August 2009 Archives

I just finished, back-to-back, two Inspector Wexford mysteries by Ruth Rendell, both in my beloved Black Lizard imprint. I had previously read two Rendell books, but none in the Wexford series. These are: "No More Dying Then" and "Some Lie and Some Die."

I find Rendell ponderous to read. She's not particularly wordy, and her plots are very good; in neither book did I figure things out until the final revelations. But she's--well, she's British. And the Brit mystery writers take it slow and serious and very literate. And there's virtually no action. The initial murder happens off-screen. Then Wexford goes about his work, never drawing a gun or clenching a fist or hardly even raising his voice. Makes me long for Jack Bauer.

Rendell is a gifted writer. Her style just doesn't connect well with me. I found myself looking to see how many pages were left, wanting to get the book done, even while wondering who done it. And that's never a good thing.

Michael Steele and the Republican National Committee sent out a "Health Care Survey" which included this question, which is a ludicrous piece of fear-mongering:

"It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?"

Does Michael Steele really think something like that would happen in America? Would this apply only to registered Republicans? What would happen to independents? What about registered Republicans who pull the lever for a Democrat? Or Democrats who cross over? What about people who split their ballot? And would the courts, despite all the voting rights laws, remain silent? How exactly would Michael Steele's dark conspiracy/fantasy work? Or is he just trying to scare gullible people?

I'm okay with bias. I'm okay with opposing something you don't believe in. I'm okay with stating your opinion. It's untruthfulness that gets my goat.

This morning, I took Pam's car to Tire Barn for balancing and alignment. While waiting, I walked across the street to McDonald's to get some breakfast. I'm a McGriddle fan. Was also impressed, deeply, with their carmel latte.

As I sat there reading in one of their comfy chairs, with FoxNews playing on an LCD TV hanging on the wall (this is not the McD of my childhood), a black guy sat down beside me with a newspaper. He was on break from JiffyLube.

A stat on the TV said according to a poll, only 7% of people think Congressmen have an "excellent" understanding of the health care bill.

"Somehow that doesn't surprise me," he said. "Democrats and Republicans are all saying different things. Even the Democrats don't agree with each other about what's in the bill."

"I know," I said.

"You would think the Democrats would come out with something, and lay it all out plainly so everyone can understand it," he continued. "And then they need to be of one mind and voice. That's leadership."

"You're right," I said. "They don't have their act together."

"I mean," he said, "I don't have a PHd in Management, but this is just common sense."

I suggested, "The President should say, 'I'm pulling the whole plan off the table. We'll come back in nine months when we've got things figured out.'"

"And I would respect that," the JiffyLube guy said.

People like John McCain restore my faith in sanity and civility. He would have made a great president in 2001, and a pretty good one in 2009.

I've never understood the case of Mohammed Jawad. On August 4, he was released from Guantanamo Bay after 7 years of imprisonment. He returned to Afghanistan.

His crime? He threw a grenade at an American Jeep.

I'm not advocating throwing grenades at American soldiers. But hey--we invaded his country. He was a teenager (maybe as young as 14) who decided to do something. It was war, and he threw a grenade. They threw grenades at Russian jeeps, too.

It wasn't a hate crime or a terrorist act. It was a kid taking up arms to defend his country against an invader--which we were. A totally justified invader, but an invader nonetheless.

As a result, we kept Jawad at Gitmo for 7 years. I don't get it. Am I missing something here?

Actually, Jawad may have never even thrown a grenade. He confessed to it only after being tortured by Afghan troops, who then turned him over to Americans. Jawad is illiterate, and his confession was written in a dialect he doesn't speak. US courts ruled out the confession long ago, but the Bush Administration still wouldn't release him.

In October 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy gave a speech at Liberty University, the college founded by Jerry Falwell. This was in the heydey of the Moral Majority. Falwell had been invited to give a speech at Harvard, and had been booed, something Kennedy said was not Harvard's greatest hour. Kennedy received a more respectful reception at Liberty.

Soon after that event, I read Kennedy's speech, called "Truth and Tolerance in America," in the magazine Liberty. A couple months ago, I read it again. The speech refers to issues specific to a different period of history, like the nuclear freeze and Equal Rights Amendment. But the principles Kennedy states apply today.

Kennedy made four points:
1. We must respect the integrity of religion itself.
2. We must respect the independent judgments of conscience.
3. In applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate.
4. We must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree.

