Two Books about Day Care

put a previous post about divorce here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/two-books-against-divorce.html Now I wanted to let you know about these books which talk about some of the untold facts about Day Care. Even if you don't have children now yourself, you might know someone who does and these could point out things that they hadn't considered, and these are books that dads need to read also. I hope you find these interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/Home-Alone-America-Hidden-Behavioral-Substitutes/dp/1595230041/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225484157&sr=1-1

Busy Moms & Dads pay attention...,
By
Spassvogel - See all my reviewsEberstadt actually focuses on parents (that's plural) both Moms and Dads, deadbeat Dads, as well as divorced parents who use toys and junkfood for short-term rewards or to compensate for the face to face time that they can't have with their children. She talks about busy parents who use junk food, videos, video games, locked houses, and perscription drugs as substitutes for their attention. She talks about the dangers that she sees with the early socialization of children before they're really ready. (i.e., putting kids in Daycare before the age of 3). She talks about the dangers of kids who come home from school and are alone until parents return from work. She also devotes considerable time to the rise in childhood obesity and how the above factors contribute to that. This is certainly not a mere "Blame the mom" screed as some might call it. THere is a nuanced and deep look at parenting in these busy times. http://www.amazon.com/Day-Care-Deception-Establishment-Telling/dp/1594030596/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225484929&sr=1-1

Day Care May Be Harmful to Children and,
By A Customer
This review is from: Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn't Telling Us (Hardcover) Day Care Deception provides a focused view of a child-rearing practice that has heretofore escaped much-needed scrutiny. Utilizing current research and insights of his previous book, Forced Labor [There's No Place Like Work], Robertson does a masterful job in presenting a fair but critical examination of the impact of raising children in center-based day care. Day Care Deception's primary value is in establishing the following facts: 1) Parents, especially lower-income parents, consistently say they prefer raising their children at home, or the care of close relatives or trusted friends, not in full-time, center-based care; 2) day-care advocates have successfully obtained federal tax breaks and corporate perks for affluent parents who do drop their infants and small children at center-based care; 3) political leaders in both parties should reconsider policies that hurt those families who sacrifice money and opportunity to raise their chilren at home; and 4) lastly, and most importantly, center-based care is generally physically and psychologically harmful to infants and small children.
The facts about day care are not comforting. Thirty years ago, few parents would ever consider dropping off infants and toddlers for 35-40 hours a week so parents could maintain an affluent lifestyle, but we are doing that today. We tell ourselves false rationalizations like "it helps them socialize," or "they love the toys and interactions." The truth is just the opposite: small children want to be with their mothers and fathers, not with near-strangers, no matter how well-intentioned. As one person in the book asks: if we could all come back as small children, where we would prefer to be raised? At home, or in a day-care center? The answer is obvious to most of us, but somehow we aren't willing to provide that home for our own children. The excuse of economics doesn't justify our actions: most children placed in day care have affluent parents, not struggling working mothers who have no choice.
Families in America are under siege, as Robertson notes. The economic, fiscal and cultural factors that made center-based day care so prevalant are fascinating, especially for those of us who remember the days before extensive day care. I recommend reading both Robertson's books to fully appreciate that history; his previous description of maternal advocacy, and the "family wage" in the feminist movement of the early 20th century is highly instructive. In addition, the developments contributing to the baby boom of 1946-1964 deserve careful consideration.
Day Care Deception is well timed. With the fight over gay marriage, judicial activism regarding privacy, and other issues affecting families and society, day care can and should be carefully evaluated. Politicians in both parties carelessly support "affordable day care", without being forced to explain why other families should pay the cost for this harmful practice. Full-time, center-based day care is not good for children. Whether this surrogate child rearing is morally and culturally justified is a critical question to answer. To date, too many political and corporte leaders have been allowed to act like they are "childrens' advocates" when they prompote day care. It is clear that many of them are not primarily interested in helping children, but in fact prefer governmental intrustion, family restructuring, or private profit.
Reading this book made me grateful to my own mother who raised my sister and me at home in the 1950s and 1960s, and my father who provided that home. Today, that choice is extremely difficult. Many parents today are valiantly resisting cultural trends, suffering financial losses and wrongfully paying taxes for others' day, to raise their own children and avoid full-time day care. Those parents should read this book, as should other parents interested in childrens' welfare. It will help them appreciate the moral value in raising their own children, rather than relinquishing that duty and joy to others.

Seven Reasons To Support the GOP's Nominee

As a preview, please click here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/follow-senate-bumped-and-updated.html

This is a modification of a Hugh Hewitt post and a Big Hat Tip to him!

Seven Reasons To Support The GOP's Nominee
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt
There are seven reasons for anyone to support the nominee: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.

Folks who want to take their ball and go home have to realize that even three SCOTUS appointments could revolutionize the way elections are handled in this country in a stroke, mandating the submission of redistricting lines to court scrutiny for "fairness.""It is undeniable that political sophisticates understand such fairness and how to go about destroying it," Justice Souter announced in his diseent in Veith v. Jubilerer, the Pennsylvania redistricting case in which the Court declined by a vote of 5 to 4 to immerse itself in the details of the partisan redistricting of Pennsylvania.If Democrats control the White House and gain even one of the five seats held by the center-right majority of current justices, this and many other crucial issues are up for legal grabs. When activist judges are more than willing to rewrite rules of long-standing, periods of exile should never be self-imposed "for the good of the party." Exiles can go on a very long time indeed. Ask the Whigs.They can go on indefinitely when enforced by courts.The GOP as well is the party committed to victory in Iraq and the wider war. A four year time-out would be a disaster, a period of time in which al Qaeda and its jihadist off-shoots would regroup in some places and continue to spread in others. Iran, even if punished in the months before November, would certainly continue and accelerate its plans under the soft pleadings of a President Obama. These aren't the years to wish a pox on your primary opponents' heads. The stakes in the fall are far too high for that.

Should You Believe All The News You Hear?

I wanted to refer you to an article from the 2002 Good News Magazine that is worth reading in our current times. As with all of of these publications, it does make good points that stand the test of time. The article does refer to some books that might be worth getting from your bookstore or library. I hope you find this to be interesting.

Follow-up articles from the Good News here and here

Should You Believe
All the News You Hear?
Many people's outlook on current events, culture, society and the world is shaped by the news they read and hear. But how truthful is most reporting? Can you-and should you-believe everything you hear?

