Here's a link to the Washington Post story from this morning:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083100724.html
This will turn out to be one of the most costly and destructive of any natural disaster in recent memory. The people of southern Louisiana, and southern Mississippi have a long road of retrieval, renewal, and repair.
Let's do everything we can to help them. That includes prayer.
This one "takes the cake..."
Of all the idiotic things our Federal Government attempts to do, this one certainly takes the cake for supreme stupidity. Read on:
The Air Force's new guidelines for religious tolerance will discourage public prayer at official functions and urge commanders to be "sensitive" about personal expressions of religious faith, according to a draft obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
The draft directs chaplains to "respect the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs."
The guidelines, which would apply to the entire Air Force, were drawn up after allegations that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive.
An Air Force task force concluded that some students and staff at the school have the perception that the academy favors evangelical Christians and is intolerant of those who do not share their faith.
The draft was provided to the Associated Press by Mikey Weinstein, an academy graduate and persistent critic of the school's handling of religion. Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Stevens confirmed the accuracy of the draft and said it was expected to be officially released later Monday.
The draft does not ban public prayer outright and says short, nonsectarian prayers may be included in special ceremonies or events, but only to lend a sense of solemnity and not to promote specific beliefs.
Nor does it bar personal discussions of religion, including discussions between commanders and subordinates. It cautions Air Force members "to be sensitive to the potential that personal expressions may appear to be official expressions."
The draft states that members of the Air Force "will not officially endorse or establish religion, either one specific religion, or the idea of religion over non-religion."
It also says that "abuse or disrespect" of Air Force members based on their religious beliefs, or lack of such beliefs, is unacceptable.
*****************************************
Funny, but in my ten years of military service--Air Force, at that---not once did I see anyone "disrespected" or "abused" because of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
The absolute insanity of our government officials astounds me sometimes.
As well it should.
The Air Force's new guidelines for religious tolerance will discourage public prayer at official functions and urge commanders to be "sensitive" about personal expressions of religious faith, according to a draft obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
The draft directs chaplains to "respect the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs."
The guidelines, which would apply to the entire Air Force, were drawn up after allegations that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive.
An Air Force task force concluded that some students and staff at the school have the perception that the academy favors evangelical Christians and is intolerant of those who do not share their faith.
The draft was provided to the Associated Press by Mikey Weinstein, an academy graduate and persistent critic of the school's handling of religion. Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Stevens confirmed the accuracy of the draft and said it was expected to be officially released later Monday.
The draft does not ban public prayer outright and says short, nonsectarian prayers may be included in special ceremonies or events, but only to lend a sense of solemnity and not to promote specific beliefs.
Nor does it bar personal discussions of religion, including discussions between commanders and subordinates. It cautions Air Force members "to be sensitive to the potential that personal expressions may appear to be official expressions."
The draft states that members of the Air Force "will not officially endorse or establish religion, either one specific religion, or the idea of religion over non-religion."
It also says that "abuse or disrespect" of Air Force members based on their religious beliefs, or lack of such beliefs, is unacceptable.
*****************************************
Funny, but in my ten years of military service--Air Force, at that---not once did I see anyone "disrespected" or "abused" because of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
The absolute insanity of our government officials astounds me sometimes.
As well it should.
Happy Birthday to my former friend....
My former friend, Chris (in Minneapolis) is celebrating his 35th Birthday today! I wish I were there to celebrate it with him, and to let him know just how special he is to so many people.
But alas, that won't be the case.
Sadly enough...because Chris no longer considers me to be his friend, or even his brother in Christ.
Innuendoes, gossip, suspicions, and alot of loose-lipped people made sure this friendship wouldn't last. Like I said earlier...sadly enough.
I really didn't think that we followers of Christ could or (worse yet) would behave as we have in our relationships with one another...
But we do, we did, and we have.
Maybe someday, we will realize just how much we are grieving the heart of God in how we are treating and responding to one another.
Happy Birthday Chris Martino!
But alas, that won't be the case.
Sadly enough...because Chris no longer considers me to be his friend, or even his brother in Christ.
Innuendoes, gossip, suspicions, and alot of loose-lipped people made sure this friendship wouldn't last. Like I said earlier...sadly enough.
I really didn't think that we followers of Christ could or (worse yet) would behave as we have in our relationships with one another...
But we do, we did, and we have.
Maybe someday, we will realize just how much we are grieving the heart of God in how we are treating and responding to one another.
Happy Birthday Chris Martino!
For Heaven's sake, PAT...SHUT UP!
Every time M.G. "Pat" Robertson opens his mouth about governmental policy in this nation, he seems to INSERT BOTH OF HIS FEET.
In the meantime, he embarrasses the rest of the followers of Christ in this country. And this isn't the first time. Read on:
CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela's vice president accused religious broadcaster Pat Robertson on Tuesday of making "terrorist statements" by suggesting that American agents assassinate President Hugo Chavez.
Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said Venezuela was studying its legal options, adding that how Washington responds to Robertson's comments would put its anti-terrorism policy to the test.
"The ball is in the U.S. court, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country," Rangel told reporters. "It's huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those."
The State Department distanced itself from Robertson's comments.
"We do not share his view, and his comments are inappropriate," spokesman Sean McCormack said.
There was no immediate comment from Chavez, who was winding up an official visit to Cuba on Tuesday. Scores of journalists awaited Chavez at the airport, where he was to board a plane for a trip to Jamaica to discuss a Venezuela initiative to supply petroleum to Caribbean countries under favorable financial terms.
On Monday, Robertson said on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club": "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush , accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Rangel called Robertson "a man who seems to have quite a bit of influence in that country," adding sarcastically that his words were "very Christian."
The comments "reveal that religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times," Rangel said.
Robertson's remarks appear likely to further stoke tensions between Washington and Caracas. Chavez has repeatedly claimed that American officials are plotting to oust or kill him — charges U.S. officials have denied.
The United States is the top buyer of Venezuelan crude, but Chavez has made it clear he wants to decrease the country's dependence on the U.S. market by finding other buyers.
Chavez has survived a brief 2002 coup, a devastating two-month strike that ended in early 2003 and recall referendum in 2004. The former army paratroop commander, a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, is up for re-election next year, and polls suggest he is the favorite.
********************************************************
Would someone please tell Pat to put a "lid on it."
PLEASE......
In the meantime, he embarrasses the rest of the followers of Christ in this country. And this isn't the first time. Read on:
CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela's vice president accused religious broadcaster Pat Robertson on Tuesday of making "terrorist statements" by suggesting that American agents assassinate President Hugo Chavez.
Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said Venezuela was studying its legal options, adding that how Washington responds to Robertson's comments would put its anti-terrorism policy to the test.
"The ball is in the U.S. court, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country," Rangel told reporters. "It's huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those."
The State Department distanced itself from Robertson's comments.
"We do not share his view, and his comments are inappropriate," spokesman Sean McCormack said.
There was no immediate comment from Chavez, who was winding up an official visit to Cuba on Tuesday. Scores of journalists awaited Chavez at the airport, where he was to board a plane for a trip to Jamaica to discuss a Venezuela initiative to supply petroleum to Caribbean countries under favorable financial terms.
On Monday, Robertson said on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club": "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush , accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Rangel called Robertson "a man who seems to have quite a bit of influence in that country," adding sarcastically that his words were "very Christian."
The comments "reveal that religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times," Rangel said.
Robertson's remarks appear likely to further stoke tensions between Washington and Caracas. Chavez has repeatedly claimed that American officials are plotting to oust or kill him — charges U.S. officials have denied.
The United States is the top buyer of Venezuelan crude, but Chavez has made it clear he wants to decrease the country's dependence on the U.S. market by finding other buyers.
Chavez has survived a brief 2002 coup, a devastating two-month strike that ended in early 2003 and recall referendum in 2004. The former army paratroop commander, a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, is up for re-election next year, and polls suggest he is the favorite.
********************************************************
Would someone please tell Pat to put a "lid on it."
PLEASE......
My precious friend Gail!
www.westmorecog.org
Gail Lemmert has been a friend of mine now for many years. What a gracious, godly lady! And what a wonderful lady to call "mom"--among the many "moms" that I'm blest to have.