Here are some quotes:

I love my country and treasure my faith. But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society. I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it?

The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone's freedom is at risk....Let us never forget: Today's Moral Majority could become tomorrow's persecuted minority.

Today there are hundreds -- and perhaps even thousands of faiths -- and millions of Americans who are outside any fold. Pluralism obviously does not and cannot mean that all of them are right; but it does mean that there are areas where government cannot and should not decide what it is wrong to believe, to think, to read, and to do.

People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord. In our own history, religion has been falsely invoked to sanction prejudice -- even slavery -- to condemn labor unions and public spending for the poor.

Religious values cannot be excluded from every public issue; but not every public issue involves religious values.

Those who proclaim moral and religious values can offer counsel, but they should not casually treat a position on a public issue as a test of fealty to faith.

Where it is right to apply moral values to public life, let all of us avoid the temptation to be self-righteous and absolutely certain of ourselves.

We sorely test our ability to live together if we readily question each other's integrity. It may be harder to restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake, for they go to the deepest wellsprings of our being. But the more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side.

Those who favor E.R.A [Equal Rights Amendment] are not "antifamily" or "blasphemers." ...For my part, I think of the amendment's opponents as wrong on the issue, but not as lacking in moral character

I hope for an America where neither "fundamentalist" nor "humanist" will be a dirty word, but a fair description of the different ways in which people of goodwill look at life and into their own souls.

I hope for an America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion, or angry division.

I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity.

Charles Krauthammer wrote an enlightening piece in the Washington Post called "The Truth About Death Counseling."

He begins with this: "We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no 'death panels' in the Democratic health-care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate."

He then goes on to talk about what actually happens in hospital situations when someone is near death, and the limited role of a living will. He says the section in the health bill which talks about doctors giving end-of-life counseling isn't as benign as its defenders say it is.

He concludes, "It's not an outrage. It's surely not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor."

I'm not a big fan of Krauthammer when he's on talk shows. But this column was very measured and informative.

Even Joe Klein liked it, saying on Swampland, in a backhanded way, "Charles Krauthammer has not been entirely unreasonable in the current health reform battle."

Later, Klein writes this wonderful parenthetical: "It is hilarious how Republicans want to reform lawyers but not insurance companies, and Democrats vice versa."

A San Diego station did a special report contrasting US and Canadian healthcare. They partnered with the Canadian Broadcasting System, which contributed reports from Canada. It's a 26-minute video, but I highly recommend it. They sought to be fair, and gave pros and cons of each system. Some of the stats they use have been debunked to an extent, but that doesn't lessen the impact of the human stories they tell.

A continuing theme is the long wait times in Canada, vs. the consequences of no care, or very expensive care, in the US. I most enjoyed the segment, about 16 minutes in, where they went to a hockey rink and interviewed Canadians now living in the US. A concluding segment talked about how so many Americans use the emergency room as their doctor's office, and the consequences of that.

Today I finished Robert Ludlum's 2000 book, "The Prometheus Deception." At 650 pages, it's the longest novel I've read in quite a while. But it was worth it.

I read every Robert Ludlum book up through 1990's "The Bourne Ultimatum." Then I stopped. He continued writing books, using his signature three-word titles--The Scorpio Illusion, The Apocalypse Watch, The Materese Countdown, The Sigma Protocol, and Prometheus--plus one called The Road to Omaha, which followed The Bourne Ultimatum. But I hadn't read any of them. Don't know why. I guess I moved on to other stuff, even though a Ludlum book never failed to thrill.

Ludlum died in 2001. Eric Van Lustbader finished four more Ludlum novels, and then started a series about Jason Bourne under the Ludlum brand which now has four books.

A couple months ago I read a book in the Covert One series, another series under the Ludlum brand but not written by him. It reminded me of how much I liked Ludlum's novels. I decided to go back and catch up.

"The Prometheus Deception" was standard Ludlum: a lone hero teams up with a female accomplice to battle a dasturdly conspiracy, with plot twists and betrayals galore. I'm glad I rediscovered Ludlum. I've got some more catching up to do. Just wish he didn't write such doggone long books!

Thanks to Evan McBroom for pointing me to this incredible post by a Christian named Aaron Gardner. Aaron stealthily joined a group of atheists who were touring the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kent. He wrote about how they were treated by the Christians running the museum in "Scarlet 'A' for a Day."