by Jerold Aust and Scott Ashley
The credo of professional journalists is to report facts and events objectively. Yet several recent books document journalists slanting their reporting to favor their biases and further their prejudices, especially left-leaning agendas.
Longtime CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg realized how deep media bias can run as he reviewed a February 1996 story presented by fellow CBS reporter Eric Engberg. In his best-selling book Bias, Mr. Goldberg expressed his shock at the way Mr. Engberg's report poked fun at presidential candidate and Forbes-magazine publisher Steve Forbes' proposal for a flat tax rate.
"Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir good for everything that ails us,"Mr. Engberg began. He then proceeded to interview three supposed tax experts, all of whom opposed Mr. Forbes' proposal to overhaul the massive U.S. tax code. He then referred to the flat-tax idea as "wacky" and a "giant, untested idea" that should be "test[ed] out someplace-like Albania" (2002, pp. 16-18).
As Mr. Goldberg points out, Mr. Engberg could easily have found respected economists who supported Mr. Forbes'flat tax- especially since two Nobel-prize-winning economists and various conservative university economics professors were on record as supporting the idea.
Mr. Goldberg concludes: "From top to bottom the Engberg piece was breathtaking in its lack of fairness. So how could CBS put it on the air? Well, news fans, here's one of those dirty little secrets journalists are never supposed to reveal to the regular folks out there in the audience: a reporter can find an expert to say anything the reporter wants -anything! Just keep calling until one of the experts says what you need him to say and tell him you'll be right down with your camera crew to interview him.
"If you find an expert who says, 'You know, I think that flat tax just might work and here's why . . .' you thank him, hang up, and find another expert. It's how journalists sneak their own personal views into stories in the guise of objective news reporting. Because the reporter can always say, 'Hey, I didn't say the flat tax stinks- the guy from that Washington think tank did!'" (ibid., p. 20).
Mr. Goldberg also notes that too many reporters, editors and columnists live in their own insular world, isolated from other views and sources of information. He cites the example of New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael, who expressed astonishment when Richard Nixon beat liberal candidate George McGovern in the 1972 U.S. presidential election. "How can that be?" she exclaimed. "Nobody I know voted for Nixon."Yet Mr. Nixon had carried 49 of the 50 states in a landslide election victory.
Slanted news reporting
William McGowan, former reporter for Newsweek and the BBC and a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal explains in his recent book Coloring the News that the news media's crusade for a favorite liberal cause-diversity- has corrupted American journalism by promoting homosexual rights, feminism, affirmative action, race and immigration over objective debate and honesty.
He recounts that in December 1992 he attended the Diversity Summit Meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Newspaper Association of America. From that point forward, he notes, media coverage underwent a major and lasting change.
"The cause of diversity had become a crusade across the length and breadth of the American media, and would be a defining and dominating force in journalism in the decade to come. Almost every day after that 1992 meeting, one could hear echoes from it in newspaper stories and nightly network broadcasts. Diversity was the new religion, and anybody who wanted to be anybody in the news industry had to rally behind it" (2001, pp. 9-10).
From media darling to pariah
Another revealing book documenting the bias of many in the media was written by Tammy Bruce, longtime advocate of liberal causes. Ms. Bruce, a Los Angeles political figure and talk-show host, was head of the Los Angeles chapter and a national board member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) as well as an avowed lesbian and abortion-rights activist. However, after defending conservative author and talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and charging NOW with hypocrisy, she found herself a pariah among reporters who had formerly sought her out for interviews.
Based on such experiences, she wrote The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. In it she explains that "what began so many years ago as a noble cause-ending the scourge of bigotry-has devolved into something far different. It's not bigots that the new Thought Police are after. It's people . . . who dare to speak their mind and contradict the 'progressive' point of view . . .
"There is enormous irony in the fact that it is those on the Left-the supposed protectors of all things culturally important-who are imposing severe sanctions on anyone who espouses an idea or expresses an opinion that might be deemed 'offensive' to some favored group" (2001, p. 4).
The result is that "the effects of this new intolerance are felt in the media and in the arts, on college campuses, even in offices and factories. The message is clear: Don't speak up. Or else-you'll be fired [or] sued . . . Labels such as 'racist,' 'sexist,'and 'homophobe'are routinely used to demonize anyone who utters a word that doesn't support the Left's agenda. Television producers allow their scripts to be edited by groups that purport to represent aggrieved minorities. On college campuses, student newspapers that don't toe the party line are collected and destroyed, and speakers with un-PC views are shouted down" (ibid., pp. 2-3).
Not surprisingly, all three books have been generally ignored in the mainstream media, even though Bias has become a best-seller in the United States.
Bias affects reporting
How do such media biases affect everyday reporting? One notable example involved coverage of the campaigns leading up to a recent national election. The major liberal candidate was consistently portrayed by the mainstream media as a deep thinker and intellectual heavyweight. The leading conservative candidate, on the other hand, was typically portrayed as something of an amiable dunce, a man generally incapable of speaking clearly and presenting ideas coherently.
Seldom compared by the media were details of the academic backgrounds of the two candidates. Both had graduated from Ivy League schools, one from Harvard, the other from Yale. However, from there the "smart" one went to Vanderbilt Divinity School, where, according to a biography and column in The Boston Globe "he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters" before dropping out. He then enrolled for a brief stint at Vanderbilt Law School before again dropping out and entering a lifetime of politics.
The other candidate, depicted as an intellectual featherweight, went on to earn an M.B.A. from Harvard, no insignificant accomplishment. He flew fighter jets in the National Guard. In spite of an impressive showing since assuming office and the most-sustained high approval ratings of any person occupying that office in history, reporters and columnists still occasionally snipe at President George W. Bush for his supposed lack of intelligence.
Mass-media alienation
Most media firms are, in fact, businesses that promote strong liberal biases. Such leanings reflect a warped worldview and lead them to assume their views are normal while the perspectives of those who disagree with them are abnormal. Significantly, several media corporations have been fast losing audiences, some say because of their profound bias.
Many Americans appear to be increasingly aware of the distorted diet the majority of media outlets feeds them in the name of news reporting. Columnist Jack Kelly's perception of modern mainstream media is telling:
"For people who are convinced we're awfully smart, we journalists can be pretty stupid. We've been driving away customers. In 1980, 75 percent of Americans routinely watched evening newscasts on ABC, NBC, or CBS. Last year only 43 percent did. In 1980, 67 percent of adults customarily read a daily newspaper. In 1999, only 57 percent did.
"Television news has lost 43 percent of its audience, newspapers 15 percent of ours. In other businesses, such losses would trigger massive changes. Heads would roll. If word spread McDonald's was using rat feces as filler in hamburgers, McDonald's market share would drop. Viewers and readers are deserting us in droves because they think our product is shallow and biased" ("Media Is Its Own Worst Enemy," Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2002).
But not all journalists remain loyal to liberal biases. Bernard Goldberg, cited above, is perhaps the most popular television journalist who has stood against media bias. Radio-talk-show hosts with countering views, such as Rush Limbaugh, have become nationally popular by riding a wave of dissent against the mainstream media's liberal biases, as have conservative-leaning commentators such as the Fox network's Bill O'Reilly. Fox has been built on mainstream media's abandonment of any vestige of unbiased objectivity. Fox's motto itself is revealing: "We report; you decide."
Today a sentiment grows that the very media outlets that rose to greatness during World War II through most of the last half of the 20th century have begun to engineer their own demise by failing to fulfill their promise of objectivity in reporting.
There also exists a growing belief that the owners of the vast majority of network news outlets are more interested in promoting entertainment personalities and products, along with issues and views popular in related fields, than in promoting and providing unbiased reporting. As a result,Western society often is informed only of news and issues that harmonize with the opinions of those who control the media. This approach leaves in its wake a distorted view of reality as its most disturbing consequence. GN

Follow the Senate **Bumped and Updated** Because of the Supreme Court Justices!

Previously posted here:http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/follow-senate.html

Follow the Senate
I previously put a post about other races here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/key-electoral-races-comments.html

I wanted to let you know about some interesting Senate races that you might want to follow. You can contribute if you'd like, but I would at least going to their web pages and subscribing to their newsletters for the next couple of weeks to see how they go. I do think this would be an interesting lesson in the government of this nation in this world. The outcome of these races could affect who the next Justices to the Supreme Court are!

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/22b1df98-80f6-4955-bc10-09f9e8d14f1cSchumer Wants Another Six SeatsPosted by: Hugh HewittThe Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has video of New York's Chuck Schumer setting his goals for Dem pick-ups in the fall Senate races.He's hunting for 57, and a filibuster-proof Senate.The GOP needs to rally at least to those reliable conservatives who can rebuild the GOP's bench in the upper chamber, like Colorado's Bob Schaffer and Louisiana's John Kennedy, while keeping great senators like Minnesota's Norm Coleman well-funded against the attacks of the worst of the '08 Dems, Al Franken.And keeping wily Mitch McConnell as Republican senate leader will mean a great deal of security if November goes the wrong way.Schumer is counting on a dispirited GOP base to sit out a cycle, which would allow him to build a big enough majority to withstand their inevitable reengagement as taxes and regulations rise at home and America retreats abroad.The one place the GOP cannot indulge any grudges is with the Senate and its six year terms. Holding the line there is crucial to keeping the U.S. from absurd and far-reaching errors should Obama head-fake his way to the presidency.
Schaffer for Senate
Kennedy for Senate
Coleman for Senate
McConnell for Senate
http://www.gordonsmith.com/
http://www.teamsununu.org/
Chuck Schumer thinks he's riding a huge wave to being the power behind the thrones in D.C. The willingness of the GOP base to dig deep over the next few days will prove him right or wrong.
If you really would like to follow all this, an interesting link is here http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Secure/SignUp.aspx?ExternalEmailSignup=

Two Books Against Divorce

I previously sent a recommendation here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/two-books-on-marriage.html about some interesting marriage books. Now I'm sending some recommended books against divorce. Granted, the Bible does give allowances for divorce in some instances like fornication, abandonment, and non-acceptance by a non-Christian spouse, but nevertheless in some cases divorce can cause unexpected problems, both for the marriage partners and any children. I hope you find this interesting. Also, don't hesitate to look for these books in the library or bookstore!

