Republican Presidential Debate

Yesterday, I was stuck running sound for the same presentation three times at my work. In the sound booth ensuring quality vocals on the microphone for three hours, I quickly found other things to do. So I pulled up the internet and watched the Republican debate in Michigan on CNBC.com. There are still nine Republicans running for the nomination, which makes the debate extra boring and worthless. Why do we need to hear from Tancredo, Brownback, and Hunter? Are they adding anything to the campaign? Is there anyone beyond their immediate family supporting them? Anyway, here are my reactions to the debate:

Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter: See aforementioned question of just what exactly they are doing here. I'll give Brownback some credit - he was the best of these three, but that is not saying much. He did sound rather knowledgeable on the issues and I particularly liked his answer to the biggest obstacle facing the US economy - the breakdown of the American family. But other than that, these three should pack it in and allow others to have more time to talk about the issues. I really don't care what Hunter thinks about China, because he is never going to be close to making any sort of presidential decision concerning it. These three have the same amount of chance of winning the presidency in '08 that I do.

Ron Paul: The most unique positions of the candidates. He is more Libertarian than Republican. I am not sure whether his presence helps or hurts the other candidates. In the first few debates, he may have helped, but now he is a distraction. But, at least you know where he stands on issues - he is not afraid to speak his mind. And he nailed Romney on the Iran question. But he has no chance as well, and at this point, is merely an ideological candidate for the Libertarian Party and a few conspiracy nuts.

Huckabee: I don't know what to make of him. He is trying too hard to have down-home witty things to say all the time. I oppose his tax plan, and I really don't know what more he stands for, except that he is socially conservative. People mention him as a possible running mate for Giuliani, but I think he would be Quayled if he ran as VP.

McCain: A few months ago, I declared his candidacy to be dead. But there is still something I like about McCain. I like that he is not beholden to the Religious Right. I like that he was brave enough to try to do something rational about immigration, even though he is taking the heat for it now. I like his military experience and his opposition to torture. I like the guy - but it may be too late for him to make a comeback. However, there is a sign of a pulse there, so we'll see.

Romney: I can't stand him. Too smooth, too mechanical. And, I don't believe he believes half of what he is saying. Unlike McCain, Romney is trying to fashion himself as a Religious Right candidate, even though he has held positions contrary to them in the past. I find him unauthentic. His jab at Thompson was so rehearsed and lame. His "consulting lawyers" answer was completely out of touch. I would not vote for him - and while much has been made of his Mormonism, that is not a factor as to my dislike for him. I hope he fades quickly, because the Democrats would have a field day with him and the Republicans could lose southern states if he is nominated.

Thompson: At this point in the race, he is my personal favorite. While the beginning of the debate was a bit rocky for him, I could barely hear him in the sound booth - I almost thought he was too tall for the microphone - he got better as the debate went on. But he will have to be much more emphatic with his answers if he wants to gain much ground. He is a very tall guy - I never realized until yesterday how much taller he was than everybody else. He has a way to go to catch Rudy, but he showed a genuine, relaxed attitude that contrasts sharply with Romney's fakeness. I also appreciate the fact that, while he is conservative, he is not pandering to Dobson either - in an interview last week he said he doesn't care to meet with Dobson until Dobson apologized to him. I am eager to hear him articulate his issues in the coming days.

Giuliani - still the front-runner, but for how long? Just how much influence will the social conservatives have in '08? Rudy could split the party, which is why I still doubt he could win the nomination. But I like him as a leader and communicator. He is very genuine as well and quick on his feet. But will he be able to win the nomination merely as a fiscal conservative? He would do well in the general election against Hillary. Of all the candidates, I think he would be the strongest, but if the social conservatives bail on him, he may not have much of a chance. Still, with Hillary as the Democratic nominee, that may be motivation enough for social conservatives to vote for Rudy - just as an opposing vote to Hillary more than anything else.

Of the Republican candidates, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain would be the three most formidable candidates. Any of those three would be a solid nominee for the Republican Party. But this is a watershed moment, because neither of those three will be in the pocket of the Religious Right, even though McCain and Thompson share much in common with them. It should be an interesting few months.

Rich mullins Concert Part #12

Rich Mullins Concert Part #11

Rich Mullins Concert Part #5

Rich Mullins Concert #4

Rich Mullins Concert Part #2

This is part of a concert by Rich Mullins on You Tube. Rich was one of the great theologians of our time and a great song writer.

Petraeus, Iraq, Politics, 9/11

Six years ago. Does it seem that long? I set my watch alarm this morning to go off at the moment the first plane slammed into the World Trade Center six years ago. I was in the middle of a lecture on Texas Government and our formation of our Texas Constitution(riveting stuff), when my alarm went off, startling me and the class. Then, when I explained what the alarm was for, a very somber mood came over the classroom. To think that this morning, we were all going about our lives, in relative normalcy, not stopping to think about 9/11. The beeping of my watch reminded us how quickly our world changed six years ago.

I have read numerous stories of people having 9/11 fatigue. It appears that many people think we have remembered enough. That is tragic. Thankfully, it seems that those students in my class this morning think we should continue to remember 9/11 and those who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attack. But what happened to our unity? To our resolve as a nation to protect us and the world from terrorism?

I believe that Iraq is a front in fighting terrorists. As I have said before, even though a majority of Americans want us to leave Iraq, I have always supported the war and will continue to do so. I have never fought in war, never served in the military, and probably never will. But I thank God for the men and women who have chosen to defend our country and our freedom. I thank God for the 3,700 Americans who have died in the Iraq War. And I am thankful to them for the protection they give us everyday. And I do not wish to see their blood shed in vain. We must succeed in Iraq.

A few months ago, the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, approved General Petraeus to assess the situation in Iraq, the surge, and report back to Congress. Here's the political reality that many don't want to hear: there are people in our country who, for political power reasons, hope we fail in Iraq. At the least, there are people who do not want to see us succeed. Because of that, and because of the fact that the surge has made progress, there are those in the Congress who politically do not want the success of our American troops to be reported. So in the maddening world of American politics, before the four-star general ever took the microphone to give his report, there were congress members attacking the General's character. There were members of Congress, the same ones that sent Gen. Petraeus to Iraq, who say now that no matter what he says, they will not believe him. Here is another political reality in Washington, and why Congress' approval rating lags behind the President's: our Congress is not concerned about fighting Al Qaeda. They are concerned about their own political power. The enemy has become members on the other side of the aisle. The enemy has become a four-star general of the US. The enemy has become Bush and anything he sets out to do.

Are Republicans to blame too? Yes. They have not been honest with the length of time we will be in Iraq. To talk of troop withdrawal next year is naive. It took America 20 years to truly become a stable government after the Revolutionary War. We still have troops in Japan, 60 years after WWII and after Japan is now our friend. It will take Iraq years to become a truly stable government. We will be in Iraq for a long, long time. It is time to be honest about that as well. And it is time to begin to answer the critics' objections to Iraq. A stable, free Iraq is in our country's best interest. A stable, free Iraq will enable the world to fight terrorism effectively.

So today, six years after we were attacked, may we remember. And may we be thankful for those who every day defend our country.

Grant Has a Blog

Grant got a camera for his birthday, so he wanted to start his own blog. To see his pictures, go to g-mansworld.blogspot.com.

Star Blazers intro (english)

Of every show I ever watched as a kid, or even as an adult, no show has ever captivated my mind as much as Star Blazers. It haunted me as I watched it. Each episode ended with a countdown to the end of the world. I remember being a little upset by this and thinking we really only had a 100 or so days of existence left. I remember my mom calming my nerves on this.

The ship always fascinated me too. But as an adult, I could not remember the name of the show or anything about it. One night, at a college Bible study in Tampa, I somehow got off on a tangent with this memory. The next day, one of the college guys had found the information for me. In addition, the local library had the entire series on video tape. So I checked them out and re-watched the entire series. Loved it. And of all the theme songs in the world, this one will definitely stay in your head.

July 4th - A Little Late

Almost three months ago, my sister-in-law had her annual July 4th party. (I would have posted this earlier, but I just got a copy of the picture.) Each year, prizes are given for "best tasting," "most patriotic," "best presentation," "best side dish," and "most original." I always go for the most original and am now 3 for 3. My first cake was the face of Saddam Hussein. A round, red velvet cake with caramel icing, black icing for the hair, google eyes, glasses, nose and mustache from Party City, twizzlers for the lips, and a big cigar. I especially liked the fact that when you cut into his face, red velvet was revealed. It tasted terrible, but I wasn't going for that. I was going for most original - and I won.