You might call it "religious profiling." We leap to conclusions about people based on how they identify themselves religiously, whether atheist, Islamic, Mormon, Catholic, Southern Baptist, or Pentecostal. I do it.

Anyway, read Aaron's post. And then read the comments, which go on for many pages. A number of atheists joined in the discussion. The number of atheists and agnostics is rising sharply. Why? What are their motives? If you seek understanding, then this is a very illuminating thread.

Seriously, read the comments.

Throughout my adult life, insurance companies have been reviled...until now. Now, conservatives vigorously defend them and insist that we've got the best system on earth. Uh...really? When did that happen? We've got the best medical professionals and technology, but a lousy system.

I'm terribly amused at how people are suddenly defending insurance companies, as tho they only have our best interests at heart. I've seen them regularly screw our pastors and on a whim discontinue our church plans (or suddenly raise rates ridiculously high, forcing us to look elsewhere). But I guess to conservatives, "the enemy of my enemy--Obama--is my friend." So now, the insurance companies are our BFFs.

Egypt, evidently, is pretty grand after all. Let's just stay here, yoked to our noble insurance companies, while they arbitrarily deny claims, cancel policies, raise deductibles, search for pre-existing conditions, and bury doctors and patients in paperwork. (I'm sure doctors just LOVE dealing with insurance companies.)

Meanwhile, people in progressive countries leave the doctor's office and never see a bill. No paperwork, no hassles. (Yeah, Canada has a bad system in many ways, but what Obama is proposing is not based on their system.) Wouldn't it be nice to be freed from the tyranny of insurance companies? To not have to hassle with them? Is America, the greatest country on earth, unable to figure out a good system for making that happen?

I still believe in America's greatness, and that we can figure this out, for the benefit of our citizens.

With all the stuff being flung around by each side in the healthcare debate (which isn't really a debate, but a shouting match), it's nice to have somebody checking the facts. That's what Politifact.com does. They do for politics what Snopes does for urban legends. I turn to Politifact frequently to get the true scoop.

I like it so much, I put their feed on this blog. Look over on the right to see the latest statements they check out.

We've heard President Obama and others say that 46 million Americans are uninsured. That's from 2007 Census Bureau stats. According to Politifact, it's closer to 36 million, since about ten million of those persons aren't Americans. They delve deeper into the difficulties of setting a number like that, and the fact that the economy was in much better shape in 2007.

John Hughes died a couple weeks ago. Here is why I'm writing about him, albeit belatedly:

• He directed my all-time favorite movie, "The Breakfast Club."
• He directed one of my other all-time favorite movies, "Ferris Buehler's Day Off."
• He directed "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles," which a lot of people think is funny, but which Pam and I started watching at a drive-in theater, found it stupid, and finally drove away before it was done.
• He wrote and produced several other movies I loved, my love-factor being in this order: "Pretty in Pink," "Some Kind of Wonderful," "Sixteen Candles."
• He wrote the "Home Alone" movies, thereby inflicting McCully Culkin on the world.

Breakfast Club also uses, as its theme song, one of my all-time favorite songs: "Don't You Forget About Me," by Simple Minds. I bought the album by Simple Minds just to get that song. (There were a couple other good ones on the album, too.)

Yesterday, Pastor Tim preached from Luke 12:33, "Sell your possessions and give to the poor." The past several Sundays, he has basically given an extended children's message as the day's only message. The younger kids sit down at the front of the church and he speaks to them. Of course, we adults  eavesdrop. I think Tim's okay with that.

Tim emphasized the idea of selling possessions to give to the poor. Not just writing a check, or dipping into your piggy bank, but actually selling something you own. He gave the kids a project for the week: rummage through their toys, and pick out some toys they are willing to sell. Then bring them to church next Sunday. We'll sell them, and give the money to the poor. We'll do it through some micro-businesses opportunities in other countries. Depending on how much money we raise, we'll be able to buy rabbits, pigs, or goats.

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens next Sunday, as kids bring toys to sell. It's a great lesson for them...and for adults. How many of us have actually sold something we own, something we perhaps cherish, to raise money for other people?

Ten years ago, Pam and I bought an indoor basketball goal for the church's youth center, which was just starting. We took it to the church to assemble. Mark and Tami Solak, heavily involved in the budding youth center, were there. Tami told us, "You don't have to just give money. Why don't you volunteer?"

