A step or two back :: 276#

Yep -- busy week last week (funeral on Friday, all the video prep for Sunday morning), plus the election (yeah, LOTS of healthy food then...) equals no time for the gym, and plenty of time in the McD's fast food lane. Up 4 to 276#. I'll get'em next week.

How my punch card is looking right now...

OK, a short rundown of how I see the ballot for this Tuesday:

NATIONAL/STATE OFFICE ELECTIONS ::
Ok, these horses have been beat straight into the glue bottle, so I won't offer any rationale (unless, you want me to. Reply if you do.)
President :: McCain/Palin
US Congress :: Emerson (MO-8)
Governor :: Hulshof
Lt. Govenor : Kinder

Missouri Prop A ::
Yes, schools need all the funding they can receive. Yes, I hate increased taxes. But also, YES, removing loss limits when people have less money they can afford to lose is a BAD IDEA. Freezing the casino licences (especially when two Cape Girardeau business men are in the home stretch of applying for a licence!) also bad. And, YES, keeping the casinos in St. Louis and Kansas City (and out of everywhere else that would like to participate in the business they generate is also dubious. So, I think I'll vote NO.

Missouri Prop B ::
I wish there was a way of making sure that the elderly and homebound received the health care they needed, and NOT have to spend their life in a nursing home. Ellen and I help with this by living with her mother -- and through services provided through the Visiting Nurses Association (VNA). Prop. B would create what amounts to a "matchmaking service," where those in need of such service can be matched up with service providers who can help. Most of this is covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or some other program. So far, so good.
But, all is not perfect. Minimum wages for these jobs are set. Pre-set wages are always a red flag with me, especially seeing first hand how slip-shod and lazy some (not all, a few have been really good!) of the VNAs have been. I'd want some way of making sure that good ones are kept and rewards, and the poor ones assisted in finding another line of work, and quickly. The proposition also lowers the threshold for unionization -- any other industry, 30% of that factory's/plant's/store's workers must indicate that they desire to organize -- under this measure, only 10% need voice their opinion. Why the dramatic drop in the threshold? Will this mean that my wife (who provides some of these functions) will either have to join the union (and pay dues from a non-existant paycheck from her mother!), or stop doing what she does, merely because 10% of these health care workers state-wide want to unionize? Amazingly enough, a big backer of this measure is the SEIU (Service Employee's International Union).
Providing quality health care would get a yes vote. Passing a proposition to help pad a union's membership roles gets a no vote. Sorry, this doesn't pass the smell test at all! NO

(More info can be found in this "Letter To The Editor" from the Southeast Missourian here)

MO Constitutional Amendment 1 :: English as official language of Missouri.
Why? I do believe that protecting borders, language and culture are critical to keeping the United States intact and unified over the long run, but I don't see a threat here. I'm more worried about borders and culture than language right now. NO

Starting point :: 272

"You haven't changed a bit (since high school)!"
"You look exactly the same!"

Man, I hate those words. You'd think that somehow, over the past 15 years, I'd find a way to improve on Greg v.1993. Especially in some areas.

In one area I know I've changed. In 1993, I tipped the scales at about 250#.
Last Friday at the gym, the scales at FitnessPlus showed I had made a slight improvement. Only 272#, down 10# from last month.

For those of you who don't know me, haven't seen me in a while (or have struggled to forget me...for some weird reason...), I have been blessed with many things in my life, especially an great appreciation for well cooked foods (in the finest German and Southern traditions -- meaning lots of fat, yeasts and sugars), and fine, friendly folks ever eager to make sure I never go wanting in this regard. So, this afternoon, after a fun day at St. Andrew of troubleshooting microphones on the fly, making sure the Powerpoint worked, and that the video recording was being captured into Adobe Premier just like it should, I had an idea. Actually, I remembered an idea.

Several years ago, while I was burning time browsing through blogs, I came across one where the writer would, every week, post how he was doing in his battle with his belly. I liked the idea in that not only did it allow a way for his "cheering section" to kep rooting him on, but also was a unique way to chart how and what he was doing. Nice way to keep himself accountable.

Soooooo...... I'm going to see if it works as well for me as it did for him. Exercising, staying away from the french fries and other junk -- saying it is easy. Sticking with it -- a bit harder.

So, how 'bout it? Let me know what you think. As of right now, let the battle start at the 272 line. I'll let you know how it goes.

Something that doesn't get trumpteted enough. Since we're remembering everyone who's gotten their boots dirty in stuff like this...