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Divorce-Diane-Medved/dp/0804106339/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225397857&sr=1-1

Logic helps provide a case against divorce, eases the pain,
By A CustomerI read this book because I wanted to read a book from the perspective of "working it out". I expected to be able to argue with any reason for staying together because I had been betrayed. I'm grateful that I read it with an open mind because I found most of my reasons right there and the author provided solid evidence to challenge my justifications. I still don't know where I stand as far as getting a divorce or staying married, but it stopped me in my tracks. I was so hurt that I wanted to cut my husband of my life, just to be rid of the pain. But, even though the divorce papers may be signed, there is still a deep loss. It's a popular misconception that once the divorce is signed, there will be relief. Even though my husband betrayed me, I saw that I was not 100% the victim and thousands of people have experienced what I have and that there is hope. This is a great book to read if when you think that you're sure you want a divorce. You may change your mind. Even if you don't, this book does give a case against divorce. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b_0_15?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=unexpected+legacy+of+divorce&sprefix=unexpected+lega&x=10&y=18

Gem Of A Book For Those Facing Or Involved With Divorce !,
By
Irvin Goodman - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: The 25 Year Landmark Study (Hardcover) The brand new 352 page book really spells out with great insight how children are affected by divorce. Written by a true authority in the field, Dr. Wallerstein's book should be required reading for parents in troubled marriages. Kids of such marriages are OWED this information. Through her many interviews with children of divorced parents, she has learned how they really feel, how they react to divorce and how it has affected their own married lives and their children years later. Just a few of the topics covered include: When a Child Becomes the Caregiver, What If They'd Stayed Together- and What If They Can't, Family Ties, Growing Up Lonely, Court-Ordered Visiting, the Child's View, The Stepfamily, and much, much more. Dr. Wallerstein shows how many children of divorced parents actually overcome their fears and sorrows, and become loving partners and parents. Of great importance is her coverage of whether parents should stay unhappily married or to divorce, a question routinely faced by couples. This is a great book that should be read not only by parents, but all of those dealing with potential divorce situations. A very important book, that can only help the situation.

More Electoral Races to Follow Along with - Comments?

I previously posted about some election races that you might be interested in following here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/follow-senate-bumped.html, here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/key-electoral-races-comments.html and here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/tucson-comments-bumped-and-updated.html

This is another list you can follow along with the links above that you can click.

Florida Congress http://www.allenwestforcongress.com/
Minnesota Congress http://www.michelebachmann.com/
Kentucky Congress http://www.northupforcongress.com/
Georgia Congress http://www.honeycuttforcongress.com/

Arizona County http://icarizona.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrew-thomas-very-fiscally.html

California Assembly http://www.dhillon08.com/
Texas State Senate http://austenfurse.com/

Let me know if there are any more I should know about and any coments on these candidates!

Two Books on Marriage

I previously sent some reviews about immorality that you can review here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/two-books-on-dangers-of-immorality.html Now I'm sending information about the positives of marriage below. I hope you find these to be interesting!

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Marriage-Married-Healthier-Financially/dp/0767906322/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225309715&sr=1-1

It's not our fault. Who knew!,
By Diane Sollee (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially (Hardcover) This book turns conventional wisdom on its head. It will be THE topic of conversation at dinner parties and in singles bars. Don't read it, and you risk spouting off out-of-date cynical info - and losing a lot of bets. No, women don't do better single than married. Yes, married men have more satisfying sex than single men -- and, more often. Yes, married women experience far less domestic violence than their single counterparts. It turns out the reason we're so stupid about marriage - and divorce like lemmings -- is that we've been operating on woefully inaccurate information. For 30 years, the experts have told us that marriage makes no difference. Or worse! -- that our kids will be "just fine" without it - that they do just as well in single-parent or remarried families. We've been told (in graduate school, no less!) that women are better off single than married. None of which is true!

http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Sex-Finding-Life-long-Hook-up/dp/1890626589/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225310723&sr=1-1

Why Marriage Matters, August 7, 2005
By Angela R. Vogt "Co-Host 'Sound Insight,' Sacr... (Seattle-Tacoma WA) - See all my reviews
Dr. Morse speaks for a growing chorus of women my age who were duped by the false promises of feminism. We were sold the completely unsustainable notion that contraceptive sex....that is, recreational sex, is the ultimate sign of power and control over our lives. In fact, the opposite is true. Recreational sex has left a trail of tears, abortions, STDs, broken homes and children without in tact families. Perhaps, worst of all, recreational sex has left us with hardened hearts, incapable of hearing the good news about a truly humane version of sexuality......a quite revolutionary and seldom seen phenomenon today......monogamous, married sex! Dr. Morse has sharpened our cultural lens by revealing the truth about recreational sex. First, she explains that today's notion of sexual freedom has required an inhumane definition of freedom. Today's false notion of freedom, according to Morse, is being COMPLETELY unencumbered by relationships. To sustain such a tortured understanding of freedom, women have bought into the "Sex in the City" version of freedom, or as Dr. Morse coins it, "consumer sex." Trading boyfriends, girlfriends, marriages, children from multiple fathers, fathers acting as merely "sperm donors," all the while pretending that this is normal, healthy behavior, has left us in a permanent state of adolescence and chaos. The truth is that every human being is created for relationships because every human being is created for love. But love is not a sentimental momentary feeling of gratification, nor is it a domestic arrangement agreed to by consenting adults and it is most certainly not found in the promises of career success, financial security and autonomy. The most curious and beautiful irony of the human experience is that love is most deeply felt when it is given away. We find the gift of our very lives as we give our very lives away through our most fundamental and permanent family relationships: spouse, children, parents, brothers and sisters. Lest you think that I am suggesting that only the married can be happy, I offer you the example of Mother Theresa....whose happiness and fulfillment were realized in the love and compassion she so generously gave to others. The ambitions of every human heart, it turns out, are truly realized when we are capable of self-giving love: our sexuality is only fulfilled when given in permanent, committed and exclusive love.

Two Books on the Dangers of Immorality

I sent an e-mail about morality here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/two-books-on-morality-worth-looking-at.html and in this e-mail I wanted to let you know about some of the dangers of immorality that aren't always being covered as well as some of the dangers that misguided reforms have cost. I think you'll find these interesting and you can get them at the library or bookstore if you'd like.

http://www.amazon.com/Epidemic-How-Teen-Killing-Kids/dp/089526143X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225225116&sr=1-1

Finally, the facts.,
By A CustomerAs a teacher who works with both junior and senior high aged kids, I have longed for a book that tells the hard truth about teenaged sex. Finally, I have found it. This isn't just a book for parents, this is a book that kids should at least be exposed to. They deserve the truth that we have failed to give them. For too long we believed we were protecting them by giving them birth control and they believed us (as an establishment). Now we are just beginning to glimpse the true scope of the problem that will face us over the next 5-20 years and beyond if this situation isn't addressed and reversed. I encourage parents and teachers who want facts that will stand up and speak for themselves without being preachy - get this book. Read it. Pass it on to your friends, talk about it with your kids and your students, carry it with you on the subway. Are the numbers harsh, do the stories turn your stomach? Yes, this book is not a 'fun' read. And good for Meg Meeker. http://www.amazon.com/Ceasefire-Women-Forces-Achieve-Equality/dp/0684834421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225225712&sr=1-1

A thoughtful debunking of destructive gender based myths.
By A CustomerIt is symptomatic of the times that any criticism of feminist orthodoxy can only be delivered by a woman. Even then, any hint of allegiance to conservative politics is an automatic disqualifier. It labels one as a reactionary mouthpiece for the alleged forces of patriarchy. Fortunately, there are a growing number of young women challenging feminism's victim-cult politics. Unfortunately, contemporary pioneers for sanity in gender politics such as Rene Denfeld and Christina Hoff Sommers are not likely to get equal time - if they get any at all - in university women's studies departments. Equally so, Cathy Young, a regular columnist for the Detroit News and contributor to Reason Magazine, is not likely to hit the recommended reading lists of those with a partisan interest in the exploitation male female differences. As the title Ceasfire! suggests, the gender war has gone too far and, as Young exhaustively documents within its covers, damaged too many innocents.Young's conclusions are pragmatic. Her twelve proposals are directed toward balance, not vindication of any particular viewpoint. The theme is the de-politicization of gender issues, but one does not ask for balance unless the status quo is skewed, and Young is clear about that. We need to get along. Women have sons and husbands; daughters have fathers and brothers - our issues are family ones. We are the same species.

But radical feminism cannot maintain its cohesion without an enemy. That is why Young's friend and colleague Christina Hoff Sommers once warned, "When feminists quote statistics, reach for your common sense." The "its always his fault attitude" is the mantra of a movement that doesn't want peace. That is the balloon Young seeks to puncture.
Popular media seldom probes for deeper truth. Whether that is due to political ideology, a lemming-like like tendency to follow the herd, or the rushed atmosphere of daily production, false and misleading examples of advocacy research are too often presented as authoritative. Its is a straight line from an interest group press release to the front page - once there, falsehood is elevated to truth. Young has produced a comprehensive counterpoint to the standard wisdom. She wants us to "Get the facts straight." Ceasfire! is directed toward those who prefer truth and insight over perjury and manipulation.

Key Electoral Races! Comments?