For many years she was the Director of Counseling and Testing at Lee University (www.leeuniversity.edu) in Cleveland, TN. Now she is the Pastor of Spiritual Formation at the Westmore Church of God in Cleveland, Tennessee. Her Senior Pastor is an old colleague of mine from college days, Bishop Kelvin Page.
This indeed is a small world.
Gail Lemmert has been a friend of mine now for many years. What a gracious, godly lady! And what a wonderful lady to call "mom"--among the many "moms" that I'm blest to have.
For many years she was the Director of Counseling and Testing at Lee University (www.leeuniversity.edu) in Cleveland, TN. Now she is the Pastor of Spiritual Formation at the Westmore Church of God in Cleveland, Tennessee. Her Senior Pastor is an old colleague of mine from college days, Bishop Kelvin Page.
This indeed is a small world.
From the mouth of children
A friend sent these to me:
_______________________________
A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales.
The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very small.
The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.
Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a human; it was physically impossible.
The little girl said, "When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah".
The teacher asked, "What if Jonah went to hell?"
The little girl replied, "Then you ask him ".
*******************************************
A Kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while they were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each child's work.
As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked what the drawing was.
The girl replied, "I'm drawing God."
The teacher paused and said, "But no one knows what God looks like."
Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl replied, "They will in a minute."
*************************************************
A Sunday school teacher was discussing the Ten Commandments with her five and six year olds.
After explaining the commandment to "honor" thy Father and thy Mother, she asked, "Is there a commandment that teaches us how to treat our brothers and sisters?"
Without missing a beat one little boy (the oldest of a family) answered, "Thou shall not kill."
***************************************************
One day a little girl was sitting and watching her mother do the dishes at the kitchen sink. She suddenly noticed that her mother had several strands of white hair sticking out in contrast on her brunette head.
She looked at her mother and inquisitively asked, "Why are some of your hairs white, Mom?"
Her mother replied, "Well, every time that you do something wrong and make me cry or unhappy, one of my hairs turns white."
The little girl thought about this revelation for a while and then said, "Momma, how come ALL of grandma's hairs are white?"
*********************************************
The children had all been photographed, and the teacher was trying to persuade them each to buy a copy of the group picture."
Just think how nice it will be to look at it when you are all grown up and say, 'There's Jennifer, she's a lawyer,' or 'That's Michael, He's a doctor.'
A small voice at the back of the room rang out, "And there's the teacher, she's dead."
***********************************************
A teacher was giving a lesson on the circulation of the blood. Trying to make the matter clearer, she said, "Now, class, if I stood on my head, the blood, as you know, would run into it, and I would turn red in the face."
"Yes," the class said."
Then why is it that while I am standing upright in the ordinary position the blood doesn't run into my feet?"
A little fellow shouted,"Cause your feet ain't empty."
********************************************
The children were lined up in the cafeteria of a Catholic elementary school for lunch.
At the head of the table was a large pile of apples.
The nun made a note, and posted on the apple tray:"Take only ONE. God is watching."
Moving further along the lunch line, at the other end of the table was a large pile of chocolate chip cookies.
A child had written a note, "Take all you want. God is watching the apples."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Laughter is, indeed, the best medicine.
_______________________________
A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales.
The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very small.
The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.
Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a human; it was physically impossible.
The little girl said, "When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah".
The teacher asked, "What if Jonah went to hell?"
The little girl replied, "Then you ask him ".
*******************************************
A Kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while they were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each child's work.
As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked what the drawing was.
The girl replied, "I'm drawing God."
The teacher paused and said, "But no one knows what God looks like."
Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl replied, "They will in a minute."
*************************************************
A Sunday school teacher was discussing the Ten Commandments with her five and six year olds.
After explaining the commandment to "honor" thy Father and thy Mother, she asked, "Is there a commandment that teaches us how to treat our brothers and sisters?"
Without missing a beat one little boy (the oldest of a family) answered, "Thou shall not kill."
***************************************************
One day a little girl was sitting and watching her mother do the dishes at the kitchen sink. She suddenly noticed that her mother had several strands of white hair sticking out in contrast on her brunette head.
She looked at her mother and inquisitively asked, "Why are some of your hairs white, Mom?"
Her mother replied, "Well, every time that you do something wrong and make me cry or unhappy, one of my hairs turns white."
The little girl thought about this revelation for a while and then said, "Momma, how come ALL of grandma's hairs are white?"
*********************************************
The children had all been photographed, and the teacher was trying to persuade them each to buy a copy of the group picture."
Just think how nice it will be to look at it when you are all grown up and say, 'There's Jennifer, she's a lawyer,' or 'That's Michael, He's a doctor.'
A small voice at the back of the room rang out, "And there's the teacher, she's dead."
***********************************************
A teacher was giving a lesson on the circulation of the blood. Trying to make the matter clearer, she said, "Now, class, if I stood on my head, the blood, as you know, would run into it, and I would turn red in the face."
"Yes," the class said."
Then why is it that while I am standing upright in the ordinary position the blood doesn't run into my feet?"
A little fellow shouted,"Cause your feet ain't empty."
********************************************
The children were lined up in the cafeteria of a Catholic elementary school for lunch.
At the head of the table was a large pile of apples.
The nun made a note, and posted on the apple tray:"Take only ONE. God is watching."
Moving further along the lunch line, at the other end of the table was a large pile of chocolate chip cookies.
A child had written a note, "Take all you want. God is watching the apples."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Laughter is, indeed, the best medicine.
When you have it all...what then?
As I was watching some late-night political television this week, the Holy Spirit seemed to drop a thought in my heart. What I heard in my heart was, "When you have it all...what then?"
Let's see if I can simply this in writing, as well as I have simplified it in my head...
In my short 43 years of living, I have:
1) Graduated high school, college, and seminary.
2) Traveled 34 countries on 4 continents, seeing much of the world that I would have never seen, except for the blessing of God.
3) Served honorably in the United States Air Force
4) Been blest with scores of wonderful friends, just about everywhere!
5) Never gone naked, hungry, or homeless. Even bought my first home one month ago!
6) Almost always had a decent job
7) Acquired musical, writing, speaking, and other skills that can be used for the betterment of my environment (hopefully), and for my own enjoyment.
As one close friend said not long ago, "Phil, you have done more in your 43 years than most people will do in 82 years."
While it was meant as a compliment, I found it be more sobering than flattering. It was Jesus who said, "for one's life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses" (Luke 12:15).
Looking at all that I have, I can only ask, "what now?" Or better yet, "So what?"
While there are several entrusted people who keep me "in check" and "grounded," the "heart of the matter" becomes very quickly, and very succinctly "the matter of the heart."
I remember hearing a lady who was dying with breast cancer say (many years ago) that "the only things we can take from this life to the next are 1) our relationship to God the Father, and 2) our relationships with other people." And thinking about it, those two elements fulfill the "Great Commandments" as taught by our Lord Jesus.
I'm often reminded of the "elder brother" in the story of the Prodigal son in Luke Chapter 15.
The most convicting, heartbreaking part of the elder brother's whole paradigm was the fact the he obviously never "came to himself."
The younger brother had insisted on taking what was not rightfully his (yet), squandering it on hellish living, eating from the pig's pen (a good Jewish boy, now...), and then "coming to himself" and returning home...
The elder brother--who never left--had it all....but what he didn't have, sadly, and many of us fall into this trap, was the "heart of his Father." Oh yes, the Father cared about him deeply, but the elder didn't take on the "heart qualities" that so defined his Father.
I've often wondered if I am possessed of the "elder brother" syndrome? We never found in the Scriptures where the "elder brother" came to himself and realized that he had everything at his disposal.
What about us? "When you have it all...what then?"
Let's see if I can simply this in writing, as well as I have simplified it in my head...
In my short 43 years of living, I have:
1) Graduated high school, college, and seminary.
2) Traveled 34 countries on 4 continents, seeing much of the world that I would have never seen, except for the blessing of God.
3) Served honorably in the United States Air Force
4) Been blest with scores of wonderful friends, just about everywhere!
5) Never gone naked, hungry, or homeless. Even bought my first home one month ago!
6) Almost always had a decent job
7) Acquired musical, writing, speaking, and other skills that can be used for the betterment of my environment (hopefully), and for my own enjoyment.