Last year, Grant and I entered an air conditioner cake. I posted about it here. Again, we won Most Original.

This year, I was having trouble with an entry. My first idea, making web worms, was a disaster, and so I was scrambling to come up with something. Claire's Barbie doll and a little black licorice and about an hour later, I came up with "Paris Hilton in Prison." Here it is:

(By the way, that was her actual prison number.) Thanks, Paris, for helping me win my third in a row.

Another Claire-ism

Claire started her preschool class today, Grant started Kindergarten yesterday(unbelievable!). Anyway, last night, I was tucking Claire in for bed and asking her if she was excited about school. She said yes. She then said, "I will learn letters for you tomorrow." And, "I will send you two emails." She cracks me up.

Unintended Consequences

Every once in a while, a remedy to a problem creates a new problem in need of a remedy. Take for example, medication. A person has a medical problem and is prescribed medication. The medication solves the medical problem, but causes another problem with the side-effects. In order to counter the side-effects, the patient is prescribed another medication, which causes another side-effect that needs additional medication. Pretty soon, the patient who initially thought he or she needed just one pill is now on eight. (Of course, we shouldn't call this a drug company conspiracy or anything to sell more pills...should we?)

Well, another unintended consequence results from certain light bulbs and the environment. In an effort to curb global warming, some are pushing to ban incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent light bulbs. These CFLs are supposedly better environmentally and will save money in the long run by lasting longer and using less energy. Sounds great. Even though they are more expensive than regular bulbs, overtime, the consumer would save money and the environment at the same time. But there's one problem: the unintended consequence. Apparently, these CFLs contain high levels of mercury, which is linked to brain damage and developmental delays in children and pre-born children. So, in order to save us all from global warming, we are exposing everyone to mercury poisoning. In the name of environmentalism, we are risking contamination of our environment with high levels of mercury, which would be bad environmentalism.

I was at Target the other day to buy light bulbs. I saw these CFLs and thought, hmm, maybe we should switch. But I didn't because I wanted the cheaper bulb now rather than the cheaper in the long run. Then I read about the side-effects to CFLs. I'm glad I didn't buy them. But this kind of stuff happens all the time. In a rush to solve one problem, we create more problems. In a society where we want immediate solutions, we need to learn to wait. There are problems that we need to solve - and the condition of our environment is a problem - but we shouldn't make the situation worse in the name of making it better.

Claire-ism

Today, Jessica took the kids shopping for some back-to-school clothes and then I met them for lunch and haircuts for Gman and me. They had just come from Old Navy and had lost a bow of Tessa's in the store. Claire proceeded to tell me, "We lost Tessa's bow in Old Maid."

A Day to Mourn the Great Game

Barry Bonds holds the record for the most career home runs in baseball. That is a painful sentence to write and read. How did the biggest scoundrel in MLB history break the most hallowed record in the game? Think about what Hank Aaron went through in his career to 755 home runs. He endured racism and death threats all while playing honestly and humbly. Watching the film of Aaron rounding the bases on his record breaking HR to pass Ruth is such an inspiring piece of film. Watching that clip makes me smile. But now...now when the video airs of the record breaking HR, we will have to endure Bonds at center stage. If you look at his numbers, his body size, and his age, there is no doubt that he cheated - that he used steroids or HGH. And he got away with it. And now he holds the record. This is a sad day for MLB. Who would have thought that there would be a day when everyone in all humanity began cheering for Arod to stay healthy. Hopefully, a few years from now, Bonds' record will be surpasses by Arod. I haven't seen the clip of Bonds rounding the bases for number 756. And I don't plan on watching it either. My apologies to Aaron. Like the Ticket promo says, even though he is alive, we are pretty sure Hank Aaron is rolling over in his grave right now.

2008 Updated Prognostication

In the continuing race for the White House in '08, if you have been able to stay awake long enough to listen to any of the debates or follow any of the news items, you know there are way too many candidates on both sides. Why do some of these candidates run? Why is Dodd in the race, or Biden, or Brownback, or any other number of names? What are they gaining by running?

A few months ago, I made some presidential predictions here and here. As an update to those posts, I believe that the current field of candidates should be reduced to three for each party. For the Republicans:

1. Rudy Giuliani - still the front-runner in most polls, but remember what I said about his difficulty in persuading social conservatives to support him. It will be interesting to see how his campaign either attempts to bring social conservatives into the fold, or whether he decides to go for more independents and fiscal conservatives who support the war on terror(perhaps aligning with the few McCain supporters). I remain skeptical as to whether he can win the nomination, despite his leading in the polls.

2. Mitt Romney - while he has raised a considerable amount of cash, his flip-flopping on key issues will come back to haunt his campaign. In addition, I still don't see many social conservatives, particularly evangelicals, supporting a Mormon for president. If he had no faith at all, I think he would stand a better chance than being a Mormon, but we'll see.

3. Fred Thompson - Although he hasn't entered the race, he appears poised to jump to the top of the Republican nomination. I don't believe raising money will be a problem for him. If he maintains conservative political views and presents himself as a strong leader, he would seem to jump to the top. However, James Dobson somehow knows whether people are really Christians or not and at one time said Thompson wasn't a Christian, so we'll see how that plays among the religious right. (It is amazing the powers some have on the religious right, such as Dobson's ability to tell whether someone is a Christian, and Robertson's ability to predict hurricane's and explain who God is judging by them....)

So those should be the Republican field. Most surprising omission: John McCain. His candidacy in imploding. I am rather shocked by it, but he has lost his mojo that he had eight years ago and doesn't seem to know how to get it back.

Among Democrats:

1. Hillary Clinton - still the front-runner and still, in my prediction, a 99% lock for the nomination. She's a skilled politician, she's ruthless, she's organized, and she will destroy her opponents. Unless she makes a major gaffe, I don't see her losing the Democratic nomination.

2. Barack Obama - he still enjoys somewhat of a rock star status, but in order to beat Hillary, he is having to run far left, which I think hurts him among independents and open-minded Republicans who admired his charisma and his perceived ability to unite across party lines. The farther he runs left, the more he hurts himself for the general election.

3. Bill Richardson - While I demeaned his candidacy in my previous post, I recant now. He is a governor, albeit of New Mexico, but governors are much better candidates than senators. Richardson needs to highlight any voting records of Hillary and Obama and remain patient should one of them falter. Still a long shot, in fact, he probably still has no shot, but his candidacy will be an intriguing one to watch, especially since he is Hispanic.

Surprising omissions: John Edwards - really, he has nothing. He adds nothing to the dialogue. He should drop out now and go back to his $55,000 per speech stipend to talk about poverty.

While the presidential field should be trimmed to six, I am glad that a few folks are still in the race strictly for entertainment purposes - long live Ron Paul and his paranoia and Dennis Kucinich and his completely left field but well articulated views.

Only six months until primary season.

My Top 10 or 11 Movies

I guess it means I'm getting old, or that I have young kids and we rarely go to the movies, but there are no movies in the theaters that I want to see right now, except perhaps Transformers, but even that looks a little disappointing. Where have all the good movies gone? Thinking about the lack of Hollywood quality this summer, I have decided to list my top 10 movies of all time(actually 11):

11. Hoosiers. (Classic, dramatic, "I'll make it," who can't love this movie?)
10. Scent of a Woman (Great acting, memorable speeches, gripping moments)
9. Babe: The Pig Movie (probably the most random movie on my list, but I love it. Great story - "That'll do pig," and an anorexic duck.)
8. Amistad. ("Give us us free!!")
7. Truman Show (Definitely Jim Carrey's finest, intriguing story, awesome symbolism with Truman and Christof, etc.)
6. It's A Wonderful Life (Who doesn't wonder how the world would be different if you were never born?)
5. Life is Beautiful (Another inspiring movie about love for family amidst hatred in the world.)
4. Last of the Mohicans ("I will find you!" Papa Mohican gets mad when son is killed and kicks some tail, great storyline, action, soundtrack, etc.)
3. The Untouchables ("What are you prepared to do?" "So much violence." Sean Connery pulling himself across the floor, the classic scene in the train station, finest career performances from Kevin Costner, De Niro, and Andy Garcia, and a great musical score.)
2. Glory (Was this Denzel Washington's breakthrough role? One of the most stirring movies ever made. Another great musical score, a fantastic list of actors, this movie is a very close to my #1 movie.)
1. The Natural ("You sure look different in street clothes." "Hey mister, what's your name?" "You're right Memo, we have met before." "Batting practice tomorrow, be there." "Hobbs, get back here and turn off that inferno light!" "Losing is a disease..." "I'll start pitching when you start hitting." "His father lives in New York." "Ain't she a peach." "Can we walk a bit?" "That day in Chicago, why did you stand up?" "You know, I believe we live two lives." "I look swell in black, don't you think I look swell in black?" "Don't ever look back Max, ever." "Did you ever play ball Max?" "Suit up." "Pick me out a winner Bobby." "OK." Words cannot express my love for this movie. Thank goodness they didn't make it like the book, which was one of the worst books I have ever read. This movie is greatness from the opening train whistle to the closing game of catch with his son. Makes me want to watch it right now.