Change That Matters
Matthew Continetti Fri May 23, 9:49 PM ET
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 013, Issue 36 - 6/2/2008 -

General David Petraeus was back in Washington last week. President Bush has promoted him to chief of Central Command (CENTCOM), which requires Senate confirmation. Under Petraeus's leadership, Iraq has changed dramatically. Why can't the Democrats change with it?

Bush announced the surge in January 2007. Iraq was a violent place. Al Qaeda in Iraq held large swaths of territory. Shiite death squads roamed much of Baghdad. The Iraqi political class seemed feckless. Hence Bush's decision to send more troops, replace General George Casey with Petraeus, and change the mission from force protection and search-and-destroy to population security. The new strategy's strongest proponent and supporter was Senator John McCain.

Democrats opposed the surge almost without exception. Barack Obama said that the new policy would neither "make a dent" in the violence plaguing Iraq nor "change the dynamics" there. A month after the president's announcement, Obama declared it was time to remove American combat troops from Iraq. In April, as the surge brigades were on their way to the combat zone, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid proclaimed "this war is lost" and that U.S. troops should pack up and come home. In July, as surge operations were underway, the New York Times editorialized that "it is time for the United States to leave Iraq." The Times's editorial writers recognized Iraq "could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave." But that didn't matter. "Keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse."

Wrong. When Petraeus returned to Washington in September 2007, he reported that the numbers of violent incidents, civilian deaths, ethnosectarian killings, and car and suicide bombings had declined dramatically from the previous December. Why? The surge--and the broadening "Awakening" movement, which began when the sheikhs in Anbar province rebelled against al Qaeda in late 2006 and accelerated when the tribal leaders understood America would not abandon them in 2007.

How did Democrats respond? MoveOn.org bought a full-page in the Times suggesting Petraeus had betrayed the American people. Senator Hillary Clinton said that to accept Petraeus's report required the "willing suspension of disbelief." Those Democrats who did not question the facts moved the goal posts instead. They said the surge may have reduced violence, but had not led to the real goal: political reconciliation.

Petraeus returned again to Washington in April of this year. Violence had been reduced further. American casualties had declined significantly. Al Qaeda was virtually limited to the northern city of Mosul. There were more Iraqi Security Forces, and those forces were increasingly capable. The Iraqi government had passed a variety of laws promoting sectarian reconciliation. And the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was demonstrating that he was a national leader by meeting with Sunnis and launching military operations against Shiite gangs and Iranian-backed "special groups" in the southern port city of Basra.

Democrats responded this time by saying the Basra operation was a failure and that any reduction in violence only meant Americans could come home sooner rather than later. Wrong again, because (a) despite early missteps the Iraqi army had control of Basra within a couple of weeks, and (b) any precipitous, politically calculated American withdrawal would clearly lead to more violence, not less. What is new is that Petraeus's strategy and tactics, his patience and expertise, have succeeded and now allow some of the surge brigades to return home without replacement--and without a spike in killing. There's every reason to continue his strategy, not abandon it and force a withdrawal.

On May 22, Petraeus was able to tell the Senate that "the number of security incidents in Iraq last week was the lowest in over four years, and it appears that the week that ends tomorrow will see an even lower number of incidents." On May 10, Maliki traveled to Mosul to oversee the launch of a campaign against al Qaeda. The number of attacks in Mosul has already been reduced by 85 percent. Acting CENTCOM commander Martin Dempsey says that Al Qaeda in Iraq is at its weakest state since 2003. Also last week, Iraqi soldiers entered radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr's Sadr City stronghold in Baghdad. They met no resistance.

The Iraqi army and government have done exactly what Democrats have asked of it, and the Democrats remain hostile. Their disdain and animosity has not diminished one iota. Nor has their desire to abandon Iraq to a grim fate.

We keep hearing that this year's presidential election will be about judgment. If so: advantage McCain. For when it comes to the surge, not only have Obama and his party been in error; they have been inflexible in error. They have been so committed to a false narrative of American defeat that they cannot acknowledge the progress that has been made on the ground. That isn't judgment. It's inanity.--Matthew Continetti, for the Editors

We've made the commies mad...

Heard about this on a radio news break on Friday, saw it on MSN.com today. I've heard of movies generating bad reviews, but to evoke threats of nuclear holocasts... Oh well, I hope the movie's good...hope to see it next week.

"Spielberg Movie Angers
Russia's Communist Party"
posted at http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=315822&GT1=7701, viewed 2008-05-24 at 5:15 p.m.

