Ask Bweinh! Poll — Most Admired People

01/14/2008, 10:15 am -- by Bweinh | 2 Comments

Today’s Ask Bweinh! poll is brought to you by OxiClean: now specially formulated to clean your . . . baby?!?

Rank	Person	Points
1.	George W. Bush	11
2.	Ronald Reagan	9
3-4 (tie)	Job Tate; Tom Selleck	8
5.	Billy Graham	7
6-10 (tie)	Mother Teresa; Josh Jones (2018); Richard Dean Anderson; Rich Mullins; St. Francis of Assisi	5
Other	Robin Roberts; AC Green; Peter Furler; JMW Turner; TS Eliot; Derek Webb; Omarosa; Glenn Beck; Charles Stanley; Matt Redman; Danny Wegman; Justin Guarini; Bill Cosby; Bart Simpson; Billy Mays; L. Ron Hubbard; Elizabeth Edwards; Tom Cruise; Bigfoot; O. Henry (candy bar)	1-4

Joke of the Day, 1/14/08

01/14/2008, 7:00 am -- by Bweinh | No Comments

A drunk guy walked into a bar and looked up to see a woman with a French poodle in her arms. The drunk slurred, “Where’d ya get that pig?”

The shocked lady snapped back, “I’ll have you know this is a Frrrrrrrrench poodle!”

The drunk looked back at her. “I was talking to the French poodle!”

Bramble for President!

01/11/2008, 2:30 pm -- by David | No Comments

I know it doesn’t show but I’m a cynic at heart. It wasn’t always that way; I came into the world wide-eyed, trusting and naÃ¯ve. When my older brother took me out behind our garage on Olive Street at the tender age of 6, handed me a lit cigar, and said, “Inhale this as deep as you can,” I truly believed he had only my best interests at heart — and surely was not doing something just to amuse him and his best friend.

So whether I can blame him, or the first used car salesman I ever met, I don’t know, but I am what I am. Maybe it’s just an accumulation of impressions formed over the 46 years of fun I’ve had on this big, warm and fuzzy blue playground of a planet we call home.

Anyway, my favorite parable in the Old Testament appears in Judges chapter 9, and I always think about it during election years:

The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, “Reign thou over us,” but the olive tree said unto them, “Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honor God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?”

And the trees said to the fig tree, “Come thou, and reign over us,” but the fig tree said unto them, “Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?”

Then said the trees unto the vine, “Come thou, and reign over us,” and the vine said unto them, “Should I leave my wine, which cheers God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?”

Then said all the trees unto the bramble, “Come thou, and reign over us,” and the bramble said unto the trees, “If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow:”

They chose the tree that had nothing else going on in its life, the tree that would be useless and avoided at all costs, if not for their desire to have someone rule over them. They want a leader in the worst way — and that’s exactly what they get.

I’m no theologian, but the implication seems clear enough to me. The choice, for the trees, seemed to come down to being fruitful, productive citizens who refreshed their fellows with their rich and varied natural gifts — or becoming “public servants” who did none of those things. I hear all the rhetoric about “public service” and “civic duty,” but yeah, right. I don’t buy it.

My feeling has always been that the various hoops we make people jump through to get into high office almost invariably produce brambles. It has always saddened me to see how many young men and women are willing to give up a chance at good, honest employment for bramblehood.

It reminds me of Rich Mullins, who mentioned an ancestor of his who was elected to public office, but added something like: “We were able to overcome that as a family, and lead honest, productive lives.”

Clash of the Titans LXIII: Huck a Conservative?

01/11/2008, 11:30 am -- by Steve | 24 Comments

In this corner, arguing that Mike Huckabee is a conservative, is Job!

And in this corner, arguing that Mike Huckabee is not a conservative, is Steve!

Steve wants me to make the argument that Huckabee is a conservative. While I think this is as easy as arguing that the oceans are wet, Steve seems to think it will require a verbal kung fu of fantastic flips and acrobatic maneuvering to prove. Steve thinks this because he has his own vision of a conservative, and being a consistent Republican gives him some degree of clout in that theatre.

However, Steve is not the mold from which all conservatives are born, and it is ridiculous for him to state, unequivocally, that issues such as the pro-life movement (and Governor Huckabee’s lifelong support of it) don’t even begin to align the man from Hope with others who also call themselves “conservative.”