I put a post about the Senate here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/follow-senate-bumped.html

Some other interesting races are here, not necessarily in any order of importance.

Oklahoma Senate http://www.jiminhofe.com/Splash/Default.aspx
Alabama Senate http://www.jeffsessions.com/
Texas Senate http://www.johncornyn.com/?ref=news1024

FloridaCongress http://www.vernbuchananforcongress.com/ http://www.tomrooney.com/ http://www.allenwestforcongress.com
Pennsylvania Congress http://russellbrigade.com/ http://www.loubarletta.com/
Wisconsin Congress http://www.gardforcongress.com/Home.aspx
Illinois Congress http://martyozinga.com/ http://www.steveforus.com/
Georgia Congress http://www.goddardforcongress.com/

Washington Governor http://www.dinorossi.com/

Let me know if you have any comments on any of these or if you think there are other interesting races to follow!

Follow the Senate * Bumped*

Previously posted here:http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/follow-senate.html

Follow the Senate
I previously put a post about Tucson, Arizona here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/tucson-comments-bumped-and-updated.html.I wanted to let you know about some interesting Senate races that you might want to follow. You can contribute if you'd like, but I would at least going to their web pages and subscribing to their newsletters for the next couple of weeks to see how they go. I do think this would be an interesting lesson in the government of this nation in this world.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/22b1df98-80f6-4955-bc10-09f9e8d14f1cSchumer Wants Another Six SeatsPosted by: Hugh Hewitt
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has video of New York's Chuck Schumer setting his goals for Dem pick-ups in the fall Senate races.He's hunting for 57, and a filibuster-proof Senate.The GOP needs to rally at least to those reliable conservatives who can rebuild the GOP's bench in the upper chamber, like Colorado's Bob Schaffer and Louisiana's John Kennedy, while keeping great senators like Minnesota's Norm Coleman well-funded against the attacks of the worst of the '08 Dems, Al Franken.And keeping wily Mitch McConnell as Republican senate leader will mean a great deal of security if November goes the wrong way.Schumer is counting on a dispirited GOP base to sit out a cycle, which would allow him to build a big enough majority to withstand their inevitable reengagement as taxes and regulations rise at home and America retreats abroad.The one place the GOP cannot indulge any grudges is with the Senate and its six year terms. Holding the line there is crucial to keeping the U.S. from absurd and far-reaching errors should Obama head-fake his way to the presidency.
Schaffer for Senate
Kennedy for Senate
Coleman for Senate
McConnell for Senate
http://www.gordonsmith.com/
http://www.teamsununu.org/
Chuck Schumer thinks he's riding a huge wave to being the power behind the thrones in D.C. The willingness of the GOP base to dig deep over the next seven months will prove him right or wrong.
If you really would like to follow all this, an interesting link is here http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Secure/SignUp.aspx?ExternalEmailSignup=

Two Books on Morality Worth Looking At

Since there are a lot of current issues having to do with morality, I wanted to let you know about two of them that you might be interested in looking at and maybe getting from your bookstore or library. The first is titled a Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit and the other is titled Porn Generation by Ben Shapiro. Both are reviewed below. I did include their Amazon links, but some of the reviews there do seem to be offended by anyone espousing morality. I do hope you find these interesting.


http://www.amazon.com/RETURN-MODESTY-Discovering-Lost-Virtue/dp/0684863170/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225137711&sr=1-1
Modesty the Modern Woman Can Understand,By
Kyra_Athena "Kyra_Athena" (Georgia USA) - See all my reviews I bought this book on a recommendation so I wasn't too sure what to expect. Some of Ms. Shalit's experiences growing up in the public school system mirrored some of my own. Looking back, sex education, at least the way it was done in my school system, encouraged promiscuity through experimentation and left girls open to harassment. Sexuality became a contest for many at my school. It was a competition. Those who chose to not be sexually active were often pressured and made fun of due to their decision. I agree that our culture "sexualizes" our children far too early. Reading this book resolved any question I had about how my daughter would be guided. Modesty in behavior and dress is not something to be ridiculed. When you have mothers dressing their own children in a provocative manner just because other teenagers are dressing that way, you just have to wonder. I am not advocating that women be subordinate or be treated badly. Dignity and respect are what I expect for all women. When a woman is valued, even by herself, for her sexuality above all else, some deep thought needs to take place. I applaud Ms. Shalit for being brave and honest with herself in order to write this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Porn-Generation-Social-Liberalism-Corrupting/dp/0895260166/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225139002&sr=1-1
How long can we continue like this?
By
Jeri Nevermind "loves to read" (Idaho) - See all my reviewsAnybody out there ever in doubt that our culture has changed, dramatically, and for the worse? If so, this book will change your mind. Shapiro details the changes with wit and skill, but the overall impression I was left with was one of horror. He points out that "moral self-destruction may seem to have no consequences for the individual, but the destruction of societal standards always has consequences...When the stigma left single motherhood, society felt the sting in rising rates of single motherhood and juvenile crime" (p 6). No kidding. Research has shown recently that if a neighborhood is very poor, there is no correlation to higher crime rates. But if a neighborhood has large numbers of single mothers, then, always, there is a great deal of crime. So why the heck is everything in our culture trying to undo marriage? Why is everything that Hollywood produces pushing sex without consequences, when everybody can see there really are consequences? I can see it clearly in the young women I know, whose early promiscuity left them unable to truly love another person, whose lives are in shambles. One young woman (age 27 and from what used to be known as a good family) has cervical cancer from an STD she has, and plus she has an illegitimate child from a boyfriend who is now long gone. It's time to see things in perspective and change.

Womanizer - A Review

I wanted to send this article about a current music hit. The song is by someone named Britney Spears and the analysis of the song is below. Even if you don't listen to it, you might come across someone who does, and this can help you be aware of it in the sense of being in, but not of, the world. I hope you find this interesting.

H/t www.cpyu.org

CPYU 3(D) REVIEW
Song/Video: “Womanizer” by Britney Spears
www.cpyu.org
Background/summary: Britney Spears’ handlers have launched an all-out effort to return the fallen
pop princess to a position of dominance in preparation for the release of her sixth studio album, Circus,
on December 2 of this year. The first single – “Womanizer” – was pre-released off the album on
September 26, making a record-breaking leap from #96 to #1 on Billboard’s Hot 100 chart on October
15, the same day that Spears launched her brand new interactive website. The song is Spears
first #1 single on the Hot 100 since her debut single, “Baby One More Time.” “Womanizer’s” firstweek
download tally was the biggest ever by a female artist. Look for the November 30 MTV documentary
on Spears – For The Record – to further fuel the singer’s resurgence. Like it or not, Britney
Spears is back.
Discover: What is the message/worldview?:
• The song is a full-on assault on males who are
womanizers. The video’s male character represents
all womanizing males in our culture as
Spears pounds him with an unmistakable lyrical
and visual message appropriately embedded in a
hard-beating dance tune. She tells him, “You can
play brand new to all the other chicks out here/
But I know what you are, what you are. . .
.You’re a womanizer.” This is a girl-power anthem.
• The Spears who’s singing the tune is the real
Britney Spears, visually portrayed fully nude
throughout the video, as her sweat-covered
body writhes suggestively on a sauna bench as
she teases the camera and everyone behind it.
• Interspersed with these images is an unfolding story of a young male advertising executive (the
target for her message) who wakes up at home and then leaves for the office and a day full of
womanizing, going from one woman to another, all of whom are portrayed by Spears.
• The main character played by Spears is his female companion who’s been cheated on and
wronged. She cooks him breakfast as she sings her message, all while again dressed, singing, and
moving seductively, this time while wearing a skimpy little open robe.
• He leaves the house and enters into a series of encounters with dominating and seductively tough
take-charge females (all played by Spears) who tease him, then walk away. First there’s the
naughty secretary who answers his advances with a lap dance, followed by the put off. He goes to
lunch and encounters the same with a tattooed waitress who takes him into the kitchen, throws
him down on a prep table, and then eagerly climbs on top. She seductively eats a cherry then
shows him the stem twisted in a knot, signifying a message that says, “You’re going to miss out
on what I can do with my tongue.” Finally, a female limo driver jumps in the back seat with him
for a make-out session, all the while steering the car with her stiletto heels. His fear of crashing
forces him to focus on getting away from the girl and to the wheel.
• As the video ends, the man comes home and is confronted by Spears and all her other characters,
driving home the “you can try but you’re not getting any. . . you womanizer!” message of the
song.