So there it is, my top 11. Of course, if I had twelve, perhaps "Field of Dreams," "Eight Men Out," "Raiders of the Lost Ark," or "Empire Strikes Back" may have made it, so props to those movies as well.

More camping pictures

Click here for more pictures of our campout...
www.jjgc.blogspot.com

My Brother

My brother gets married this weekend. It's kind of crazy to think about. Needless to say, I am so happy for him and Cindy. Eight years ago, Ben was my best-man for our wedding. (Wow, he was 17 then!), and I was proud to have him as my best man. I am honored that he has asked me to be his, (although really, I don't think he had a lot of choice in the matter.) Ben is six years younger than me, which is quite a gap for brothers. We have always gotten along just fine, but as he got older, we have been able to be more on a peer level than just an older brother, younger brother thing. But, I guess during these times in our lives, we are supposed to get a little sentimental, so here it goes...


I remember:


...playing countless whiffle ball games in the front yard, each of us mimicking batter stances such as Geno Petralli, Julio Franco, and Mickey Tettleton.

...playing basketball where we "drafted players" and had to play like them during the game. For instance, if you picked Hakeem Olajuwon, you had to take the ball down low to score, but if you picked John Paxson, you could shoot from three-point range (which was behind the hibiscus plant). Also, since I was older and bigger, I wasn't allowed offensive rebounds or blocks. If we played now, the rules would definitely need to be reversed.

...drawing up football plays for the big Thanksgiving cousin football game.


Then Ben grew up. I remember:

...Spring Training in Port Charlotte.

...awesome Maverick play-off games against the Kings.

...the nervous walk to A&M graduation.

...relationship talk.


One of the biggest changes from Ben's youth to adulthood is his feeling toward public displays of affection. Jessica, Ben, and I drove home once from Galveston. We had celebrated Thanksgiving there and for some reason were leaving before everyone else. Ben said he was disgusted by Jessica and I holding hands. Cindy changed that feeling for Ben.


In our wedding program, I put Psalm 1 by Ben's name in the program. He is living up to that Psalm. I am glad Ben is my brother. We wish Cindy and Ben much happiness in marriage, and know that as they remain "trees planted by streams of water" God will strengthen their love for each other for their entire lives.

We are glad to finally be able to call Cindy, Aunt Cindy, for our kids. And we hope that we will be a good aunt and uncle to their children as well one day. Who knows - it could happen in about 9 months now.

Camping

On Father's Day eve, Grant and I started a new tradition of camping out in our backyard. We set up the tent, built a fire in an enclosed fire grill, got our coat hangers ready, and cooked hot dogs and roasted marshmallows. Then, as the sun went down, we crawled into the tent, read a book together, and went to sleep. Of course, it took a while to go to sleep. Grant began asking about a thousand questions, of which I knew only about half the answers, but I tried to answer them all. I woke up in the middle of the night to the sound of rain, but we stayed dry inside the tent. We were also bug free, which was a plus. It was one of the most fun nights of my life - even thinking about it now makes my heart fill with joy. Grant had such a fun time that he thinks we should camp out every Saturday, only he wants to get a bigger tent so the whole family can camp out too. He was concerned that Claire would be sad that she wasn't camping with us. Anyway, a new tradition began - I can't wait until next year!

Arlington Steak House - Stop #2

A week ago, our "Arlington Iconic Dinner Society" or AIDS for short, met again on Division Street for dinner #2 - Arlington Steak House. Growing up, I feel like we went there at least twice a month. The place never changes. It is still the same, although thanks to Arlington's smoking ordinances, it is less smokey. As we perused the menu with our friends, we all knew what we had to order - the chicken fried steak - "Voted best in Arlington." (No year given, and the menus hadn't been re-printed in a while, so who knows if this is an annual award or not.) So all eight of us were set - I don't think anyone ordered anything different on the menu.

While waiting for our meal, we of course were treated to rolls and honey. This is perhaps my favorite part of Arlington Steak House, and the first batch was very good. Here's my theory though with Arlington Steak House and their rolls. The first batch are always good. When a table orders a second batch, they must have a different set of rolls made that aren't as good or fresh so that people won't request a third batch. Sure enough, our second batch of rolls were not as fresh and not nearly as good. I don't know why they do this, but it has always been this way.

Then out came our chicken fried steaks. I had forgotten to remind everyone that the gravy is yellow. It kind of looks like banana pudding. And if you ever go into the restaurant, you will notice that the walls are the same color as the gravy. I was used to this color from childhood, but it caught others off guard. But the food was good. I liked it better than Catfish Sam's.

The decor is old - again, nothing has changed in that place ever. The parking is always bad; however, we were eating late, so it was not much of a problem this time. And then there's the side door. This dirty, green, employees only door that is on the west side of the building is one of the creepiest doors in all of Arlington. I don't want to ever see the other side of that door. It freaks me out a little.

All in all, our second stop on Division Street was a great success. Good company, pretty good food. I would give Arlington Steak House an 9 out of 10. If they can just get that second batch of rolls better, I would be much happier.

Time Travelling Faster?

It seems like the days are going by way too fast. I can't believe it is already May, I can't believe Tessa is 5 months old, I can't believe it is time for summer, I can't believe Grant and Claire are getting so old. I can't believe we are almost halfway through 2007. Time seems to be travelling faster and faster. As a kid, time would move slowly. Christmas and summer break always seemed so far away. Now, I am sure tomorrow will be Christmas, and I won't know where the year went. I kind of feel like Desmond on Lost sometimes.

It's not just me. The older you get, the faster time travels. I remember the lady we bought our first home from swore everything in the house was new or replaced "last year." Oftentimes, it turned out to be 10 or 15 years, but she honestly thought it was new.

Here's my theory though on why time travels faster when we get older. (Maybe everybody knows this, but sometimes these kind of things fascinate me.) When you are 1, one year is 100 percent of your life. When you are 5 years old, one year is 20 percent of your life. That's a lot. When you are 10, one year is 10 percent. Now that I am 31, one year is 3.2 percent of my life. So every year, the year equates to less of a percentage of my life than the year before, making it seem to go faster.

I guess this is why I still think of the 1990s as just being a couple of years ago. Time in percentage to my life travels much faster than when I was in the 90s looking back at the 1980s. Oh well, that's just my thought for the day. To all of you oldies out there who are reading this, don't take too long, or another year will pass for you.

The Historic Arlington Restaurant Tour: Part 1 - Catfish Sam's

A few weeks ago, I decided that Jessica and I, along with some of our friends, should experience historic Arlington eateries. After presenting the idea to our friends, the date was set. So Saturday evening, eight of us made our first stop on the "Division Street Restaurant Tour" at Catfish Sam's.

In my 31 years of life, 29 of which have been in Arlington, I have eaten at many Arlington locations. However, this was only my second visit to Catfish Sam's. The logo of a red, smiling catfish both on the wall of the restaurant and on the sign draws attention to this old building in west Arlington. Its location obviously leaves something to be desired. (For many years, I have said that if mayor, my first action would be to rent a bulldozer and drive it down both sides of a large portion of Division Street.) The building has no windows, so once inside, you have no clue what the weather or lighting is like outside; however, it was not too dark and the atmosphere was pleasant.