MOSCOW (AP) -- Members of Russia's Communist Party are calling for a nationwide boycott of the new Indiana Jones movie, saying it aims to undermine communist ideology and distort history.
"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" stars Harrison Ford as an archaeologist competing in 1957 with an evil KGB agent, played by Cate Blanchett, to find a skull endowed with mystic powers.
It hit Russian screens Thursday.
Communist Party members in St. Petersburg said on a web site this week that the Soviet Union in 1957 "did not send terrorists to the States," but launched a satellite, "which evoked the admiration of the whole world."
Moscow Communist lawmaker Andrei Andreyev said Saturday "it is very disturbing if talented directors want to provoke a new Cold War."

"Christians Should Keep Scripture Out Of Politics" by Uwe Siemon-Netto

Man, it's been a while. Found this article that caught my eye, if for no other reason, (a) it's election season, and for nutcases like me, it's always interesting this time of year, and (b) the article draws a lot from the philosophy and theology of fellow Lutherans Martin Luther and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I've added my comments, and highlighted them in red, just like this. Pretty, ain't it...

"Christians Should Keep Scripture Out Of Politics"
by :: Uwe Siemon-Netto
Posted 4:00 AM ET, Friday, April 18 at http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080418/cm_csm/ysiemonnetto;_ylt=An5e1XLenT5Z1xXdemmkz7X9wxIF

St. Louis - What is Christianity's proper role in American presidential politics? This question has gripped the 2008 campaign. From the dispute over the acceptability of Mitt Romney's Mormonism, to Mike Huckabee's musings about conforming the US Constitution more to the Bible and the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, the spiritual and secular realms have collided fiercely. Just this week, Senator Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton fielded questions from US religious leaders at a special forum broadcast on CNN.

More broadly, arguments over public policies – from war to illegal immigration – are increasingly being infused with scriptural justifications.

The media, of course, relish such controversy. So do many religious leaders, who use the occasion to offer the "real" interpretation of what Scripture says about a particular issue. As a result, religion and politics aren't just mingling – they're being wedded to the same goal: redeeming America's body politic.

A largely Protestant nation that can trace its theological taproot to Martin Luther ought to know better. As the original Reformer, Luther understood how critical it was to separate church and state and, in a more important sense, the spiritual kingdom of Christ and the secular realm where God reigns in a hidden way through humans using reason as a guide.

This is new -- I didn't know that Luther was such a separatist. But since quite a few of the world's princes and kings held their religious allegiance to the Vatican, whose level of influence would greatly increase if Luther would disappear under their watch, it wouldn't surprise me that Luther wouldn't mind keeping kingdoms of earth and heaven a little bit further apart. I wouldn't mind seeing something in the Book of Concord, or the Augsburg Confessions to back that point up...

That is not to say that Christians today shouldn't let their Christianity inform their political values and action. They should. But the Bible is not a political playbook. Christians, or adherents of any religion for that matter, should refrain from using holy text to fight politically over human concerns. Using Christian doctrine to push a political agenda is not just rude – it is a dangerous departure from the core message of Christianity: salvation by grace through faith.

Watching the primaries, I would never confuse the Bible with a how-to guide from Carville or Rove. But why not gauge political decisions against God's word? True, I look with extreme skepticism on laws, rules, and policies whose sole justification is one man's/groups interpretation of scripture. But the central message of "faith alone in God's grace alone, and God's word alone" isn't the only message in the Bible. You could make a strong argument that this message runs at the same level of importance as the Great Commandment

Jesus said, "The first in importance is, 'Listen, Israel: The Lord your God is one; so love the Lord God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence and energy.' And here is the second: 'Love others as well as you love yourself.' There is no other commandment that ranks with these." Mark 12:29-31, MSG

Believing that the Bible isn't any sort of answerbook or guide book to how one should live life here on earth, I believe, leaves a LOT of the Bible out. How else to describe the book of Proverbs?

Christ Jesus was not crucified to make society nicer or fairer; no, he suffered to redeem the believer from sin.

Did not Christ tell Pontius Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36)? Which of these seven words is so hard to understand?

Possible the part where Jesus is telling Pilate that, while he has the ability to "veto" whatever decision he, or the Pharisees, or the shouting mob makes, this isn't God's kingdom, it's the kingdom of mortal, flawed man -- whose decision will stand. I see this as the result of what may be the second greatest gift God gave human kind (aside from justification, of course!) -- the gift of free will. God could very well make us mind numbed robots -- but doesn't. He wants us to love him, but that is only possible if we have the ability and choice not to. Pilate's decision wasn't Christ's to make.

