HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?

"Dr. Jones' office, can I help you today? Excuse me for saying 'today'. The earliest we could possibly see you would be December. Before we make you an appointment I will need to ask you a few questions. I hope you have insurance because if you don't, I will have to turn you into the IRS. The first offense I believe is 2500 dollars. I f this is your second offense, you may receive up to six months in jail. I'm not sure of the details, but I thought you should be informed..Oh you have insurance, that's great.

I only have a few more questions. How old are you? 66, oh."

"Why did you say oh?"

"Well if you are 66, you must be on medicare"

"So"

"Well I thought you said you have insurance."

"Isn't medicare insurance?"

The receptionist can hardly control her laughter.

"Medicare is insurance like monopoly money is money. Do you know anyone who will take monopoly money in payment for a bill you owe? "

" I have good news for you, there are no more questions to answer. You probably ought to look for a burial policy instead of a doctor. Have a great day...click"

The Ground Hog is coming out before his day. Nothing like a Scott heard round the world to surface those in hibernation. Two quakes have awakened me: one a disaster of mammoth proportion and another metaphorical quake that has been felt throughout America and particularly in Washington D.C..

I. HAITI--The death and devastation are beyond imagination. Seasoned reporters and military personnel confirm that they've never seen anything like it. Such natural disasters remind us of the fragility of life and hopefully compel us to begin experiencing life differently than maybe we have in the past. Let us not take for granted our security and the presence of our family and friends. In a moment, in the twinkling of the eye, all can be snatched from us and them.

Is such a disaster what insurance companies call an act of God? Apparently such a description would be approved by Pat Robertson. Mr. Robertson said Haiti had been placed under a curse because of a pact it made with the Devil. Upon hearing Robertson's comments, I couldn't help but wonder why God decided to punish one of the poorest countries in the world when wealthy, powerful countries were just as evil if not more so and they get a pass. Does God discriminate against the poor and ignorant while showing favoritism to the rich and powerful? If I had such thoughts, I would have to believe that unbelievers would be led to ask the same question. "Wannabe prophets" constantly present obstacles to belief by idenitfying their own conclusions with the mind of God. Those who rush to interpret history and acts of nature as the consequence of evil are in danger of making themselves god. I don't believe God has appointed Mr. Robertson to be his word to the world. Only His Son can speak authoritatively for God and He has done so. Haiti is never mentioned by Jesus. However, Jesus does say in John 9 that some are wrong in assuming that the blind man was blind because of his sin. Rather he said that the blindness presented an opportunity for believers to reveal God to the blind man through their love and service. Christians should join with people of good will around the world in seeking to reveal God and His love in the midst of incredible pain and loss.

2. QUAKE 2: Massachusetts election for senate seat

A growing wave of anxiety and anger has reached the hallowed grounds of the center of liberalism's power. A place where the royal Kennedy family have presided for nearly 50 years. Who could have predicted the outcome of this election two months ago when the winner was trailing by 30 points. As the wave reached Ma. and passed through Boston a miracle occurred. A Republican senator was elected for the first time in nearly 60 years. Was this God's doing, as some claim Haiti was His doing? If so, will that mean that the next Democrat who wins a senate seat will have won because of God willing it? Folks Democrats and Republicans alike pray in order to make a difference, but the difference that is made is known only to God. We must be careful in offering conclusions that are ours as though they were God's. Such caution does not mean that we live as though God is not involved, it means instead that we will not presume to know the mind of God when He has not revealed it to us. Its fine for us to have faith, but there is a difference between my faith and God's knowledge and actions. I trust God with my future, but I don't always know what He is doing in that future. I trust Him because of what has been documented in the past. I trust Him because of what Jesus has revealed to humanity of His nature and character. I know He keeps His promises and if He says, "NEVER WILL I LEAVE YOU, NEVER WILL I FORSAKE YOU" then I can say "THE LORD IS MY HELPER; I WILL NOT BE AFRAID. WHAT CAN MAN DO TO ME" (Heb 13: 5,6).

What I have learned from the election is how little we know about the future. Where is the expert that two months ago predicted a Scott Brown victory? Paul asked the Corinthians "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the Philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"(1 Cor. 1: 20)

He has the whole world in His hands, but I don't know what tomorrow brings for I don't have God's will in my Hands or mind. Nature can produce disasters of biblical proportion, but without a commentary such as the prophets of old to tell us what role God plays and what role humans and natural law play, we are left with the need to simply trust God. Since the world and 6billion plus people are more than I can handle, I'm glad to leave both in the hands of someone big enought to handle it.

THE STORY OF MAJOR NIDAL MALIK HASON

Another story of mass murder is hardly the news it once was. We are growing accustomed to such stories in our country. However, the largest mass murder on a military base on U.S. soil is still a major event and without question a tragic event. How much did we know and when did we know it? When you first heard about it, did you hear the name of the shooter? If not, what were your thoughts about what might have happened? When you heard that the shooter's name suggested he was an Arab, what did you think? When you heard that he was a dedicated Muslim, what did you think? We all have our own theories even before all of the evidence is in; often we modify our interpretations with the revealing of new facts. Where do we go for our facts in an effort to become better informed and to bettet understand what happened? Probably we watch television coverage or go to news sights on the internet to secure the facts. What not everyone considers is that the facts come clothed in a story shaped by the broadcasters and commentators who interpret for us the facts. Seldom do we seek or find facts isolated from a narrative being composed by the network or editorial staff designed to interpret those facts for the listener or viewer.



Yesterday's tragic event is another example of vastly different narratives being shaped by idealogues at networks and newschannels. Within hours one could pick up on the contrating narratives being used to explain the event that had just occured.



NARRATIVE # 1 Hasan was a psychiatrist and had to deal with soldiers returning from staysin Iraqand Afghanistan. He witnessed men and women experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and other negative effects of their involvement in the two wars being waged by his government in Washington. In addition, since 2001, he and other Muslims in the military were experiencing harassment. Some called him a "camel jockey" which he found very offensive. He wanted out, but the military wouldn't let him because of debts he incurred through a free medical degree he earned from the government while in the Army. He became more and more disenchanted with the wars and their consequences being felt by the people of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the consequences being experienced by returning soldiers, as well as muslims in the military. As CBS News.com expresses it "Military officials say they are still piecing together what may have PUSHED(emphasis mine) Hasan...to turn on his comrades".



CBS NEWS.COM further explains that a cousin said "soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim" and that as a psychiatrist he "was traumatized by the stories he heard from returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder as he counseled them at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and later, at Fort Hood."