It was a convicting point. And as a result, Pam and I gave up our Friday nights for several years so we could help staff the Friday night youth center. Buying the basketball goal was easy; it came out of our excess. Writing checks is easy, painless. But giving up one night a week, every week? Now that was costly. But we don't regret it in the least.

Some good conversations are taking place in various forums on the web. People are asking, with seriousness and honesty, why most Christians oppose universal health care.

Most of the evangelical Christians I know are Republicans. All of them, as far as I know, oppose universal health care (UHC). I'm not talking about opposing Obama's plan, or the Clinton plan. I mean, they oppose the very idea of universal health care, just as the Republican party has opposed it for as long as I can remember. No matter what form it might take, they're against it. Even if the economy were in great shape, Republicans would still oppose health care, and so would evangelical Christians.

Why is that?

Put aside your reasons for opposing the Obama plan--the cost, the timing, the details, the flaws, the uncertainties. I'm asking in a more general way: as a Christian, why do you oppose any kind of UHC, whether in the past, present or future? Are you merely embracing the full Republican ideological menu, which doesn't allow room for UHC? Or do you have biblical reasons?

It seems to me, and to other people asking this question, that UHC sounds like a made-to-order cause for Christians to champion.

• Much of Jesus' ministry involved healing. Everywhere he went, he healed people.
• Jesus emphasized ministering to the poor, to the disadvantaged, to people unable to help themselves.
• UHC combines both of these emphases, which were so central to the heart of Jesus--healing, and providing for vulnerable or poor people.
• It is within our power, as the richest nation on earth, to provide UHC to all of our people. Lesser countries are doing it. Does it please God that we don't?
  
• People who lose their jobs also lose healthcare benefits; they are vulnerable people. Shouldn't a Christian be on their side? Or does the Bible support leaving these people to fend for themselves?
  
• When people die because they can't afford to get tests and procedures done, or go bankrupt because they had the misfortune to get cancer--is that something Christians should be party to?
• When it is within our power to help, and we don't--how is that characteristic of a Christian nation?

When you think about it, doesn't a position in favor of universal health care seem closer to the heart of Jesus than a position against universal healthcare?

If Jesus were here, would he agree that UHC is a bad thing, and that Christians should have nothing to do with it?

I'm just asking.

What is the biblical case against UHC? Why should Christians adamantly oppose it? Why does UHC violate Christian values?

Go ahead--give me a biblical (not a Republican) argument. Why should I, as a Christian, oppose universal health care? Because I'm really puzzled.

I'm a trusting sort, but skeptical. When I hear something that doesn't ring true, I check it out, do some research. The internet makes that easy. You still need to use discretion in your sources of "truth," and that's a subjective thing (some people would look to Ann Coulter or Oprah as a reliable source, for heaven's sake). But seeking verification, like Doubting Thomas, is a good thing.

Politifact.com to the rescue! This site, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its fact-checking during the 2008 presidential campaign, does an excellent job of verifying and debunking. I've found it very helpful.

Politifact's Truth-O-Meter takes statements made by politicians, pundits, and others in the public arena and gives them a rating:

• True: The statement is accurate and there's nothing significant missing.
• Mostly True: The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
• Half True: The statement is accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

• Barely True: The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
• False: The statement is not accurate.
• Pants on Fire: The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

Hundreds of statements are in the Truth-O-Meter. They have them categorized by subject, and each one includes an article explaining the true story. A useful category right now is "Health." It shows that most of the statements being made against the proposed health care bill are false. So are some of the statements being made by health-care proponents.

Politifact also publishes the Obameter, which tracks 500 promises Barack Obama made during the campaign. A screenshot from the current Obameter reading is up above.

Politifact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times, one of the country's premiere newspapers.

Another good source is FactCheck.org, run by the Anneburg Foundation. They are more academic in their approach--not nearly as fun as Politifact--but do a credible job. They were given physical access to Obama's birth certificate last August and did a thorough analysis.

David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun is writing some excellent commentary about cable news, commentary I wholly agree with. Here's one very recent article (it's only dated "August 2009," but may have just appeared today) which focuses on Keith Olberman, and spreads out from there. It's called "Olberman, O'Reilly: How Cable TV Harms Nation."

I have been writing repeatedly about the way in which I believe the harsh, reckless, irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric of cable TV talk show hosts like MSBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox's Bill O'Reilly was hurting America....