To access additional 3(D) reviews, to learn more about
today’s youth culture, and to order copies of How to Use
Your Head to Guard Your Heart: A 3(D) Guide to Making
Responsible Media Choices, visit our website at
www.cpyu.org
Discern: How does it stand in light of the biblical message/worldview?
• On the positive side, the song’s lyrics and many of the story’s visuals do issue a value judgment
against flirting, cheating, objectification, lust, and sexual promiscuity. Womanizing is definitely
cast in a negative light. The Biblical call to relational and sexual faithfulness affirms these morals.
• Still, the video’s message is one of great contradiction and irony as Spears goes as far as is permissible
visually as the naked, teasing sexual object. . . thereby inviting everything she’s at the
same time condemning. This imagery is sure to do two things besides proving that Spears is on
the hunt for renewed commercial success: 1) fuel the lustful fantasies of male viewers. . . . particularly
very impressionable children and teens, and 2) foster the fast-spreading culturally defined
gender role for females who are told to engage in visual “foreplay” as the objectified boytoy,
but then walk away as a way to exert sexual dominance and power over males.
• The video presents terribly destructive a-biblical solutions to real-world problems that exist in today’s
youth culture. It is not right to choose a “solution” or “response” to the reality of womanizing,
unfaithfulness, objectification, and sexual dominance by choosing means that lead to the end
of an equally immoral resolution. In the video, these faulty means include gender role reversal as
females are encouraged to tease (“come and get me, you can have me”), dominate (Spears is
always aggressive, tough, and on top in her portrayed personas), launch the God-ordained biochemical
reaction to sexual foreplay. . . . and then walk away. The video is filled – from start to
finish – with horribly flawed portrayals of identity and sexual expression.
• God has ordained the process of adolescent physical development. It is a curious and confusing
time that requires Biblically sound instruction, guidance, and input. Sadly, the void of healthy role
models will lead sexually developing and curious teens to turn to the video as a foundational definer
of gender roles, sexual values, and parameters for sexual behavior.
Decide: What do I do with it?
• “Womanizer” is one of the edgiest music videos ever produced and mass-marketed. When the
young target age for Spears musical audience is figured into the equation, it is devastating to
think about the possible immediate and long-term fallout as the video shapes the worldviews of
children and teens. This presents parents and youth workers with a deep dilemma. On the one
hand, this video would be considered by many to be pornographic. Yet, it is a pervasive
and increasingly familiar mainstream cultural force. We must discuss the song and its message
with kids. However, be very, very careful in regards to your choice to view the
video, either by yourself or with kids.
• Parents and youth workers must grapple with the fact that music and music video – including
“Womanizer” – is offering a powerful road map for young females. We must correct the erroneous
messages of this map (which requires familiarity with the map), pointing kids by our word and
example to finding their identity in Christ and Christ alone.
• The video raises several very real cultural issues our parenting and ministries must address in order
to offer clarity and truth in a very confused world: these include but are not limited to sexual
identity, gender roles, love, commitment, sex, revenge, conflict resolution, grace, and redemption.
• “Womanizer” should lead us to grieve for our kids and our culture. But we must not stop there.
We must pray for our kids, for Britney Spears, and for her captive young audience. We must answer
“Womanizer’s” message and the cultural realities that occasionedit with the Truth of God’s Word.

Two Recommended Books for the Great Commission

If you are interested in doing what humans can do to expose people to God's message in these volitile times, these are two books that you might be interested in. (H/t www.barna.org). Of course, ultimately God is the one who has to do the calling - John 6:44- but we can do what we can for the Great Commission's sake!



click to see larger photo

Grow Your Church - Evangelism without Additives Power Pack!
George Barna and Jim Henderson

Evangelism without Additives
Helping People Relate to God. Life-changing outreach is changing. People’s values, attitudes, beliefs, relationships and worldviews are affecting the kinds of relationships, information and experiences they embrace. How well do you understand the shifting contours of outreach? To get a better grip on these matters, check out Jim Henderson’s book, Evangelism Without Additives (formerly titled a.k.a Lost.) The book contains no programs, no steps, and no clever content to memorize. It does encourage you to be you, to understand and genuinely care for a non-Christian you know, and emphasizes the power of conversation. This week we’re selling the book for just $11.50, plus tax and shipping. (And we’ve restructured our shipping methods and prices to your advantage.)

Grow Your Church from the Outside In
There are nearly 100 million unchurched people in the U.S. Do you know how to connect with them in ways that will lead to faith-based life transformation?
In this practical and user-friendly volume, author and researcher George Barna explores the world of the unchurched. Based on research his company conducted among several thousand unchurched people, Barna describes who the unchurched are and how we might most easily and appropriately connect with them. Using additional research he conducted among churches that have had great success in attracting and retaining unchurched people, Barna also outlines perspectives and effective strategies for churches that wish to reach those who avoid churches.
More than 80% of the current growth registered by Protestant churches is biological or transfer growth – very little of the growth comes from penetrating the ranks of the unchurched. Once you understand the values, attitudes, beliefs, religious practices, demographics, life goals, and spiritual expectations of the unchurched, you will have a better chance of relating to them in meaningful ways. Let Grow Your Church From the Outside In be your guidebook in that process.
This book was formerly titled, Re-Churching The Unchurched
Softcover (Item# GOIEWAPK)Retail Price $27.00Site Price $19.00 plus S&H

Palin in Roswell

Palin tones it down in Roswell. The crowd does the rest
By Ben Wright
Story with PICS!! here:http://newspapertree.com/news/2963-palin-tones-it-down-in-roswell-the-crowd-does-the-rest

With “Eye of the Tiger” blaring from the speaker-system, Palin emerged to an enraptured crowd, waving with one hand and holding her baby son, Trig, in the other. The combination of mother-child-politico to soundtrack was part movie, part revival and part Latin-American revolution.

La Madonna de los Republicanos had arrived.
Posted on October 20, 2008
On the coat tails of Joe Biden , Sarah Palin toned down her language and responded to recent criticism before a large crowd at the Roswell International Air Center, yesterday.
“It’s ridiculous that I have to preface so many of my comments with ‘it's not negative’,” said the Alaska governor before a 10,000 strong crowd of New Mexicans and Texans. Her speech marked a shift from the heightened vitriol of the last few weeks. William Ayers had been dropped from the teleprompter altogether while the general anti-Obaman rhetoric was more measured and specific.
“It’s been like this since nine o’clock” said a security official monitoring the snaking line of thousands outside the airport hangar-come-political arena. The hot day saw several people carried out of the crowd before Palin spoke, and several more during her address.
Chants of “Sarah! Sarah!” punctuated the speeches preceding Palin, which included a 20-minute set by country star Hank Williams Jr. Williams was in fine form revving up the crowd with his funny politicized drawl.

Whatever one thinks of the Republicans, they know how to put on one heck of a show. After Williams, the “McCain-Palin” jet taxied into the cheering crowd’s line of vision. Out of it frantically poured the secret service and representatives of the national media who funnelled into the press area, brushing aside as many local reporters as possible. The local folks had been there for several hours and had taken all the good spots.
With “Eye of the Tiger” blaring from the speaker-system, Palin emerged to an enraptured crowd, waving with one hand and holding her baby son, Trig, in the other. The combination of mother-child-politico to soundtrack was part movie, part revival and part Latin-American revolution.
La Madonna de los Republicanos had arrived.