ABC NEWS ONLINE adds that as "Hasan was about to be deployed to Iraq, he was suffering from some of the same stresses he was trained as an Army psychiatrist to treat...his family says he had hired a lawyer to help him get out of the Armed Forces."



MSNBC goes further by presenting an article explaining that one of the reasons President Obama has been hesitant to send additional troops to Afghanistan is the fact that he is aware of the deterioration of the mental and physical health of our over-taxed soldiers who have been deployed over and over to continue these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "After many years of lengthy war zone rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Army personnel are experiencing record rates of suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other mental health problems, as well as worsening alcohol and drug abuse...The psychological toll on the all-volunteer force today is unprecedented, Army officials say, acknowledging that they do not know how much the Army can sustain before it breaks....making the health of the force a major consideration in President Obama's current deliberations over sending more U.S. troops to Afhanistan.



"It's unclear what motivated the Army psychiatrist who is thought to have opened fire on fellow soldiers Thursday, although it's clear he had worked in settings where the effects of combat stress were pervasive....A small but increasing number of soldiers undergoing the mental strain of repeated combat deployments are taking lives--often their own."



The article then points out that 75 soldiers at Fort Hood have commited suicide since 2003. Further 81 confirmed suicide deaths in the Army have occured thus far in 2009.



Now for a few observations on this narrative: (1) This account constantly refers to Nasan by his profession as a Psychiatrist. (2) This account emphasizes that he was himself traumatized by having to counsel with so many victims of the war who suffered from mental health issues. (3) Narrative # 1 focuses on the unfair treatment he received from his fellow soldiers. (4) This narrative seeks to make his story part of a bigger story that concerns the mental condition of all of the Armed Forces who are experiencing battle fatique from these prolonged war efforts. (5) At least the President is concerned about their health and that helps explain his hesitancy in sending additonal soldiers to Afghanistan. In this narrative the shooter himself becomes a victim of the Bush wars.



NARRATIVE # 2 This narrative focuses on Hasan's religion rather than his professional career as a Psychiatrist. Hasan is and always has been a muslim. Fox News highlights the comments of retired Colonel Terry Lee who prior to his retirement was a colleague of Major Hasan. Colonel Lee points out that Hasan had made several comments suggesting that he admired the suicide bombers in Iraq and Afhanistan. He also expressed his opposition to the U.S. war effort in these two countries. Apparently Major Hasan had expressed on a blog his admiration for suicide bombers.



This scenario leads us to believe that Hasan was a radical religious extremist who saw himself as part of a jihad against America. Some say he acted alone and thus cannot be a viewed as a terrorist because as far as we know at the moment he was not part of an organized effort. Is the definition of a terrorist "a member of a group" or "one who seeks to produce and does produce terror by his comments or actions"? If he was a fanatic terrorist then we may need to strenthen our military and prepare them for future battles. If he was psychologically impacted by the overwhelming stress being experienced by the military then maybe we need to find a way to excuse ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible. Do we see how these two narratives are fueled by political ideology as much as they are by the facts.



Factors that may or may not be explanatory are introduced to help support one narrative or the other. For instance the MSNBC story was supported by statistics concerning a growing problem of suicide on military bases across the country. Of course suicide is a growing problem among the non-military population just as it is among military personnel. Also it is interesting to note that the suicide rate in the general population is considerably higher in the 20 to 24 age group then any other age group in America. Many of our soldiers are in that age bracket. Also of note is the separation of families produced by military duty that would help account for more depression and higher suicide rate. In other words to extrapolate from the statistical data concerning suicide rates among the military that its all due to repeated deployments to the warzone is beyond proof from current data, but when weaved into a story about Hasan, the Psychiatrist, it helps explain his actions as a depressed and stressed soldier and helps reinforce the view of those who would like to see our soldiers disengage from combat.

Its probably too early to decide between these two narratives, but it illustrates the politicalization of news stories. There may emerge a third narrative that includes elements of both numbers 1 and 2 above, or it may be totally different. Our world view often provides the framework for our interpretation of facts presented to us by events. Political correctness and anti-war views make some individuals and news sources seek for data that can reinforce such positions. With others anti terrorism is a higher priority than anti-war views. With anti terrorists, terrorism is always a distinct possibility and its not the last possibility to be considered.

Our lesson is to remember that facts present themselves in multiple contexts (religious, political, family, personal etc.) and which if any explains the events can be determined only by following where the evidence leads. While our world view usually determines our initial responses to facts, our ultimate conclusions must be determined by the evidence. We probably all have our tentative conclusions at the moment, but before we can speak with certainty, we must await the arrival of further evidence.

The Promise of Civil Discourse

My last blog discussed the need for civil discourse. One of the appeals of candidate Obama was to bring to Washington change that would include civil discourse rather than a politics of destruction. He promised to sit down with those across the isle and listen to them and engage in constructive give and take. I think many Americans were tired of heated rhetoric and longed for a day when our representatives in the branches of government would transcend party talking points and address our country's problems like grown ups should. Candidate Obama's demeanor seemed to suggest that he might be better at that then candidate McCain and at least a percentage of Americans who voted for Obama did so with the promises and appearances of Obama in mind.



Now, I wonder if those who endorsed him for the above reasons still endorse him for those reasons. Some red flags have appeared and no pun is intended with the color "red". However, one does have to take note when the President's White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn informs a group of students that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung, the communist dictator of China who was responsible for the Communist takeover of China. That concern is increased when she acknowledges that the Obama election team used a strategy of dealing with the media that was designed to control the message that the media had access to. Mao was leader of one of the bloodiest campaigns ever launched against human beings. Jean-Louis Margolin, European historian, has estimated that deaths during Mao's reign of terror were between 44.5 million and 72 million. Dunn quotes favorably Mao's "you fight your war and I'll fight mine". I might also add that Mao was famous for his statement that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". For the sake of the students to whom she was speaking and for the sake of those who want to believe in President Obama, it would be better in the future if she could find another political philosopher to admire rather than Mao Tse Tung.



Since his election President Obama, cabinet and advisors have refused to appear on Fox network because the news channel is so critical of him and his administration. That the network is far more critical of Obama then the other news networks, as well as ABC, NBC, and CBS should be evident to a five year old. However, that these others were far more supportive of Obama than McCain in the campaign was also quite evident. The other networks were also far more critical of Bush than was Fox, however, Bush never ceased to appear on those networks that were critical of him. A president is expected to stay out of the kitchen if he can't handle the fire. A President should know that the oval office is in the center of the kitchen and therefore one is in the wrong line of work if he can't handle criticism and debate.