There is not a soul on the planet that I agree with on everything. I could probably even make a creepy, Freudian argument that I don’t even agree with myself on everything. From W to Huckabee to my own father, I don’t completely agree politically with anyone, although I support all those three with thorough veracity. This is because the greater cause of a person with a conservative worldview is the achievement of a more conservative world — and it is obscene and politically motivated to try to say that Mike Huckabee is not a bona fide conservative, with some of the best traits of that station.

First, Mike Huckabee is the most serious outspoken and unmuddied pro-life candidate in the history of the party. He never engages in double-speak, and harbors true disgust for the attitude towards the unborn in the country. He also is aggressively against homosexual unions and for pulling out of Iraq prematurely. He is against universal health care, which is fast becoming a pan-liberal stance, and he wants to get rid of the income tax — the great golden chalice of American fiscal conservatism.

The governor also makes his support for Israel, Taiwan and South Korea a central part of his campaign, and he makes his intention of further pressure on the Cuban dictatorship an integral part as well. Huckabee was the first governor in the country to have a license for a concealed weapon, and his lifetime membership in the NRA is just the beginning of his support for Second Amendment rights — arguably the most authentic and robust of all the candidates. Mr. Huckabee is also a supporter of capital punishment (a point I personally disagree on, but a traditionally conservative one) and is the only candidate who has ordered the execution of inmates.

Really though, Steve just wants to rail against Huckabee’s history on taxes and immigration. I throw out immigration immediately. The issue of illegals in this country is too new, too organic, to immediately find its issues falling into political categories. I, with my President, support the guest-worker program. Many conservatives do not. But the supporting of the integration of Mexican people and culture into our country does not yet have a political home.

True, Mike Huckabee did aggressively lobby to allow the children of illegals born in this country to qualify for state scholarships — but I think it’s sad I have to teach a civics class to explain that if you’re born here, no matter the circumstances that brought your fetus over the border, you are a United States citizen. And it’s perverse to punish those children for their parents’ crime.

On taxes it’s true that the Governor had to raise taxes at times during his term, in response to the demands of his liberal legislature, but the Governor also lowered taxes with every chance he got. I doubt anyone would make the argument that George H. W. Bush is not a conservative, although he himself raised taxes as President. Sometimes, regrettably, tax-raising is a fact of federal life. And frankly, it can require a certain brand of bravery to do it.

But, as Steve asks us to do with Romney’s newfound social conservatism, we should dismiss the past and accept the candidate on what he currently runs on, and Huckabee runs on a tax-cutting platform. By every spoken and stated stance he takes, Governor Mike Huckabee is a true blue social and fiscal conservative and it’s painfully laughable that anyone should think otherwise.

This is not a political website; it is a website about everything, from the perspective of writers and thinkers who seek to follow the example of Jesus Christ. Several of us, and many more of you, don’t care much about politics, and so I try to ensure you won’t be overwhelmed by a flood of political coverage here. But some of the most interesting issues to me (and maybe you) are those bearing on faith. When Mike Huckabee began to take off, largely on an appeal to evangelical Christians, I watched closely. I did a lot of research on the man, what he believes, what he’s done, what he stands for. And I am left to conclude one thing.

Mike Huckabee is not a full-spectrum conservative.

Maybe you aren’t either! If not, this debate isn’t really that relevant. You might find that the governor’s beliefs match up well with your own, and if so, great! For Mike, those include a desire to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and bring al-Qaeda prisoners into the United States, granting them full constitutional rights and access to our courts — oh, and a promise to sign a federal ban on smoking in all public places, Constitution be darned! And I almost forgot how he freed thousands of prisoners and took hundreds of thousands of dollars in questionable gifts!

Ahh, post-modern conservatism.

I need to make an admission, though. On social issues, to his great credit, Mike Huckabee is a consistent conservative. He is a friend of life and I will not minimize that for one second. But there are three legs to the conservative coalition, three parts to its whole. Gov. Huckabee possesses only one of those legs, the one, in fact, that the president affects the least. And if you’ve ever had the misfortune to sit on a one-legged stool, you know it won’t hold you up for long — even if it has a winning wooden smile and proudly boasts its status as a “Christian stool.”

One of those legs is foreign policy. Gov. Huckabee wrote, in an article he submitted as part of a series in Foreign Affairs, that our nation has been a cocky high school student that “dominates others” around the world. Willfully ignoring the actual history of attempts to gain UN cooperation that predated the Iraq invasion, he went on: “The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad.”

