National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com):

"Election-year polls have shown Catholic support about evenly split between Kerry and President George W. Bush, with churchgoing Catholics favoring Bush and those who rarely attend Mass preferring Kerry. "

Catholicism is like Judiasm in some respects--there are cultural Catholics and there are religious Catholics. Those who are cultural Catholics (called A&P Catholics here--they only go to church for Ashes and Palms) tend to be very liberal socially. The religious Catholics hold strongly to pro-life views and tend to be more conservative.

From the perspective of many Evangelicals, it is wrong that there are so many Catholics who are so politically liberal that they deny major tenants of their faith. But from my experience, the more seriously religious Evangelical Protestants have ripped up their 'tares'. Their culture is so fervent that only the 'true believers' can tolerate attending. That is why many Evangelicals will look around their church and smugly, if quietly, say that 90% of the attendees are 'saved'. And they'd look at my church and wonder if even 10% were 'saved'.

If you ask a Catholic--a religious one; a cultural one wouldn't understand the question--how many in his church are saved, he'd probably answer, 'None, yet.' And he'd understand what Jesus meant by the parable of the wheat and the tares. He also wouldn't even think about identifying the tares, much less pulling them up.

I know I've gotten far from the political commentary that inspired this blog, but it's something I've noticed about Catholics. In our church, all are welcome. On the surface it might seem to a Protestant that the standards are held too low and all the riff-raff are allowed in. Seems to me that the standards of God are so high that from His perspective we're all grubbing around in the dirt.

Now we're in trouble... I can post photos here!

I decided to start with a recent. This is me on October 16th, after my commencement at the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Auditorium in Trenton, NJ. I graduated as of June of this year from Thomas Edison State College with a BA in Liberal Studies (know thine enemy!).

Why is this important? Because it occured only 31 years after I graduated from high school, 29 years after earning my AS in physics from College of the Siskiyous in Weed, California, and only 27 years after I left the University of Arizona without a degree.

This is one of the most important things that I have accomplished. It's hard to describe the feelings I had as I went forward to accept my diploma. And to think I almost didn't go. Maddy (my wife) was sick and had to take care of our little one. Pamela, my step daughter was also sick. That left Christine (the older step daughter) and her boyfriend Josh to drive down with me and take the photo. I'm so grateful they came. I was in need of their company.

So, what's next? How about a MBA? I could have one in a dozen years or so. That's not so long.

James P. Shaw, BA 2004 

I don't read it religiously, but I do check in on NRO's Kerry Spot, written by Jim Geraghty. This is something he posted recently, with stuff he copied from another blogger.

The Kerry Spot on National Review Online: "ELECTION ANALYSIS FROM THOMAS P. M. BARNETT [10/21 05:09 PM]

Until recently, I had only heard a little bit about Thomas P.M. Barnett, (http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/biography.htm) author of 'The Pentagon's New Map.' What little I had heard is that he's a smart guy.
I also understand he's a Kerry supporter. And today, he made a lengthy, detailed, and thought-provoking post on his blog explaining why he thinks Kerry is headed for a defeat.
[snipped]

Terrorists attack America on 9/11 and we have three essential choices for reply: hunker down in "homeland security," go out and kill them as fast as we can, or . . . think strategically about what the terrorists seek to achieve with this form of warfare and get there first. Bush's message of "spreading the power of liberty" (see "In Bush's Vision, a Mission To Spread the Power of Liberty," by David E. Sanger, New York Times, 21 October 2004, p. A1) answers-albeit simplistically-that strategic challenge: we seek to connect the Middle East to the Core faster than the Osamas and Zarqawis can disconnect it and by doing so, set it motion a long-term movement toward individual political liberty and-more importantly-economic opportunity-that is sadly lacking there. That is a happy ending, and it's one designed to make Americans feel better about themselves and our role in history, and you know what? That's awfully damn smart of the Republicans, because you never motivate anyone to sacrifice through shame and derision...
So, much to my dismay, Dems have let themselves be cornered into arguing only tactics (much like Anonymous's book, another in a long list of downer volumes designed to make Americans feel bad and stupid about the world-a winning tactic in motivating the public toward sacrifice if ever there was one), while the Republicans own the market on vision and happy endings...

I have said it before and I will say it again: the more optimistic candidate wins national elections, and despite the great mishandling of the Iraq occupation by this administration (yet another damning article today in the Times by Michael Gordon on page 1: "Debate Lingering on Decision To Dissolve the Iraqi Military"]), their mindless alienation of allies around the dial, and the growing sense of strategic despair both have created throughout far too much of the U.S. military, Bush and his campaign have managed to seize the high ground of both grand strategy and an optimistic vision of the future, leaving Kerry and the Dems to mutter about how "we'd do it better if we had the chance."