I must confess that it concerns me when officials in the administration admit that they set out to control the media and from all appearances were quite successful. It concerns me when an administration sets out to isolate and marginalize their critics. It concerns me not just from the concern for freedom of the press, but it concerns me that the American people may lack the facts they need to form opinions and determine their votes. In fact, Anita Dunn complains about the fact that the last administration official to appear in a discussion format on Fox News had their comments "fact checked" by Fox. Some of the comments were found to be false, but her complaint was not that the official was exposed, rather it was that a network news organization would dare to "fact check" an administration official. She said she had never seen that before and apparently neither she nor the administration appreciated being "fact checked". Excuse me, but I believe most Americans want no less from the media and in fact, one of the primary criticisms of all media today, Fox included, is that they have an agenda that trumps truth.



One hopes that the administration's treatment of Fox will not be the first salvo of an assault on all communication that challenges the prevailing view of the administration. There have been a number of friends of the administration who have talked about bringing back the "fairness doctrine" that would force radio station owners to provide free time for any politican criticized on their station. Such would force stations to discontinue talk radio. I have mixed emotions about much that talk radio produces, but I do realize that for the most part they represent a legitimate voice of millions of Americans whose voices will never be represented in the major news outlets of America other than Fox. It is never healthy in a free society to silence one side of a debate. In America today, most polls show that our people are split almost down the middle between two political views. In free societies efforts should not be made to silence the view with which we disagree.



The history of Christianity has been a history that involved trying to silence those with whom we disagree. State churches have been responsible for encouraging the execution of those who were critical of the views of the State Church. In America the first amendment was introduced to prevent such religious domination in our country. Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims , Protestants etc. are allowed to express freely their views provided they do so without trampling on the freedoms of others.



There is legislation in Congress that may pass this year that could silence churches with reference to discussion about homosexuality. If encouraging people to think of homosexual behavior as a sin can be treated as hate speech which is what legislation before congress is advocating, then preachers and churches who read scripture that suggest such can be charged with hate speech.



All efforts to triumph over our critics by silencing our critics rather than taking them on in serious discussion and debate are incongruous with a free society. Seldom is one side of a debate totally void of truth or error and only through open dialogue will a conclusion be reached that is better than either view alone.

The Need for Civil Discourse

As christians we need to view our fellow man as "the image of God" even when we disagree with him, he deserves respect. I realize that humans can become so barbaric that we find nothing to admire in them, but those are not the individuals I have in mind. This past week a number of events have transpired that have caught my attention. Joe Wilson the congressman from South Carolina who violated congressional decorum by shouting out "you lie" in the midst of President Obama's address to congress embarassed himself and hopefully those who would probably share his views on the issue in question. Yesterday former President Carter expressed his view that Wilson was a racist.

This morning driving to work I was listening to the Mike Gallagher radio program. He is a conservative talk host. He was bemoaning the fact that Joe Wilson had been rebuked by congress for his behavior. A caller, who happened to be black, identified himself as a soldier who had served during some of our recent conflicts and that he had turned his back on his parents views in becoming a conservative. However, he still was inclined to believe that some of the criticism from people like Wilson might be race inspired. Gallagher responded by suggesting that the caller was really not a conservative and even hinting that his military service was probably a hoax. He demanded the caller provide evidence for his assertion that Wilson might have been motivated by race, yet every time the caller tried to speak, Gallagher would talk over him.

Just as dangerous as big government is the danger of extreme polarization that can lead to civil conflict and even anarchy. Conservative talk show hosts do a service when they provide information to the public that the mainstream news media refuse to provide. However, when they become entertainers seeking an audience by slandering everyone who disagrees with them, they are as much a threat to our freedoms as those who are their polar opposites. Our goal should not be to out-shout our opponents. The goal should be to challenge them to rise above their hostility toward us and reason with us. Allow the argument to prevail rather than the emotions. Public discourse, when polluted by anger, becomes its on terror.

James Davison Hunter in his book CULTURE WARS launched an effort to understand the polarizing tendencies in our culture. He argues that the wars are a power struggle to define America. He explains that public discourse today is"divisive and inflammatory. But what makes contemporary public discourse even more inflammatory is the appeal to sensationalism...sensationalism and exaggeration, regardless of the party and the object of disfavor, always foster fear, mistrust and resentment."

Dialogue and debate are healthy for society, but is such possible in today's environment? Radio talk show hosts are concerned about winning the ratings competition and giving callers time to articulate a disagreement may hinder winning. Sensationalism and inflammatory rhetoric may be more successful. Politicians are concerned about solidifying their base and participating in real dialogue or debate may be a threat to their goal. Television is more concerned about advertising and time constraints than they are about public discourse so it is easier to promote their own political views then to provide a forum for genuine discourse. Any way who would listen to public debate? After all we Americans are busy. What we want is for someone to assure us that our gut instinct is right. We don't have time for that academic kind of talk that might call for us to use our minds and reason. So on we go, with some listening to Jimmy Carter and saying "amen", while others listen to Mike Gallagher and say "thats the way to tell him". Meanwhile ignorance, anger and fear continue to grow and our social fabric becomes more and more fragile.

just wondering?

When George Bush was asked "who his favorite philosopher" was, he answered "Jesus Christ". When President Obama was asked if he could choose but one person to have dinner with, who would it be, he answered Muhatma Ghandi. Thought the answers were enlightening and can't help but wonder what significance, if any, can be found in their differing answers to somewhat similiar questions. How would you have answered either of those questions?

Wonder why the mainstream news networks did not think the video of ACORN employees advising people on how to set up an illegal prostitution business was worth airing. I guess they assumed no one would have found the video or story interesting, yet I can't help but wonder?

My niece is undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer and in the process has received a shot that cost $7,000.00. Wonder if we had government insurance, would someone my age(66) find such shots available. If yes, who would have to pay for it and if no, who would want it? Just wondering.

If five years from now, China should require us to pay our debt, I wonder how much would be left for national defense and national health care. I guess as long as we have enough left to keep our printing presses running, we can just create money out of trees. Is it that simple? I'm just a simple man and just wondering.

I hope no one tells the government of my "wonderings" because such might become subject to a luxury tax to help fund the subjects of my wonderings.

I received an e-mail discouraging me from discontinuing my blog. If you've read any of my recent blogs, please comment "yes" and that's all you need to say. I will mull over what to do.

its been fun

"Concessions and Smiles"

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said that "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles.