As one close friend said not long ago, "Phil, you have done more in your 43 years than most people will do in 82 years."
While it was meant as a compliment, I found it be more sobering than flattering. It was Jesus who said, "for one's life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses" (Luke 12:15).
Looking at all that I have, I can only ask, "what now?" Or better yet, "So what?"
While there are several entrusted people who keep me "in check" and "grounded," the "heart of the matter" becomes very quickly, and very succinctly "the matter of the heart."
I remember hearing a lady who was dying with breast cancer say (many years ago) that "the only things we can take from this life to the next are 1) our relationship to God the Father, and 2) our relationships with other people." And thinking about it, those two elements fulfill the "Great Commandments" as taught by our Lord Jesus.
I'm often reminded of the "elder brother" in the story of the Prodigal son in Luke Chapter 15.
The most convicting, heartbreaking part of the elder brother's whole paradigm was the fact the he obviously never "came to himself."
The younger brother had insisted on taking what was not rightfully his (yet), squandering it on hellish living, eating from the pig's pen (a good Jewish boy, now...), and then "coming to himself" and returning home...
The elder brother--who never left--had it all....but what he didn't have, sadly, and many of us fall into this trap, was the "heart of his Father." Oh yes, the Father cared about him deeply, but the elder didn't take on the "heart qualities" that so defined his Father.
I've often wondered if I am possessed of the "elder brother" syndrome? We never found in the Scriptures where the "elder brother" came to himself and realized that he had everything at his disposal.
What about us? "When you have it all...what then?"
"Weatherproofing"--not a good idea.
Taken from Don't Sweat the Small Stuff...and it's all small stuff Richard Carlson, Ph.D. (New York: Hyperion, 1997) pg 105-107.
***************************************************************************************
The idea of weatherproofing as it pertains to peaceful living and friendships is a metaphor to explain one of our most neurotic, ungrateful tendencies.
Just as we can weatherproof a home for the winter by looking for cracks, leaks, and imperfections, we can also weatherproof our relationships, even our lives by doing the very same thing. Essentially, weatherproofing means that you are on the careful lookout for what needs to be fixed or repaired. It's finding the cracks and flaws of life, and either trying to fix them, or at least point them out to others. Not only does this tendency alienate you from other people, it makes you feel bad, too. It encourages you to think about what's wrong with everything and everyone--what you don't like.
So rather than appreciating our relationships and our lives, weatherproofing encourages us to end up thinking that life (and our relationships) isn't all it's cracked up to be. Nothing is ever good enough the way it is.
In our relationships, weatherproofing typically plays itself out like this:
You meet someone and all is well. You are aware of his/her appearance, personality, intellect, sense of humor, or some combination of these traits. Initially, you not only approve of your differences with these people, you actually appreciate your differences. Often, you have an affinity for the person because of how different you both are. You have different opinions, preferences, tastes, and priorities.
After a while, however, you begin to notice little quirks about your new friend(s) that you feel should be improved upon. You bring it to their attention. You might say, "You know, you sure have a tendency to......" Or , "I've noticed you don't ......very much." The point is, you've begun what inevitably turns into a way of life--looking for and thinking about what you don't like about someone, or something that isn't quite right...at least not in your eyes and by your all-wise estimation. And often it's not very wise..
Obviously, an occasional comment, constructive criticism, or helpful guidance isn't cause for alarm. It's even welcome most of the time. I have to say, however, that in the course of working with thousands of people over the years, I've met very few people who didn't feel that they were being weatherproofed at times by their friends. Occasional harmless comments have an insidious tendency to become a way of looking at people...and life.
When you are weatherproofing another human being, it says nothing about them--but it does define you as someone who has an insatiable need to be critical of them.
Whether you have a tendency to weatherproof your relationships, certain aspects of your life, or both, what you need to do is write off weatherproofing as a very bad idea. As the habit creeps into your thinking, catch yourself and seal your lips. The less often you weatherproof your relationships, the more you'll notice just how super your life really is."
******************************************************************************************
A very wise person once said, "Pick your friends....but not to death!"
So what do you think?
***************************************************************************************
The idea of weatherproofing as it pertains to peaceful living and friendships is a metaphor to explain one of our most neurotic, ungrateful tendencies.
Just as we can weatherproof a home for the winter by looking for cracks, leaks, and imperfections, we can also weatherproof our relationships, even our lives by doing the very same thing. Essentially, weatherproofing means that you are on the careful lookout for what needs to be fixed or repaired. It's finding the cracks and flaws of life, and either trying to fix them, or at least point them out to others. Not only does this tendency alienate you from other people, it makes you feel bad, too. It encourages you to think about what's wrong with everything and everyone--what you don't like.
So rather than appreciating our relationships and our lives, weatherproofing encourages us to end up thinking that life (and our relationships) isn't all it's cracked up to be. Nothing is ever good enough the way it is.
In our relationships, weatherproofing typically plays itself out like this:
You meet someone and all is well. You are aware of his/her appearance, personality, intellect, sense of humor, or some combination of these traits. Initially, you not only approve of your differences with these people, you actually appreciate your differences. Often, you have an affinity for the person because of how different you both are. You have different opinions, preferences, tastes, and priorities.
After a while, however, you begin to notice little quirks about your new friend(s) that you feel should be improved upon. You bring it to their attention. You might say, "You know, you sure have a tendency to......" Or , "I've noticed you don't ......very much." The point is, you've begun what inevitably turns into a way of life--looking for and thinking about what you don't like about someone, or something that isn't quite right...at least not in your eyes and by your all-wise estimation. And often it's not very wise..
Obviously, an occasional comment, constructive criticism, or helpful guidance isn't cause for alarm. It's even welcome most of the time. I have to say, however, that in the course of working with thousands of people over the years, I've met very few people who didn't feel that they were being weatherproofed at times by their friends. Occasional harmless comments have an insidious tendency to become a way of looking at people...and life.
When you are weatherproofing another human being, it says nothing about them--but it does define you as someone who has an insatiable need to be critical of them.
Whether you have a tendency to weatherproof your relationships, certain aspects of your life, or both, what you need to do is write off weatherproofing as a very bad idea. As the habit creeps into your thinking, catch yourself and seal your lips. The less often you weatherproof your relationships, the more you'll notice just how super your life really is."
******************************************************************************************
A very wise person once said, "Pick your friends....but not to death!"
So what do you think?
It "rocked" my world....
http://www.bafound.org/
I received word last Saturday morning that a dear friend of mine (two years my junior) died suddenly last week from a Brain Aneurysm. He was only 41 years old, and had no previous health problems of any type. He thought he was suffering from a sinus headache--until he collapsed on his kitchen floor and had to be carried to an emergency room.
His wife Susan, and their three precious daughters are now coping with this horrible series of events in their lives. Let's keep them in prayer.
And by all means, see your doctor. I plan to see mine tomorrow.
I received word last Saturday morning that a dear friend of mine (two years my junior) died suddenly last week from a Brain Aneurysm. He was only 41 years old, and had no previous health problems of any type. He thought he was suffering from a sinus headache--until he collapsed on his kitchen floor and had to be carried to an emergency room.
His wife Susan, and their three precious daughters are now coping with this horrible series of events in their lives. Let's keep them in prayer.
And by all means, see your doctor. I plan to see mine tomorrow.
Update on Janet Paschal...Please Pray
Thursday July 7, 2005
08:00am
Hey Everybody,
It's Thursday morning, I'm sitting in the screened porch with coffee, laptop, and today's newspaper. Life can be so good sometimes.
As expected, you all proved an invaluable source in response to my last newsletter. As a result, I've been in touch with oncology specialists from every major cancer center in the nation - MD Anderson, Mayo, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, to name a few. I've spent days poring through websites and forums; I've had continual sessions in prayer - both praying and listening; and have decided to go ahead with the additional chemotherapy.
I had my first of twelve weekly treatments yesterday and I have felt no effect from it whatsoever at this point; in fact, John and I played a game of tennis earlier and I felt as strong as ever. John cautions me not to get my hopes up (I lean in that direction) thinking I'll sail through this without some discomfort, but, so far, very, very good.