My reason for quoting is this: check the part I bolded. I have never quite understood the thinking of people like Mr. Barnett, who can so carefully analize in minute detail how clever someone is, when that person is speaking in broad terms. President Bush has a strategy for the Middle East. He's trying to 'Spread Liberty' as a way to counter terrorism. Mr. Barnett says how smart the Republicans are at pursuing this strategy because it works so well. But I see it as working well because it's the right way to do it. And it's the right way to do it because it most closely aligns with truth.

I see it in people from both sides, and usually from very smart people. They over analize motives, trying to dig out the id. But then they call Bush stupid and their brains implode from the contradiction. In reality, President Bush is not stupid, but he is not prone to detailed over-analysis. He states his strategies and expects his staff to make it happen. President Reagan did the same. And both had good results. Clinton and Carter were both micro-managers (Clinton when he wasn't ducking the job altogether), and neither could get a grip on the entirety of the problems... there's just too much detail. But by being a big picture, strategic thinker who trusts others to implement policy, things can get done.

Another problem I see here is in the criticism that the Bush administration is getting for the occupation of Iraq. Why is it going as badly as it is? I think it's in part the problem with translating philosophies from the optomistic President Bush down through the bureaucrats in the Pentagon and the State departments. Especially the State department. Those guys tend to be very liberal and so when President Bush says something in that Texas drawl, they run around trying to figure out what it means instead of just doing it.

Dr. Raviele: Maternal-fetal medicine, a subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology, can help a mother get through any difficult pregnancy. We have the highest level of healthcare in the world. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated this procedure is never necessary to do to save the life of the mother. In utero surgery can help treat spina bifida and hydrocephalus and babies can be safely delivered by cesarean section. Gone are the days where we have to choose between the life of the mother and child. Even in cases where the mother has to receive a treatment for cancer, you do not have to kill the baby to treat the mother and statistics have shown that the mother is not more likely to survive if you abort her.
Dr. Kathleen Raviele on Abortion & Election 2004 on National Review Online

This is the important message that pro lifers should get out. I remember Reagan's Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, stating much the same. But still the assumption is given in MSM (Mainstream Media) articles that abortion should always be allowed in the instances of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.

Medically, there is rarely danger to the life of the mother, and the mother can make a choice... since most often the danger is during childbirth, a child can be carried safely to full term, then delivered by c-section.

In the cases of rape and incest, this is passing the judgement for the crime down to the next generation... killing a baby for the sins of his mother and/or father. Sure it's difficult, but why is the leftist response to kill the baby instead of supporting the mother with love, care and counseling?

From Rush:

check out this AP story from Ron Fournier today: "Senator Kerry has a simple strategy if the presidential race is in doubt on November 3rd, the day after the election, and that strategy is: do not repeat Al Gore's mistakes. Unlike the former vice-president, who lost a recount fight and the 2000 election, Kerry will be quick to declare victory on election night and begin defending it. He also will be prepared to name a national security team before knowing whether he's secured the presidency. 'The first thing we will do is make sure everybody has an opportunity to vote and every vote is counted,' said Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. 'We will be ready to hit the ground running and begin a fresh start in this country, given that so many critical issues are before us.'

Limbaugh Legal Division: Kerry Strategy: Declare Election Night Victory, Use Equal Protection Clause to Contest Battlegrounds

I've seen this in a couple of places. Some conservatives are expecting Kerry to declare victory on the evening of Nov. 2nd, and just claim that there was fraud, no matter what the vote count says. The Republicans are supposedly gathering their army of lawyers to do battle with the Democratic party's army of lawyers. This could get ugly.

However, we the people do have something to say in this. And I think the Dems have jumped the gun here. They are trying this tactic too soon. They haven't accomplished their most important legal manuver first... they haven't gotten the guns out of the hands of the citizens.

You see, it is for this that the second amendment to the was written. If ever our government gets so far out of whack that our constitutional rights are ignored, we have the power of the gun, which helped free our nation, to free it again.

For too long the left leaning media has portrayed gun owners as neanderthal-like reactionaries who shouldn't be allowed out in public, much less handling guns. And when they attempt a 'fair and balanced' look at gun ownership and the second amendment, they always ask, "why would anyone want to hunt Bambi with a semi-automatic assault weapon?" But we don't own semi-automatic assault weapons for hunting Bambi. We use our Winchester model 70s for that. The assault rifle is so we can march on Washington when the leftists try to take over. They probably think they can bring a lawyer to a gun fight, but that's just icing our redneck cake.