Britain and Scotland's release of mass murderer Abdel Baset al-Megrahi is a classic example of "concessions and smiles". He is responsible for the death of 270 people who were blown up in a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Due to bad health, it was decided he should be released and returned to Libya, his home country so that he might join his family for whatever time he has left. Don't you think the families of the victims of the bombed plane wish they had some time with their loved ones. Did the little children who died deserve their fate? Why should he receive a privilege that he denied to hundreds of others?

Why was he released? Was it strictly for humanitarian reasons? Do we suppose he's the only prisoner to develop a terminal illness while in prison? Do we really think all such prisoners are released? We're not that naive! So why does a man who killed 270 men, women and children earn such favor? Some sources in Britain have documented communications between Britain's government and Libya that suggest the release was demanded by Libya in order to receive their approval for a large deal releasing oil for Britain. If this is so, then this act of mercy was just a condition to be met in order to acquire oil from a terrorist Gadafi. Is there any wonder that the West is having a hard time defeating terrorism?

As Thomas Sowell has pointed out in a column today, a Scotsman of 250 years ago, Adam Smith wrote that "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent".

The "concessions and smiles" diplomacy is not just an unjust policy of the Scots and Brits, it is a policy embraced by many in America, including many in high places. We now believe we can sit down and talk with Iran and Hamas. We will surely be able to persuade them through kindness and reason to give up their terrorist ways. They will be glad to talk so long as we follow a "concessions and smiles" strategy. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Our "concessions and smiles" policy leads to investigating CIA interrogators with a view to possibly filing charges against those who were trying to secure information about future terrorist plans.

Paul writes in Rom. 13:3ff. that "rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong...if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant...an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.."

I think governments of the West, including our own, would be well served to consider their responsibility to the good before they embrace "concessions and smiles" toward the evil. I would hope that terrorists would fear "the terror of rulers" when they kill the innocent (whether one person, 270, or 3,000).

We are reaping the results of a moral vacuum where we have lost the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Often the right to do evil is defended more than the doing of good. Christianity and care for the good and innocent are met with charges of "judgmentalism and self righteousness" while terrorists must be forgiven because our western values and culture "made them do it". Ultimately America is accused of being the breeding ground of terrorism. Don't blame Islamic extremism, but blame American arrogance and self righteousness.

How may we conquer terrorism? Will it be by "concessions and smile" or by doing whatever is necessary to protect the innocent and administering justice toward the terrorists??

GROWING THREATS TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS

One of the themes that has defined America is religious liberty. In the early colonies such freedom was rare. Until the birth of America, State churches were the norm. The first amendmentwas disigned to protect the people from a national church. Even as the first amendment was drafted there were still state churches in existence. Eventually state churches disappeared as state constitutions followed the lead of the national government. The first amendment was intended to free the conscience from government dictate. We can argue about whether denominations are good or bad, but we can agree that without a first amendment, such would be virtually impossible.

Today religious liberty is under attack from a variety of sources. Churches that choose to follow the Bible rather than cultural trends often find themselves on the wrong side of political correctness. Churches may object to women in the pulpit and may consider homosexuality a sin. Such views produce scorn from those who are feminists and gay activists. However, efforts to limit religious freedom have been around for decades, we just have not always noticed because churches and christians have often accepted the limitations without so much as a whimper. After all, we don't want to be viewed by the "in group" as fanatics who define the "out group".

For 28 years I served as a faculty member and an administrator of the Center for Christian Education. Our purpose was to equip men and women for ministry primarily in churches of Christ. Even though we were a private school, we were required to follow government regulations. We couldn't call ourselves a college nor could we compare ourselves in any way to a college. To use the word "college" in any of our promotional material was forbidden. For instance, even though all of our professors possessed doctorates, except for myself, we could not say that our classes were taught on a college level, nor could we say that graduates who had attended both our school and an accredited college often said that our courses compared favorably with courses offered at accredited institutions. As a result we could never attain the cultural credibility that we believed our program deserved. Because of this fact, the President and the Board decided that we should seek accreditation.

We had two obviouse problems from the start of our efforts to seek accreditation. We had limited financial resources and a small student population. As we got into the process, it became evident that we were a David and the state was a Goliath. The state said for us to continue the process we would have to employ a full time librarian and Registrar. Two new positions and two salaries that we had not anticipated. Our annual budget increased by $300,000.00 while our student population remained quite low. The point man for the state wrote and said that I needed to be assigned to the classroom and that the Center would have to employ a new Dean of
Academics who possessed a Doctorate. I only had a Masters Degree and though I had been responsible for the fact that all of the staff apart from me possessed Doctorates, it was thought that my lack of experience in administration at a REAL college would prohibit me from being able to serve as Dean. We made the hire and continued forward. Our employee/student ratio was not what a prospective donor would want to see. As a result fund raising became harder and harder. The conclusion to this story is that we were forced to close our doors in June of 2005. One could argue, and I would agree, that we should have counted the cost in advance and not began the process until we were better funded. The point is that at the moment it is just history, but the story serves to illustrate that religious freedom is sometimes more of an illusion than reality. It didn't matter what those who had spent their lives in churches of Christ thought should be essential to preparing ministers for churches of Christ, what mattered was what the bureaucrats in Austin thought.

The government categorized us as a vocational school. Therefore until we became accredited, we would have to have students in class for something like 27 hours per week, if we wanted students to be eligible for certain government funds available to veterans. It didn't matter that we were providing education somewhat like colleges ( I hope the statute of limitations has expired).

What churches of Christ believed or what the school's board and faculty believed was quality education appropriate to our religious context meant nothing, only the government could make such determinations. Now I realize that the public needs to be protected from degree mills, but such protection does not require government dictates invading our freedom to educate potential ministers in a way consistent with the expectations of Christians who compose the church.

About three years ago the state board tried to close down a small school similiar to the Center who were so bold as to use the word college to describe their program. The state said only state approved colleges could use the term. The school filed suit and the case was taken before the Supreme Court of Texas. The court ruled in favor of the school and concluded that the state has no right to determine how churches educate their ministers. Therefore were we seeking accreditation today it would be a different story. Trust me when I say that many accredited institutions were probably embarassed by our State Court's ruling. The churches may not realize it, but there is a growing distance between higher education and the churches. What matters to many universities is what other universities think about them. The applause from their peers means more than the endorsement of the churches. Don't interpret my words as a blanket indictment of all Christian universities and professors. What I am saying is that academic freedom means much more than religious freedom to many in the field of academia.

Most Court rulings are not as friendly to churches as the Texas Supreme Court's above decision.