My probing has shown that most people do not have permanent side effects with the medicine as long as it's monitored closely. I guess they have to give you the worst case scenario and hope you are pleasantly surprised.
I also discovered that the reason I need this additional treatment is because my particular brand of cancer "overexpresses" the Her2 protein. (My friends had a chuckle at that.) It is also considered high risk for recurring and metastasizing. Once I jump through all the hoops (Taxol, Herceptin, radiation) I'll have a less than 8 percent chance of recurrence. Those are odds that make sense to me.
The worst part of this is that we've had to cancel our concert dates until next year. That means I won't have an opportunity to thank you in person and to hear your stories as soon as I'd hoped. I guess that also means it will be even sweeter when I do get to tell you what you have meant to me.
We continue to see the Lord in the details. My oncologist reminded me that had we not done the original chemo before the lumpectomy, we wouldn't even know that my cancer had not responded to it. I also think it is not coincidental that the Taxol/Herceptin combination was announced in May - and is considered the biggest advance in breast cancer in 50 years. I also know that God has been listening; maybe Mark Lowry was right when he called to say that God was getting so inundated by prayers on my behalf that He likely turned in frustration to Michael and asked, "Janet who?"
Thank you for your encouragement, and your stories of how the music has made a difference in your lives. That still overwhelms me.Thank you for writing. Thank you for praying. Thank you for forwarding my letter to friends, relatives, medical specialists, and prayer warriors. I have heard from them all, and have appreciated every effort spent in getting information and experiences to me. They have all played a part in my decision.
I'll keep you updated as we progress. I'll also keep you posted on what I'm learning through this as a way to repay your kindnesses, although it will surely fall short of that.
You are a gift to me - and I am deeply grateful.
We love you - we'll be in touch.
Blessings,
Janet
__________________________
Please continue praying for my good friend Janet Paschal. She is such a wonderful minister in so many ways.
08:00am
Hey Everybody,
It's Thursday morning, I'm sitting in the screened porch with coffee, laptop, and today's newspaper. Life can be so good sometimes.
As expected, you all proved an invaluable source in response to my last newsletter. As a result, I've been in touch with oncology specialists from every major cancer center in the nation - MD Anderson, Mayo, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, to name a few. I've spent days poring through websites and forums; I've had continual sessions in prayer - both praying and listening; and have decided to go ahead with the additional chemotherapy.
I had my first of twelve weekly treatments yesterday and I have felt no effect from it whatsoever at this point; in fact, John and I played a game of tennis earlier and I felt as strong as ever. John cautions me not to get my hopes up (I lean in that direction) thinking I'll sail through this without some discomfort, but, so far, very, very good.
My probing has shown that most people do not have permanent side effects with the medicine as long as it's monitored closely. I guess they have to give you the worst case scenario and hope you are pleasantly surprised.
I also discovered that the reason I need this additional treatment is because my particular brand of cancer "overexpresses" the Her2 protein. (My friends had a chuckle at that.) It is also considered high risk for recurring and metastasizing. Once I jump through all the hoops (Taxol, Herceptin, radiation) I'll have a less than 8 percent chance of recurrence. Those are odds that make sense to me.
The worst part of this is that we've had to cancel our concert dates until next year. That means I won't have an opportunity to thank you in person and to hear your stories as soon as I'd hoped. I guess that also means it will be even sweeter when I do get to tell you what you have meant to me.
We continue to see the Lord in the details. My oncologist reminded me that had we not done the original chemo before the lumpectomy, we wouldn't even know that my cancer had not responded to it. I also think it is not coincidental that the Taxol/Herceptin combination was announced in May - and is considered the biggest advance in breast cancer in 50 years. I also know that God has been listening; maybe Mark Lowry was right when he called to say that God was getting so inundated by prayers on my behalf that He likely turned in frustration to Michael and asked, "Janet who?"
Thank you for your encouragement, and your stories of how the music has made a difference in your lives. That still overwhelms me.Thank you for writing. Thank you for praying. Thank you for forwarding my letter to friends, relatives, medical specialists, and prayer warriors. I have heard from them all, and have appreciated every effort spent in getting information and experiences to me. They have all played a part in my decision.
I'll keep you updated as we progress. I'll also keep you posted on what I'm learning through this as a way to repay your kindnesses, although it will surely fall short of that.
You are a gift to me - and I am deeply grateful.
We love you - we'll be in touch.
Blessings,
Janet
__________________________
Please continue praying for my good friend Janet Paschal. She is such a wonderful minister in so many ways.
Worship and "Higher" Politics...
From the July issue of Christianity Today:
Worship as Higher Politics
Political priorities for citizens of the kingdom.
A Christianity Today editorial posted 06/23/2005 09:00 a.m.
George W. Bush is not Lord.
The Declaration of Independence is not an infallible guide to Christian faith and practice.
Nor is the U.S. Constitution, nor the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights. "Original intent" of America's founders is not the hermeneutical key that will guarantee national righteousness. The American flag is not the Cross. The Pledge of Allegiance is not the Creed. "God Bless America" is not the Doxology.
Sometimes one needs to state the obvious—especially at times when it's less and less obvious.
Say What?Understandably, megachurch pastor Rod Parsley (World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio) has had enough of America's moral confusion. But in his newly published Silent No More: Bringing Moral Clarity to America … While Freedom Still Rings (Charisma House, 2005), he writes (not so understandably), "I can be silent no more. Not until the land of our fathers' dream arises. Not until we become the truly kind and noble society we were fashioned to be. Not until the commitment of our fathers truly does become the calling of our times."
And here we thought the Ten Commandments and Sermon on the Mount held the key to a "truly kind and noble society."
Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, spoke recently about the serious problem of judges legislating from the bench. He also said: "We want to return to a nation governed by law, rather than a nation governed by judges. This is a major issue to us. We know for evangelical Christians to function, we need the rule of law."
The remark implies unintentionally that the church needs humble judges who submit to "original intent" if it is to function. Tell that to the church in Africa and Latin America, where corrupt judges and wild dictators reign, and where church growth approaches the miraculous.
Family Research Council (FRC) Action is a lobbying arm of FRC, and as such it is not explicitly religious in its public presentation. But it is known far and wide as an outpost of the Christian Right. So it can only reap confusion when it posts this endorsement from former U.S. Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire: "Just beneath our superficial prosperity is a moral and cultural center that is in serious disrepair. We have the tools to fix it: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution … and a people whose hearts, courage, and dedication have never been questioned."
As important as the Declaration and Constitution are to the political health of our nation, surely nobody at FRC Action believes that these documents are the key to fixing the "serious disrepair" at our nation's "moral center."
And for some time now, we've been hearing from David Barton, Peter Marshall, and James Kennedy, among others, about "renewing the vision of our founding fathers, as expressed in America's founding documents," and the need "to defend and implement the biblical principles on which our country was founded."
The not-so-subtle equation of America's founding with biblical Christianity has been shown time and again to be historically inaccurate. The founding was a unique combination of biblical teaching and Enlightenment rationalism, and most of the founding fathers, as historian Edwin Gaustad, among many others, has noted, were not orthodox Christians, but instead were primarily products of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, we should recall, has never been much of a friend of biblical Christianity.
Political PrioritiesIn the heat of partisan politics (out of which many of these overstatements and misunderstandings arise), we are tempted to forget that the most potent political act—the one act that deeply manifests and really empowers a "kind and noble society"—is the worship of Jesus Christ.
In worship we signal who is the Sovereign, not of just this nation, but of heaven and Earth. In worship we gather to be formed into an alternate polis, the people of God. It is here that we proclaim that a new political order—the kingdom of heaven—has been preached and incarnated by the King of Kings, and will someday come in fullness, a fullness to which all kingdoms and republics will submit:
"I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. … The city does not need the sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the Earth will bring their splendor into it" (Rev. 21:2, 23-24).
Nearly a quarter of a century ago, just as the Religious Right was blossoming, Richard John Neuhaus put it this way: "Jesus Christ is Lord. That is the first and final assertion Christians make about all of reality, including politics. Believers now assert by faith what one day will be manifest to the sight of all: Every earthly sovereignty is subordinate to the sovereignty of Jesus Christ. The church is the bearer of that claim."
