When I asked Father Andrew (the priest of my parish) for suggestions for a homily or short talk on the New Testament he suggested talk on the theme of tolerance, which was a theme for articles in this months parish newsletter. For myself the following came to mind. (John 8)

Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”  This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.  And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.  But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

A suggestion at Evangel as well was from Romans 14:

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since she gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Others suggested Revelations 2, Romans 12: 17-21, and Mark 2:15-17 as well a general reference to Jesus commandment that we love each other.

As is often the case, I before I begin a draft … out comes the dread bullet list. Read the rest of this entry

Good morning.

1. A story of justice.
2. This is not unrelated.
3. Of Jews and genes.
4. Drilling and scale.
5. Perhaps a progressive defender of the President will explain how putting criminal charges (?) and fines on BP will help fix the problem faster (and not slower).
6. In which diversity means nothing.
7. Helen and Rod.
8. Summer is on its way.
9. Girls will be girls.
10. Faster than a bear.
11. Uhm, many (if not most) occupations require the acquisition and refinement of specialised skills …
12. A point of agreement with Mr Obama discovered.
13. Those Iraqi WMD.
14. Against the Obama’s Katrina meme.

Top of the morning (and especially to the Blackhawk fans in the crowd).

1. Of love and war.
2. A Saint noted.
3. And then came the hound.
4. Such is Life  … get used to it.
5. Central Europe.
6. Yah think?
7. Reuters remains … the question is why do they still have a market?
8. Form and function.
9. Bulbs.
10. Eugenics? Bookstores? Seriously?
11. A troubling parallel. Seriously, why the heck would we have refused any sort of assistance?
12. On the alien thing.
13. Middle east kabuki.
14. The putative reset and questions thereof.

Good morning, oh, and go Hawks!

1. More on Ms Thomas (HT: HNN)
2. A film noted.
3. Considering new drug developments.
4. Just a little off the deep end.
5. Tyranny.
6. Working towards the world’s dumbest fathers day gift. Try REI, Midway, or you know … something fun or interesting.
7. Kiev in pictures.
8. Hope for our political future and a turning back of the tide.
9. The next big bubble and a look at real education.
10. Remarks for Mr Singer.

Good morning.

1. The recession.
2. All that healthcare … will not help much it seems.
3. Mr Obama’s crystal ball.
4. And this is not unrelated.
5. As Mr Obama and industrial backers make post legislation push to fix the opinion on his healthcare legislation … one wonders whether how the cognitive dissonance between that motion and his statements regarding corporate speech is resolved seeing as it seems that this sort of law doesn’t apply to messages with which he approves. 
6. Considering marriage.
7. A parable and one of the cultural chasms. 
8. A (likely) much discussed study for today.
9. On Ms Thomas, here and here.
10. Wal-Mart and the unions.
11. Hypocrisy in high office, not just a common practice for our Congress critters and the likes of Mr Obama.

Good morning.

1. Natural gas in Israel?
2. Death of a poet.
3. That statute is in the US. 
4. Meta-linking and the high court.
5. Asia and the NSS … and not even getting to the dog barking in the night, i.e., any mention at all of Taiwan is conspicuously absent.
6. Uhm, sorry. That picture is now presently popular in China … as a symbol of government restraint.
7. A new econ blogger noted (here).
8. A great film-maker. 
9. Turkey.
10. Talking SSM, here and here.
11. Eucharist.

Good Morning.

1. Our Administration, providing work for those out-of-work Soviet 5 year planners.
2. Well, duh.
3. Yikes … or perhaps heh should be the tag-line.
4. Well, when the Administration and Congress critters start considering cost impacts of their policies, I’ll eat my socks. 
5. Public and private.
6. Not giving Obama a pass on the spill from the left.
7. and from the middle.
8. The Sestak thing and the buck apparently doesn’t stop there.
9. Economics meta-link.
10. Gitmo. Oops.
11. Ms Kagan and the stare decisis that didn’t bark in the night?
12. Taxing the rich.

Good morning.

1. Regarding the prospects of one Ms Pelosi.
2. Mr Obama and his ‘blackness’, here and here. My remark to the second is that this is not indicative of WASP-ness but just being a jerk, which comes in any color.
3. Holodomor. 
4. Something to remember when talking heads talk about job recovery.
5. Regarding my short morning post.
6. Heh.
7. Remember this for the next time Mr Obama is touted as post-partisan.
8. Child mortality.
9. Not just for warding off Vampires.
10. Crucifix ban.
11. And God said, “heh“.
12. The addendum to the memo.

Mr Obama is in a pickle. He “says” he is thinking morning, noon, and night and obsessing about the what to do about the oil leak in the Gulf. And there’s a little problem here. A subterranean tactical (20-40 kiloton) nuclear device activated in the vicinity of the leak would stop the leakage with almost no danger of any excess nuclear material being released to the environment. I’m betting this won’t be done. Why?

• Mr Obama is religiously anti-nuclear. He holds to an unstated (unexamined?) ivory tower plan toward a nuclear free world. Using a nuclear device to stop one of the larger modern ecological disasters has no part in that plan. The notion that a nuclear device might do anything but harm would be a fatal flaw for his dream.
• If it works then it would have worked it two months ago. Which means the longer we wait to do that … the more obvious that doing it earlier would have been better is all the more compelling. Which is why, now two months down the road this won’t be done. Every day, every hour makes the chance of acting decisively less easy.