Recently Dr. William Thierfelder, President of BELMONT ABBEY COLLEGE received correspondence from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission informing him that the school was under investigation because of a charge of sexual discrimination filed by eight faculty members. The charge was that because the school did not provide medical coverage for abortions, sterilizations, and contraceptives, they were discriminating against women. The college is Roman Catholic and views these practices as immoral.

The EEOC first dismissed the charges, but apparently when the decision reached the Washington office, there was a reversal of the decision and the case was re-opened.

Dr. Thierfelder offered the following observations:

"From a religious freedom standpoint, you don't have religious freedom...(the college) has gotten a lot of support from people who are not Catholic, and who may not share our beliefs on abortion, sterilization, contraception...they see the principle and what they're saying is, if you're a Catholic, or if you are of any faith, it doesn't mean anything. You're going to do what the government tells you to do....All of us need to have moral courage in today's world. We are so resolute in our commitment to the teachings of the Catholic Church that there is no possible way we would ever deviate from it, and if it came down to it...we would close the school rather than give in...So it is absolute, unequivocal, impossible for us to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church in any way. There is no form of compromise that is possible." (quote from w.w.w.lifesitenews.com)

It will be interesting to follow the progress of this case. While I have serious disagreement with various views of Roman Catholicism, I applaud Dr. Thierfelder for his courageous stand. I fear that not all of our college presidents would take such a courageous stand on abortion or other isssues such as the gay lifestyle.

These issues will multiply if the health refrom legislation before Congress passes. Physicians, nurses, and hospitals will not be free to refuse to perform abortions. Many Catholic hospitals have threatened to close their doors rather than compromise. Again I applaud their commitment, and can only hope that others will be so courageous.

If we desire to protect our religious freedom we must exercise it no matter what the cost!

I have a bit of senior anxiety

We senior citizens are a bit nervous about the new health care proposals. We have been assured that "death panels" and the like are simply the rabid venom of the radical right. Maybe so, but I think it may be working for I still feel uneasy. Maybe as we grow older we grow more neurotic, but still....

Just when I was about to say "yes we can" to the wonderful new world of life and freedom from anxiety, I read Jim Towey's article on "The Death Book for Veterans" which appears on the online web-site of the Wall Street Journal. He writes that President Bush was forced to intercede and discontinue the publication of a Veterans Administration workbook entitled "Your Life, Your Choices" which was first published in 1997. The book was authored by Dr. Robert Pearlman, Chief of Ethics Evaluation for the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care. The workbook leads veterans to ask and answer for themselves various questions such as " would life be worth living if "you can't shake the blues" or if you're a severe financial burden on your family?". Pearlman in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v Quill before the Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

In July of this year, under the Obama Administration, the VA re-introduced a revised version of "Your Life, Your Choices". The Care Providers are encouraged to point not only the older veterans to the publication, but all 24 million veterans. The publication is to be used in discussion of "advanced directives". Only one organization is referred to as a resource for such end of life planning and that is the notorious "Hemlock Society" (now known as "Compassion and Choices").

Mr Towey is President of Saint Vincent College and is also founder of "Aging with Dignity". I and some of my friends are very much in favor of being allowed to "age with dignity" and as a result, we get a bit nervous when healthy, wealthy middle aged folks, whom we have never met may be deciding whether its feasible to treat our cancer or provide a life prolonging heart surgery. Maybe for the sake of the economy and more deserving middle aged folks, we should decide to die. Maybe morphine can be sold over the counter and nitro glycerin provided in our cereal. Such would surely be a social benefit and more cost effective. Maybe those birthers can find me a new birth certificate, showing my age as 40. Or maybe the State could just lose my birth certificate and the government couldn't prove me to be ----. You didn't really expect me to give my age, did you?

READ, REFLECT AND RESPOND

In recent weeks there has been angry debate over the proposal for healthcare reform in America. The reform being discussed would likely offer a public option of a government directed health plan. We've heard the debate and the pros and cons of each side. However, the problem is that there is no legislation that has been brought to the floor of Congress. Various committees and groups have presented proposals, but no definitive bill. In a country where smart people with computers exist, why can congress not propose a definitive bill, and then submit it to public discussion. Publish the bill on the Congress website and let those who are interested read the bill. This might take three weeks. Then after having time to read it, let the people communicate with their representatives and senators concerning their views and suggestions. Maybe this period of reflection and response could last another three weeks. Then after these combined six weeks, Congress could debate and vote.

Is such a proposal too laborious and slow? Some would object that no one would read a thousand page bill. If not, then I guess we can't complain, but I have a feeling that a large number would read it. Congress persons should give more attention to those who are informed respondents than they do to people ignorant of the bill. If the bill could be a matter of life and death to some, especially viewed as such by senior citizens, then I think they would be motivated to check it out. Since such a bill would likely change our health delivery system in America for decades to come, younger citizens might also be inclined to take a look at it. Six weeks might not be too long for Americans to be involved in a process that truly invites the will of the people to be expressed. No longer could politicians label opposition as scare tactics based on misinformation, nor could opponents offer criticism of something that has never been proposed. Right now, the debate concerns proposals not bills that have come up for vote.

Recent trends in Congress suggest that my proposal would meet significant opposition, because some congressmen have dismissed the idea of reading bills, especially without lawyers at their side. If my congressman hasn't read the bill or doesn't understand the bill, I want him to oppose its coming up for a vote until he has had time to read and understand it. If he has had time, but hasn't read it, I would like to know that so that I can support someone else in the next election. I also think that if more bills were published and read by constituents, we might call upon congress and the judicial system to simplify legislation so that average people can determine what it means.

Maybe a grassroots movement for such an approach by Congress might work and if it did it would be truly grassroots and not astroturf (or is it astroterf?). Oh well, I said I favored legislation that average people could understand.

ARE WE SURE THAT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL?

I had decided to retire from bloggersphere, but I have an itch that needs to be scratched and I think blogging is the only answer. Many institutions of higher learning advocate that all cultures are right for those within those cultures. Truth about right and wrong is determined by those within a culture and not by those of a different culture. Some will go so far as to suggest that what Hitler did was right from Germany's perspective and who are we as non-Germans do condemn what happened. These same professors and institutions will condemn America for standing in judgment of other nations and their behavior. Who are we to condemn Castro or Hugo Chavez? The only culture or government that America can rightfully criticize is our own. This is one of the reasons that our institutions produce so many "hate America" students. Many of those graduating from these institutions are gaining increasing power in America. Those who hate America love France and other European governments and cultures.