Theologian Stanley Hauerwas, no political ally of Neuhaus, extended the point in a recent interview: "Christians' first political responsibility is to be the church, and by being the church they should understand that their first political loyalty is to God, and the God we worship as Christians, in a manner that understands that we are not first and foremost about making democracy work, but about the truthful worship of the true God."
Let us be clear: The Christian citizen of every nation has a moral obligation to engage at some level in that nation's political life. We do not recommend withdrawal from the political arena. We admire especially those whose calling falls in this area—mayors, councilmen, senators, representatives, presidents. Theirs is as noble a calling as that of a plumber or pastor.
But Christians who enter that calling, and those who pray for and work with them, must not forget one thing: where hope for this nation, and the world, really lies, and where that hope is most manifest Sunday by Sunday.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
July 2005, Vol. 49, No. 7, Page 16
Worship as Higher Politics
Political priorities for citizens of the kingdom.
A Christianity Today editorial posted 06/23/2005 09:00 a.m.
George W. Bush is not Lord.
The Declaration of Independence is not an infallible guide to Christian faith and practice.
Nor is the U.S. Constitution, nor the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights. "Original intent" of America's founders is not the hermeneutical key that will guarantee national righteousness. The American flag is not the Cross. The Pledge of Allegiance is not the Creed. "God Bless America" is not the Doxology.
Sometimes one needs to state the obvious—especially at times when it's less and less obvious.
Say What?Understandably, megachurch pastor Rod Parsley (World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio) has had enough of America's moral confusion. But in his newly published Silent No More: Bringing Moral Clarity to America … While Freedom Still Rings (Charisma House, 2005), he writes (not so understandably), "I can be silent no more. Not until the land of our fathers' dream arises. Not until we become the truly kind and noble society we were fashioned to be. Not until the commitment of our fathers truly does become the calling of our times."
And here we thought the Ten Commandments and Sermon on the Mount held the key to a "truly kind and noble society."
Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, spoke recently about the serious problem of judges legislating from the bench. He also said: "We want to return to a nation governed by law, rather than a nation governed by judges. This is a major issue to us. We know for evangelical Christians to function, we need the rule of law."
The remark implies unintentionally that the church needs humble judges who submit to "original intent" if it is to function. Tell that to the church in Africa and Latin America, where corrupt judges and wild dictators reign, and where church growth approaches the miraculous.
Family Research Council (FRC) Action is a lobbying arm of FRC, and as such it is not explicitly religious in its public presentation. But it is known far and wide as an outpost of the Christian Right. So it can only reap confusion when it posts this endorsement from former U.S. Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire: "Just beneath our superficial prosperity is a moral and cultural center that is in serious disrepair. We have the tools to fix it: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution … and a people whose hearts, courage, and dedication have never been questioned."
As important as the Declaration and Constitution are to the political health of our nation, surely nobody at FRC Action believes that these documents are the key to fixing the "serious disrepair" at our nation's "moral center."
And for some time now, we've been hearing from David Barton, Peter Marshall, and James Kennedy, among others, about "renewing the vision of our founding fathers, as expressed in America's founding documents," and the need "to defend and implement the biblical principles on which our country was founded."
The not-so-subtle equation of America's founding with biblical Christianity has been shown time and again to be historically inaccurate. The founding was a unique combination of biblical teaching and Enlightenment rationalism, and most of the founding fathers, as historian Edwin Gaustad, among many others, has noted, were not orthodox Christians, but instead were primarily products of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, we should recall, has never been much of a friend of biblical Christianity.
Political PrioritiesIn the heat of partisan politics (out of which many of these overstatements and misunderstandings arise), we are tempted to forget that the most potent political act—the one act that deeply manifests and really empowers a "kind and noble society"—is the worship of Jesus Christ.
In worship we signal who is the Sovereign, not of just this nation, but of heaven and Earth. In worship we gather to be formed into an alternate polis, the people of God. It is here that we proclaim that a new political order—the kingdom of heaven—has been preached and incarnated by the King of Kings, and will someday come in fullness, a fullness to which all kingdoms and republics will submit:
"I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. … The city does not need the sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the Earth will bring their splendor into it" (Rev. 21:2, 23-24).
Nearly a quarter of a century ago, just as the Religious Right was blossoming, Richard John Neuhaus put it this way: "Jesus Christ is Lord. That is the first and final assertion Christians make about all of reality, including politics. Believers now assert by faith what one day will be manifest to the sight of all: Every earthly sovereignty is subordinate to the sovereignty of Jesus Christ. The church is the bearer of that claim."
Theologian Stanley Hauerwas, no political ally of Neuhaus, extended the point in a recent interview: "Christians' first political responsibility is to be the church, and by being the church they should understand that their first political loyalty is to God, and the God we worship as Christians, in a manner that understands that we are not first and foremost about making democracy work, but about the truthful worship of the true God."
Let us be clear: The Christian citizen of every nation has a moral obligation to engage at some level in that nation's political life. We do not recommend withdrawal from the political arena. We admire especially those whose calling falls in this area—mayors, councilmen, senators, representatives, presidents. Theirs is as noble a calling as that of a plumber or pastor.
But Christians who enter that calling, and those who pray for and work with them, must not forget one thing: where hope for this nation, and the world, really lies, and where that hope is most manifest Sunday by Sunday.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
July 2005, Vol. 49, No. 7, Page 16
Sandra Day O'Connor: Retiring from the Supreme Court
This morning, Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to ever fill a seat on the United States Supreme Court (nominated by President Reagan in 1981) announced her intentions to retire, pending the nomination and confirmation of her successor. Justice O'Connor has left quite a legacy in her ilustrious career. Read more about her:
___________________________________________
Perhaps no other jurist could have come to the Supreme Court under greater expectations and scorn. When President Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 to be the first woman justice to sit on the Supreme Court, he did so out of an obligation to keep a campaign promise. O'Connor's nomination was quick to draw criticism from both the political left and right. Conservatives derided her lack of federal judicial experience and claimed she was lacking in constitutional knowledge. They considered her a wasted nomination and suspected her position on abortion. Liberals, on the other hand, could not deny their satisfaction at seeing a woman on the High Court, but they were dismayed at O'Connor's apparent lack of strong support for feminist issues. In time, however, O'Connor has come to answer all these criticisms. O'Connor has emerged from the shadow of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and the Court's conservative bloc with her own brand of pragmatic and centrist-oriented conservatism. Even those liberals who branded her a "traitor" in her early years for compromising on abortion rights, now appreciate her efforts to keep the "pro-choice" message of Roe v. Wade (1973) alive.
O'Connor's success should come at no surprise. From her rural childhood to her career climb through a profession dominated by men, O'Connor often resorted to practical solutions as she worked within the system. This tendency to moderate, in turn, enhanced her importance in an often-splintered Court.
Sandra Day O'Connor was born March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas. Her parents, Harry and Ada Mae, owned the Lazy-B-Cattle Ranch in southeastern Arizona, where O'Connor grew up.
O'Connor experienced a difficult life on the ranch in her early childhood. The ranch itself did not receive electricity or running water until she was seven. Since their nearest neighbors lived 25 miles away, the family spent their days mostly in isolation. Her younger brother and sister were not born until she herself was eight years old, leaving her to spend many years as an only child. To compensate for the loneliness, she befriended many of the ranch's cowboys and kept many pets, including a bobcat. O'Connor read profusely in her early years and engaged in many ranch activities. She learned to drive at age seven and could fire rifles and ride horses proficiently by the time she turned eight.
The isolated ranch made formal education difficult so O'Connor's parents sent her to live with her maternal grandmother in El Paso. Sandra attended the Radford School, a private academy for girls, from kindergarten through high school. Suffering from extreme homesickness, she withdrew and returned to Arizona for a year. Still, she graduated with good marks at the age of sixteen. O'Connor attributes much of her later success to her grandmother's influence. She credits her grandmother's confidence in her ability to succeed in any endeavor as her motivation for refusing to admit defeat.
After high school, O'Connor attended Stanford University where she majored in economics. She chose economics originally with the intention of applying that knowledge towards the operation of a ranch of her own or even the Lazy-B Ranch. A legal dispute over her family's ranch, however, stirred her interest in law and O'Connor decided to enroll at Stanford Law School after receiving her baccalaureate degree magna cum laude in 1950.
