Normally this wouldn't be so bad. I can take a few minutes to think about how nice it would be to buy that new cable crewneck sweater for a potential girlfriend. But a forty page catalog, with nothing
buy girls' clothes? This is too much, my friend. I do not need such a long and well-developed reminder of my single-ness. This is unnecessary. A few pages would be fine, perhaps even equal pages for the women and the men. This new offering is unacceptable, a painful, though fahshionable, reminder that I am still shopping for myself.
I hope in the future you will be more judicious in your decisions about catatlogs, doing your part to keep me, and no doubt countless other men, pacified and in denial about the state of our relationships. Such action on your part would do much to repair the trust that is now broken between us. I remain
Your humble friend and patron,
Thursday, September 23, 2004
In this post
from last night, I talked about the need for honest Christian involvement in the world of journalism. In his column today, Al Mohler
speaks on the CBS controversy. Mohler is often a day or so behind on his blog, but given the depth of his writing, it's a forgivable shortcoming. Today's column on Dan Rather and the fake Texas memos provides a good background on the story for those who haven't followed the blogosphere closely. Yet the column seems to overreact at one point, calling Rather's defense of the memos "postmodernism at its worst." That's true in a way, but I don't think Rather was really trying to stretch the truth. I think in this instance, Rather was just so biased and so senile that he got caught up in his own web. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here myself, but I don't think postmodernism is the issue. In fact, none of this is as complicated as Mohler makes it - it's just a simple matter of bias and integrity. No sense dragging the concept of postmodernism into it.
Mohler also correctly calls for greater Christian discernment in how we respond to the media, saying that "we must always have our minds set on finding the news beyond the news." That's a rather cynical statement, and while I love the work of the blogsophere and other alternate media, at some point we want to work to change the mainstream media. We want that not for money or fame (at least I don't), but so working parents who don't have the time to read twenty blogs a week can turn on the television during the evening news and, between a few channels, get a pretty clear picture of the truth. Right now that just ain't happening. It should be at least one of our goals in reshaping the media.
Finally Mohler fails to address the point that I brought up originally, in reference to J.P. Moreland's book Love Your God With All Your Mind
. That point being that Christians should grow intellectually in hopes that they can make a strong difference within their respective fields. So while I agree with Mohler that the Church must be discerning in what is True in the news and what is not, we must also work become a part of the media, so that Christians - who should have the firmest grasp of Truth - can be an effective part of unearthing the events of the day.
If Big Media fails and it is not reformed, we all lose. This is not us vs. them. The blogosphere, talk radio, other internet media are all important. But we must come to a place of reforming the standard forms of news and communication, so that all of us have a reliable outlet for the day's events.
I knew Andrew Sullivan had crossed over into the realm of irrationality a long time ago, but his claim that Paul Crouch of TBN
is a big in the evangelical world may just be his dumbest statement yet.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Even though my name was misspelled in the announcement, I won last Friday's NRO contest.
Another spot I've found via Hugh Hewitt is No Oil for Pacifists
. This guy talk politics, he don't like liberals and he don't pull no punches.
Sounds like a recipe for success.
has recently fawned over the arrival of Stones Cry Out
to the blogosphere. After a day or two of perusing the site, it appears he is correct.
And according to this post
, our friend Rick Brady was into ska! And he admits it!
Oh, alright. So was I. When I was fifteen.
has a blog roll dedicated to relationships. It's tempting to explore, but I'm likely to just fill my head with high-minded ideas about devotion, love, respect, communication and the importance of keeping Christ at the center of any relationship.
And that's asking for all kinds of trouble.
Tonight I began to reread this book
by J.P. Moreland. It was required reading for a class I took during my freshman year of college, when I attended a Christian college. The book was a eye-opener for me, helping to push me towards understanding the crucial role of reason in the life of a Christian.
One of the points Moreland makes very early on in the book is the failure of the evangelical Church to train young people in the important of having an intellectual Christian mind. He suggests that more work be done to train Christians how to be, essentially, better Christians within vocation. All points well made.
In reading this, I couldn't help but think of Rather-gate. Not specifically Dan Rather, but the media in general. Much has been written about the steady secularization of the media over the last generation. Imagine a media where intelligent Christians were active; people who understood the role of the journalist and sought to expose the truth in our American life (or international life, as the case might be). While I realize that the truth would not always be favorable towards my preferred candidate or political party (Republicans have affairs, too, unfortunately), I'll take the trade if it means no more fake memos, no more mud-slinging, no more trash.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
seems to think that John Kerry would demonstrate greater ficsal responsibility than the President. I've been dismayed at the manner in which the Bush administration has spent money, but only a fool would think that a liberal Democrat like John Kerry, with a trial lawyer for a Veep, would be more restrained. I just don't buy it. The budget might be balanced, but only as a result of higher taxes.
makes a good point regarding Jimmy Swaggart's recent outburst against homosexuals.
is certainly a strange development.
University of Alabama quarterback Brodie Croyle suffered a season-ending injury against Western Carolina Saturday night. The decision to start Croyle in the second half of the game, with Bama up 31-0, has been a source of controversy in these parts.
poses some questions about head coach Mike Shula's decision.
In the post below, I mentioned that I'm currently reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars
. I'm roughly a third of the way into the book, but here are my early impressions. The book deals with the secret history of CIA support for the Afghan militias that fought against the Soviets. A few notes.
- We didn't fund Usama bin Laden. We didn't train him. We knew about him, but we didn't know much. The Michael Moores of the world should put the theory to rest.
- It was pretty doggone important to keep an eye on the situation in Southeast Asia. The region was extremely unstable by the late 1970s. The Soviet invasion made matters worse, but it was imperative that the U.S. keep our cards in the game..
- At the same time, we didn't keep enough of an eye on the area. By the late 1980s, the radical Islamic factions of the Afghan resistance - typically Arab fighters on a crusade - had taken control of the fight against the Soviets. Coll maintains that Gorbachev was aware of the danger posed by the Islamists, while most in the Reagan administration simply overlooked the threat, viewing all anti-Soviet fighters as a good thing. I'm not quick to give Gorby any more credit in that area; I'd like to see further proof of his theory. It is clear, however, that the Reagan administration dropped the ball in dealing with the Islamist threat.
Now, I'm not singling out the Reaganites for blame, but just pointing out the dangers of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" way of thinking. I'm not opposed to it, mind you, but this is perhaps the best example in recent history of the potential troubles brought about by that particular line of thought.
John Kerry was on David Letterman last night. I missed the show; I was watching the Eagles beat the Vikings and reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars
. Ann Althouse
has a pretty scathing take on the Senator's performance. It appears that the Kerry Spot
wasn't too impressed, either.
How hard must it be to screw up an appearance on Letterman? The swift boat that is John Kerry's campaign is sinking, and sinking fast.
is a fearless man.
Monday, September 20, 2004
I've been away from here for a while. There was a hurricane. You might have met him. His name was Ivan. I've also joined up with the fellows over at Pros and Cons.
They're good dudes, so check it out.
Other recent additions to my regular blog-reading include Ann Althouse
. Through Jollyblogger, I found a link to Writing to Understand
, a good blog by a home-schooling Presbyterian pastor's wife. All sorts of topics, both great and small, are covered. It's a good read. Of particular interest was this post
about Quentin Tarantino's masterful Kill Bill
and a Christian response to revenge. It's worth the read.
Other areas worthy of your attention are the indispensable Hugh Hewitt
, the Looking Closer blog
, and the Innocence Mission