I drove by Catfish Sam's about 6:30pm on Saturday and the parking lot was packed; however, by the time we met there for dinner, it was 8:00pm and the main older crowd had already come and gone. Even so, the presence of the 8 of us around the age of 30, lowered the average age of the clients considerably while we were there. Also, the volume of laughter coming from our table raised the decibel level quite considerably. As we were finishing our meal, the place was ready to close, but the staff never rushed us, which was very nice.

Food wise, Catfish Sam's is pretty good. There is nothing like the hush puppies, I must have eaten close to a basket full. (They remind me of Bill Martin's Catfish place that used to be on the way home from Waco.) The little circular appetizer dish served confused me a little. A little dish of slaw, beans, pickles, okra, and onions is served at each table. (If you only order this, you are charged $4+ for this strange arrangement.) I ordered catfish and fries, which were pretty good. The fries were better than average; however, my catfish was just average. It was a little tough on the outside, but good on the inside. But really, we are not going to these restaurants for just the food. The ability of a place like this to have survived and thrived for over 50 years is what is most impressive to me. When a recent poll was conducted, Arlington residents listed On the Border as their favorite restaurant. One of the main criticisms of Arlington's food is its lack of original, local spots to eat. There is nothing fancy about Catfish Sam's, and yet, you can see why it has stayed in business, even without the most ideal of locations. It has never changed, the food is consistently good, and the prices are relatively reasonable. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give Catfish Sam's an 8.

We had a great time on stop #1. Next time, we are going to head east on Division to one of my childhood favorites: Arlington Steak House.

Falwell's Legacy...Good and Bad

With the passing of Jerry Falwell went one of the more colorful, entertaining, passionate, and maddening religious political figures in American history. There is no doubt that Falwell will have a lasting effect and influence on American politics. His Moral Majority, founded in 1979, not only is credited for helping elect Ronald Reagan, but also paved the way for others, such as Pat Robertson and the Christians Coalition, and James Dobson and the Family Research Council, to become major political figures in American politics. One could argue that without Falwell as the catalyst, the Religious Right would not be the major political player that it is today. And the Republican party would not have won so many elections without it either.

I must admit - and with no disrespect to his passing - I am no Falwell fan. It's not necessarily his political views - I agree with a great deal of them - but rather, it was his method. Falwell's political style was based less on humility and more on power, less on grace and more on legalism, less on love and more on divisiveness. Sometimes I wonder whether Falwell did more harm than good for Christianity as a whole. He politicized evangelicalism - the Good News became political mantra. While I appreciate his pro-life position, his inflammatory rhetoric caused many to turn a deaf ear to his message. Insinuating that homosexuals were the cause of 9/11 or that anyone who disagreed with him was probably a communist didn't open dialogue to discuss issues further, but rather isolated him to the fringes of society.

Earlier in his ministry, Falwell said, "Preachers are not called to be politicians… but to be soul winners." Why the change? The sexual revolution of the 60s and Roe v Wade were major ingredients in his shift. But the breaking point was the disillusionment many conservatives had with evangelical Jimmy Carter. When Carter's politics conflicted with conservative evangelicals, Falwell and others felt the need to act politically: "As a pastor, I kept waiting for someone to come to the forefront of the American religious scene to lead the way out of the wilderness. Like thousands of other preachers, I kept waiting, but no real leader appeared. Finally, I realized that we had to act ourselves."

And so Falwell began the Moral Majority - and gained much influence and power. He had access to the White House, he was interviewed by TV shows, and his face became recognizable throughout most of America and the world. And then, as it always does, the power corrupted. Every time in the world's history, when church and state mix, the church loses. Politics is about winning, which leads to compromise, which leads to abandonment of principles, which results in a political organization that once was religious. As I always warn myself and others, if your politics and your faith never conflict, then more than likely your politics is informing your faith, rather than your faith informing your politics. The Moral Majority, and subsequent organizations, lost their prophetic role and became pawns for the political parties. It happens on both sides of the aisle. Just as Falwell fell into the Republican power game, Jim Wallis is currently married to the Democratic power grab.

And so where are we in today's society? How does the world perceive Christians? As those who bring the Good News or those who wag their finger in others' faces? As those who seek to love one another, or as those who protest television shows? As those who seek to save the lost or those who judge the lost for not being responsible?

Love him or hate him, Falwell has left his mark on our American political system. But now, perhaps it is time for evangelicals to reclaim part of what has been lost and proclaim the entire Good News of Jesus Christ rather than just the contemporary partisan political hot-button issues.

Another Grantism

Grant: "I'm hungry."

Jessica: "OK, we are about to eat dinner."

Grant: "But I'm hungry for unhealthy food!"

Claire-ism

Today, Jessica was driving with the kids when a Garbage Truck went by. Claire got really excited and said, "Look Mommy - a trash can bus!"

Mavs Fan For Life?

I have been a mavs fan my entire life. When I was in the 5th grade, I was an honorary ball boy for the Mavs (a great birthday present from my parents). I had my picture taken with Brad Davis, handed Mark Aguirre a towel to wipe spilled beer off of himself, and I pushed a broom around the key to wipe up sweat throughout the game. It was tons of fun to be so close.

I was a Mavs fan through the Quinn Buckner fiasco, the 13-69 season. I even had a Mavs clock on my wall during these dreadful years.

When Mark Cuban bought the team, I was ecstatic. He has done a lot to make Maverick basketball so good. Last year, beating the Spurs and making it to the finals was so great. It was terrible when they lost 4 in a row, but even with that debacle, I thought we always had this year.

We win 67 games this season.

And then, we get Golden State - a 42 win team. This has been the most painful Maverick basketball to ever watch. They have shown no heart, have played horribly, and have allowed some of the most annoying players to beat them.

If Dirk wins MVP tomorrow, this will only be more embarrassing. Jim Reeves said it best this morning in his column when he imagined phones ringing off the hook at the NBA office of people asking for their MVP votes back. I think back to Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Wade - all those guys stepped up their game in the playoffs. Dirk, with the Spurs series an exception, has not. He has failed.

People give Arod a hard time for meaningless stats. He puts up huge numbers every year, but when it comes to a clutch hit, Arod disappears. Dirk is the new Arod. In last night's game, Dirk hit two threes at the end of the game, after the Mavs had lost. That is much like an Arod solo HR when the Yankees are down 10-0 in the 9th. "Meaningless offense" as my brother would say.

While my Maverick fandom has survived coaching from Buckner, Clemons, Adubato, and Gar Herr, with players like Bradley, English, Blab, Laettner, etc. stinking it up, I am not sure that my love for the Mavs will survive a loss to the Golden State Warriors in Round 1.

I know there are many more important things in the world to be upset about and that it is just a game, but I was looking forward to spending every other night for the next two months watching NBA basketball, talking about rules for watching sporting events, going to bed way too late, wearing my Mavs shirt 20 times in two months. But, when the Mavericks are gone, so is my viewership. And I am not sure it will be back next season. But at least this year, the Mavs cannot complain about the refs. There is no doubt who has played harder and better during this series. Maybe the Mavs will put it together and win three straight. But thus far, they haven't played 3 good quarters this series, so how will they play 12?

Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling

Today, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld a law banning partial birth abortion (Gonzales v Carhart). Finally, after years of being thwarted by the courts, today is a victory for pre-born life. As I read the Supreme Court decision, I was sickened by the description and acceptance by some people of the procedure described as follows (quoting in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion from the Court's testimony):

" 'At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).
" 'While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.
" '[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
" 'The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.' " H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, p. 3 (2003).

This is an abortion doctor's clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

" 'Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... .
" 'The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
" 'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... .
" 'He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.' "

It is hard to imagine that our culture has accepted partial birth abortion for so long. It is also hard to imagine how people do not consider the aborted babies human lives. Clinton vetoed a ban of the above procedure while in office, and the Supreme Court ruled a similar ban unconstitutional a couple of years ago. But this is a more conservative court - and a more humane one. This ruling shows the power of appointment granted to the President; the addition of Roberts and Alito by Bush have swung the Court, at least temporarily, to a more pro-life bent. And it shows why the presidential race and the congressional races of 2008 are so critical as well. More than likely, the next president will nominate judges to replace Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg - the two most liberal judges on the bench. And the next Congress will have to approve or deny those appointments.