My blog is generated by an event that occurred in Phoenix, Arizona this week. An 8 year old girl was raped by 4 boys, ages 9-14. When the 8 yr. old girl was returned to her father, he said he didn't want her. Police sergeant, Andy Hill, explained that the parents of the 8 yr. old were from Liberia and that in Liberia, a rape victim is viewed as responsible for what happens to her and that the rape is viewed as bringing shame on the family name. As Americans should we say, "who are we to criticize their culture?". If the Liberians accept it as right for them, then we are in no position to critize their values, after all, values have no authority beyond cultural endorsement. Then why do those who argue such, express so much hostility toward slavery. As long as a culture prefers slavery, why is slavery o.k.? Surely such examples as slavery and an 8 yr. old rape victim being rejected by her parents are enough to demonstrate that some things are right everywhere, all the time and with everyone. Some cultures are morally inferior to others. America is not perfect and we deserve some of the cricism that comes from Muslim countries who accuse of corruption and immorality as evidenced by hollywood and our tolerance of evil. Yet I believe that most women and christians would prefer America to the intolerance of the Islamic societies who sit in judgment of us.

Pray for sanity and common sense to return to higher education and those in positions of influence over government and society.

The Most Difficult Problem Christ faces in the world

Kansas Law Enforcement Officers have charged Scott Roeder with entering a church building and gunning down one of the church's ushers. George Tiller fell victim to the gunman's wrath. If you didn't know it, you know now that Tiller was a famous physician who performed late term abortions. Pro-life causes had repeatedly pointed to Tiller as representing the kind of medical practice in America that threatens the lives of the unborn and that is responsible for taking the lives of innocent children. Those who would like to see Roe vs Wade overthrown by the Supreme Court would obviously like to see abortions such as those performed by George Tiller to come to a halt. Most Pro-life advocates believe that late term abortions are murder. However, most Pro-life advocates believe that to murder to stop murder is not a solution that an individual has a right to pursue. Its murder to take one's life without a legal basis whether performed by an abortionist or an anti-abortionist. Until the law is changed, abortion is legal. No matter how much we abhor the act, individuals have no right to take the law into their own hands.

The irony of taking the life of a man in a church and doing so in the name of Christ is not lost on the enemies of Christianity. According to witnesses Roeder's car had an anti-abortion sticker on it, as well as the fish , a symbol of Christianity. A number of political causes will be encouraged by the act of the murderer of Tiller. The anti-gun movement will receive a great deal of free advertisement from this act. The Pro-choice movement will be able to gain support for silencing critics of abortion doctors. Keith Olbermann blamed Fox News for this despicable act, and especially Bill O'Reilly who had referred in the past to George Tiller as "Tiller, the baby killer". Olbermann recommended that his viewers quarantine Fox News. He encouraged his viewers to ask waiting rooms across America, whether Doctors or other waiting rooms, to discontinue carrying Fox News. If they refuse to do so then change Doctors. The anti-Christian movement will find encouragement by the evidence that the accused had the fish symbol on his car. The result of this crime may be millions of dollars worth of free advertisement for the views we have just mentioned.

In Romans2:17ff., the apostle Paul wrote the following:
"Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; If you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law. if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--you, then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal...do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

Paul's argument could have just as easily been applied to Christians as it was to Jews. What if the rhetorical question was "You who preach pro-life, do you commit murder?" In other words you preach opposition to murder by murdering? Such behavior leads to the name of Christ being blasphemed in the world. Many facts will come out in the next few months that are not known at the moment, but for now, the name of christianity and the cause of pro-life have been damaged greatly by the behavior of one who has chosen to be identified with Christ.

Nothing an enemy can do to us is nearly as damaging as the disobedience of God's people. When the advocates of the cause violate the cause, they do more harm than all voices of its critics. May all of us be reminded that even in criticizing an evil, we must do so in a way that brings glory to God. We may at times feel so passionately about a cause that we have a hard time being civil with the opponents, but God's cause is never advanced by ungodly behavior. My prayer is that the murderer of George Tiller will be brought to justice and pay the price that he thought murderers of infants should pay. Government is the body that has been entrusted by God with punishing the evil and until the law has been changed we can do nothing about abortion except seek to persuade our neighbors and elected officials to embrace a pro-life position and exert influence that might lead to the limitation and eventual removal of statutes permitting legal abortion.

Miss California

I haven't posted much lately because I think that what I say is mostly an echo reverberating back to the author. I have refrained for some time in commenting on the plight of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, but alas I can no longer restrain myself. Carrie's fate has won her more publicity then money could ever have bought her. Just today it was announced that she will debut on Fox News with an hour long hosting appearance.

As a Christian I'm not too fond of beauty contests because I think they send a message that teen girls in America don't need to hear. Having said that, I realize that not all would agree with me. So, while I would have advised Carrie to pass on beauty pageants, I nevertheless am troubled by what happened to her as a result of her answer to the question about gay marriage. I heard her answer several times and walked away each time thinking that she was as kind as she could be in expressing her answer and convictions. The bombastic response of Perez Hilton and others of the gay marriage movement was beyond the pale of human decency. She was called every name in the book, most of which I cannot repeat. She was the target of all kinds of threats. Denounced as "out of touch" in a state that voted by a 52% margin to prohibit gay marriage.

It was only two days ago that Donald Trump confirmed that the title would remain with her. In his support of her, he mentioned that her position was no different from that articulated by President Obama. The question that begs to be asked is why Hilton and other gay marriage advocates have not bashed President Obama as they have Carrie. The answer seems quite simple. Her defense was based upon christian values she learned from the bible. Most gay marriage advocates are at the same time critics of christianity and the Bible. In advocating gay marriage, they are at the same time trying to diminish the influence of christianity.

Aggressive athiests, gay marriage advocates and apologists for terrorists have in common a hatred for christianity that transcends all other views they have toward enemies of our country and our culture. If asked to pick between Osama bin Laden and James Dobson, I have no doubt that many would take their stand with Osama. We must live and evangelize in an environment where anti-christianity is on the increase and the volume is being turned up to almost a deafening screech.

What do we do? We must do what christians have done for 2,000 years, tell the old old story of Jesus who loves even his enemies so much that he is willing to die at their hands. We will not surrender our convictions in order to find acceptance from those who hate us, but neither will we stoop to behaving according to their value system which means anything goes as long as it is directed toward our enemies. Genuine love is even more absurd to some critics of christianity than are our views on abortion and homosexuality. Never surrender to hate, but love the haters into surrender to the Lord. This is the only strategy for victory that our Lord has provided us.