Prime-time cable TV hosts like Olbermann are playing the very same dark and dangerous chords as [Joseph] McCarthy's lot. Only today, thanks to cable TV and the Web, they have bigger amplifiers and the ability to spread their poisonous messages instantly with virtually no gatekeepers to get in the way--particularly when entities like NBC News, which knows better, looks the other way.

And the poison of attack and hateful speech spreads through the body politic until we can no longer have civil town hall discussions in this country between elected officials and their constituents....You couldn't get people to act with the anger and belligerence seen at these town halls if those people thought it would bring them shame to behave that way in public.

But the lesson of of cable news is that such ugly behavior won't bring you shame, it will bring you favor. You're acting just like Olbermann, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck and Dobbs. You're acting just the way cable TV taught you to act in the political arena. And now we reap the whirlwind of an angry, polarized, confused and frightened populace.

Zurawik has been after Olberman for a while. Last September, he wrote, "MSNBC Paying for Its Olberman Sins." He starts with the right-wing attempts to paint CNN as liberal:

"The attacks on CNN have largely failed, because Jon Klein, the cable channel's president, has insisted that his reporters and anchors report stories and do interviews by "playing it straight down the middle," as he has termed it in recent interviews with me.

"MSNBC, on the other hand, has all but abandoned a journalism of facts and verification in favor of propaganda and ideological bombast with Olbermann -- and now, Air America's Rachel Maddow. And the cable channel has become no better than Fox News on the right with Bill O'Reiily....It looks like MSNBC has blown its chance to be a credible and trusted source of news and information by letting Olbermann rule the roost.

But Zurawik doesn't target only the liberal pundits, like Olberman. He goes strongly after the pundits on each wing. Here's what he had to say on August 7 about Glenn Beck:

"I am starting to think that things have gotten so far out of control with some of the cable hosts on the so-called all-news cable channels that maybe sponsor pullout is one of the only actions that can make a difference. I'm talking about TV Newser's report that three advertisers have distanced themselves from Glenn Beck's show on the Fox News Channel in response to Beck calling President Barack Obama a "racist" who holds a "deep-seated hatred for white people."

"Beck is only one of several out-of-control hosts who traffick in innuendo, slander, smears and outrageous comments like the ones about Obama....The contagion seems to be spreading to CNN with Lou Dobbs carrying the virus. Let's hope this version of swine flu doesn't infect the whole channel.

"So, maybe in these harsh economic times, the loss of advertisers will make a difference. Something has to. The level of prime-time discourse on all-news cable TV is absolutely toxic." 

Zurawik represents well my feelings about the poisonous attitudes cable news shows produce among listeners, and why I increasingly look elsewhere for accurate light on current events.

Last nite was my first exposure to Parkview Field, the new minor-league baseball field in Fort Wayne. We went there, not to a baseball game, but to a concert with MercyMe and Attaboy. The stage was set up where second base goes. The sound quality was great. And in that setting, there wasn't a bad seat in the house.

Fort Wayne's baseball team is called the Tin Caps. That's a new name, replacing the previous Wizards. New stadium, new name. Now, I liked the previous field. It was fairly new, had unlimited parking, and was very accessible. You could quickly get in and out. It was fun to attend games there.

But then the city decided we needed to spend millions of dollars on a new field near the downtown, like it would rejuvenate Fort Wayne's glorious center and make nightlife flourish. Or something dazzling like that. So they built a new stadium, and tore down the other perfectly-good Wizards stadium out by the Coliseum. I think it was a waste of money, unnecessary.

But alas, the deed is done, so let's quit crying over that spilled two percent. A new stadium is in place, so I'll force myself to deal with that reality.

I LOVE the new stadium. I've heard other people rave about it, too. But now, having been there, I must agree with them. The concession area is open to the field, so you never need to miss a play. Very, very nice. Many more great features. In short: they did it right. They did it, even, spectacularly. Kudos and praise be upon our wise city fathers, despite their fiscal irresponsibility.

Just because it's a great park doesn't mean it was necessary. Pam and I could buy a Lexus, and you would agree that it's much nicer than the car we currently own. But that doesn't mean the Lexus would be the best use of our money. I'm just saying. But Parkview Field is a superb ballpark, no doubt about it. I will enjoy going there in the future.

It's very easy to get to...but not to get away from. We parked in the new parking garage attached to the field. Got inside nicely. But leaving was a mess. Like going to Wrigley Field. It took a good 20 minutes just to get out of the parking garage, followed by FOREVER to get out of the central city, with the tangle of cars converging on one-way streets. Just a royal mess. 