O'Connor only took two years, instead of the customary three, to complete law school. Along the way, she served on the Stanford Law Review and received membership in the Order of the Coif, a legal honor society. She also met her future husband, John Jay O'Connor, a fellow student, at this time. O'Connor graduated third out of a class of 102. (First in the class William H. Rehnquist who would become chief justice.)
O'Connor faced a difficult job market after leaving Stanford. No law firm in California wanted to hire her and only one offered her a position as a legal secretary. Ironically, a senior partner of that firm, William French Smith, helped O'Connor's nomination to the Supreme Court years later as the Attorney General. Failing to find suitable work in private practice, O'Connor turned to public service. She accepted a job as the deputy county attorney for San Mateo, California. When O'Connor's husband graduated from Stanford a year later, the army immediately drafted him into the Judge Advocate General Corps. John O'Connor served in Frankfurt, Germany, for three years with Sandra by his side. While in Germany, Sandra served as a civilian lawyer in the Quartermaster's Corps.
When the O'Connors returned to the U.S. in 1957, they decided to settle down in Phoenix, Arizona. They had their three sons in the six years that followed.
O'Connor again found it difficult to obtain a position with any law firm so she decided to start her own firm with a single partner. She practiced a wide variety of small cases in her early days as a lawyer since she lacked specialization and an established reputation. After she gave birth to her second son, O'Connor withdrew from work temporarily to care for her children. She became involved in many volunteer activities during this time. She devoted much of her time to the Arizona State Hospital, the Arizona State Bar, the Salvation Army, and various local schools. She also began an involvement with the Arizona Republican Party. After five years as a full-time mother, O'Connor returned to work as an assistant state attorney general in Arizona.
When a state senator resigned to take an appointment in Washington D.C., Arizona Governor Jack Williams appointed O'Connor to occupy the vacant seat. O'Connor successfully defended her senate position for two more terms and eventually became the majority leader, a first for women anywhere in the U.S. In 1974, O'Connor decided to shift gears and run for a judgeship on the Maricopa County Superior Court. State Republican leaders urged her to consider a campaign for the governorship in 1978, but O'Connor declined. A year later, the newly elected Democratic governor nominated O'Connor to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Not quite two years later, President Reagan nominated her as the first woman to Supreme Court as a replacement for the retiring Justice Potter Stewart.
The Senate confirmed O'Connor's appointment unanimously. As if in anticipation of her arrival, the Court abandoned its formal use of "Mr. Justice" as the form of address, opting for the simpler and gender-neutral, "Justice." Early in her tenure on the Court, most observers identified O'Connor as part of the Court's conservative faction. The public often associated her with Rehnquist since they shared common roots and values. However, after a few Terms, O'Connor established her own unique position on the Court. Although she commonly sided with the conservatives, O'Connor would frequently author a concurrence that sought to narrow the scope of the majority's opinion.
To this day, O'Connor's core legal philosophy remains difficult to define. She approaches each case with individual treatment and seeks always to arrive at a practical conclusion. Her moderation has helped her role as the centrist coalition-builder, which has consequently enhanced her influence on the Court.
__________________________________
What a great legacy, what a great American!
God bless Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
___________________________________________
Perhaps no other jurist could have come to the Supreme Court under greater expectations and scorn. When President Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 to be the first woman justice to sit on the Supreme Court, he did so out of an obligation to keep a campaign promise. O'Connor's nomination was quick to draw criticism from both the political left and right. Conservatives derided her lack of federal judicial experience and claimed she was lacking in constitutional knowledge. They considered her a wasted nomination and suspected her position on abortion. Liberals, on the other hand, could not deny their satisfaction at seeing a woman on the High Court, but they were dismayed at O'Connor's apparent lack of strong support for feminist issues. In time, however, O'Connor has come to answer all these criticisms. O'Connor has emerged from the shadow of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and the Court's conservative bloc with her own brand of pragmatic and centrist-oriented conservatism. Even those liberals who branded her a "traitor" in her early years for compromising on abortion rights, now appreciate her efforts to keep the "pro-choice" message of Roe v. Wade (1973) alive.
O'Connor's success should come at no surprise. From her rural childhood to her career climb through a profession dominated by men, O'Connor often resorted to practical solutions as she worked within the system. This tendency to moderate, in turn, enhanced her importance in an often-splintered Court.
Sandra Day O'Connor was born March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas. Her parents, Harry and Ada Mae, owned the Lazy-B-Cattle Ranch in southeastern Arizona, where O'Connor grew up.
O'Connor experienced a difficult life on the ranch in her early childhood. The ranch itself did not receive electricity or running water until she was seven. Since their nearest neighbors lived 25 miles away, the family spent their days mostly in isolation. Her younger brother and sister were not born until she herself was eight years old, leaving her to spend many years as an only child. To compensate for the loneliness, she befriended many of the ranch's cowboys and kept many pets, including a bobcat. O'Connor read profusely in her early years and engaged in many ranch activities. She learned to drive at age seven and could fire rifles and ride horses proficiently by the time she turned eight.
The isolated ranch made formal education difficult so O'Connor's parents sent her to live with her maternal grandmother in El Paso. Sandra attended the Radford School, a private academy for girls, from kindergarten through high school. Suffering from extreme homesickness, she withdrew and returned to Arizona for a year. Still, she graduated with good marks at the age of sixteen. O'Connor attributes much of her later success to her grandmother's influence. She credits her grandmother's confidence in her ability to succeed in any endeavor as her motivation for refusing to admit defeat.
After high school, O'Connor attended Stanford University where she majored in economics. She chose economics originally with the intention of applying that knowledge towards the operation of a ranch of her own or even the Lazy-B Ranch. A legal dispute over her family's ranch, however, stirred her interest in law and O'Connor decided to enroll at Stanford Law School after receiving her baccalaureate degree magna cum laude in 1950.
O'Connor only took two years, instead of the customary three, to complete law school. Along the way, she served on the Stanford Law Review and received membership in the Order of the Coif, a legal honor society. She also met her future husband, John Jay O'Connor, a fellow student, at this time. O'Connor graduated third out of a class of 102. (First in the class William H. Rehnquist who would become chief justice.)
O'Connor faced a difficult job market after leaving Stanford. No law firm in California wanted to hire her and only one offered her a position as a legal secretary. Ironically, a senior partner of that firm, William French Smith, helped O'Connor's nomination to the Supreme Court years later as the Attorney General. Failing to find suitable work in private practice, O'Connor turned to public service. She accepted a job as the deputy county attorney for San Mateo, California. When O'Connor's husband graduated from Stanford a year later, the army immediately drafted him into the Judge Advocate General Corps. John O'Connor served in Frankfurt, Germany, for three years with Sandra by his side. While in Germany, Sandra served as a civilian lawyer in the Quartermaster's Corps.
When the O'Connors returned to the U.S. in 1957, they decided to settle down in Phoenix, Arizona. They had their three sons in the six years that followed.
O'Connor again found it difficult to obtain a position with any law firm so she decided to start her own firm with a single partner. She practiced a wide variety of small cases in her early days as a lawyer since she lacked specialization and an established reputation. After she gave birth to her second son, O'Connor withdrew from work temporarily to care for her children. She became involved in many volunteer activities during this time. She devoted much of her time to the Arizona State Hospital, the Arizona State Bar, the Salvation Army, and various local schools. She also began an involvement with the Arizona Republican Party. After five years as a full-time mother, O'Connor returned to work as an assistant state attorney general in Arizona.
When a state senator resigned to take an appointment in Washington D.C., Arizona Governor Jack Williams appointed O'Connor to occupy the vacant seat. O'Connor successfully defended her senate position for two more terms and eventually became the majority leader, a first for women anywhere in the U.S. In 1974, O'Connor decided to shift gears and run for a judgeship on the Maricopa County Superior Court. State Republican leaders urged her to consider a campaign for the governorship in 1978, but O'Connor declined. A year later, the newly elected Democratic governor nominated O'Connor to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Not quite two years later, President Reagan nominated her as the first woman to Supreme Court as a replacement for the retiring Justice Potter Stewart.