Yet the clarity of Christ's statement hasn't stopped mankind from trying to bring heaven to earth ever since – mostly through political tyrannies of the collectivist utopian variety.

Luther understood these temptations. "The devil never stops cooking and brewing these two kingdoms together," he wrote, referring to the spiritual and the secular realms. With these words in mind, Lutherans – or at least Lutherans strongly committed to the confessional writings of their church – shake their heads over the misuse of Scripture in American politics on both sides of the political divide. (Emphasis mine -- GR)

Whodathunk? Flawed, sinful, mortal men misusing scripture? Yes, the devil is constantly at work, turning us against ourselves, and against God. And what better tool than objects that are given to us by God? That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater -- we look at issues with a discerning eye, and use our knowledge, wisdom, as well as prayer, to make our decision.

How, then, should Christians engage in political affairs? Through the language of reason in the framework of natural law.

Citing Paul, Luther reminded Christians that natural law is "written with the finger of God" on people's hearts, a fact to which their conscience "bears witness." Thus, Christians who want to publicly oppose the practice of abortion and same-sex marriage do not need to quote the Bible to do so. Instead, they can appeal to logic and universal principles that exist, not by man's decree, but by, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God."

Unfortunately, "natural law" isn't always the same as the United States Code, or the Official Statutes of (insert your own state here...). Natural law, in my own, humble, lay person opinion, would say you don't kill your own children. It would say that a man and a woman would be joined in a marital union. It's through our political system, flawed and full of pitfalls as it may be, which we write our own laws. By using the Bible as a guide, we might just get our laws close to "natural law."

Sadly, natural-law thinking became unfashionable in the two centuries after Jean Jacques Rousseau. This philosopher behind the French Revolution extolled instead man-made "positive law," which was detached from the universal ethic usually attributed to divine authorship.

In this context it is worth noting how the 20th-century Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer judged the French Revolution, whose utopian dream was the liberation of man from all constraint. To the martyred Bonhoeffer, this Revolution was "the laying bare of the emancipated man in his tremendous power and most horrible perversity," a false liberation that leads only to man's self-destruction. He saw both Communism and Nazism as the French Revolution's heirs. (Emphasis mine - GR)

Does "the liberation of man from all constraint" mean the liberation from the evil kings and emperors of the world? Or does it also imply the liberation of man from all rules, including those set down by God? Please remember, that in past experiments with Communism, the church (Christian and otherwise) were either banned or, in the case of China, handled closely by the government. In the church's place was the government.

Natural law is the "operating system" in what Luther called the "left-hand kingdom," where God reigns in a hidden way "through good and bad princes," who in a democracy include the voters. In this secular realm, "reason is the empress," Luther said, describing reason as a gift from God that enables humanity to manage this temporal world.

Bonhoeffer considered the inability to distinguish between the spiritual and earthly kingdoms a major flaw of American theologies that manifest themselves as organized struggles against some particular worldly evil. "It is necessary to free oneself from the way of thinking, which sets out from human problems and which asks for solutions on this basis. Such thinking is unbiblical," he asserted. "The way of all Christian thinking leads not from the world to God but from God to the world."

My church last year underwent what for us was a major project -- building a "fishing village" in Haiti. This was inspired by Matthew 25:31-46: a portion of which -- "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." (vs. 40) So, by using the Bible to guide our thoughts, goals and missions to serve our fellow man, these efforts were unbiblical? Should I adopt an "I believe, I'm saved, that's good enough for me" attitude? Or should I reach out, extend a helping hand, and share God's love. Last week's sermon held this quote from Rev. Tony Campolo: "We dare not talk about the love that was expressed on Calvary unless people feel that love coming from us in acts of compassion." I'll finish this thought in just a moment...

Luther proclaimed a liberating message "that society need not be run by the Church in order to be ruled by God," according to the late William Lazareth, a former Lutheran bishop of New York. Yet too many Protestants have a hard time grasping the breathtaking implication of this insight.

To be sure, it would be desirable if more people turned to the Bible more often for everyday guidance. But the Gospel has nothing to say about traffic rules, illegal immigration, the price of gasoline, or the Iraq war.