Hank Williams Jr. reappeared on stage with Palin to lead the national anthem. He then sang “the McCain-Palin tradition,” which included swipes at Bill Clinton, the “left-wing liberal media” and “Democrat liberal hoodoo.” Palin stood behind smiling and clapping, having effectively outsourced the cheap shots to Williams.
In her speech, Palin sounded statesmanlike, mentioning neither Professor Ayers nor terrorists.
The speech
“I am glad to be here, live from Roswell on Sunday afternoon,” said Palin, referring to her appearance on Saturday Night Live the night before. She got straight to business after that, seldom making jokes and concentrating on the taxation, the economy and Obama’s record.
“It would be nice to hear Obama says he wants us to win,” Palin said regarding Obama’s stance on the surge in Iraq, comparing him to Senator McCain who “isn't afraid to use the word victory.” She lambasted Obama for deciding to run after only 304 days in the Senate and dismissed accusations of negativity and fear mongering by bringing up Obama’s connections.
“It’s not negative... you deserve all the answers … These associations are important because they go to the heart of a person’s judgement,” Palin said, prefacing her exposition of Obama’s ties to Acorn. Bringing up their endorsement of him and their contributions to his campaign she quipped, “they’re working pretty doggone hard on his behalf.”
“It is not mean spirited or negative when you call them on their record and ask them about their intentions … It’s time we call Obama on it,” said the governor, referring to his taxation policy. The audience greeted his “tax credit” plan with a round of boos before Palin dipped into the details.
If 40 per cent of Americans were to receive a tax credit then, she said, “where's he going to get the money from?”
“Joe the Plumber and Ed the Dairyman,” was her answer. Ed is a new edition to the McCain-Palin entourage. Obama’s “spreading the wealth” proposal would kill the businesses “that Joe the Plumber dreams of owning and Ed the Dairyman dreams of growing,” she said.
“Now is not the time to experiment with socialism,” and paying higher taxes is not “patriotic,” as Biden says,” she said. “To Ed the Dairyman and Joe the Plumber, it sounds more like socialism”
“A great time of worry and hardship,” was how Palin described the present climate as she blamed economic problems on “corruption and greed in Wall Street and Washington.” McCain and Palin would “get the economy back on the right track” and “put government back on your side.”
“You can do the math or just go with your gut,” Palin said of the Republican ticket’s tax plan that would “absolutely lower your income taxes,” cut capital gains tax and “keep American business in America.”
In closing, she said the nation has a “choice between a politician who puts his faith in Washington and a leader who puts his faith in you.”
“We have a vision of America where every life counts,” she said. “That is the spirit I want to bring to Washington.”
She asserted that the election was “going to come down to what we believe in.” Invoking President Reagan, she proceeded to flesh out what she meant.
“America is not the problem, America is the solution. ... We make mistakes but we learn from them.” The American Way was comprised of “perfect ideals.”
“America is that beacon of hope for all. We still believe that we are that shining city on a hill that Ronald Reagan used to speak of.”
Palin left the crowd to roars, not just cheers. While the event was emotionally charged, it appeared more attenuated compared to those of two weeks ago. “USA, USA” wasn’t chanted at any time during the day and the press were asked not to interview anyone in the crowd once inside.
One last thing…
During the day, I befriended an ex-military fellow filming the event, who in turn shined up to the Secret Service agents. At one point during Palin’s speech, the men in black began shuffling around behind us and talking into their earpieces. My military friend inquired. He was discretely informed that John McCain was on the plane and was planning to make a surprise appearance.
In the end, the senator didn’t show, but the crowd seemed happy enough with the governor.

* * * Ben Wright is a volunteer Newspaper Tree contributor who is English and living in El Paso
Photo Gallery

Follow the Senate

I previously put a post about Tucson, Arizona here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/tucson-comments-bumped-and-updated.html.
I wanted to let you know about some interesting Senate races that you might want to follow. You can contribute if you'd like, but I would at least going to their web pages and subscribing to their newsletters for the next couple of weeks to see how they go. I do think this would be an interesting lesson in the government of this nation in this world.


http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/22b1df98-80f6-4955-bc10-09f9e8d14f1c


Schumer Wants Another Six Seats
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has video of New York's Chuck Schumer setting his goals for Dem pick-ups in the fall Senate races.
He's hunting for 57, and a filibuster-proof Senate.The GOP needs to rally at least to those reliable conservatives who can rebuild the GOP's bench in the upper chamber, like Colorado's Bob Schaffer and Louisiana's John Kennedy, while keeping great senators like Minnesota's Norm Coleman well-funded against the attacks of the worst of the '08 Dems, Al Franken.And keeping wily Mitch McConnell as Republican senate leader will mean a great deal of security if November goes the wrong way.Schumer is counting on a dispirited GOP base to sit out a cycle, which would allow him to build a big enough majority to withstand their inevitable reengagement as taxes and regulations rise at home and America retreats abroad.The one place the GOP cannot indulge any grudges is with the Senate and its six year terms. Holding the line there is crucial to keeping the U.S. from absurd and far-reaching errors should Obama head-fake his way to the presidency.
Schaffer for Senate
Kennedy for Senate
Coleman for Senate
McConnell for Senate
http://www.gordonsmith.com/
http://www.teamsununu.org/

Chuck Schumer thinks he's riding a huge wave to being the power behind the thrones in D.C. The willingness of the GOP base to dig deep over the next seven months will prove him right or wrong.

If you really would like to follow all this, an interesting link is here http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Secure/SignUp.aspx?ExternalEmailSignup=

Tucson - Comments? *Bumped and Updated*

I wanted to let you know about two candidates in Tucson. Let me know if you have any interesting comments about either of them. (H/T Mr. Hewitt).
TimBee.comPosted by: Hugh HewittTim Bee is running for the Tucson area Congressional seat that could be a pick-up for the GOP. It was held for 22 years for the GOP prior to 2006. Throw him some support if you can.(And Barney Brenner too, who is running for the overlapping supervisor's seat in Pima County. Together these organizations can get turn-out up in McCain's home state, and get those seats.)
Posted by Brian Lee at 9:16 PM
Original post http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/tucson-comments.html

A very interesting Comment:
Barney Brenner said...
I'm a fiscally conservative challenger against a lefty incumbent. Hugh Hewitt was nice enough to help with a fundraiser.My website is www.VoteBrenner.com.Barney Brenner
October 19, 2008 6:29 AM

Sarah Palin on SNL

If you are interested, here is the video of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live (SNL).

Sarah Palin's Guest Appearance on Saturday Night Live
By Noel Sheppard (Bio Archive)

October 19, 2008
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/19/sarah-palins-guest-appearance-saturday-night-live

What is the Feast of Tabernacles?

Here is a very interesting post which explains the Feast of Tabernacles and what it means to you. How it is being celebrated was covered here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/feast-of-tabernacles-webcast.html

http://www.ucg.org/commentary/great-leadership.htm
Celebrating Truly Great Leadership
A commentary by Rex Sexton
United Church of God pastor, Olympia and Tacoma, WA

People all over the world are keenly interested in the outcome of the U.S. presidential election, now less than month away. Interest in the direction of America's leadership role in the world under its next president is very high. No matter which candidate wins, there will be joyful celebrations—and deep disappointments.
Another important celebration is taking place this month that goes relatively unnoticed by most of the world. Its purpose is to celebrate the administrative plans and commitments of an even more important future world leader than the U.S. president.
The Bible reveals that Jesus Christ's return to earth from heaven will be the most important event in the history of mankind. It promise that He will come back to this earth in the same manner in which He left (Acts 1:11). There will be, of course, some opposition at first. But that will rapidly be put to rest.
When He comes, all human beings will stop what they are doing to witness His stunningly powerful arrival on the world scene as its permanent Ruler (Matthew 24:30). He will return to the exact spot from which He left, the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4), then proceed to set up His government over the entire earth (verse 9).
Many other scriptures describe this coming rule of Jesus Christ. Cities devastated by warfare will be rebuilt (Amos 9:14). Deserts will be transformed into lush orchards and farmland (Isaiah 35:1-2). And people everywhere will live to a ripe old age in peace and prosperity (Isaiah 65:19-23).
At that time all peoples will learn God's way of life from the Holy Scriptures. The Bible describes it as a time when the knowledge of God will cover the earth as water covers the seas today (Isaiah 11:9).
Imagine what an incredible world that will be when everyone keeps the Ten Commandments! Under the guidance of Christ's rule, peace and prosperity will be enjoyed everywhere! Families will stay together in love and happiness. There will be no more crime, no hatred, no murder, no more of the intense suffering that is so common today.
This is truly a time to look forward to with sincere anticipation and joyful celebration. That is why for the seven day period of October 14th through October 20th (on this year's Roman calendar)—many devoted Christians from around the world have come together to celebrate the Messiah' promised return for the purpose of administering His righteous rule over all nations.
The biblical name of this celebration is The Feast of Tabernacles. Its purpose is to celebrate the biblical promises of that coming time when Jesus Christ will bring real peace, prosperity, and happiness to all mankind. This festival's peaceful theme and atmosphere stand in stark contrast to the immense economic and political distress that is now dominating the headlines.
The wonderful, peaceful time that the Feast of Tabernacles represents is commonly known as the Millennium because during that time Jesus Christ is to be the Ruler of the world for one thousand years (Revelation 20:4). He will be assisted by the glorified saints as His administrative officials, teachers and priests (Revelation 1:4-6, 2:26, 3:21, 5:10).
Congregations of the United Church of God have joined together this week at numerous locations in the United States and Canada and in over forty other nations around the globe to celebrate this wonderful Feast of Tabernacles. Yet it is only one a total of the seven annual celebrations that are sanctified in the Bible by God as sacred, annual festivals. Together these seven festivals celebrate the various aspects of God's plan of for the salvation of mankind.
God tells us that these seven celebrations are His feasts (Leviticus 23:2). They are not celebrations instituted by man—or limited to any group of men or to any particular nation. God designed and instituted them for the benefit of all mankind.
And each festival celebrates a specific role that Jesus Christ, as our Savior, has played or will yet play in God's master plan for our salvation. It is He—the Prince of Peace—to whom we must look to bring truly great leadership and enduring peace to this distressed world.
I invite you to find out much more about God's wonderful, biblically ordained celebrations and how they are to be observed as our Creator intended. You may simply request, download or read online for our free booklet: "God's Holy Day Plan, the Promise of Hope for All Mankind."