NOTRE DAME AND THE UNBORN

Controversy has raged within the Catholic Church since the announcement of the President of Notre Dame that President Obama would be their commencement speaker for graduation this year. No religious body has taken a more pro-life stand than the Catholic Church and many Bishops are irate that a speaker who is the most influential pro-choice person in the world has been selected as their commencement speaker and will in addition receive an honorary degree from the institution. Normally such honorary degrees are granted only to those who share the values embraced by the church.

One of my favorite Law Professors in America is Mary Ann Glendon. She is a Professor of Law at Harvard University. She is the author of several books and essays dealing with law, and has also written extensively on "life issues". When President Bush was looking for candidates for the Supreme Court, her name arose and I would have gladly supported her nomination. While Bush did not choose her for the Supreme Court position, he did choose her to be Ambassador to the Vatican.

I mention Professor Glendon because Notre Dame also invited her to speak at the same event as President Obama, but her presentation would have been an acceptance speech for an award that she was receiving from Notre Dame. When first notified she was not told that Obama would be delivering the Commencement address. She was excited about her award and being invited by Notre Dame. However, when she saw that the President of Notre Dame was using her presence as a defence for inviting President Obama, she had second thoughts. In this month's issue of FIRST THINGS magazine she published an open letter to the President of Notre Dame. In her letter she declined the award and the opportunity to be on the same platform with Obama. As a Catholic she had an issue with his presence and the awarding of an honorary degree to him. She pointed out that a Commencement was no platform for a debate and that it should be about the graduates and their accomplishments.

Notre Dame illustrates what I spoke about in my last blog. Christian institutions of Higher Learning are more and more distancing themselves from the views of their formative faiths. I could see Universities among churches of Christ salivating about the possibility of the President of the United States speaking at a commencement service, no matter what views he might hold on "life issues". The sad thing is that I'm not convinced that leaders in Churches of Christ would protest as much as leaders in the Catholic Church have protested about the selection of Obama. For whatever reason the "life issue" just doesn't seem to resonate as much with us as it does the Pope and Bishops. That is one of the major reasons that Christian ethicists have grown more friendly with the Catholic Church than many protestant groups. While there are significant and important issues which are troubling about the Catholic Church, one must give credit where credit is due.

I wish that Churches of Christ and other Christian fellowships had more people like Mary Ann Glendon who would give up worldly awards from prestigious universities in order to make a moral stand. I'm sure we have people who would do the same as she has done, but maybe don't receive the same amount of attention because we are not nearly as large as the Catholic Church. I reiterate as in my last post, that I believe in higher education and I have great appreciation for colleges and universities that have emerged from churches of Christ. However, the politics, credibility, and public image are so important that its hard to remember theology and moral issues when they threaten these other concerns.

May I say that I continue to pray for President Obama and have the highest respect for the office of President of the United States. However, sometimes in the interest of the service of God and life we need to disagree in meaningful ways even with the President of our United States. Therefore, I applaud Mary Ann Glendon for her stand as a Catholic against the best known Catholic institution in America.

Tony Blair's speech

Check out Tony Blair's speech delivered on April 22nd at Chicago Global Affairs Conference. The speech may be found on REAL CLEAR POLITICS.

Prayer Concerns

I am sure that most who read this blog are regular communicators with God. This morning I have been reflecting on the concerns that should be ours if we are Christians and Americans. So in addition to your personal prayer needs and issues may I suggest that if you have not already done so, include the following in your prayers:

(The following are not listed in any order as to importance)

1. Our government leaders both elected and appointed. While much that is going on today, as will be evident from some of my later concerns in this list, is inconsistent with my values and aspirations for America, I nevertheless need to heed Paul's admonition to pray for our leaders. If I haven't prayed for them, then their mistakes are my mistakes also.

2. Pray for our schools, both primary and graduate levels. Teachers are under so much pressure from political correctness and their unions that it is hard not to be intimidated into going along to get along. Also those in administration are obviously hesitant to cross any political correctness lines for fear of lawsuits from ACLU or families with "out of control" children.

3. Pray for Christian schools and universities. Many in higher education are more concerned about how they are viewed by accrediting agencies and other well known schools of higher learning than they are about biblical teachings and church concerns. A PHD cannot advance if he simply sounds like those in his church or those of the past. He must be cutting edge or he will be looked upon as "out of touch" with the latest and greatest. As our universities depend more and more upon donations from those outside their religious tradition, they must sound less and less like an echo of their church roots. They must invite more and more speakers that are well known in the larger religious community, regardless of what they are known for. Brian McLaren has spoken on some of our campuses recently, and I have no problem with that, provided their is some balance offered that encourages students to consider not just the pros but also the cons of what such speakers have to offer. McLaren is the leading voice of the "emerging church" which is a postmodern view of christianity which sees doctrines as divisive and even suggests that Buddhists, Hindus and others may embrace the Christ without knowing it, and thus enjoy all the blessings of Christ. Maybe those campuses that invite such speakers provide a penetrating critique, but knowing a little bit about how such institutions operate, I wonder.

I am not trying to put down higher education, in fact I believe in it more than most, but we need to know the kind of cultural pressures that are influencing such institutions. During the last couple of years of the Center for Christian Education's existence we were seeking approval from the state of Texas and the accrediting agency of Bible Colleges. During that process I had the opportunity of meeting with the appointed representative of the State Board of Education on numerous occasions. I discovered how much the State and accrediting agencies determine the operation and curriculum of private universities. Believe me, Abilene, Pepperdine, Oklahoma and others have more to fear from these sources than from the criticism of churches and christians. The Christian colleges and universities struggle with two poles: the church with which they identify and the state and regional accrediting agencies. Christian universities cannot and should not be the same as the schools of preaching in our fellowship. Since the Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that the State cannot control private christian colleges some of the schools of preaching have started offering degrees. I am torn between the two concerns, one that Christian truth not be compromised and two that schools of preaching really don't offer a curriculum that is equal to a Bachelors Degree. Yes, schools of preaching may offer more Bible, but a Degree is society's assurance that certain standards exist, and that one can assume a certain level of education exists that includes more than Bible. There are a number of fraudulent degree mills. Citizens need to have some means of determining the credibility of institutions of higher learning and this requires standards and laws. In spite of all that is done, some still peddle their wares and some fall prey to their promises. I think of one that has preyed on those in churches of Christ. Some of our graduates fell prey to such because in their minds they believed they had earned an equivalent to not only a Bachelors but even a Masters. The degree mill provided such for a relatively small financial investment. I too believed that the Center offered a quality education on par with many legitimate degree programs, but there were still additonal courses that would need to be taken to meet Culture's expectations of one with a Masters degree. If students had taken such courses in an accredited Junior College or University then their education was first class, but without those coursed they did not meet Society's expectations and should not received such a degree. Thus we need protection from those who offer degrees without meeting the standards presumed to exist in a degree program.