When asked about the biggest foreign policy news during the campaign season — the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran — Huckabee was ignorant and clueless. Later, his excuse for cluelessness pointed the finger, again, at our sitting commander-in-chief: “President Bush didn’t read it for four years; I don’t know why I should read it in four hours.” Condoleeza Rice finally had to smack him down with the truth.

Which party are you in again, Huck? In these dangerous times, I don’t want a candidate who doesn’t know what he’s talking about in Iran or Pakistan, and can’t figure out who his foreign policy advisors are, probably because he doesn’t have any to speak of.

The third leg is fiscal conservatism. Job doesn’t mention that the results of Huck lowering taxes “every chance he got” was a net tax INCREASE of $505.1 million. And he wasn’t always “forced” to do it either — that link recounts his requests for tax increases. But now he misrepresents his record. Fiscal conservativism relies on cutting taxes whenever appropriate, and lowering spending whenever possible. That’s not Mike; under him, state spending increased 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation.

It is not BRAVE to raise taxes, as Job improbably argues to my left (in so many ways). It is liberal — just like Huckabee’s endless rhetoric bloviating against CEOs and businesses. I sense a pattern. And his hopeless plan to replace the income tax with a national sales tax is not conservative. It’s just crazy.

Conservatives share a certain mindset — the underlying principles that have served the movement for years, including respect for life, belief in smaller government and a proper understanding of the Constitution and liberty. Mike Huckabee has the first principle in spades. But in place of the other two, he has something else entirely — a desire to have government solve our problems. This is the antithesis of conservatism. And it’s not at all “obscene” to point that out.

{democracy:200}

Quote of the Day, 1/11/08

01/11/2008, 7:00 am -- by Bweinh | No Comments

“Iowa and New Hampshire will do anything to be first. You populous states can’t beat them, because they want it more than you do. They’re like the people who camp out for two weeks so they can be in front of the line to buy tickets for a hot concert, except that instead of a hot concert, it’s a chance to shake hands with Duncan Hunter six different times.” — D. Barry

Human Nature

01/10/2008, 1:45 pm -- by Steve | No Comments

I like a lot more people than I trust.

Part of this is because I know myself. I’m aware of what I think about and what I have thought about. I remember the things that I have done, wanted to do, could be capable of doing.

Much of it is because I know other people, generally. How they lie. Why they lie. What motivates them. People, in the flesh, in the mind, are not really very different from one another; it’s just a matter of which flaws they possess. One woman can handle huge sums of money faithfully, yet fly into a violent rage when angry at her children. One man might remain untempted to stray from his wife, but struggle with the desire for mind-altering substances.

I get paid to read about people now, sometimes, and the terrible things they have done, to help determine whether their punishment was fair. It would be nice to imagine, as Solzhenitsyn wished, that the solution to evil is simply finding all the bad people and destroying them. Unfortunately, that won’t work — or better put, it works only if done most thoroughly. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

And so I find it can be true that a man guilty of heinous crimes against some children can nonetheless be beloved by others, can be hailed, perhaps rightfully, as a pillar of his church and community. It seems incongruent, it seems wrong. How can a person do both? How can, for instance, a successful and married evangelical pastor purchase (at least) methamphetamine and, in all likelihood, carry on a homosexual affair?

Life is easier and less threatening for us if we can divide people into well-defined, recognizable groups — the inhuman monsters who rape and murder, the unwashed dissolute who “live in sin,” and then the nice people, whether Christians or not, who pretty much get along with everyone and try to do their best.

But by pretending that what drives the ‘worst’ among us is somehow different from the evil that still exists in our own heart, we set ourselves up for a grand disappointment — by ourselves, and by our heroes. And when this self-deception leads us to marginalize our own sinfulness (after all, we’re not beating children or taking meth, right?), we skip happily down the path of slow and steady compromise, the broad way that leads to destruction, an evil anesthesia that scars the heart and leaves us less and less convicted with every sin we rationalize.

Chick Answer — 2008 Edition

01/10/2008, 12:00 pm -- by Steve | 1 Comment

How did Curt earn his scholarship??

If you picked “Dealing drugs and killing people,” you’re a winner!!

Y A A A A A A A A H H H!