The Senate confirmed O'Connor's appointment unanimously. As if in anticipation of her arrival, the Court abandoned its formal use of "Mr. Justice" as the form of address, opting for the simpler and gender-neutral, "Justice." Early in her tenure on the Court, most observers identified O'Connor as part of the Court's conservative faction. The public often associated her with Rehnquist since they shared common roots and values. However, after a few Terms, O'Connor established her own unique position on the Court. Although she commonly sided with the conservatives, O'Connor would frequently author a concurrence that sought to narrow the scope of the majority's opinion.
To this day, O'Connor's core legal philosophy remains difficult to define. She approaches each case with individual treatment and seeks always to arrive at a practical conclusion. Her moderation has helped her role as the centrist coalition-builder, which has consequently enhanced her influence on the Court.
__________________________________
What a great legacy, what a great American!
God bless Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Buying a New Home: Lessons Learned...
Well, dear readers, I have recently closed on my very first home purchase. It is a lovely condominium (rehabbed) approximately 900 Square Feet, two bedrooms, one bath...and all the amenities--for the most part.
This was the most stressful thing I have ever undertaken....hands down!
And as crazy and egotistical as it may sound, I feel that I should share some "lessons learned" from this whole experience:
1). Get a good real estate agent----I have a wonderful one, Birdie Solti with MetroTech Realty here in Chicago....she was a God-send, in every respect. She answered all my questions, or found the answers to them...and she sincerely looked out for my best interests through the whole process. She wasn't sparse with her opinion about any of the properties we looked over either. I appreciate that more than she will ever know.
2). Get a Lender/Mortgage Broker in your own town---don't go for one that you cannot see and talk to on a regular (for me, at least twice a day) basis. After all, you will be the one paying "the bills"--including their commissions once it is all said and done.
3) Inspect the property from one square inch to the other....and make sure that everything is just the way you want it....or have agreed to....in writing.
4) Get the opinions of a few close, trusted friends. I was smart enough to do this...and it proved to be invaluable--particularly my friend Mike--who was a professional interior designer at one point in his life.
5) Don't believe the "Good Faith Estimates" when it comes to closing costs....these were no where close to be accurate....the REAL costs were far more than the estimates....
This was the most stressful thing I have ever undertaken....hands down!
And as crazy and egotistical as it may sound, I feel that I should share some "lessons learned" from this whole experience:
1). Get a good real estate agent----I have a wonderful one, Birdie Solti with MetroTech Realty here in Chicago....she was a God-send, in every respect. She answered all my questions, or found the answers to them...and she sincerely looked out for my best interests through the whole process. She wasn't sparse with her opinion about any of the properties we looked over either. I appreciate that more than she will ever know.
2). Get a Lender/Mortgage Broker in your own town---don't go for one that you cannot see and talk to on a regular (for me, at least twice a day) basis. After all, you will be the one paying "the bills"--including their commissions once it is all said and done.
3) Inspect the property from one square inch to the other....and make sure that everything is just the way you want it....or have agreed to....in writing.
4) Get the opinions of a few close, trusted friends. I was smart enough to do this...and it proved to be invaluable--particularly my friend Mike--who was a professional interior designer at one point in his life.
5) Don't believe the "Good Faith Estimates" when it comes to closing costs....these were no where close to be accurate....the REAL costs were far more than the estimates....
The Best Ice Cream in the world!
My good friends Chris Hill and Jeff Wilcoxen started a business more than 15 months ago in the neighborhood where I currently live (and will soon be moving from) called Bobtails.
BOBTAILS is an ice cream/soda fountain/coffee shop...
All the ice creams/sorbets/sherberts are freshly made at home...in their store.
Here's the link:
http://www.bobtailsodafountain.com/index.html
If you are ever in the Windy City, please stop by BOBTAILS....
It is the best. Tell them "their buddy Phil" sent you.
And get the MANGO SORBET...
It is to "die for."
BOBTAILS is an ice cream/soda fountain/coffee shop...
All the ice creams/sorbets/sherberts are freshly made at home...in their store.
Here's the link:
http://www.bobtailsodafountain.com/index.html
If you are ever in the Windy City, please stop by BOBTAILS....
It is the best. Tell them "their buddy Phil" sent you.
And get the MANGO SORBET...
It is to "die for."
NBA Pre-Draft Camp..what a great witness....
The Moody Bible Institute here in Chicago will be hosting the NBA's "Pre-Draft" Camp again this year at their state-of-the-art Soldheim Athletic Facility. Here's the story:
June 2, 2005
Home Court Advantage
It’s become one of the most well-known rituals in sports. Every summer, coaches and executives from all 30 NBA teams converge at Moody’s Solheim Center to scout prospects for the upcoming draft. Some of the most famous players in NBA history attend—including Larry Bird, Dominique Wilkins, Jerry West and Isiah Thomas—as does nearly every major media outlet in the country.
Clearly, the pre-draft camp has proven to be a success for the NBA, one of the best opportunities for its teams to evaluate players who aren’t “sure things” in the draft. However, according to Don Martindell, Moody’s Athletic Administrator, the camp also benefits Moody by making good use its athletic center during the slower summer months and by generating positive publicity.
Martindell values the opportunity the camp provides for Moody staff to serve. “The NBA loves it here,” Martindell said, “and we enjoy serving them and reflecting the One who motivates our service.”
The NBA pre-draft camp will be held this week from June 7 to 10. Moody Bible Institute has hosted the camp for 14 years.
***************************
What an incredible opportunity to see the love of Christ and the grace of God in action....
June 2, 2005
Home Court Advantage
It’s become one of the most well-known rituals in sports. Every summer, coaches and executives from all 30 NBA teams converge at Moody’s Solheim Center to scout prospects for the upcoming draft. Some of the most famous players in NBA history attend—including Larry Bird, Dominique Wilkins, Jerry West and Isiah Thomas—as does nearly every major media outlet in the country.
Clearly, the pre-draft camp has proven to be a success for the NBA, one of the best opportunities for its teams to evaluate players who aren’t “sure things” in the draft. However, according to Don Martindell, Moody’s Athletic Administrator, the camp also benefits Moody by making good use its athletic center during the slower summer months and by generating positive publicity.
Martindell values the opportunity the camp provides for Moody staff to serve. “The NBA loves it here,” Martindell said, “and we enjoy serving them and reflecting the One who motivates our service.”
The NBA pre-draft camp will be held this week from June 7 to 10. Moody Bible Institute has hosted the camp for 14 years.
***************************
What an incredible opportunity to see the love of Christ and the grace of God in action....
What's on your mind?
This is the one post where I will ask my readers to state whatever they want to put in the comments section of this website.
What's on your mind?
What's on your mind?
Conflict in the Body of Christ...(link)
Dr James McDonald, Senior Pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel in suburban Rolling Meadows, Illinois is doing a marvelous series on the daily radio program, "Walk In The Word."
Take a listen:
http://www.walkintheword.com/
Take a listen:
http://www.walkintheword.com/
One Senator with Integrity...why not more?
WASHINGTON - In a tense atmosphere, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee debated John Bolton's fitness to be United Nations' ambassador on Thursday. A critical Republican senator, George Voinovich of Ohio, agreed to let the nomination go to the full Senate but he called the diplomat "arrogant" and "bullying."
"This administration can do better than that," Voinovich said in the first big battle of
President Bush' s second term.
Voinovich said he could not vote for the nomination, but would agree to send it to the floor without a recommendation of approval or disapproval.
"We owe it to the president to give Mr. Bolton an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate," Voinovich said.
Despite Voinovich's sharp criticism of Bolton, who now serves as the top arms-control diplomat at the State Department, the White House was clearly relieved that the Ohio senator had agreed to let the full Senate decide.
Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House is confident Bolton will be confirmed by the full Senate. Voinovich called Bolton "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be."
He said Bolton would be fired if he was in the private sector.
"That being said, Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues," he added.
Voinovich later told reporters he planned to vote against Bolton in the full Senate. Will Bolton win eventual confirmation? "I have every faith in my colleagues. No one really is excited about him. We'll see what happens," he said.
Republicans hold an 10-8 edge on the panel. All eight Democrats have said they would vote against Bolton. Thus, a single "no" GOP vote would deadlock the panel and keep the nomination from going to the floor.