There is still a long way to go. This ban only prohibits the partial-birth of the baby followed by the removal of his or her brain. This ban does not prohibit the following description also described in the Court's ruling:

After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman's cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed.

The procedure just described is still permitted. Moreover, 90 percent of the 1.3 million abortions a year take place in the first trimester, unaffected by the ban.

Today's ruling is a victory for the unborn, albeit a small one. But with continued pressure and education, hopefully this will mark the beginning of a major movement to cease the killing of 1,300,000 lives each year in this country.

Virginia Tech and What We Learn

The obvious question is, "Why?" Why did this happen? Why did Cho Seung-Hui feel the need to kill 32 people yesterday? Why wasn't he stopped? Why didn't the administration do more? These are all questions we will be asking in the coming days. At least until we who weren't directly affected resume our normal lives and forget about what happened.

It was hard to watch via the internet yesterday as the death toll rose throughout the day. It was hard to try to put myself in the shoes of the students in the classroom, or the professors - what would I have done? No one expects that to happen. The administration thought the first shooting was purely a domestic affair and was over, so the decision to shut down a campus of 26,000 students wasn't made. It's hard to fault the administration - again nothing like this had ever happened before. But I can only guess that internally the administration is second guessing themselves severely.

I can't imagine the terror in the classroom. I can't imagine the loss that families are feeling today. I can't imagine the horror witnessed by some. I can't imagine what the students who skipped class yesterday are thinking. I can't imagine what the girl who went to the building only to find the doors chained must be thinking. Was she upset that she was running late to class that day?

The media is describing Cho Seung-Hui as a loner. It seems like they are always loners. We talk about it. We hear stories of how we must include the loners. And then, we go back to our old ways of excluding or at least not trying hard to include the loner. Why do we so quickly slip back into our old habits?

It's just sad. What do we learn? I don't know. And where was God? It's a question that has been asked for thousands of years - from at least the time of Job. I remember when the Wedgwood shooting happened many years ago, the pastor, Al Meredith, said that God was in the same place He was when Jesus was hanging on the cross - on His throne and in control.

The Great Game of Baseball

So life truly began again yesterday. Spring is here. And now I have a reason to read the Sports Page every day. To me, there is no sport that even compares to baseball. Baseball engages all your senses. Sight - freshly chalked foul lines, green grass mowed so evenly, freshly watered dirt, the list could go on. Sound - the crack of the bat, the smack in the catcher's glove of a fastball, the strike call of a really good umpire. Smell - freshly mowed grass, leather of a glove, spring air. Taste - cotton candy, ballpark hot dog, bag of peanuts. Touch - the grip of a baseball, the way a bat feels, the passing of concessions down the row. One's whole person gets involved in baseball. I am glad it's back again. And I'm glad there are 161 games left after the way the Rangers disappointed in game 1.

One of my favorite things about the great game of baseball is talking about former players. During last night's broadcast, Tom Grieve and Josh Lewin, in the span of an inning, made reference to five centerfielders connected to the Rangers. First is the current centerfielder, Kenny Lofton. Next, a catch by last year's centerfielder Gary Matthews, Jr., a camera shot of the Rangers' firstbase coach Gary Pettis, and a reference to the speed of Damon Buford and Tom Goodwin. (I hadn't heard their names in a long time!) So, I began to think of all the Ranger CFs I could remember: Greer, Hulse, Brower, Nixon, Nix, etc, etc., etc. In college, we used to try to come up with the most obscure Ranger names we could think of. No one ever does that with football or basketball, do they? Well, anyway, I'm glad the season has started.

Haircuts

Grant and I went to get haircuts today. Mondays are always "boy days." We eat breakfast together before school, then I take him to and pick him up from school and we spend some time together. Today, we got haircuts. It is pretty amazing how far Grant has come from the boy who would scream through an entire haircut to the one who really enjoys it and laughs pretty much through it because it tickles him so much. So after our haircut, we were going out to the car and it started raining. Grant said, "Uh-oh, the rain is going to make my hair grow!"

Another Grantism

I am a fan of Grape Nuts cereal. Don't know why, I just seem to crave it at times. So we have the Kroger off brand of "Nutty Nuggets." As I was pouring a bowl of "Nutty Nuggets" this morning, Grant asked me what I was eating. I said, "Nutty Nuggets cereal." He got up from the table and walked over to look into my bowl. After taking a couple of seconds to examine the contents, Grant said, "I do not see any chicken in there."

Disillusioned by Conservatives

The past 10 days or so have been very bad for conservatives politically. Rising to power as the voice of "family values," three stories caught my eye this past week which have solidified the fact that no government, no political ideology or leadership is worthy of claiming any kind of moral high ground. Politics is and will always be a hypocritical bunch of power hungry dirt bags, who will spin anything and compromise any amount of integrity to make themselves look good and the opposition look evil. Here are the three issues that reaffirmed to me the fall of the "family values" politician.

1. Scooter Libby. Scooter Libby lied. He lied to FBI officials, he lied to investigators, he lied to a court. That is against the law. It doesn't matter how big, small, or unimportant an issue is, Scooter Libby lied and is guilty. He can't blame anybody but himself. If he tells the truth, he is a free man today. What made my blood boil is listening to talk radio last week excusing his lies as silly and unimportant. The talk shows said since there was no crime charged for the original investigation, Libby shouldn't be found guilty here. Hmmm. Seems to me that I remember during the Whitewater investigation that Clinton lied under oath about an affair, which had nothing to do with the original investigation. But he lied, and he was impeached. At the time, I remember the talk shows claiming that it didn't matter that is was Clinton - that even if it were a conservative, they would feel the same way, because the law is the law. Well here we are, and those same talk shows are using the Clinton playbook to call these findings nothing. Remember the Rose Garden ceremony after the impeachment? Conservatives have staged their own Rose Gardens on the airwaves for the past week and I have had it. What happened to principle and abiding by the law.

2. Ann Coulter. If a Democrat used the word to describe a Republican that Coulter used to describe Edwards, what would the reaction be? Conservatives would be up in arms, calling for an apology. Why can't those same conservatives practice what they preach and condemn Coulter and stop hailing her as a hero? Hannity said that he isn't going to condemn her remarks until Democrats condemn remarks that their leaders have made. That's really standing on principle isn't it? It is such a childish and ridiculous excuse it drives me crazy. "I'm not going to apologize until you do!" That is not taking the moral high ground. I've had it.

3. Newt Gingrich. Newt came out and admitted that while he was pushing for Clinton's impeachment, he was having an affair. But that he was not being hypocritical, because the issue for Clinton was about lying under oath, not because of an affair. This gets us back to my first gripe about Libby. (By the way, Gingrich ended his first marriage by placing divorce papers on the hospital bed of his first wife while she was overcoming cancer. )

So what to do? How are we supposed to vote for a bunch of cheating, lying, hypocrites? Neither party has the high ground. Power corrupts, and no matter how pure one's intentions may be when entering the political game, the seduction of power and the political culture in this country darkens the hearts and blinds the eyes of every person caught within its grasp.

I think it is time for evangelicals to cease blindly supporting one party or the other. Being a Republican or a Democrat doesn't make one a better or worse Christian. But allowing a political party to corrupt one's theology and compromise one's standards weakens one's faith. It's time to take a deep breath, take a step back and re-evaluate evangelical politics in this country. It pains me to write much of this. I am reminded about what Rich Mullins said in an interview. He said that he wanted government to work, but that he thanked God for Richard Nixon because he shattered Rich's hope that government could work. Well, in the same way, I thank God for Scooter Libby, Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich. They have helped re-emphasize the fact that government does not work and never will...until we get to heaven.

Bono at the NAACP Awards

I stumbled across this last night right as the award was being presented. He pretty much sums up my moral values post from a couple of days ago, especially at the end of his speech. Again, Bono is the coolest.

Bono

"If you could go to lunch with one celebrity, who would it be?" I would answer Bono. He is the coolest person alive. This is a speech he gave at the prayer breakfast in DC last year. I am posting this because it is a great speech, and also, so I can practice posting videos.