Tucson - Comments?

I wanted to let you know about two candidates in Tucson. Let me know if you have any interesting comments about either of them. (H/T Mr. Hewitt).


TimBee.com
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt
Tim Bee is running for the Tucson area Congressional seat that could be a pick-up for the GOP. It was held for 22 years for the GOP prior to 2006. Throw him some support if you can.(And Barney Brenner too, who is running for the overlapping supervisor's seat in Pima County. Together these organizations can get turn-out up in McCain's home state, and get those seats.)

Feast of Tabernacles - Webcast Transmission Links

I wanted to let you know about this if you are interested in observing the Feast of Tabernacles. It is an observance which describes when the world will be at Universal Peace. I hope you find this interesting!

Feast of Tabernacles Webcasts
The United Church of God is sponsoring three Festival sites with webcasting for church services during the Feast of Tabernacles. If you will not be able to attend a Feast site you are invited to access the Webcasts here on the Feast Website. Links to the Webcasts will be made available before the Feast.
The three Feast sites you can choose from are:
Jekyll Island, Georgia - Eastern Time Zone
Bend, Oregon - Pacific Time Zone
Kelowna, BC Canada - Pacific Time Zone

For More Information: http://feast.ucg.org/

Slacker Uprising - Michael Moore

I thought you might find this article interesting and if you want, you also might find this book http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Moore-Big-Stupid-White/dp/0060779608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223497699&sr=1-1 interesting.

Michael Moore Says 'Free' Film Not Free to Foreigners?
By Warner Todd Huston (Bio Archive)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/10/07/michael-moore-says-free-film-not-free-foreigners

Left-wing, faux documentary filmmaker Michael Moore famously announced late last year that his newest film would be a "free" download on the Internet. He claimed that his new film was a "free" gift to all his fans. Apparently, he didn't really mean "all" his fans, though. It turns out that his lawyers have sent out a raft of letters to downloading services like www.PirateBay.org, www.TorrentFreak.com and www.BitTorrent.com to cease and desist allowing downloads for anyone outside of the U.S. and Canada because he wants to sell the film to foreign markets. I guess "free" is in the mind of the beholder?

Lawyers representing Slacker Uprising's international rights holder have sent letters to download sites telling them to remove access to the movie, file-sharing news site TorrentFreak reported.
The move - so far unsuccessful - appears to contradict Moore's earlier comments saying the film was "done entirely as a gift to my fans" and to inspire people "to get off the couch and give voting a chance". Moore implored viewers to "email it, burn it and share it with anyone and everyone."
Apparently, for all his claims that he is for all the little people of the world, Moore isn't so interested in offering his "free" film to foreigners.
Still, when asked for his reply to this story, Moore claimed that it was all "out of his hands." He claimed it was all the lawyers and not him. In the past he has also claimed that he was against copyright laws saying they are too "restrictive."
So, a mixed message from Michael Moore, for sure. On one hand he claims he's for open access to everyone else's efforts, yet on the other hand he limits that access to his own products.
So what does he really support? Most likely only what's good for Michael Moore.
(Photo credit: BBC.com)

Meanwhile...Back in Germany

I know that domestic political events have been dominating most news coverage, and it is important. However, I wanted to send you this article (h/t www.stratfor.com) to let you know how things are going overseas, with our current ally, Germany. After reading the article, you can review this book about Revelation. http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/RV/