Joke of the Day, 1/10/08

01/10/2008, 7:00 am -- by Bweinh | No Comments

Three explorers were hiking through a vast forest that would eventually become Canada.

“You know,” said the first explorer, “we should name this vast forest we’re hiking through.”

“I know,” said the second explorer. “We’ll each pick a letter and then make a name out of that.”

“Good idea,” said the third explorer. “You go first.”

“Okay,” said the first explorer. “C, eh?”

“My turn,” said the second explorer. “N, eh?”

Unfortunately, before the third explorer could choose a letter, a bear jumped out of the trees and killed and ate all three explorers.

Eventually, some guy came along and named the country after his aunt.

–Comedy Central

Boundaries in Forgiveness

01/9/2008, 4:00 pm -- by Chloe | 3 Comments

I recently had a conversation with a good friend about forgiveness. She had a painful childhood, but she’s found a way to forgive those who hurt her — forgetting. She remembers who hurt her and the general idea of what happened, but she can’t remember specific fights, words or wounds. She’s moved on, and used the results of her broken childhood to become a brilliantly insightful writer and poet.

Nevertheless, my friend still receives pressure from her extended family to forgive her parents. They believe that forgiveness means making contact with her father, going back to her mother’s house on vacations, etc. Essentially, they want her to act like the sins were never committed and submit herself to the possibility of being hurt again.

I know another woman who had a difficult life, somewhat due to her family. She claims to forgive them, but daily brings up specific incidences when they hurt her. She believes that one can forgive without forgetting, and sees no problem with rehashing those wounds, both with her family and with other people.

These are three different concepts of forgiveness, three coping mechanisms for conflict in the human brain. Jesus instructed us to forgive infinitely, but did he tell us how to treat the people we forgive? Is it healthy to forget? If not, what do we do with those memories? Where do we set up boundaries against those who have hurt us, or should we set up boundaries at all? Take a moment to think about it, and then please leave your comments and experiences, as well as any verses you find particularly applicable.

Battle of the Bands XL

01/9/2008, 1:30 pm -- by Bweinh | No Comments

Congratulations to Plan B, the winner of our Romans band name playoffs! It’s apparently so good that a Google search for it turns up at least four or five current bands, including an intriguing “hip hop/a capella” group from the UK!

Past winners were Kindred (Genesis) and Stripe for Stripe (Exodus).

Here are the next group of entries from Luke (Struck Mute moves on)!

{democracy:198}

{democracy:199}

Bible Discussion — Luke 2:41-3:38

01/9/2008, 12:00 pm -- by Bweinh | 3 Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next section of Luke, Luke 2:41-3:38.

Genesis: 1-4 | 5-9 | 10-14 | 15-18 | 19-22 | 23-26
27-29 | 30-32 | 33-36 | 37-39 | 40-43 | 44-46 | 47-50
Exodus: 1-4 | 5-8 | 9-11 | 12-14 | 15-18
19-22 | 23-26 | 27-30 | 31-34 | 35-40
Romans: Ch. 1 | Ch. 2 | Ch. 3 | Ch. 4 | Ch. 5 | Ch. 6 | Ch. 7 | Ch. 8 (I)
Ch. 8 (II) | Ch. 9 | Ch. 10 | Ch. 11 | Ch. 12 | Ch. 13 | Ch. 14 | Ch. 15-16
Luke: 1:1-38 | 1:39-2:40

INTRODUCTION:
David:
This section offers the one small glimpse of Jesus’ childhood afforded us. If it was important to know more, we would. If he had done astounding miracles and dispensed wisdom destined to be Scripture (as fabricated in other works), we would have seen evidence of that in the Gospels.

Connie:
Jesus grows up and gets ready to begin His ministry. His cousin John is featured prominently in this passage.

Steve:
This part of Luke is very interesting, the opening movement to a great symphony. There are foreshadowing notes of Christ’s power to teach, the compelling counter-melody of John the Baptist, the crescendo at baptism when the two lives reconnect, and then the introductory genealogy, like a drum roll as we wait for the ministry of Christ to begin.

SOMETHING YOU’D NEVER NOTICED BEFORE:
Chloe:
John addresses the 3 major people groups in his sermon — the crowd (the community), the tax collectors (the sinners or the government), and the soldiers (the outsiders or the law enforcement). Random, but kind of cool.