Moral Issues

What is a moral issue? In his acceptance speech for his Oscar winning documentary, Al Gore claimed global warming as a moral issue. I would be willing to bet many conservative Christians scoffed at such a suggestion; however, Gore is echoing what many evangelicals are beginning to realize - that our definition of moral issues is too small. Recently in American political life, what constitutes a "moral" issue has been questioned. Since the rise of the Religious Right and the political campaign for "Family Values," morality has played a key role in our elections. Unfortunately, the Religious Right has restricted values to include only beliefs about abortion, homosexual marriage, and Hollywood. This narrow focus has rendered the evangelical political voice mute on many other important moral issues facing our nation and world.

How we treat our environment is a moral issue. Whether or not one buys into Global Warming shouldn't preclude one from understanding our moral role as Christians concerning our environment. Pollution, conservation, air quality, water quality, treatment of life in our world, etc, are all examples of environmental concerns that we as Christians must address. Not from a Republican or Democrat opinion, but from a moral and ethical one.

How we treat those in poverty is a moral issue. In a country that was built by rugged individualism, we often assume that those who are wealthy must be good people, while those who are poor must not be. In fact, many religious groups, ie the "health and wealth" gospel, teach this very thing. The Religious Right views poverty as simply an issue for the individual - "pull yourself up by the bootstraps...stop being lazy... get saved." But I believe Christ approaches poverty differently and holistically. As Christians, we must approach the issue of poverty as a community rather than as individuals. What in our society (racism, sexism, education) is causing poverty? In the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, the fact that 20 percent of children go to bed hungry is a moral issue, and one that we as Christians must address not just privately, but politically.

How we approach materialism is a moral issue. Politicians blab about needing to be for the poor, but then they build 29,000 sq ft houses or have electric bills that are twice the average American. We talk about the need to conserve and pass out awards for documentaries that address these issues and then see the celebrities wearing expensive clothing ride away in their gas guzzling limos to go to lavish parties where food will be wasted. Oil company execs make billions while their employees barely see any increase. The list can go on. Materialism is a moral issue that not even I want to address(because I too am a hypocrite), but it needs to be part of our political discussion.

How we fight the war on terrorism is a moral issue. While I am one of the remaining few who support the Iraq War, although many mistakes have been made, I believe our strategy against terrorism is a moral issue that we must consistently question and answer. How we treat prisoners or suspects is a moral issue. Secret prisons and torture of inmates are troubling moral issues that must be discussed.

These are a few of the moral issues we face. Abortion (and how we treat all life), homosexual marriage (and the divorce rate among heterosexuals), child abuse, poverty, materialism, war, etc, are all important moral issues and Family Values that we as evangelicals must address. This is beyond party politics. Neither party has all the answers. But as Christians, we can influence public policy by not being corrupted by either party. Hopefully, we can continue to find our prophetic voice in American life before it is completely drowned out by politics.

Dungy Did It!

I am a fan of Tony Dungy. We lived in Tampa for a couple of years, rooting for the Bucs. Dungy was the coach our first year in Tampa. He had taken an organization and completely turned it around. Unfortunately, the owners didn't see him as capable of winning the big one. So he was fired, Gruden was hired and the Bucs promptly won the next Super Bowl. So the criticism of Dungy escalated more as one who couldn't win the big one. He was hired by Indy, where again his team failed each year to reach expectations... until this year. Dungy won last night. Nice guys finished first. And he was gracious in the victory.

Much had been made about the race of the two coaches last night. Dungy commented that more important than race was that two Christian coaches were in the Super Bowl: "I think it's great that we're able to show the world not only that African-American coaches can do it, but Christian coaches can do it in a way that we can still win." Dungy doesn't yell, he doesn't cuss, he doesn't put down the press or his players. He coaches, and he cares about his players. And his players love him.

I don't think God takes sides in football games. I don't think God favored the Colts over the Bears. But Dungy did give God the glory last night. Not in a pretentious way like others, but in a very humble and authentic way. Dungy lives out his faith in all he does, whether he wins or loses. Finally, last night, he was able to walk off the field as Champion - but he remained the same authentic and humble follower of Christ that he has always been. In the world of sports, it is good to have two role models like Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy that others can aspire to be like - maintaining the competitive edge in their professions while living the Christian life to its fullest.

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls

Notice I wrote "Democratic." I didn't realize until today that the Democratic Party is offended when "Democratic" is shortened to "Democrat." Apparently during the State of the Union, Bush referred to the "Democrat Majority." Democrats took offense and complained that Bush intentionally used the term as an underhanded swipe. I don't get it, but according to Democrats, Bush wouldn't be smart enough to say a joke like that right? I'm a bit confused by this one. Well anyway, on to the 2008 Democratic hopefuls:

1. Hillary Clinton - I hope everyone's ok with it, because I believe she will win the nomination. Of the candidates running on the Democratic side, she appears to have all the money, experience, and name recognition. I am not sure what she has accomplished in the Senate, but apparently enough, coupled with her 8 years as First Lady and National Health Care Czar. Senator Clinton knows the political game - that cannot be underrated. She is cutthroat and ruthless. (Her camp apparently began the "Obama is a Muslim" rumors last week.) She feels she is entitled to the nomination and will stop at nothing to secure it. But will she be electable? Who is? The field in both parties is so pathetically weak (save one) that it may not matter how many people dislike her; however, not enough people may like who she's running against any better. I have a strong feeling that our presidential line will be: Bush 1989-1993; Clinton 1993-2001; Bush 2001-2009; Clinton 2009-???. (Beyond 2008, if Jeb Bush runs in 2012...) Did you realize that since 1980, a Bush or a Clinton has been involved in every presidential election?

2. Barack Obama - When I heard his speech at the Democratic Convention in '04, I instantly became a fan, although admittedly I know very little of his specific positions on issues. While Edwards was campaigning on the "two Americas" theme, Obama sought to get beyond the class envy angle and discuss one America. His speech was the best speech given at either convention. Unfortunately, it was the night that the TV stations aired normal broadcasting, so unless you are a political junky, you may have missed the speech. Is Obama ready for the presidency? He has been criticized for lack of experience; however, I am beginning to believe that experience politically is overrated. He's a leader - and that's what matters. Experience can be found by appointing good advisors and cabinet members. Problems for Obama: 1. His race. And until we elect a minority president, this will continue to be an issue. How many people will not vote for Obama based on his skin color? It's a sad fact. 2. His middle name is Hussein. Honestly, I am surprised this is such a big issue. So what? But it goes back to prejudice and will remain a difficulty for him. Obama is a Christian, and yet he is criticized for having a nominally associated Muslim for a father. What do his father's beliefs have to do with Obama being president? Nothing. Again, prejudice rears its ugly head. In the end, it will be interesting to see if his candidacy is anything more than merely a way to become number two on the ticket. Get ready for a Hillary/Obama ticket in '08. He'll lose the primary to Clinton - again she is a seasoned, ruthless politician who has the organization to destroy Obama in the press...just enough to make him a viable VP.

3. John Edwards - Expect a lot of lip licking by him and used car salesman speeches. He'll drop out of the race quickly.

4. Bill Richardson - only running to be considered for the VP slot...not a serious candidate. Really, if you had money to donate and you are a Democrat, would you donate to Richardson? Why?

5. John Kerry - I know he dropped out, but isn't it kind of strange that he isn't the front-runner? If America is so opposed to the war as the polls say, certainly Kerry would be leading the race by calling our troops a "pariah" and comparing them to terrorists. Ah, Kerry, we'll miss you in the presidential race. Something tells me the party leadership has told him to shut up for a while.

While others may join the race, no one will be able to match Hillary on the Democratic side, and perhaps on the Republican side. If a Democrat wants to beat Hillary, this race could become extremely ugly.

Some Grantisms that make me happy...

"That is very glassable." Meaning, something is very breakable or fragile, particularly related to Christmas ornaments.

"Socks are like jackets for my feet!"

"Claire, God wants us to share all of your toys."

"How long will Tessa be a lay down baby?"

"I think the wind is like a fan for the grass and helps the grass sleep at nighttime."

One day when the wind was blowing hard during the day: "I think God thought it was nighttime."

Before the birth of our baby, Grant asked Jessica, "Will Jesus come out of your tummy too?"

"Why do I looove donuts so much?"