But hey, we are rejuvenating the downtown. Or that's the plan, anyway.

Just got back from a concert at Parkview Field, the new baseball stadium in downtown Fort Wayne, Ind. It was two groups: Attaboy, and MercyMe. Attaboy is a group sponsored by Huntington University which originated in Huntington, and went fulltime a couple years ago. They're quite good. The lead singer, Amos Caley, is a UB preacher's kid, son of Mike Caley, pastor of Banner of Christ church in the Grand Rapids, Mich., area. I used to work with Amos's sister, Erinn, and now work with his aunt Jane.

I passed Mike coming out of the parking garage.

"I'll bet I know why you're here, and it's not to see MercyMe."

He smiled and said, "Yeah, but I'll stick aorund to hear them, too."

Attaboy did about 30 minutes of songs, and I was quite impressed with them, and would enjoy hearing them again. They probably don't want to hear words like that coming from a 52-year-old, but there you go, I said it. Deal with it, Amos & Friends.

This was the first time I've heard MercyMe. They were great. A really authentic band, nothing phony. It was a night of worship, not a concert. They did all of their well-known songs, except for "Voice of Truth." The encore was my favoritist of all, "God with Us." We did that song at Anchor last Sunday. I absolutely love playing it on the grand, as opposed to my Roland. It's a song I can really sink my teeth into.

Eight of us from the worship team went--me and Pam, Terry and Lisa Sutton, Tim Bauman, Terry Leatherman, and Aaron and Jenny Vergon. I really enjoy these people. We had a good time. Plus, it was Pam's birthday.

Huntington University co-sponsored the event, and they got a lot of upfront time, especially from Nate Perry and John Paff. Lots of T-shirts were cannoned into the crowd (though nowhere near me). HU is partnering with one of the major Christian radio stations in Fort Wayne, and this was part of that. I think it was a good investment for them. Now that Taylor has exited Fort Wayne by closing its Fort Wayne campus, maybe HU can fill the void.

I'm lukewarm regarding Sonia Sotomayor. Even though her judicial experience is vast, dwarfing that of most other justices, I have difficulty getting excited about her. I'm not sure why I feel that way. I'm sure she'll be a good Supreme Court justice, maybe above average. But not a home run.

In my time, I've viewed four appointees as home runs. These are persons who, when nominated, totally impressed me with their resumes.

• Antonin Scalia.
• Anthony Kennedy.
• John Roberts.

The fourth was actually the first--Robert Bork. He, of course, got "borked." He didn't become a justice, but has been forever immortalized with his own namesake word.

While I can't get excited about Sotomayor, I think the Republican opposition has been pathetically shallow. Sure, her comments in that speech are valid fodder for criticism and require explanation (which she gave, satisfyingly). But Republicans have made a mountain out of that molehill, over and over. Their focus on those few words appears terribly petty, particularly when they jump to the ludicrous Newtish conclusion that she's racist. That's just desperation.

Sotomayor has issued hundreds of opinions, and Republicans are apparently okay with them. They've made a fuss about the New Haven firefighters case, but there she was standing on precedent, and alongside many other judges, both Republican and Democrat. Not much to grab onto there.

After sorting through Sotomayor's huge backlog of rulings, Republicans have found nothing compellingly disturbing, nothing worth throwing at her. And so they focus on some stupid words in a speech. Come on, Republican senators--you need to give me a lot more than that. If the "wise Latina woman" remark is the only reason to denounce her, I'd say she's a pretty good nominee.

I don't favor packing the court with conservatives (or liberals). I think that's unhealthy for the country. I like the court the way it is now--half skewed conservative, half skewed liberal, and a swing vote. That represents our diverse country well. If the Supreme Court was stacked one way or the other, it would lack credibility to at least half of the country. 

Interestingly, while Obama may have the chance to replace three justices, they will likely all be liberals--Souter, Ginzburg, and Stevens. He won't change the complexion of the court, unless he accidentally appoints someone who ends up being conservative (as George H. W. Bush was surprised when Souter turned out to be liberal). Under Obama, the make-up of the Supreme Court will remain basically the same, and there's nothing he can do about that.