"After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts, and asking for guidance from Above, I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton," Voinovich said
Voinovich had been the only holdout of four GOP committee members who expressed misgivings about the Bolton nomination.
He said he hoped the full Senate, where Republicans hold a 55-45 majority, would reject the nomination.
"What message are we sending to the world community?" Voinovich asked.
The Republican chairman of the panel, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, defended the nomination in opening remarks, while conceding that "Secretary Bolton's actions were not always exemplary."
Bolton misjudged the actions of subordinates and sometimes clashed with superiors in his current job as the State Department's arms control chief, Lugar said.
But weeks of intense Senate inquiry turned up no evidence that Bolton did anything that would disqualify him as President Bush's choice for the United Nations job, Lugar said.
"His blunt style alienated some colleagues. But there is no evidence that he has broken laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct," Lugar said.
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the committee, portrayed Bolton as the wrong choice for the post and opposed sending the nomination to the floor — even without a recommendation of approval.
"I think we have undermined our authority and shirked our constitutional responsibility," Biden said.
"We have already lost a lot of credibility at home and abroad after the fiasco over the intelligence on Iraq, and Mr. Bolton is not the man to help us to rebuild it," Biden added. Later, Biden told reporters he did not know if Bolton's vote could be stopped in the full Senate. "Would I have liked it better to have a 'no' vote? Yes," he said.
In lively debate scheduled to last five hours, committee Republicans and Democrats alternatively praised and denounced Bolton's qualifications and direct manner.
"We are not electing Mr. Congeniality. We do not need Mr. Milquetoast," said Sen. George Allen R-Va., arguing that Bolton would be an effective agent for change at the United Nations.
But Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, last year's Democratic presidential nominee, portrayed Bolton as a loose cannon whose pronouncements would prompt other diplomats to ask, "Who is he speaking for?"
"What is at stake here is our national interest, our security interests, our ability to advance our interests within the United Nations," Kerry said.
An energetic diplomat who pioneered a program to curb the spread of dangerous weapons technology, Bolton has strong ties to political conservatives inside and outside the administration and shares their skepticism about some international treaties.
The spirited debate over the last month, however, has focused mostly on allegations that he berated several U.S. officials, especially intelligence analysts who did not agree with his assessments of Cuba and Syria's military strength.
The White House made a determined fight for the embattled nominee.
Bush, trying to turn the personality issue to Bolton's favor, has called Bolton "a blunt guy" who "can get the job done at the United Nations" and "who isn't afraid to speak his mind in the post of the ambassador to the U.N."
A 56-year-old lawyer, Bolton was senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute before he became Bush's undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs four years ago.
****************************************
At least ONE Republican Senator has some integrity.....what about the rest of them?
"This administration can do better than that," Voinovich said in the first big battle of
President Bush' s second term.
Voinovich said he could not vote for the nomination, but would agree to send it to the floor without a recommendation of approval or disapproval.
"We owe it to the president to give Mr. Bolton an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate," Voinovich said.
Despite Voinovich's sharp criticism of Bolton, who now serves as the top arms-control diplomat at the State Department, the White House was clearly relieved that the Ohio senator had agreed to let the full Senate decide.
Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House is confident Bolton will be confirmed by the full Senate. Voinovich called Bolton "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be."
He said Bolton would be fired if he was in the private sector.
"That being said, Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues," he added.
Voinovich later told reporters he planned to vote against Bolton in the full Senate. Will Bolton win eventual confirmation? "I have every faith in my colleagues. No one really is excited about him. We'll see what happens," he said.
Republicans hold an 10-8 edge on the panel. All eight Democrats have said they would vote against Bolton. Thus, a single "no" GOP vote would deadlock the panel and keep the nomination from going to the floor.
"After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts, and asking for guidance from Above, I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton," Voinovich said
Voinovich had been the only holdout of four GOP committee members who expressed misgivings about the Bolton nomination.
He said he hoped the full Senate, where Republicans hold a 55-45 majority, would reject the nomination.
"What message are we sending to the world community?" Voinovich asked.
The Republican chairman of the panel, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, defended the nomination in opening remarks, while conceding that "Secretary Bolton's actions were not always exemplary."
Bolton misjudged the actions of subordinates and sometimes clashed with superiors in his current job as the State Department's arms control chief, Lugar said.
But weeks of intense Senate inquiry turned up no evidence that Bolton did anything that would disqualify him as President Bush's choice for the United Nations job, Lugar said.
"His blunt style alienated some colleagues. But there is no evidence that he has broken laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct," Lugar said.
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the committee, portrayed Bolton as the wrong choice for the post and opposed sending the nomination to the floor — even without a recommendation of approval.
"I think we have undermined our authority and shirked our constitutional responsibility," Biden said.
"We have already lost a lot of credibility at home and abroad after the fiasco over the intelligence on Iraq, and Mr. Bolton is not the man to help us to rebuild it," Biden added. Later, Biden told reporters he did not know if Bolton's vote could be stopped in the full Senate. "Would I have liked it better to have a 'no' vote? Yes," he said.
In lively debate scheduled to last five hours, committee Republicans and Democrats alternatively praised and denounced Bolton's qualifications and direct manner.
"We are not electing Mr. Congeniality. We do not need Mr. Milquetoast," said Sen. George Allen R-Va., arguing that Bolton would be an effective agent for change at the United Nations.
But Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, last year's Democratic presidential nominee, portrayed Bolton as a loose cannon whose pronouncements would prompt other diplomats to ask, "Who is he speaking for?"
"What is at stake here is our national interest, our security interests, our ability to advance our interests within the United Nations," Kerry said.
An energetic diplomat who pioneered a program to curb the spread of dangerous weapons technology, Bolton has strong ties to political conservatives inside and outside the administration and shares their skepticism about some international treaties.
The spirited debate over the last month, however, has focused mostly on allegations that he berated several U.S. officials, especially intelligence analysts who did not agree with his assessments of Cuba and Syria's military strength.
The White House made a determined fight for the embattled nominee.
Bush, trying to turn the personality issue to Bolton's favor, has called Bolton "a blunt guy" who "can get the job done at the United Nations" and "who isn't afraid to speak his mind in the post of the ambassador to the U.N."
A 56-year-old lawyer, Bolton was senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute before he became Bush's undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs four years ago.
****************************************
At least ONE Republican Senator has some integrity.....what about the rest of them?
Pull the Bolton nomination...NOW!
The senseless nomination of John Bolton as the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations should be terminated...and with all due haste!
His horrible hairstyle, and grotesque mustache aside, this growler would be the most pitiful appointment, diplomatic or otherwise from the Bush Administration.
The testimonies surrounding this man's alleged indiscretions are enough, to any thinking person, for the President to ask Mr Bolton to step aside.
When Former Secretary of State, Retired Army General Colin Powell, refuses to endorse the nomination of someone who worked directly for him, then "Houston, we indeed have a problem."
That nomination should be dropped like a scalding rock....
And quickly.
His horrible hairstyle, and grotesque mustache aside, this growler would be the most pitiful appointment, diplomatic or otherwise from the Bush Administration.
The testimonies surrounding this man's alleged indiscretions are enough, to any thinking person, for the President to ask Mr Bolton to step aside.
When Former Secretary of State, Retired Army General Colin Powell, refuses to endorse the nomination of someone who worked directly for him, then "Houston, we indeed have a problem."
That nomination should be dropped like a scalding rock....
And quickly.
What some people will believe...
Well, it's like this:
Mary, (the mother of Christ) obviously hasn't had anything else to do recently, so she decided to camp out under the Kennedy Expressway here in Chicago. Read it for yourself:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/underpass_virgin_mary
I'm not sure I could call all the "faithful" that have flocked to that busy intersection "Nutty..."--I don't want to insult those who truly are "faithful" and of course the "truly nutty..."
The things some people will believe.
Mary, (the mother of Christ) obviously hasn't had anything else to do recently, so she decided to camp out under the Kennedy Expressway here in Chicago. Read it for yourself:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/underpass_virgin_mary
I'm not sure I could call all the "faithful" that have flocked to that busy intersection "Nutty..."--I don't want to insult those who truly are "faithful" and of course the "truly nutty..."
The things some people will believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)