The Birth of a Savior

Is it hard for you to maintain focus on the meaning of Christmas during all the hustle and bustle of Christmas? It is for me. But one of the things I always do this time of year is re-read Philip Yancey's The Jesus I Never Knew, specifically his chapter on Jesus' birth. I am so thankful to have grown up with in a Christian family which brought me to church. One of the drawbacks, however, is that I have heard the Bible stories so often that sometimes I don't think about what I read. Yancey's book helps me maintain my focus on the Gospel though. In his chapter on the birth of Christ Yancey writes:

"Today as I read the accounts of Jesus' birth I tremble to think of the fate of the world resting on the responses of two rural teenagers. How many times did Mary review the angel's words as she felt the Son of God kicking against the walls of her uterus? How many times did Joseph second-guess his own encounter with an angel as he endured the hot shame of living among villagers who could plainly see the changing shape of his fiancee?

"Nine months of awkward explanations, the lingering scent of scandal - it seems that God arranged the most humiliating circumstances possible for his entrance, as if to avoid any charge of favoritism. I am impressed that when the Son of God became a human being he played by the rules, harsh rules: small towns do not treat kindly young boys who grow up with questionable paternity.

"Malcolm Muggeridge observed that in our day, with family-planning clinics offering convenient ways to correct 'mistakes' that might disgrace a family name, 'It is, in point of fact extremely improbable, under existing conditions, that Jesus would have been permitted to be born at all. Mary's pregnancy, in poor circumstances, and with the father unknown, would have been an obvious case for an abortion... Thus our generation, needing a Savior more, perhaps, than any that has ever existed, would be too humane to allow one to be born.'

"The virgin Mary, though whose parenthood was unplanned, had a different response... Often a work of God comes with two edges, great joy and great pain... Mary embraced both. She was the first person to accept Jesus on his own terms, regardless of the personal cost."

May this advent season be one that we may connect with Jesus, enrich our faith, show His grace and mercy to others, and await His return.

2008 Presidential Race - An Early Look

So now that the 2006 election is over, all eyes are turning to the Presidential election in 2008. Here's my take on the early possible runners. Today I will cover a few of the Republican contenders.

First impression of Republicans:
So far, a pretty weak field. As was evident in the last election, the Republican Party seemingly lacks a leader after George W. Bush leaves office. No one in the House or Senate has stepped up to take the mantle, except for perhaps McCain. Another indication that the Republican field is weak: Rick Perry is rumored to be a possible VP selection! How does this happen? That's as big a sign of desperation as naming Trent Lott minority whip. Oh well, here's the early candidates:

1. John McCain -
positives: name recognition; seen as a Maverick so would draw independent votes; veteran; has supported and criticized Bush.
negatives: seen as a Maverick which has ticked off many in the Republican base; supported and criticized Bush; his age (he'll be 72 in '08)
chances of winning nomination: At this point, he would be the front-runner, if he can assuage the Republican base over the next 2 years, while maintaining his independent flavor.

2. Rudy Giuliani -
positives: Strong leader during 9/11; "America's Mayor;" Has little legislative record for opponents to run against; Cleaned up NY city; Well-liked.
negatives: very liberal on abortion and gay marriage; left his wife for an affair(family values?); besides being Mayor, what else has he done?
chances of winning nomination: While he is the early front-runner in many polls, there is simply no way he can secure enough of the Republican base to win the nomination.

3. Mitt Romney -
positives: Somehow as a Republican, he was elected Governor of Massachusetts; He gave Ted Kennedy his toughest election in 1994; Successful businessman; Conservative.
negatives: While this may seem very fickle, I am not sure that evangelicals in the Republican Party would support a Mormon for President. But his record and charisma may overcome his religion.
chances of winning nomination: His success in Mass. might be intriguing for voters looking to make in-roads in the NE, but his religious affiliation may hinder his bid.

4. Condoleezza Rice -
positives: She has the most foreign policy experience of any presidential candidate in 2008; She is very articulate and brilliant.
negatives: Her attachment to Bush and the Iraq War has badly wounded her chances; Unless public opinion changes, she may be doomed by the war; Also, although we claim to have come a long way over the last 40 years, she is a woman, she is black, and she is single.
Chances of winning nomination: There has been one single president in our history, 0 women presidents, and 0 black presidents. She is highly qualified for the job, in my opinion, but there are many factors that would unfortunately limit her electability in the South, where prejudice still runs high, and among independents, who are currently against the Bush foreign policy. I hope she runs, though.

5. Bill Frist
positives: Senate majority leader; Conservative on many issues.
negatives: Senators make terrible candidates, traditionally; He is out of office now, so it will be difficult for him to remain in the public eye; He supports stem-cell research, which may hurt him among the conservative base.
chances of winning nomination: I give him little chance. He seems like a boring candidate to me. Alienated many conservatives by supporting stem-cell research.

Any of those names get you going? See what I mean - so far a weak field. That doesn't mean that one of these candidates couldn't make major advances over the next two years. Political opinion changes quickly. Just ask Bush.

Next post: Possible Democratic nominees for President.

Election 2006 - A Reflection

So it turns out the polling was pretty accurate. For all the hoopla surrounding the pre-election polls, it appears that a majority of Americans oppose the War in Iraq and disapprove of Bush's leadership. While most prognosticators predicted a House takeover, few thought the Democrats would pick up 6 Senate seats. Ah, but I think there is much more to this election than just Iraq. And I think the next two years will prove very interesting with a touch of irony. Let me explain:

1. War, What is it Good for?
The War in Iraq was the winning issue for the Democratic Party this year. Six in ten voters oppose the war, and those voters voted overwhelmingly Democrat, tilting all the tight races in favor of Democrats. Clearly, the Bush administration has observed this as well, with the swift removal of Rumsfeld yesterday. (In all fairness, Bush said this was in the works for a while now, but he wanted to wait until after the election, so as to not make it a political issue. Not replacing Rumsfeld pre-election was terrible election strategy, so I believe him in this.) Bush calls on Texas A&M President Robert Gates to take the helm. Obviously, Gates jumps at the chance: What would you rather deal with - Aggies and Coach Fran's coaching strategy, or Iraq and terrorists? Pretty easy decision really. Hopefully, Gates can re-evaluate and make appropriate changes to win the war and secure the area. And hopefully he will have bi-partisan support. But...

...The Democrats campaigned on the war - calling for withdrawal of the troops and blaming everything on Bush. It was a winning issue for them. The Republicans supported the war, and it was a losing issue for them. So, in a bit of irony and hypocrisy, I believe these next two years, while the Democrats run Congress, there will be no withdrawal of the troops, but a continued gripe at Bush and the war. Finding "their" issue, the Democrats want to keep the war going to keep the pressure on the Republicans and maintain the winning issue for 2008. The Republicans, on the other hand, politically want this war to go away. So over the next two years, we may see politics reverse, with the Democrats secretly wanting the war to continue and the Republicans secretly, or publicly, wanting the war to end. If this happens, it will be politics at its worst, but I do not think it is beyond reality. (I realize this is a skeptical view of politics, but does anyone disagree?)

2. Scandals for the Party of Values... "Anti-Religion" Party Finds God?
Since 1980, the Republicans have owned the "values voter." The Religious Right has taken credit for Republican victories. But this year, results were different due to two things
a. Republicans had some scandalous dogs on the ballot. Republicans lost traditionally Republican districts due to DeLay, Foley, and some others who had contributed to scandal. One Republican candidate had his office raided by the FBI, an affair with a woman made public, and accusations that he abused his mistress as well. Great "family values" candidate there. Even George Allen ran into trouble with his mouth and lousy campaign. So much for his presidential bid in '08. After 12 years in power, many Republicans had become what they used to despise - corrupt, power hungry politicians out of touch with the real world.
b. Democrats found God - at least some did. Many Republicans were defeated, not by crazy left-wingers, but by pro-life Democrats. Heath Shuler is an example of this. Easily could be a Republican, ran as a Democrat and won. A number of pro-life, anti-homosexual marriage Democrats won this year - it will be interesting to see if the party changes, or if these are just temporary blips on the radar.

Predictions: This could be either a more conservative Congress than the last, or the Democrats will implode while trying to unify radical pro-abortion Dems with the new pro-lifers. It is easier to be in the minority party than the majority. We'll all see if the very liberal Pelosi will squelch or embrace the conservative Democrats, or whether the conservative Democrats were just wolves in sheep clothing. If the Democrats open the floodgates to investigations or impeachment hearings, I think their reign in Washington will abruptly end in '08. This was a close election, albeit one that the Democrats won. But many of these Senate races were decided by very few votes, and many of the House races too. This election could be good news for Republicans. To be out of power until '08 will allow them to run an opposition campaign to the Democrats in '08 much like the Dems did this year. And they shed the party of albatrosses like Foley, DeLay, Chafee, etc. If they're smart, they will continue to clean house and nominate stronger, scandal free candidates in '08.