So remember, as you look at pictures of ecological impacts of the oil spill in the upcoming months. Mr Obama could have fixed this and even prevented it but didn’t because it would hurt his case for non-proliferation and because it would make him look a little stupid.

So when you gaze on the gulf disaster you’re looking at the results of Mr Obama’s pride and folly.

Good morning.

1. Comparing the outrage.
2. More on the Israeli/blockade kerfuffle here and here. Some questions asked.
3. St. Justin Martyr, here and here.
4. SCOTUS, Tuesday.
5. Frogs.
6. Meth and memory.
7. Looking at “yes, but” as strategy.
8. Zooom.
9. PC fixin’s. 
10. Freedom of speech.
11. and religion.
12. Range time.
13. Social security. Phase it out wasn’t an option. Darn.

Good morning.

1. Credibility and Mr Clinton share much in common.
2. When cops over-reach … those who are quick to criticise forget this sort of thing.
3. Mr Sestak and the scandal, here and here. I’ve seen nothing at all on this from the left blogs. Odd that.
4. Memorial day.
5. Another memory.
6. Give it a nifty name, its still a really really bad idea.
7. The spill and some statistics.
8. I got a 14.
9. Empathy measured and found wanting. A suggestion as to why.
10. Where to start.
11. Mr Boyd and the Israeli/blockade kerfuffle.

A question regarding promotion of Democracy. During the Iraq reconstruction, the Iraqi people came together and wrote their own Constitution. Critics in this country soundly criticised that document because it didn’t establish freedom of religion, that is Islamic religious principles and separation of Church and State was not firmly established. In the recent National Security Strategy document released by the Administration the same curious thing occurred. In adjacent sections Mr Obama states that two primary objectives with regard to promoting human rights abroad include supporting democracy and women’s rights. These two ideas are in conflict.

The document states the importance of:

Recognizing the Legitimacy of All Peaceful Democratic Movements: America respects the right of all peaceful, law-abiding, and nonviolent voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them.

and

Supporting the Rights of Women and Girls: Women should have access to the same opportunities and be able to make the same choices as men.

It seems to me quite clear that one of the notions held throughout much of the world is that women should not have the same access to the same opportunities as men. And this is an idea expressed by peaceful, law-abiding, and non-violent voices in places around the world, one with which however we disagree. This is just the same as the criticisms rendered after a democratic government forms a Constitution which does not separate Church and State.

Here’s the thing, you can support the idea that people should be free and able to set up their communities and the laws and customs by which they are run. You can want people to have certain ways of governing themselves and modes of setting up those communities. You can’t have both.

Good morning.

1. Girls and fins.
2. A missing point … that it is dangerous to be an illegal resident anywhere. This is not an argument for legalising aliens it is an argument not to be an illegal.
3. Why ideological blinders matter. Everyone abuses history.
4. North Korea and China.
5. One report on the handling of the Gulf cleanup/reponse.
6. The administration pulls a queue from two-bit dictatorships.
7. Will the AZ outrage over immigration now move to MA? Or not so much cause it’s a Democratic stronghold?
8. Heh heh.
9. On anger.
10. Obama’s version of “Its my responsibilty” … fire and forget. Just like his pleas of bipartisanship in the wake and during his own particular partisan attacks the buck stops here comes in in the wake of and during his own assignment of blame. His supporters somehow remain blind to this.
11. A musical tribute to the Doctor.

My weekend homework for blogging. This post has piqued my interest and I think it will focus in on a number of points which are crucial. Of particular interest there is a 50+ page paper by the White House highlighting and stating to Congress our current National Security Strategy. The first link in the linked piece is to a downloadable document which of primary interest. In reading a statement like that one has to read it twice to avoid falling into the Satan’s Hermeneutic trap. One should read this first adopting and trying to fit in and understand within the context of the writer what points he is trying to make and his argument. In that reading when one encounters points which are troubling or incomplete … it an exercise for the reader to supply possible and likely solutions which perhaps were either overlooked or assumed. This is the part of reading which is only typically done by and between sympathetic parties. The second reading is adversarial and is aimed at finding and highlighting the essential flaws in the understanding or thesis of the writer. Many of these points are made already in the piece linked and are a key point in why this document might be interesting. Why?

• One fundamental flaw pointed out is Mr Obama’s tendency to academic modes of practice. That is talking the correct talk, but lacking follow through and any serious commitment to the same.
• Another flaw is Mr Obama’s (and his administration’s) lack of general expertise in executive positions. For example, in the linked piece note Mr Levy has noted an implicit (or even explicit) assumption of mercantilism as a working and useful economic model for today’s economy. Now it is highly likely that his economic team advising him on matters of national and international economic affairs wouldn’t make that sort of mistake. Apparently however, there is nobody who might easily catching those sorts of mistakes in the room when overall security strategies are being crafted. 
• In Mr Obama’s numerous foreign addresses there seemed to be a number of flaws and defenders pointed out that an over-arching strategy was in play but never offered any suggestions what that strategy might be. Well, this document should give us that. Why for example, does is he so short with our allies. Why the verbal appeasement and praise for our putative enemies? This document should clear that up.

Anyhow, I’m not diving into flaws or other points yet. I haven’t read the paper … even once and I’m going to read it twice … and take notes. My discussion will follow at the tail end of the weekend.