This rambling stream of consciousness reveals my own ambivalence when it comes to the issue of higher education. It is out of this ambivalence that I realize more than ever the need for prayer. The wisdom of more than Solomon is needed to address this issue. Pray for our schools, the professors, students and administrators.


4. Pray for President Bush and for those who served in his administration. He may have thought that once he was out of power that the criticism would end, but such has not been the case. The latest onslaught concerns "interrogation techniques". May the milk of human kindness be expressed in prayer for him, his family, and others who served with him.

5. Pray for Christians who believe it is their duty (a little used word now days) and responsibility to fight for the lives of the weak and those unable to fight for themselves. As a result we stand opposed to abortion and euthanasia, as well as embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of life. According to the Director of Homeland Security, we are a threat to the security of the homeland and need to be monitored closely by local and regional police and safety officials. Some Christians may be intimidated and silenced by realizing how they are viewed by government officials, however, we need to say with Peter and John "we must obey God". Our resistence to laws and policies will be expressed by freedom of speech and prayer. I know of no one who agrees with me in my opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell destruction who would bomb a clinic or research lab. I am more concerned about Bill Ayers and people who have actually attacked our institutions and our citizens then I am Christians who oppose abortion, but then I'm not the Director of Homeland Security. If she knows more about me and others than we know, mayb e she will reveal her sources.

6. Pray for Pakistan and other countries in the boiling Middle East. Pakistan is not far from collapsing. The Taliban is gaining every day in Pakistan. Should its nuclear power come under the control of the Taliban, well we know the probable scenario that would follow. We need to pray for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Decisions they make concerning our policies in Pakistan may decide our childrens future.

7. Pray about the issue in Iran. May the Secretary of Defense Gates advise the President in a wise manner and may God's sovereignty over Iran prevent their gaining nuclear weapons.

8. Pray that political discourse in America might focus more on issues and their merits rather than polarization through vile name calling and accusations without foundation.

9. Pray, pray, and pray some more about the future of Christianity in our homeland on earth. Christianity is not thriving, but Hinduism, Buddhism and secularism are. Since 1990, surveys show that Christianity has grown by 5%, while Buddhism has grown by 170% and Hinduism by 230%. However, the largest growth has been in those who embrace no religion. The number has grown from 13 million to 38 million. Our God is alive and as active as ever, but something is wrong with Christianity in America. We need God to lead us out of our malaise and paralysis. Christianity will not disappear from the world, but it may decline in influence in America. We need to thank God for its rapid growth in other parts of the world. America may sooner than we realize become a mission point for churches in Africa and South America.

10. Pray for our children and our families. Families are being redefined to include gay marriage and other arrangements such as living together in all kinds of combinations. Fewer and fewer children are growing up in a stable environment that includes a loving and dedicated father and mother who provide them nurturing, security and discipline. As goes the church and family so goes the nation.

Feel free to respond to my blog with additions to my list and interaction with my suggested prayer concerns.

Its been a while since I posted. My wife Gloria's brother died a few days ago, and the dying process extended over about 10 days. We were trying to give attention to weightier matters than blogging. It seems that every experience of life exposes us to new awareness of matters concerning which we thought we were knowledgeable. In Jim's last days I became more aware than I ever had before that a person is aware of his surroundings and what is going on even if he shows little evidence of such by his appearance. Communication and prayer are heard and make a difference.

Also I became aware that hospice is not always helpful when subject to Medicare criteria. I have become somewhat suspicious of how hospice is brought into the picture when one is at a senior care center. Then when they are active I found that according to the hospice representatives their services are for crisis care only. They use the more politically correct terminology of "continuing care" which describes around the clock presence of a nurse in the room of the dying person. However, according to what hospice told us, such care is available only if medication has to be given more frequently than the care facility can provide. Just because a person has only hours to live is not sufficient basis for the presence of a hospice representative. When I asked the hospice representative what the definition of hospice care is, she answered "end of life care". My obvious response was, "isn't Jim dying?". Yes, she said but he's stable and does not appear to be in great pain, so medicare will not provide what they call "a sitter". The hospice provider HOSPICE PLUS in the end did provide continuing care, but they had threatened to discontinue it because "dying" is not a sufficient reason to provide "continuing care" only painful dying is sufficient.

My recommendation is that if you have a loved one who may be entering into a terminal state, you should thoroughly familiarize yourself with the provisions of hospice care. Apparently there will be a difference in the hospice care provided under private insurance and the hospice care provided under Medicare.

The world is heating up, is it Global Warming?

Al Gore has made much more by losing the presidency than he ever could have made by winning. He should thank Florida and the Supreme Court. The millions he's brought in by the "convenient theory" of Global Warming would make a President's salary look like pauper's pay.



Is the world heating up? I think so, but not in the way Global Warming proponents suggest. North Korea launched a rocket against the stern warning of the United States and the United Nations. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned of serious consequences and the head of the United Nations expressed his displeasure with the North Koreans for violating United Nations resolutions. What will be the outcome of such provocative actions, more warnings no doubt.



News broke today that Iran has been furnished with material for nuclear development from a Chinese firm with money being channeled through New York banks. How's our teddy bear like relationship with the Chinese working out for us? China will caution us to be restrained in our response to North Korea and Iran. Should any penalties be introduced in the Security Council of the United Nations, China and Russia will be there to veto such penalties.



China, Iran, North Korea and Russia are all seeking a more positive relationship with the U.S. now that the trigger happy Cowboy is no longer in power.



Our new leader has voiced his hope that we will all soon dismantle our nuclear weapons and become busom buddies. My leader is the Prince of Peace, but I believe he suggests that as long as this world stands, there will be wars and rumors of wars. Could it be a bit unrealistic to believe that we will some day before long live in a loving world where people will settle their differences by talking and talking and talking. If such is possible we should feel good about the prospects because we certainly have the right leader to represent us. The world is warming up, but be hopeful for we have a cool leader who is certainly not trigger happy. My prayer is that if he should be gentle as a lamb that he might also be as wise as John Wayne. For those too young to remember John, suffice it to say, he always knew when to draw his gun and fire. Bad guys had plenty to worry about if they messed with big John, but good guys always felt safe when big John was in charge.