Jay Leno says Brian Williams, the NBC news anchor, will contribute comedy in a recurring segment about stories not good enough for the Nightly News. That should be good. Williams has a dry sense of humor, and is always a hit when he appears on Jon Stewart's show.

I continue to find Conan O'Brian decidedly unfunny. Watched a little of his monologue last nite. Never cracked a smile.

It may be that I'm just not hip anymore. Imagine that. Whatever the case, I'm looking forward to Leno's new show.

I'm a big fan of Joel Stine, who writes for Time magazine. He's a journalist, but he's also very very funny. Think of him as Dave Barry doing actual reporting. Dave Barry is hysterical, but he's primarily a humor writer. Stine is a reporter.

Stine usually writes the back-page column in Time, but also does other stories. A couple weeks ago, he did a column called "Christian Improv: What's Funny at Warren's Church." He actually called up and got a spot as a member of the improv group at Saddleback Church one week. It's not a story which sheds much useful light on anything, but it made me laugh. Stine, I should point out, is Jewish.

Here's how the article began:

There are many things Evangelical Christians are good at, such as bake sales and talking to me on planes. They're less adept at other things, such as comedy and fighting lions. Christians aren't funny because they tend to be literal-minded. Also because they're sad about having had sex with only one person.

Time is a superb magazine, and I've subscribed since the 1980s. But when Joel Stine arrived some years back, it became a must-keep subscription for me.

Fox News is really upset. Two innocent American women were freed from a potential 12 years of hard labor in a North Korean prison--and Fox doesn't like it. They are very distressed about it, in fact. According to the various Fox News shows, only bad things can come of this. They're sure we gave up something, like a future first round NFL pick, or agreed to let Kim Jung Il be Grand Marshall of the next Parade of Roses.

Does anyone else find this utterly amusing?

Sometimes, Fox persons, Democrats actually do commendable things, and it's okay to applaud and feel good about it. I realize it doesn't happen much, and that the very concept that it happens at all totally shreds your world view. But in this case, do something novel: chill. Something good happened. Be happy.

One of the blogs I follow is Larry Osborne Live. Osborne is a pastor in Florida who wrote "A Contrarian's Guide to Spiritual Growth." That book takes a new look at some of the assumptions we Christians have about God and the Christian life. It stretched me.

He recently wrote a post called, "Why I'm Pumped about the Future of the American Church." He begins, "It's fashionable to decry the current state of Christianity in America. But frankly, I don't buy it. Some of the most popular conference speakers on the circuit today excel at drive-by guiltings. They paint a picture of a church that lacks guts, cowers from dying to self, and lives out a self-satisfied, what's-in-it-for-me Christianity....But I just don't agree on this issue."

Yes, it's easy to be negative, to lambaste Christians and the contemporary church for being weak, ineffective, blah blah blah. Why do we so enjoy self-flagellation? Does it really serve a purpose? Does it rally the troops in some way? Not that we need to always feel good about ourselves and reinforce our fragile self-esteem. But come on, we're not always a bunch of losers.

Anyway, Osborne then talks about the early church of Acts, which we tend to idolize and treat as a model for today. But his observations are not so Utopian. Some excellent observations.

I've felt the same way, basically. I don't view what happened in Acts as a model for all of us to follow, but mostly as a record of what happened. Just because the early Christians did things a certain, that doesn't mean we're supposed to. They were making it up as they went, trying to figure out this whole New Covenant thing and what it meant in terms of church life and behavior. In Acts, Luke tells what they did. It's not supposed to be a blueprint for everyone to follow until Christ returns.

That's my view, anyway. I in no way want to lessen the authority of God's Word. But sometimes we give authority where it doesn't belong, where the purpose was more history than teaching. Call me a heretic.

Alone among cabinet officers, attorneys general are partisan appointees expected to rise above partisanship. All struggle to find a happy medium between loyalty and independence. Few succeed. At one extreme looms Alberto Gonzales, who allowed the Justice Department to be run like Tammany Hall. At the other is Janet Reno, whose righteousness and folksy eccentricities marginalized her within the Clinton administration. Lean too far one way and you corrupt the office, too far the other way and you render yourself impotent. 

Mindful of history, Holder is trying to get the balance right. "You have the responsibility of enforcing the nation's laws, and you have to be seen as neutral, detached, and nonpartisan in that effort," Holder says. "But the reality of being A.G. is that I'm also part of the president's team. I want the president to succeed; I campaigned for him. I share his world view and values."

see more Lol Celebs