Big Winners: The big winners in this election were the "Evangelical Left," led by Jim Wallis. (He would actually prefer the label of "the moral center," but he has spent much of the past 6 years hammering Bush and the Religious Right, so he is in effect functioning as the "Religious Left." Also, I am unaware of any Republican candidates he supports.) In his book, God's Politics, Wallis laments the fact the Religious Right had limited religious values to only abortion and gay marriage, while the political left held so much disdain for the religious voice. He has pushed for "values" to include abortion and gay marriage as well as poverty, war, and healthcare. He now has some voices in Congress who will echo his sentiments. At least in 2006, Wallis has shown some credibility in influencing the Democratic Party. He calls the election a "defeat for the Religious Right and Secular Left." He will now be a major player in 2008 much like Dobson and Falwell have been since 1980.

I'll talk about how I see this election influencing the choice for President in 2008 in my next post.

Arlington and Its Future Part 3

Arlington has been discussing downtown revitalization for years and years. And yet, nothing has ever happened. However, it seems that recently more and more groups are showing a real interest in Arlington, specifically the downtown, entertainment, and UTA areas.

The construction of the Cowboys stadium near the Ballpark is perhaps the catalyst behind the recent excitement, making the half cent tax increase well worth it. The development of Glorypark near the two playing fields will be a wonderful addition to the entertainment district, hopefully providing a unique atmosphere for people to spend their evenings in Arlington, rather than Fort Worth or Dallas.

UTA plans to attract investors to develop a stretch of area near the campus and downtown to create a college atmosphere, with restaurants, shops, etc. While UTA is traditionally seen as a commuter school, the drive to bring more of a residential campus benefits the downtown area greatly. I have always referred to UTA as the concrete campus - hopefully a little beauty and uniqueness, along with cool restaurants and shops will change my opinion of the university's appearance.

Finally, plans for the dreaded Division street are in the works. Division street - used car lots, shady motels, ugly sidewalks, and prostitutes help define this street. It is difficult for businesses to want to locate in this area; however, apparently the ball is rolling with advice coming from the person who helped shape Sundance Square in Fort Worth. These three projects will add a little spice to Arlington, and provide better alternatives for eating and shopping than Arlington currently has to offer.

One obstacle cited by OK Carter and others - Mission Arlington. Mission Arlington is an amazing ministry - reaching thousands of residents in poverty by providing hope through the meeting of physical and spiritual needs. I have seen firsthand the power of Christ moving through this organization all around the city. While governor, George W. Bush came to Arlington, calling Tillie the Mother Teresa of Texas and promoting Mission Arlington as a role model for others to follow. I am glad Mission Arlington is here and hope it continues to reach those in need while spreading the Gospel.

For downtown investors though, Mission Arlington is a problem. Many of the buildings in or near downtown are owned by Mission Arlington, and the traffic in and out of Mission Arlington scares many prospective business owners. One can walk out of UTA bookstore and see the whole operation in progress, with donations piling on the sidewalk, people milling about, and constant activity taking place on the premises. The question presented is: what to do with Mission Arlington?

A couple of suggestions: 1. The city and redevelopers should embrace the presence of Mission Arlington as a necessary and unique partner to downtown revitalization. Oftentimes, cities hide their homeless and poor populations from tourists. With Mission Arlington in the heart of the city, this will be difficult to do. But we don't need to hide the problem of poverty, but instead seek ways to include Mission Arlington in the process. As the businesses open, jobs will be available. Perhaps encouraging businesses to hire some referrals from Mission Arlington will be a good start. And it makes us an honest city. By not hiding our population that is in need, Arlington can become a beacon for other cities seeking how best to revitalize a downtown area without kicking the homeless to the outskirts.

2. Mission Arlington should invest in its infrastructure to make it aesthetically pleasing. Although Mission Arlington has renovated many of its buildings over the last 20 years, let's face it - many of the Mission Arlington buildings are plain, boring, or even ugly. If Mission Arlington would invest in creating eye appealing landscaping, building structures, and organization to its many properties, it would put investors more at ease. There is no reason why Mission Arlington should not invest in its infrastructure to make it "fit in" with the plan for downtown. After all, I believe it is part of showing gratitude to the community that helps support it. OK Carter somewhat criticized FBC and Mission Arlington for engulfing so much property downtown. FBC is doing much to enhance its structural appearance. Mission Arlington should do the same, while continuing to meet the needs of those in the community.

These are not easy problems to solve, and there will always be those who are prejudiced toward the poor; but Arlington should strive, with cooperation of businesses and ministries, to make downtown a destination place for more than just those going to pay a ticket at the courthouse, or seek help at a mission. At the same time, Arlington must continue to assist those in need, by providing for their physical needs, increasing educational and job skill programs, and reducing the number of families in poverty.

Arlington and Its Future Part 2

So where does Arlington go from here? OK Carter discussed two issues facing Arlington in recent columns. One, that the city must respond to the changing demographics, and two, the need for a UTA strip (and Glorypark). First, over the last 16 years, Arlington has become more racially diverse. Carter cites figures that show Arlington's racial demographic to be 50% white, 50% minority. He brings up the term "White Flight" as part of Arlington's future. The practice of White Flight is racist at its worst, ignorant at its best. White Flight out of major US cities caused innercity communities to become forgotten, rundown, and crime-ridden. (Interestingly, many major cities have begun revitalization projects which have brought "the downtown" back to life.) The thought that a city will decline simply because of racial demographics is a product of the south - and of prejudiced rationale by those moving. However, Carter does not give any solutions in his article, but simply brings the conversation to the forefront.

The more pressing concern for Arlington residents shouldn't be race, but socio-economic make-up of residents. How Arlington manages to provide needed resources for those in need while also remaining an attractive city for young families to live in and invest in is the main issue Arlington faces. With the plethora of churches in Arlington, including Mission Arlington, Arlington Urban Ministries, Salvation Army, and the Life Shelter, the needs of many residents are able to be met, or should be met, by churches and ministries. The city should depend on these agencies and ministries to provide for the material needs of the people. Not by providing government funds, but by encouraging these ministries to take charge, as many already have, in this area. And local churches should carry the burden, not complaining about what the city is doing or not doing to help meet material needs. Church being the church, salt and light in the communtiy. (This is a separate issue altogether, but one that churches need to face. Churches must begin to reflect their communities, reaching out to those in need - and perhaps in the process, become more diverse. Afterall, it was MLK, Jr who said that 11:00am on Sunday morning is the most segregated time in American life. That is a stinging indictment on the hypocrisy in the church concerning issues of race and inclusion. And one we must address as Christians. Better community = better church = better city.)

What should the city do? Providing quality education for all Arlington children in the key. Arlington teachers should be the highest paid teachers in the area, the school buildings, even the ones on the east side of town, should be equipped with the best curriculum, computers, playgrounds, etc., including aesthetically pleasing buildings and landscaping. If Arlington schools continue to be among the best, by attracting the best teachers, paying the best, and offering the finest in environmental conditions, then the city will remain attractive for families, and even become more attractive. Is this idealistic thinking? To a certain extent, but providing an excellent educational environment supersedes other issues facing the city.

Next, our police should be among the highest paid, and more police should be hired and in place around the city. With smash and grab robberies of vehicles escalating, more needs to be done to follow leads in these "minor" cases, in order to stem the rise of this type of crime. Better paid and more numerous police officers will help in this process. Cameras at intersections and other public locations would help as well. It is not an invasion of privacy to use technology to stop crime, no matter whether it is just running a red light or something more severe like assault in a parking lot. Cameras equipped with face scanning technology are necessary. This is not Big Brother, but rather, advances in technology that will help make Arlington a safer place to live, with the best officers assisting in lowering the crime rate in our city.

Education and safety are key ingredients to maintaining a vibrant, attractive city. Too expensive, you say? We can't afford not to do it, I believe.

Next item: what should downtown look like, including the "eye-sore" that OK Carter sees in FBC and Mission Arlington sprawling across six city blocks downtown...