We have the right to bear arms so we can be free from those who would twist and remold our government into one they could control. Thanks to organizations such as the NRA we still have the ultimate power of redress--our guns. If the liberal lawyers decided they can bury us in briefs and run our lives, I'll be glad to join the 21st century Minutemen and head for Washington.

I doubt I'll see the Michael Moore movie, and probably not this one, but that's not the only reason I'm posting this.

I like the honesty of this guy. I can relate because there have been similar changes to my rock-ribbed conservatism... I remember when I came back from El Salvador in 1985, some of my conservative friends accused me of becoming liberal. What had happened was perspective. I saw issues from a different point of view and though I'm still very conservative, I am much more willing to allow for human feelings.

Director Alan Peterson may seem like an unlikely person to battle one of the world's most famous (or infamous) filmmakers. Before 9/11, Peterson was a conventional liberal. But seeing the second plane hit the World Trade Center that morning changed him forever.

"Prior to that moment, I had considered myself an intellectual liberal. One of those people who think that they are superior because they believe they are privy to some hidden knowledge that the rest of the world doesn't understand; a knowledge that lets you belittle our government and nation because, of course, you know more than they do. In that single, horrific moment, I realized how stupid I was."
National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com)

This is how I keep in touch with home. There's something refreshing about reading the goings-on in a small town. And every couple of months I see a picture of my kid brother here. Usually responding to a wreck. He's the tall guy who's not the fire chief (who's even taller than Tim!)

Yreka's Siskiyou Daily News

Everyone who likes movies should know this site.

The Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Another site by a writer. This is Orson Scott Card's site. I recommend his Ender series and his Alvin Maker series.

Hatrack River - The Official Web Site of Orson Scott Card

If you like long stories, read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. Take your time in starting... he's still writing.

`Dragonmount` | Where Prophecy is Born

What can I say? I like Weird Al.

The Official "Weird Al" Yankovic Web Site

I've read references to many old folk songs and rarely heard them. Or I've heard things my father sings, or things from my grandmother and here they are. I recommend you take plenty of time to browse this site.

Folk Music of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales and America

This should be obvious and a site to hit at least once a week. Check out the Movie.

Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004

I posted a lot of stuff on this group a while back. One of these days I'll move the good stuff over here. This is about my pituitary tumor.

Pituitary Tumor

A great resource I have used to get me into the Catholic mindset. I was an Evangelical and Pentecostal for 25 years... becoming Catholic again took some study. Especially when I went to 'Christian' sites and told them I was Catholic. That was a great way to learn more apologetics. And this site had the answers I needed.

Catholic Answers: Catholic Apologetics, Catholic Evangelization, Catholic Teachings, Catholic Radio, Catholic Publishing, Catholic Truth

I would be remiss should I neglect the web community on MSN I started some time ago. The Woodshed is a place for Christians to argue. I'm often accused of being one-sided and biased. Ok... so why else would I start my own group?

Christian Singles Woodshed

I've been trying to think of something to do to get my blog rolling, so I came up with this: I'll go to many of my favorite places on the www and share them with you.

This first is Jannie Rogers' blog. Mostly she posts articles, but there can be fun stuff. She was my editor when I lived in Texas and worked for Youth With A Mission.

JannyRants

Google Blog

I got to thinking about a way to dilute the power of politicians. A serious problem is Washington, D.C. as the locus of government. Since all the political power heads that way, so do those who want to influence it. The lobbyists become the congressman's constituancy, leaving the folks at home with a small voice. Also, if the politican were to be grounded by staying close to home, there might be less idiocy in D.C.

I suggest we use modern technology to give every congressman an office in his home district with modern telecommunications. He can go to his office for sessions and to meet with the other congressmen, all by televideo. Perhaps they can travel to DC once a year for meetings, and pictures and to show the kids the museums, but if they live at home where we can get to them, and where their communication can be monitored, they might not forget from whence they come.

An added benefit would be the problems faced by the lobbyists. They'd have to chase them down at much greater expense.

I know that this is impractical, but a guy can dream, can't he?

D'Souza gives an excellent rebuttal to Soros', and most liberal, arguments against the war in Iraq. But it is the point about the makeup of the UN that got me to comment.

National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com)

He says that the UN is a collection of despots and tyrants. My question is, why are we there? It's obvious that our government wants a world body to give us legitimacy when we need it, but getting it from the criminals on the East River is a waste of time.

We should kick the UN out of the US and announce a new world organization... one made up of democracies. Any and all democracies are welcome to membership. Set this organization up in the old UN building. Any nation that is not a democracy can join once they change. I think it would be encouraging to democracy. Think of the prestige of dealing with these nations, and the power of the economies that can be generated.

We should remain a part of the UN, if for no other reason than we need to be engaging the tyrants and despots and working to bring them into the democratic fold... by any means possible.