Oops. The 11th commandment? "Thou shalt not run red lights, nor photograph any driver who runs a red light"? "Thou shalt have a green card?" I'll ask my pastor this Sunday, but I don't think that Jesus ever got around to writing the Driver's License Manual. But it gets a little bit more serious once you start talking about wars, though. Here, we're talking about justified homicide writ large. Here we're talking about preservation of liberty, free will. And in some cases (World War II for starters) we're talking about good vs. evil. "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." (I wish I remembered who said that...) And how do good men find out what to respond to, which fights to fight, and how to fight them?

The Gospel – the good news of salvation through Christ – is the Christians' highest good. Thus it is difficult to fathom why so many of them insist on exposing this magnificent treasure to public derision by using it for the wrong purpose. The Gospel can illume the believer's reason in his secular pursuits but is not meant to be a script for them.

Now we're getting close to agreement here.

Half a millennium after Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg, it makes sense to ponder his down-to-earth comment that in politics, as in all other aspects of secular life, Christians must act reasonably according to natural law. The Gospel has freed them to do just that; it must not be perverted into a weapon to be slapped around other people's heads.

• Uwe Siemon-Netto, a former religion editor for United Press International, is director of the Center for Lutheran Theology and Public Life in St. Louis. This essay was adapted from a longer version originally published by Christianity Today.

I'm going to have to read the whole version and educate myself a bit better before digging my grave any deeper. But what do you think?

Bush Whacking At A Wall...

Came across this op/ed, titled "Bush Whacks the Wall of Separation," by John Nichols from The Nation, courtesy of yahoo.com. It made some comments about President Bush's weekly radio address. Some of it struck me as slightly odd, so I thought I'd post some insights here as we go along.

Thomas Jefferson observed in his January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists that America was not a church state.

As such, he explained, it was the president's duty to refrain from displays of religious devotion."

Wha...? OK, so we need to require that someone check their Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or whatever at the door before they're sworn in as president? Quite frankly, the fact that they believe in something higher than themselves plays a substantial role in who I vote for.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god (sic), that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state," wrote Jefferson. "[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Note the phrase: "I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church..."

Keep in mind, that at this writing, King George of England was the leader of the Anglican Church. Absolute monarchs throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance were seen as divinely chosen -- God put them there, and therefore, should be obeyed as such. In the case of Great Britain, the King was also the equivalent of "pope" in the Anglican Church. Hence, the potential source of Jefferson's viewpoint where "an Executive is the legal head of a national church." This is true in very few other places, if any at all. (I'm excluding a ruler, dictator, despot, or any other governmental systems that try to set themselves up as god.) Continuing...

Now, note, George W. Bush's Easter Weekend radio address, in which the Jefferson's successor as president of the United States, quoted from and repeatedly referenced the Christian Bible. The address was more religious in tone and text than those delivered today even by the executives of states that identify as having a national church.

I hate to let you in on a dirty little secret, but the clear majority of Americans are Christians. And Easter is a pretty important celebration in Christianity. President Bush is more likely than not a Christian. So it should surprise no one that President Bush's address this weekend would include a few quotes from the Bible. Would we similarly chastise the President for quoting the Declaration of Independence right before July 4?

Sounding more like a pastor than a president, Bush spoke of remembering remember "a sacrifice that transcended the grave and redeemed the world" and "the gift that took away death's sting and opened the door to eternal life."

See above. These are some of the basic tenets of Christianity. Toss in the forgiveness of sins and John 3:16, and you've got a pretty good entry into Christianity 101.

Bush even declared, with a bias more toward the "Onward Christian Soldiers" camp than the "thou shalt not kill" teachings of the faith, that "America is blessed with the world's greatest military..."

If President Bush took more of a "thou shall not kill" approach, would we also criticize him about talking about abortion? Respect for life? Beating back the culture of death? Nah, that's not as headline grabbing as criticism over the Iraq war...

Perhaps, in light of that final comment, it is best to close with another quote from our third president.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just," wrote Jefferson, "(and) that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Interesting... The reasons why Jefferson "trembles for his country" could be an interesting discussion. Could it be for our many transgressions, or for the hope we represent -- a shining beacon of freedom for the world. Of course, if we're not supposed to talk about the Easter message outside our churches, temples, and synagogues, we probably shouldn't talk about the fact that THE reason a perfect, sinless, son-of-God Jesus came to earth, lived, died by (what I believe is STILL) the most horrific, brutal means of execution, and rose again was FORGIVENESS of ALL SINS. Could Jefferson be trembling because of what he saw our role in the world being, and fearful that we may not be up to the task?