Josh:
I’d never noticed the wording that people assumed Jesus was Joseph’s son (v. 23). I guess I never stopped to think if it was known among the people at the time that He was not, in fact, Joseph’s blood.

Along those lines, I’ve found it strange that Jesus’ genealogy is traced through Joseph, with whom He shared no bloodline, instead of through Mary, with whom He did. I understand that the custom of the day was paternal lineage, but I’d still be far more interested in knowing Jesus’ actual ancestors.

Steve:
It’s no wonder Jesus is such a popular name among Spanish speakers; one of Jesus’ great-great-great grandfathers was named Jose!

David:
In 3:12, the Publicans called John “Master,” which is the word rabboni. It is a term that shows great respect and admiration. John was not viewed as some jack-leg preacher; he had respect as a learned man of God, and his grasp of OT scripture backs that up.

Connie:
John’s call to repentance is followed by questions from the crowds of “How?” His answer is to love others — by seeing to their needs. Another example of faith without works being useless. And his answer is not to rely on heritage — good fruits were required now.

Erin:
It says that Jesus’ parents didn’t understand what he was saying when he stayed behind in the temple. What must that feel like, to know that your ‘child,’ the Son of God, is speaking beyond your comprehension?

BEST BAND NAME FROM THE PASSAGE:
David: Son of Arphaxad
Chloe: Unaware
Steve: Custom Feast; Son of Er
Connie: Cosam
Erin: Hill Made Low
Josh: Children of Rock

Continued here!

Quote of the Day, 1/9/08

01/9/2008, 7:00 am -- by Bweinh | No Comments

“I want all them kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I want all the kids to copulate me.” — A. Dawson

Chick Tract — 2008 Edition

01/8/2008, 11:00 am -- by Steve | No Comments

{democracy:197}

Focus on the Fancy-Free Vol. 3 — Babies

01/8/2008, 9:00 am -- by Job Tate | 5 Comments

Read Volume 1 and Volume 2 !

Q. Dear Focus on the Fancy Free: Babies are so expensive, smelly, messy and time-consuming. Should I really have a quiverful? — Jeremiah, New York

Focus on the Fancy-Free A. Thanks for writing, Jeremiah, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to say that most beautiful word — “No.” Not only are babies extremely time-consuming and high-pitched, they are also narcissistic. Their focus on being constantly held, hand-fed and coddled, while making every social event a personal stage for their tears is a classic example of conceit and self-absorption.

In short, babies need Christ — but I do not feel called to that mission field.

I adopt the Shaker stance of non-procreation. The Shakers were a British religious group who came to the States and established a series of hard-working and harder-worshiping colonies of Christians. They believed that if no one had babies, the end times would somehow be expedited, but they were so successful that there are currently only four of them left, in one small community in Sabbathday Lake, Maine. I guarantee they’re not interviewing youth pastor candidates. Their congregation is not rife with petty jealousies, discussions about introducing a drum kit into the worship service, or talk of bake sales — but most importantly, they do not have to endure the spine-shattering wails of an infant.

I would probably become a Shaker if it didn’t require such long hours of intense manual labor — another Shaker tenet.

Anyway, I know it’s a tough question. Many women can’t imagine a life without a baby, and most men can’t imagine a life without those same women. This type of algebra almost inevitably produces tots, with their Oshkosh overalls, plastic sippy cups filled with “juthe,” and back pockets full of crushed Cheerios.

Kids are simply unavoidable, so the discerning male must avoid these bambinos in any great amount. They are all-consuming! One either spends all his time severely spoiling the youth, aggressively rebuking them, or broiling in self-doubt about whether they’re doing one or the other, too much or not enough.

So yeah, have a baby or two. But show some restraint! Skip that third child and buy a nice home in Florida instead. Not only will it prove cheaper, but it will also give the kids you do have a tidy inheritance — which will help assuage their sadness over your years of distant and detached parenting.

Joke of the Day, 1/8/08

01/8/2008, 7:00 am -- by Bweinh | No Comments

A husband comes home early from work and catches his wife with the mailman. Before they see him, he sneaks back onto the porch, finds the mailbag, steams open the letters, inserts coupons from his rug-cleaning business, and seals them tight.

“Ha ha ha,” he snickers. “That lazy mailman who is shirking his duties works for me now!”

–Comedy Central

« Previous Page — Next Page »