The German Question

By George Friedman
Related Special Topic Page
The Russian ResurgenceGerman Chancellor Angela Merkel went to St. Petersburg last week for meetings with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. The central question on the table was Germany’s position on NATO expansion, particularly with regard to Ukraine and Georgia. Merkel made it clear at a joint press conference that Germany would oppose NATO membership for both of these countries, and that it would even oppose placing the countries on the path to membership. Since NATO operates on the basis of consensus, any member nation can effectively block any candidate from NATO membership. The fact that Merkel and Germany have chosen this path is of great significance. Merkel acted in full knowledge of the U.S. view on the matter and is prepared to resist any American pressure that might follow. It should be remembered that Merkel might be the most pro-American politician in Germany, and perhaps its most pro-American chancellor in years. Moreover, as an East German, she has a deep unease about the Russians. Reality, however, overrode her personal inclinations. More than other countries, Germany does not want to alienate the United States. But it is in a position to face American pressure should any come.
Energy Dependence and Defense SpendingIn one sense, Merkel’s reasons for her stance are simple. Germany is heavily dependent on Russian natural gas. If the supply were cut off, Germany’s situation would be desperate — or at least close enough that the distinction would be academic. Russia might decide it could not afford to cut off natural gas exports, but Merkel is dealing with a fundamental German interest, and risking that for Ukrainian or Georgian membership in NATO is not something she is prepared to do. She can’t bank on Russian caution in a matter such as this, particularly when the Russians seem to be in an incautious mood. Germany is, of course, looking to alternative sources of energy for the future, and in five years its dependence on Russia might not be nearly as significant. But five years is a long time to hold your breath, and Germany can’t do it. The German move is not just about natural gas, however. Germany views the U.S. obsession with NATO expansion as simply not in Germany’s interests.First, expanding NATO guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia is meaningless. NATO and the United States don’t have the military means to protect Ukraine or Georgia, and incorporating them into the alliance would not increase European security. From a military standpoint, NATO membership for the two former Soviet republics is an empty gesture, while from a political standpoint, Berlin sees it as designed to irritate the Russians for no clear purpose. Next, were NATO prepared to protect Ukraine and Georgia, all NATO countries including Germany would be forced to increase defense expenditures substantially. This is not something that Germany and the rest of NATO want to do. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Germany spent 1945-1992 being the potential prime battleground of the Cold War. It spent 1992-2008 not being the potential prime battleground. Germany prefers the latter, and it does not intend to be drawn into a new Cold War under any circumstances. This has profound implications for the future of both NATO and U.S.-German relations.Germany is thus in the midst of a strategic crisis in which it must make some fundamental decisions. To understand the decisions Germany has to make, we need to understand the country’s geopolitical problem and the decisions it has made in the past.
The German Geopolitical ProblemUntil 1871, Germany was fragmented into dozens of small states — kingdoms, duchies, principalities, etc. — comprising the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire. The German-speaking world was torn apart by internal tensions and the constant manipulation of foreign powers. The southeastern part of the German-speaking world, Austria, was the center of the multinational Hapsburg Empire. It was Roman Catholic and was continually intruding into the predominantly Catholic regions of the rest of Germany, particularly Bavaria. The French were constantly poaching in the Rhineland and manipulating the balance of power among the German states. Russia was always looming to the east, where it bordered the major Protestant German power, Prussia. (Poland at the time was divided among Prussia, Russia and Austria-Hungary.) Germany was perpetually the victim of great powers, a condition which Prussia spent the roughly half-century between Waterloo and German unification trying to correct.To unify Germany, Prussia had to do more than dominate the Germans. It had to fight two wars. The first was in 1866 with the Hapsburg Empire, which Prussia defeated in seven weeks, ending Hapsburg influence in Germany and ultimately reducing Austria-Hungary to Germany’s junior partner. The second war was in 1870-1871, when Prussia led a German coalition that defeated France. That defeat ended French influence in the Rhineland and gave Prussia the space in which to create a modern, unified Germany. Russia, which was pleased to see both Austria-Hungary and France defeated and viewed a united Germany as a buffer against another French invasion, did not try to block unification.German unification changed the dynamic of Europe. First, it created a large nation in the heart of Europe between France and Russia. United, Germany was economically dynamic, and its growth outstripped that of France and the United Kingdom. Moreover, it became a naval power, developing a substantial force that at some point could challenge British naval hegemony. It became a major exporting power, taking markets from Britain and France. And in looking around for room to maneuver, Germany began looking east toward Russia. In short, Germany was more than a nation — it was a geopolitical problem.Germany’s strategic problem was that if the French and Russians attacked Germany simultaneously, with Britain blockading its ports, Germany would lose and revert to its pre-1871 chaos. Given French, Russian and British interest in shattering Germany, Germany had to assume that such an attack would come. Therefore, since the Germans could not fight on two fronts simultaneously, they needed to fight a war pre-emptively, attacking France or Russia first, defeating it and then turning their full strength on the other — all before Britain’s naval blockade could begin to hurt. Germany’s only defense was a two-stage offense that was as complex as a ballet, and would be catastrophic if it failed.In World War I, executing the Schlieffen Plan, the Germans attacked France first while trying to simply block the Russians. The plan was to first occupy the channel coast and Paris before the United Kingdom could get into the game and before Russia could fully mobilize, and then to knock out Russia. The plan failed in 1914 at the First Battle of the Marnes, and rather than lightning victory, Germany got bogged down in a multifront war costing millions of lives and lasting years. Even so, Germany almost won the war of attrition, causing the United States to intervene and deprive Berlin of victory.In World War II, the Germans had learned their lesson, so instead of trying to pin down Russia, they entered into a treaty with the Soviets. This secured Germany’s rear by dividing Poland with the Soviet Union. The Soviets agreed to the treaty, expecting Adolf Hitler’s forces to attack France and bog down as Germany had in World War I. The Soviets would then roll West after the bloodletting had drained the rest of Europe. The Germans stunned the Russians by defeating France in six weeks and then turning on the Russians. The Russian front turned into an endless bloodletting, and once again the Americans helped deliver the final blow.The consequence of the war was the division of Germany into three parts — an independent Austria, a Western-occupied West Germany and a Soviet-occupied East Germany. West Germany again faced the Russian problem. Its eastern part was occupied, and West Germany could not possibly defend itself on its own. It found itself integrated into an American-dominated alliance system, NATO, which was designed to block the Soviets. West and East Germany would serve as the primary battleground of any Soviet attack, with Soviet armor facing U.S. armor, airpower and tactical nuclear weapons. For the Germans, the Cold War was probably more dangerous than either of the previous wars. Whatever the war’s outcome, Germany stood a pretty good chance of being annihilated if it took place.On the upside, the Cold War did settle Franco-German tensions, which were half of Germany’s strategic problem. Indeed, one of the by-products of the Cold War was the emergence of the European Community, which ultimately became the European Union. This saw German economic union and integration with France, which along with NATO’s military integration guaranteed economic growth and the end of any military threat to Germany from the west. For the first time in centuries, the Rhine was not at risk. Germany’s south was secure, and once the Soviet Union collapsed, there was no threat from the east, either.
United and Secure at Last?For the first time in centuries, Germany was both united and militarily secure. But underneath it all, the Germans retained their primordial fear of being caught between France and Russia. Berlin understood that this was far from a mature reality; it was no more than a theoretical problem at the moment. But the Germans also understand how quickly things can change. On one level, the problem was nothing more than the economic emphasis of the European Union compared to the geopolitical focus of Russia. But on a deeper level, Germany was, as always, caught between the potentially competing demands of Russia and the West. Even if the problem were small now, there were no guarantees that it wouldn’t grow.This was the context in which Germany viewed the Russo-Georgian war in August. Berlin saw not only the United States moving toward a hostile relationship with Russia, but also the United Kingdom and France going down the same path. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who happened to hold the rotating EU presidency at the time, went to Moscow to negotiate a cease-fire on behalf of the European Union. When the Russians seemed unwilling to comply with the terms negotiated, France became highly critical of Russia and inclined to back some sort of sanctions at the EU summit on Georgia. With the United Kingdom being even more adamant, Germany saw a worst-case scenario looming on the distant horizon: It understood that the pleasant security of the post-Cold War world was at an end, and that it had to craft a new national strategy.From Germany’s point of view, the re-emergence of Russian influence in the former Soviet Union might be something that could have been blocked in the 1990s, but by 2008, it had become inevitable. The Germans saw that economic relations in the former Soviet Union — and not only energy issues — created a complementary relationship between Russia and its former empire. Between natural affinities and Russian power, a Russian sphere of influence, if not a formal structure, was inevitable. It was an emerging reality that could not be reversed.France has Poland and Germany between itself and Russia. Britain has that plus the English Channel, and the United States has all that plus the Atlantic Ocean. The farther away from Russia one is, the more comfortable one can be challenging Moscow. But Germany has only Poland as a buffer. For any nation serious about resisting Russian power, the first question is how to assure the security of the Baltic countries, a long-vulnerable salient running north from Poland. The answer would be to station NATO forces in the Baltics and in Poland, and Berlin understood that Germany would be both the logistical base for these forces as well as the likely source of troops. But Germany’s appetite for sending troops to Poland and the Baltics has been satiated. This was not a course Germany wanted to take.
Pondering German HistoryWe suspect that Merkel knew something else; namely, that all the comfortable assumptions about what was possible and impossible — that the Russians wouldn’t dare attack the Baltics — are dubious in the extreme. Nothing in German history would convince any reasonable German that military action to achieve national ends is unthinkable. Nor are the Germans prepared to dismiss the re-emergence of Russian military power. The Germans had been economically and militarily shattered in 1932. By 1938, they were the major power in Europe. As long as their officer corps and technological knowledge base were intact, regeneration could move swiftly. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and its military power crumbled. But as was the case in Weimar Germany, the Russian officer corps remained relatively intact and the KGB, the heart of the Soviet state, remained intact if renamed. So did the technological base that made the Soviets a global power. As with Germany after both world wars, Russia was in chaos, but its fragments remained, awaiting reconstruction. The Germans were not about to dismiss Russia’s ability to regenerate — they know their own history too well to do that. If Germany were to join those who call for NATO expansion, the first step toward a confrontation with Russia would have been taken. The second step would be guaranteeing the security of the Baltics and Poland. America would make the speeches, and Germans would man the line. After spending most of the last century fighting or preparing to fight the Russians, the Germans looked around at the condition of their allies and opted out. The Germans see their economic commitment as being to the European Union. That binds them to the French, and this is not a bond they can or want to break. But the European Union carries no political or military force in relation to the Russians. Beyond economics, it is a debating society. NATO, as an institution built to resist the Russians, is in an advanced state of decay. To resurrect it, the Germans would have to pay a steep economic price. And if they paid that price, they would be carrying much of the strategic risk. So while Germany remains committed to its economic relationship with the West, it does not intend to enter into a military commitment against the Russians at this time. If the Americans want to send troops to protect the Baltics and Poland, they are welcome to do so. Germany has no objection — nor do they object to a French or British presence there. Indeed, once such forces were committed, Germany might reconsider its position. But since military deployments in significant numbers are unlikely anytime soon, the Germans view grand U.S. statements about expanded NATO membership as mere bravado by a Washington that is prepared to risk little.
NATO After the German ShiftTherefore, Merkel went to St. Petersburg and told the Russians that Germany does not favor NATO expansion. More than that, the Germans at least implicitly told the Russians that they have a free hand in the former Soviet Union as far as Germany is concerned — an assertion that cost Berlin nothing, since the Russians do enjoy a free hand there. But even more critically, Merkel signaled to the Russians and the West that Germany does not intend to be trapped between Western ambitions and Russian power this time. It does not want to recreate the situation of the two world wars or the Cold War, so Berlin will stay close to France economically and also will accommodate the Russians. The Germans will thus block NATO’s ambitions, something that represents a dramatic shift in the Western alliance. This shift in fact has been unfolding for quite a while, but it took the Russo-Georgian war to reveal the change. NATO has no real military power to project to the east, and none can be created without a major German effort, which is not forthcoming. The German shift leaves the Baltic countries exposed and extremely worried, as they should be. It also leaves the Poles in their traditional position of counting on countries far away to guarantee their national security. In 1939, Warsaw counted on the British and French; today, Warsaw depends on the United States. As in 1939, these guarantees are tenuous, but they are all the Poles have.The United States has the option of placing a nuclear umbrella over the Baltics and Eastern Europe, which would guarantee a nuclear strike on Russia in the event of an attack in either place. While this was the guarantee made to Western Europe in the Cold War, it is unlikely that the United States is prepared for global thermonuclear war over Estonia’s fate. Such a U.S. guarantee to the Baltics and Eastern Europe simply would not represent a credible threat. The other U.S. option is a major insertion of American forces either by sea through Danish waters or via French and German ports and railways, assuming France or Germany would permit their facilities to be used for such a deployment. But this option is academic at the moment. The United States could not deploy more than symbolic forces even if it wanted to. For the moment, NATO is therefore an entity that issues proclamations, not a functioning military alliance, in spite of (or perhaps because of) deployments in Afghanistan. Everything in German history has led to this moment. The country is united and wants to be secure. It will not play the role it was forced into during the Cold War, nor will it play geopolitical poker as it did in the first and second world wars. And that means NATO is permanently and profoundly broken. The German question now turns into the Russian question: If Germany is out of the game, what is to be done about Russia?Tell Stratfor What You ThinkThis report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com